The beginning of the twenty-first century in Great Britain was marked by a crisis in relations between the country's authorities and ethno-religious minorities, whose communities by that time made up a significant percentage of the total population of the United Kingdom. The crisis was triggered by a number of factors, and the main role in it was played by representatives of the Muslim community. The last straw and at the same time the starting point of changes in the state's policy towards minorities (and especially towards Muslims) were the terrorist attacks-first in the United States on September 11, 2001, and then in the capital of their own country on July 7, 2005.

The scale of the attacks shocked the entire UK, but the public was even more shocked by the fact that the terrorists were not strangers. All of the suicide bombers were Muslim: Haseeb Hussain, Mohammed Sidiq Khan, Jermaine Lindsey and Shehzad Tanveer were citizens of the United Kingdom. Three of them were born and raised here, while Sidiq Khan and Shehzad Tanveer were both British-educated. It was later determined that Sidiq Khan was heavily influenced by Muslim extremists. With their help, he recruited and trained other participants of the July 7 terrorist attacks.

This situation has raised a lot of questions. What could have motivated young people to take such a terrible step? What are the causes of sudden radicalization? How can such tragedies be prevented in the future? The country's government also sought answers to these questions.

* * *

Less than a month after the attacks on London, Prime Minister Tony Blair called a press conference to present a "comprehensive plan of action to combat the terrorist threat" and warn that "the rules of the game are changing". The changes concerned the grounds for deportation from the country, the reasons for exclusion from applicants for citizenship and refusal to grant asylum. These conditions were now applicable to non-British citizens suspected of terrorism and those who supported them.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Great Britain, together with representatives of the country's Muslim communities, established a commission that, based on the religion and culture of the minority, was supposed to find ways to ensure the fullest possible participation in the life of the state of those parts of the Muslim community whose integration was inadequate [Topu Blair..., 2005]. The Commission for Integration and Unity (CIE) was established in August 2006 for

page 100
A year earlier, the Ministry of Internal Affairs created seven working groups under the joint name" Joint Prevention of Extremism " (EIT - Preventing Extremism Together). Their activities focused, respectively, on Muslim youth, education, community women's issues, regional and local community projects, as well as training and education of imams, the role of mosques, community security, and community relations with the police, and dealt with extremism and radicalization issues [Preventing Extremism..., 2005].

The report of these working groups, published in autumn 2005, suggested 64 recommendations that the Government and Muslim communities should take into account. At the same time, the authors of the report emphasized the general belief of all groups that solutions to the problems of radicalization and extremism lie outside the scope of their recommendations, but rather in long-term work to "eliminate inequality, discrimination, deprivation and inconsistent government policies, and in particular foreign policy" [Preventing Extremism..., 2005, p. 3].

Difficulties with identifying the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in the list of causes of radicalization arose almost immediately. The authorities chose to focus entirely on the problems and prospects of integrating minorities into the fabric of British society, for which the structure of the policy of British multiculturalism was revised and revised. This solution had a simple explanation. For the Blair Government, legitimizing British actions abroad as a necessary contribution to the "war on terror" has become a matter of political survival, a position that would be directly contradicted by any suggestion of a causal link between the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the increased threat from domestic extremists. At the same time, a good response to critics of the country's foreign policy was the fact that it was largely caused by the links of Muslim organizations based in the UK with Al-Qaeda. That it was al-Qaeda and similar groups that planned and carried out attacks in the West prior to 2001 was specifically pointed out by the Prime Minister in his efforts to separate the London bombings from operations in Iraq. Nevertheless, it is necessary to recognize that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in Iraq and Afghanistan has indeed become one of the reasons for the radicalization of some of the country's Muslim youth. The fact is that the British government in its policy in the Near and Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, clearly did not take into account the main provisions of the traditional Islamic faith on issues of war and peace. for example: Ibragim Tawfiq, 2007, pp. 32, 44.].

It is true that the UK Government had been taking steps to explain the international strategy and prevent radicalization to the public even before the July 7 bombings. In September 2004, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office established a committee called Engaging with the Islamic World Group. He has taken a number of actions both domestically and internationally, including "public outreach efforts" to explain British foreign policy to a domestic audience.

