Consequences: Diverse to Mosaic Britain

If they could achieve this, it seemed that all would be well. In fact, at least since the end of World War II, the future of that construction has only grown increasingly uncertain. We can see this in the progressive abandonment of the view that family, sabbath, and public recognition of God are institutions upheld by legitimate government and minimum requirements of a just society. And we can see it in the sharp decline of concern for safeguarding the independence of nations and the right of self-determination as the most effective barriers to the tyranny of universal empire.

What is driving this crisis is severe pressure from an emerging alternative to the Protestant political order: Although the final victory of this new order is still far off, institutions and individuals committed to it have grown sufficiently powerful to have put the entire Protestant construction in doubt.

• When People Let You Down--A Book in Honor of Valentines Day?
• .
• 2017 Goals: International Thought Leaders.
• Back with the Weather (Blood on the Page)!
• .

In recent years, we have seen continental Europe reconstituted under a multinational regime, and in America a series of devastating blows have been dealt to the Protestant construal of what it means for a legitimate government to protect the well-being of its people. With these dizzying victories in hand, the rise of the liberal construction of the West is the most important development in our political world today. Its only rival for this title is, perhaps, the simultaneous rise of radical Islam.

• In China?
• Clinical Dermatology, An Issue of Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice, E-Book (The Clinics: Veterinary Medicine).
• The Blockage - Rethinking Organizational Principles for the 21st Century!
• Nationalism and the Future of Western Freedom;
• Naughty Mommys Fantasy Collection: Fantasy Becomes Reality.
• Scent of the Garden?

What is this liberal construction? To begin with, unlike the Protestant construction, which thrived on the tension between the two fundamental principles of a biblically-founded moral minimum and national freedom, the liberal construction of the West is premised on the idea that there is ultimately only one principle at the base of legitimate political order: From this basis, Locke builds his model of political life and theory of government. Locke himself was a product of the Protestant construction, and his work was intended to strengthen it, not to undermine it.

Nevertheless, in fashioning his theory he downplayed or entirely omitted essential characteristics of human nature and human society. In the Second Treatise Locke abstracts away the intellectual or cultural inheritance that one receives from being raised in a particular family, community, nation, and religious tradition. He ignores the mutual responsibilities that are intrinsic to inherited or adopted membership in such collectives, establishing far-reaching demands of loyalty and honor; and the way in which the inevitable challenges and hardships of human life reinforce these responsibilities and demands and turn them into often immovable features of the moral and political landscape.

For example, is there any reason to believe that brothers born to the same parents have any obligations to each other? Do grandparents have any obligations to their grandchildren, or grandchildren to their grandparents? Similarly, the government that is brought into being by the social contract of the Second Treatise is eerily without borders or boundaries, without an awareness of any responsibility to unborn future generations or even of any responsibility to bring children into the world in the first place, and without a concern to honor the memory of generations past who sacrificed to bring the present into being.

At some point, liberal political and economic theory and international law crushed the life out of more realistic, competing accounts, becoming the virtually unquestioned framework for what an educated person needs to know about the political world.

Multiculturalism in Canada

With a few exceptions, the most noisily discussed debates among rival views in political theory for example, between John Rawls and Robert Nozick or in economics John Maynard Keynes versus Friedrich Hayek or in jurisprudence between Ronald Dworkin and H. Hart have, for two or three generations now, been conducted in terms largely internal to the same Lockean paradigm.

It is rather a matter of being so immersed in the new liberal construction as to be unable even to imagine what a non-Lockean view of reality might look like. Having been initiated into this paradigm, educated people can now fill their days working in an endless array of liberal projects that make it seem real: All of these things are pursued as a matter of course by university-trained Lockeans, hardly aware that there might be intelligent and decent people whose estimation of the worth of such enterprises is drastically different from their own.

But despite the great success these projects have had in changing our world, and despite their genuine worth in certain areas such as economics , the Lockean account remains what it was: Those factors in human political and social life that have no place in the liberal paradigm have not been eliminated. They have only been denied and suppressed. And like Marxists before them, liberals will discover that while denial is easy, suppression comes at an escalating cost.

Until not very long ago, support for the independence and self-determination of nations was an indication of a progressive politics and a generous spirit. It was not only American independence that well-meaning and decent people celebrated each year with fireworks and music, parades, church bells, and barbeques. As late as the middle of the 20th century, the establishment of self-determining national states like Greece, Italy, and Poland, no less than Israel, India, and Ethiopia, was widely hailed as a victory for morality and enlightened opinion, and associated with progressive intellectual and political figures like John Stuart Mill and Woodrow Wilson.

But at the same time, a tidal shift in attitudes toward expressions of national and religious particularism was getting under way in Europe and the United States. As the West wrestled to make sense of the monstrous crimes that German forces had committed against the Jews and other groups and peoples, it was impossible to miss the connection between Nazi race theories, which provided the normative framework for these crimes, and anti-Semitic themes that had been ubiquitous in German thought going back at least to Luther.