With regard to integration issues, the Commission for Integration and Cohesion, a time-bound body whose plans were announced at the Prime Minister's press conference in August 2005, was called upon to help address them. The commission's mandate was to " investigate issues that create tension and lead to segregation in relations between different groups in different fields." The Commission's work is covered on the UK Government's information website dedicated to the country's minority and community issues [Department for Communities and Local Government...The tasks of this body also included assistance to local communities and the political leadership "in the distance".-

page 101
in order to combat new barriers to unity and integration", develop local capacities to prevent and eliminate tensions, and assess "what tools local communities have to deal with extremist ideologies". The Commission thus put an end to the official distancing of foreign policy from the issue of radicalization. In contrast to the EIT report, which included an unequivocal reference to the importance of foreign policy in understanding the processes of radicalization, KIE placed the causes of the latter in the domain of local politics of intra-community relations.

In making this decision, she took into account both the specifics of the policy of British multiculturalism, which implies the transfer of many functions of central government to the level of local governments and departments responsible for social policy and for the processes that took place in communities at the beginning of the XXI century. In order to understand how these processes have evolved and to follow the formation of the foundations of the approach to interaction with minority communities, it is necessary to make a brief overview of multiculturalism as a political concept and government strategy within the United Kingdom, some of the crises that the concept has experienced in its implementation, as well as recent changes that have given rise to the politicians are numbered.

* * *

Academic research on migration issues usually identifies four main models for integrating minorities into the host society. The first is imperial, according to which various peoples are integrated into a multiethnic empire with one dominant ethnic group occupying a privileged position on a simplified basis. The second is republican, the opposite of imperial in essence, since the nation acts as a political community united by the constitution, laws and citizenship. The third is ethnic, which characterizes a homogeneous and therefore closed community, within which the right to citizenship and inclusion in public life is determined on the basis of nationality. Multiculturalism is the fourth model, the specifics of which vary depending on the conditions of a particular country. Its main distinguishing feature (first of all, from the republican model) is that by agreeing with the political rules of the host society, migrants not only preserve their ethnic, religious and cultural characteristics, but in some cases are even encouraged to do so. The countries that have adopted this model, in addition to the UK, with various reservations, include Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia.

The most positive consequences of applying the multicultural integration model in practice are observed today in Canada. Canada is one of the countries with the longest history of immigration and, accordingly, with a rich experience in this area. Many scholars and researchers dealing with the problem under consideration agree that multiculturalism as a political concept originated in this country in the very beginning of the 1960s.as a reaction "to the actions of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which tried to reach an Anglo-French compromise in the face of rapidly growing Francophone nationalism in Quebec" [cit. by: Terborn, 2001, p. 61]. In the 1970s, along with Australia, the Canadian authorities elevated multiculturalism to the status of an official immigration policy.

As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, British multiculturalism also emerged as a political initiative in the 1960s, when the United Kingdom developed its own political system.-

page 102
It wasn't just new and strong Afro-Caribbean and South Asian migrant communities that were formed. This was an era when the very meaning of "Britishness" was challenged by the final rejection of the concept of "empire", when there was a marked decline in religious observance among the majority of the population and profound changes in its culture and value structure.

The interaction between migrant communities and the host society was complicated by the fact that only a small and constantly decreasing number of people among the latter had a colonial experience. The departure from the colonial past removed many of the focal points and features-social, cultural, and political-around which the British identity was shaped. The policy of British multiculturalism was designed to fill this gap in the interaction between immigrants and the host society, in an environment that was essentially the opposite of the conditions of the colonial era.

The idea of integration is in many ways fundamental to the concept of multiculturalism. It implies the need to recognize the right to cultural diversity of minorities and interact with them, rather than excluding them from the public life of the country. This is what British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins wanted to make clear in a speech to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants in 1966: "Integration is probably the most appropriate word. I don't think our country needs a "melting pot" that will turn everyone into a homogeneous mass, from which you can then mold exact copies of someone's unsuccessful version of the stereotypical Englishman. Therefore, I define integration not as a process of equalizing assimilation, but as equal employment opportunities, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance" [cit. by: Brighton, 2007, p. 5].

This conceptual change was accompanied by a lengthy legislative restriction on immigration and the legalization in the late 1960s and early 1970s of the "family reunification scheme", which allowed the wives and children of male immigrants to join the latter. The effect of these measures was twofold. First of all, he systematically separated the problem of integration from the problem of immigration. Since then, the main challenge has been how best to organize, socially and politically, the internal space shared by different elements of the population, each of which was supposed to enjoy citizenship of equivalent status. The need to manage newcomers in a way that removes the "problems" of their differences with the indigenous population, which has become apparent over time, has led to an implicit recognition that the process should be a "two-way" social interaction. Members of the majority community (indigenous people), as well as immigrants and minorities, must contribute to it: Thus, the latter cannot be held solely responsible for the fact that they "allegedly do not try to integrate, or for the fact that this attempt failed" [Modood, 2005, p.2].

The first doubts about the appropriateness of the chosen approach in relations with immigrant communities appeared in the 1980s. The beginning of the decade was associated with increased activity of Muslim communities and other minorities at the local and national levels, primarily due to the need to meet religious and cultural needs. At the same time, the increased activity of minorities caused an increase in irritation among indigenous people and often among the authorities.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the minority struggle for political equality was dominated by protests against discriminatory immigration controls, racist attacks, and police harassment. In April 1976, 24 people were arrested in the Manyngham area of Bradford for taking part in mass clashes.-

page 103
The National Front marches were held between young people of Asian origin and participants of the National Front march. The following year, the Asian Youth Movement was established. Built on the principle of self-organization, DAM was nevertheless a cosmopolitan movement that worked closely with other anti-racist and anti-radical organizations (Malik, 2005). The activists did not identify themselves as Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs. Moreover, many of them did not even consider themselves Asian, preferring to be called "black," which they considered a catch-all term for all non-white immigrants. They challenged not only racism, but also many traditional values, including within Muslim communities, which marked the beginning of alienation between generations of immigrants. This struggle contributed to the political radicalization of a new generation of activists and resulted in a crisis that gave rise to speeches and mass protests organized by representatives of minorities.

The following years brought even more violent conflicts between Asian youth and the police, culminating in riots in Brixton and several other British cities in 1981. Faced with a similar rise in extremism, Bradford Council, which was under Labour control, developed a new anti-racism strategy based on principles first proposed by the Greater London Council, led by the future mayor of that city, Ken Livingstone. The Council established race relations units, drew up equal employment opportunity policies, and provided millions of pounds in grants to black and Asian community organizations. The Bradford Plan on Race Relations contained 12 points that stated that every part of a " multi-racial, multicultural city has equal rights to preserve its identity, culture, language, religion, and customs "(Malik, 2005).

This multicultural strategy was based on a new definition of racism based on an understanding of identity politics. Racism now meant not only a simple refusal to grant equal rights, but also a refusal to grant the right to be different. Many insisted that blacks and people of Asian descent should not be forced to accept British values and a British historical identity. Multiculturalism has also transformed the nature of anti-racism. By the end of the 1980s, anti-racist protests in Bradford focused attention not so much on political issues such as social security and immigration, but rather on religious and cultural issues, such as state funding requirements for Muslim schools and separate education for girls [Pleshchunov, 2008, pp. 74-82]. Various groups began to assert their own identity more intensely. Thus, the transfer of the problem from the political to the cultural sphere contributed to the division of the population into tribal communities (tribal city). Muslims who adhered to secular rules and views were declared traitors to their own culture.

The final politicization of British Muslims was promoted by the so-called Rushdie affair of 1988, as well as subsequent protests against British foreign policy in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc.The publication of Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses", which was considered offensive to the honor of the Prophet Muhammad, caused mass unrest among Muslims, including demonstrations, burning and pogroms.