This line of thought was never altogether coherent. These things were perfectly clear during the war itself. In their radio broadcasts, the United States and Britain consistently emphasized that as an alliance of independent nations, their aim was to restore the independence and self-determination of national states throughout Europe. But none of this seemed significant to Western liberals, who moved swiftly after the war toward the view that, in light of German atrocities, national independence could no longer be accepted as the basis for the international order.

Among the most ardent of the new anti-nationalists was the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, who repeatedly called for the creation of a federal European union, arguing that only the elimination of the national state could prevent a repetition of the horrors of the war. The age of national states has come to an end.

Search The Canadian Encyclopedia

We in Europe must break ourselves of the habit of thinking in terms of national states. If the idea of European community should survive for 50 years, there will never again be a European war. According to this way of thinking, the answer to the overwhelming evil of Nazi-era Germany was to dismantle the system of independent nation states that had given Germany the right to make decisions for itself, and to replace it with an overarching European union that would be capable of restraining Germany.

Take away German self-determination, and you would bring prosperity and peace to Europe. But it is closer to being a good joke than competent political analysis. The German-speaking peoples of central Europe never really had a national state to speak of. There was no German history of national unity and independence comparable to that of Britain, France, or the Netherlands.

Those West European nations had not feared the Germans because of their nationalism, but because of their universalism and imperialism—their aim of bringing peace to Europe by unifying it under a German emperor. The chancellor was in fact only reiterating a venerable German tradition as to what political arrangements in Europe should look like. By contrast, nations that had won their independence from the German emperors at such cost three or four centuries earlier were being asked to make quite a considerable sacrifice for the sake of the promised peace and prosperity. In supporting the idea of unification on the European continent, both the British and the Americans, for their part, thought that their own national independence would not be affected.

The Kantian argument for the moral superiority of international government cannot coexist in a single political order with the principle of national independence. Once that argument was unleashed again in postwar Europe, it quickly demolished the commitment to the Protestant construction previously held by much of the educated elite in Britain and even America. And this collapse only made sense. After all, why should anyone want to stand up for the idea of national independence, if national independence is what had brought the Holocaust and the horrors of two world wars? The result is the political landscape we see around us.

Instead, you are seeking to revive national and religious particularism, which is now considered akin to racism or fascism—the bad old world that was supposed to have died in Liberals do not seem to understand that the advancing liberal construction is a form of imperialism. But to anyone not already immersed in the new order, the resemblance is obvious. Much like the Pharaohs and the Babylonian kings, the Roman emperors and the Roman Catholic Church until well into the modern period, as well as the Marxists of the last century, liberals, too, have their grand theory about how they are going to bring peace and economic prosperity to the world by pulling down all the borders and uniting mankind under their own universal rule.

Infatuated with the clarity and intellectual rigor of this vision, they disdain the laborious process of consulting with the multitude of nations they believe should embrace their view of what is right. And like other imperialists, they are quick to express disgust, contempt, and anger when their vision of peace and prosperity meets with opposition from those who they are sure would benefit immensely by simply submitting. Christians, the British, Trump supporters, the state of Israel, to name a few of the most prominent targets.

But universities are hardly the principal locus of rage against views now deemed inappropriate—including views about homosexuality, immigration, Islam, and a host of other subjects—and against those who hold such views. Much of the public sphere is now regularly visited by the same kinds of denunciatory and repressive campaigns that until recently seemed the special province of the universities. As the scope of legitimate disagreement is progressively reduced, and the penalties of dissent grow more and more onerous, the Western democracies are rapidly becoming one big university campus.

These increasingly insistent demands for conformity to a single universal standard in speech and religion are the predictable outcome of the transition away from the Protestant construction of the West, with its fundamental principle of national independence and self-determination mandating a measure of diversity and toleration for profoundly divergent views. Under the old order, after all, Catholics had to tolerate the existence of Protestant regimes, monarchists had to tolerate republican regimes, and tightly regulated governments had to tolerate more open regimes.

Not every individual found it comfortable to live in every country. But there did exist the possibility of negotiating special provisions to allow dissenting communities to be left alone so long as they were not interested in publicly rocking the boat; and if you did want to rock the boat, there was the option of relocating to a neighboring state where your views would be tolerated or even embraced.

Under a universal order, by contrast, in which a single standard of right is held to be in force everywhere, the measure of toleration for diverse political and religious standpoints will necessarily decline. Western elites, whose views are now being aggressively homogenized in keeping with the new liberal construction, find it increasingly difficult to see any need for the kind of toleration that the principle of national self-determination once permitted.