One of the first-hand witnesses of the shift that took place in the worldview of young Muslims in the United Kingdom at that time was the British journalist and publicist Kenan Malik. In February 1988, a couple of weeks after demonstrations in which several of Salman Rushdie's books were burned, Malik released a letter to Salman Rushdie.-

page 104
I was on my way to Bradford to interview Sher Azam, the president of the city's book-burning Mosque Council. In the Council reception area, Malik was surprised to meet his London friend Hassan, who had been there for several months, participating in a campaign to "silence the blasphemer." Malik was even more surprised when he found out, because he knew Hassan as a member of the Socialist Workers ' Party (which Malik himself had been for some time): "In addition to Trotskyism, his life interests included sex, Southern Comfort (under this label, wines of various brands are produced in the UK) and watching matches of the Arsenal football team. We marched together, threw bricks at the National Front together, and were arrested together. I never noticed a religious core in him, but in any case, he was here in Bradford as an errand boy for the mullahs, inspired by the book burners" (Malik, 2005).

Hassan explained this metamorphosis by saying that he lost the meaning of his previous life, and returned to Bradford to find it. "We must defend our dignity as Muslims, defend our values and beliefs, and not allow anyone, be they racists or Rushdie, to trample on them," he told Malik at the time. Based on his own observations, Malik offers his own interpretation of radicalization. Today, "radical" in the context of Islam means someone who supports fundamentalist theology. Twenty years ago, atheists (or people with secular views) who challenged the authority of the Mullahs were considered radicalists. The disappearance of this phenomenon of radical secularists, according to Malik, played an important role in the growth of Islamic extremism in the country. The result was the likes of Hassan, who went from being a leftist activist to an Islamic radical.

Young people made up a large percentage of the total number of participants in the demonstrations caused by the publication of Rushdie's book. Many were not religious, only a handful could recite the Koran, and most ignored traditional Muslim taboos on sex and alcohol. They were disillusioned with leftist politicians, resented the treatment of Muslims in the country, and sought ways to express their protest. These young people have formed a discontented circle, which is easily penetrated by representatives of radical Islam. It was in the late 1980s and early 1990s that radical Islamic organizations, such as Hizb-ut - Tahrir, began to gain a foothold in the country, especially on university campuses. Like Hassan, many of their new supporters used to be left-wing activists. At this point, Britain realized that it was facing a new type of conflict. Representatives of minorities have also been involved in violent clashes with the authorities in the previous decades, but this was due to political or social problems. The Rushdie case was the first major cultural conflict that seemed to challenge the very possibility of social inclusion.

The first steps towards revising multiculturalism policies were taken following racially motivated riots in a number of northern English cities during the spring and summer of 2001. The Cantla Commission's report on community cohesion following the riots describes conditions of extreme racial segregation in the areas where the clashes took place. Multiethnic Britain was made up of many communities, but did not have a meta-community to link them together and represent their interests to the central government. The authors of the report note that while they were not surprised by the physical separation of residential areas and older parts of the city, they were struck by the degree of segregation of individual educational mechanisms, public and voluntary organizations, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, within which many communities actually lived "parallel lives". The report's findings focus mainly on the need to address this situation with a "greater sense of responsibility."

page 105
citizenship", identifying "common elements of statehood" and the need for" non-white communities "to use the English language, as well as developing" more effective mechanisms for broad recognition and interaction with major national institutions " [Note Office, Community cohesion... p. 9]. In fact, these findings served as a starting point for the actions of the Labor government outside the EU. the framework of multiculturalism policy.

The next step was a statement by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, that British society "has certain standards of acceptability and those who come to our home must agree with these standards." This reference to a violation of norms in a "home" that others "came to" was problematic, given that a large number of British-born black and Asian teenagers were involved in the riots. Blunkett later backed up this statement with an attack on the practice of organizing marriage with the involvement of partners from other countries. This issue was addressed by the Home Office in its 2002 White Paper, Border Security, Safe Harbor: Integrating Diversity in Modern Britain, which argued that immigration should depend on increased civic integration and "shared shared values" [Note Office, Secure..., 2002]. This move marked a shift away from multiculturalism as a social fact and a " description of a diverse society "to a" civic"," centrist "state policy that anchors newcomers in a"concrete society".