Tolerance, like nationalism, is no longer associated with a progressive politics and a good will. The vituperation heaped upon the English public and its elected leadership in the wake of the Brexit vote is an unmistakable warning to the West as a whole. From the point of view of the liberal construction, the unification of Europe is not one legitimate political option among others. It is the only legitimate option. Anything, so along as the one legitimate opinion should prevail. The alarm and trepidation with which European and American elites responded to the prospect of an independent Britain revealed something that had long been obscured from view.

That simple truth is that the emerging liberal construction is utterly incapable of respecting, much less celebrating, the deviation of nations seeking to assert a right to their own unique laws, traditions, and policies. Any such dissent is held to be vulgar and ignorant, if not evidence of a fascistic mindset. Nor is Britain the only Western nation to have felt the sting of the whip. Needless to say, similar outbursts have repeatedly targeted Israel: America, too, is hardly immune.

Its refusal to permit the International Criminal Court to try its soldiers, its unwillingness to sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions, its war in Iraq—all were met with similar outrage both at home and abroad. Far from defending the freedom of Americans against foreign encroachment, the U. Similar campaigns of delegitimization, in both Europe and America, have been directed against the practice of Christianity and Judaism, religions on which the old biblical political order is based, and whose free exercise has usually been protected or at least tolerated by Western national governments.

We have already seen attempts, especially in Europe, to ban such Jewish practices as circumcision and kosher slaughter in the name of liberal doctrines of universal rights.

More recently, these doctrines have been used to force liberal teachings on sexuality and the family upon Christians and Jews in the workplace and in schools. It requires no special insight to see that, as more than one recent essay in Mosaic has emphasized , this assault on religious liberty is only the beginning, and that the teaching and practice of traditional forms of Judaism and Christianity will become ever more untenable as the liberal construction advances.

In all of these cases, the first goal is to intimidate. And in many instances, this aim is being achieved. Nations, religions, organizations, and individuals throughout the West now know they have to think a second and third time before speaking or acting as though the Protestant political order were still in place. Genuine diversity in the constitutional or religious character of Western nations persists only at mounting cost to those who insist on their freedom. But the Brexit vote has opened a window of doubt. The Protestant construction, left to die by British elites in both the Labor and Conservative parties, has proved it still has some life in it.

We do not yet know whether the attempt to pry the UK out of Europe will succeed. But the march toward a liberal construction has for the moment been halted, and the direction of the West has suddenly become an open question. The very existence of this question could revive forces that were thought to have dissipated from the world, taking us into a period of intensifying conflict between two irreconcilable visions of what the order of Western nations can and should be.

Voters in countries with strong national traditions, such as the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and Czechia, may have a major effect on what happens next. So will the upcoming U. But no matter what happens in November, the political fault line that has been uncovered at the heart of Western politics is not going away. The politics of democratic nations are rearranging themselves along this fault line, dividing the motley defenders of the old Protestant construction from the cohesive and highly professionalized world of those hoping to bring it down.

New candidates for office—perhaps more appealing than Trump, perhaps considerably less so—will take up one or another version of the same cause with consequences that cannot yet be predicted. Although the gathering opposition to the liberal construction is a certainty, the nature of this opposition is still unclear. Since the Protestant construction was built upon two principles, one can, in theory, be opposed to liberalism from a standpoint that insists on only one of them.

Its spokesmen are known for deploring actions like the court-ordered demolition of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma state capitol in or, in the same year, the U. Neither of these positions strikes me as offering a plausible alternative to liberalism.

Neo-Catholicism will continue to fight rearguard culture wars against liberal elites on issues such as abortion or the definition of marriage, all the while lending active or passive support to the liberal internationalism that is systematically uprooting the right of nations to dissent on religious or cultural issues of this kind. Neo-nationalism may be effective in breaking certain countries out of the liberal order, but it could also produce authoritarian regimes of dubious worth to the nations they govern, thereby reinforcing the claim promoted from their respective viewpoints by liberals and fascists alike that the only alternative to liberalism is fascism.

Conservatives recognize both principles of the Protestant construction as indispensable to preserving an international order that has been the freest, and in many respects the most successful, that has ever existed on earth. In light of the kinds of historical shortcomings that I touched on earlier, any conservative effort to renew the Protestant construction would have to involve updating and revision in keeping with the needs of our times. That having been said, conservatives recognize the two principles of this order as the most realistic framework that has yet been proposed for seeing our way toward a just and peaceable world.

Because European and American elites including many university-educated Republicans in the U. By contrast, opposition to the liberal construction has an unprofessional and palpably makeshift quality about it. Conservative, neo-Catholic, and neo-nationalist views tend to be offered by scattered political candidates and intellectuals who share, on an intuitive level, a strong sense that the collapse of the Protestant order will be catastrophic in its consequences.

But so far these intuitions have generally failed to give birth to the kind of political theory and historical work that could yield a