However, the implementation of this new approach was not limited to overcoming problems exclusively with newly arrived immigrants. The new policy of the authorities is reflected in the campaign against the Muslim hijab as a marker of difference. In particular, former Foreign Minister Jack Straw expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to a local newspaper in October 2006, regarding the hijab worn by Muslim women as "a visible statement of division and difference" (Bunting, 2006). This letter was followed by similar comments from a number of ministers, including the head of the Cabinet.

Another area of government activity is to develop and deepen "Britishness "in order to create a new model for integrating minorities into the country's society and prevent" cultural separatism " in Muslim communities. In particular, David Cameron, the Tory leader, spoke about this at a meeting with representatives of the country's Muslim community in early 2007. He stated that "... belief in multiculturalism has contributed to the deliberate weakening of our collective identity " [In praise of multiculturalism..., 2007]. At the same time, two Labour Party ministers have proposed introducing an annual holiday that would help develop a renewed sense of "Britishness". A commission set up by the Government in 2006 to make recommendations on segregation and extremism recommended that less money be spent on providing civic information about Arabic and others, and that more resources and attention be given to English lessons for minority groups.

The need to rethink "Britishness" in the era of "post-multiculturalism" was then a regular topic of speeches by the future Prime Minister Gordon Brown: "When we had the power of an imperial scale, were the main industrial country in the world, defining our identity did not matter, now it is necessary" [A house with many mansions..., 2007]. This identity, in his opinion, should consist of common values such as decency, tolerance, justice and the rule of law. The trouble is that while this rule of a tolerant mutual respect society does exist, its manifestations are not always visible to the UK's minorities.

Baroness Oliver Faulkner, the Liberal Democrats ' representative for Communities and Local Government in the House of Lords, believes that "in the ruler-

page 106
In contrast to the security services, there has recently been a growing trend that suggests that the identity crisis is the basis of violent extremism and that in order to overcome it, it is necessary to focus on a policy of improved integration" (Falkner, 2007). Faulkner, however, believes that such a position is not particularly conducive to success in the fight against" fundamentalist political Islam", which ultimately uses Islam as such to justify its goals. It supports the view that Al-Qaeda reflects a broader political ideology than issues and concerns "related to identity, identification, and the frustrations associated with racism and traditional family structures", and that the eradication of jihadist terrorism will take a long time, because "the limitations of democracy in security issues, the extent to which it is not possible to reach the end of the Islamic State". Fundamentalist Islam has penetrated the thinking of British Muslims, and the rapid franchising of terrorist networks" makes it very difficult to use traditional counter-terrorism measures [Falkner, 2007].

Faisal Devji, author of Landscapes of Jihad, writes that one of the main effects of al-Qaeda's emergence as a "global fact" is the destruction of traditional Islamic power structures. Another consequence is that "jihad has ceased to be a foreign or alien phenomenon and has become a material of popular and political culture" [Faisal, 2005, p. 12-14]. Jihadist actions can no longer be perceived as attacks on the center from the periphery, since Al-Qaeda members have already penetrated the world of their enemies and their activities can no longer be characterized as an external threat. What also contributes to the success of jihadism today is that it is a global ideology that can be understood by almost anyone, accessed immediately, and acted upon wherever and whenever possible, without an experienced intermediary or an authoritative mandate. Whereas such a mandate often determines all actions of Muslims within the framework of traditional Islam, where the will of the older generation plays a dominant and decisive role.

Yahya Birt, National Director of City Circle, which aims to develop the unique identity of British Muslims, comments on the problems of radicalization and identification among young Muslims and the alienation between different generations in communities: "Religious revival among young people and extremism should not overlap. Religious revival concerns the formation of the identity of British Muslims, piety in a new environment, a new context. Only extremists call for an absolute choice between Islam and the West. The Islamic renaissance that is brewing in the UK is helping young Muslims find a balance between culture and religion, text and context, modernization and tradition, nationalism and the global Muslim brotherhood, instead of being trapped in various ways by parents, imams, traditionalist community leaders, jihadists and guardians of" Britishness". [Birt, 2007]. Birt believes that while traditional communities do seek to challenge extremism, they sometimes do so clumsily, which can only add to the problems, as happened when Sidiq Khan's father, in response to his marriage outside the clan, cut off all contact with him. In such a situation of vulnerable isolation, it is the jihadist network that can claim to replace the family.

* * *

After analyzing the relationship between the policy of British multiculturalism and the processes of radicalization of young British Muslims, it is safe to say that it was not multiculturalism that gave rise to militant extremist Islam

page 107
in the UK, however, it has contributed to its dynamic spread within Muslim communities. This led to the emergence of a tribal nation, undermined progressive tendencies within Muslim communities, and increased the power of conservative religious leaders.

Since September 11, 2001, and especially since July 7, 2005, there has been an increase in doubts about the appropriateness of applying the principles of multiculturalism in the UK. Since David Blunkett, many have spoken of the need to affirm shared values and develop a renewed sense of"Britishness." Yet even today, the fundamental principles of difference policy remain largely unquestioned. The idea that society is made up of diverse, distinct cultures, that all of them should be respected and preserved, and that society should be organized in a way that meets their needs, is still seen as a sign of a progressive anti-racist worldview. Another thing is that the practical implementation of this worldview is not always noticeable to ethno-religious minorities.

In addition to the manifestations of racism on the part of the indigenous population, Islamic youth are often pushed to radicalize by the traditional community, which has difficulty agreeing to the revision of established social relations, which provokes alienation between generations. As far as British foreign policy towards Afghanistan and Iraq is concerned, the causes of tension in the Muslim community are most likely rooted in fundamental differences between the secular democratic vision of the world and the way Islam interprets international relations. Misunderstanding and distrust in this area also reinforce the actions of radical Islamic extremists, who often play on the described contradictions.

list of literature

Pleshchunov F. O. Moslem schools of Great Britain: the Struggle for state funding / / Orient (Orients). N 1, 2008.

Ibrahim Tawfiq. Towards Qur'anic tolerance. Ed. House "Medina". Nizhny Novgorod, 2007.

Terborn G. Multicultural societies / / Sociological Review, vol. 1. N 1. 2001 (http://club.fom.ru/books/ternborn.pdf)

A House with Many Mansions // The Economist. 1.02.2007.

Birt Y. Beyond Sidique // The Prospect Magazine. Issue 135. June 2007.

Brighton S. British Muslims, multiculturalism and UK foreign policy: 'integration and 'cohesion' in and beyond the state // International Affairs. 2007. N 1.

Bunting M. Jack Straw Has Unleashed a Storm of Prejudice and Intensified division // The Guardian. 9.10.2006.

Department for Communities and Local Government, New Commission on Integration and Cohesion: terms of reference // http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/newcommission

Faisal D. Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity. London: Hurst, 2005.

Falkner K. Why Sidique? // The Prospect Magazine. Issue 135. June 2007.

Home Office, Community cohesion: a Report of the Independent Review Team Chaired by Ted Cantle (London: Stationery Office, 2001)//http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/l2/11/communitycohesio nreport.pdf

Home Office, Secure Borders, Safe Heaven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain. Cm 5387. L.: Home Office, 2002 // http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/terrorism/library/uksecureborderssafehavens.pdf

In Praise of Multiculturalism // The Economist. 14.07.2007.

Malik K. Born in Bradford // The Prospect Magazine. Issue 115. October 2005.

Modood T. Multiculturalism, Ethnicity and Integration: Contemporary Challenges // www.bristol.ac.uk/sociology/leverhulme/conference/conferencepapers/tmodood.pdf.

Preventing Extremism Together. Working Group Reports: August-September 2005, UK Home Office // http://www.aml.org.uk/pdf_files/PET_Report.pdf

Tony Blair, Prime Minister's Press Conference, 5 August 2005 // http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page8041.asp (information site of the Government of the United Kingdom).

Permanent link to this publication: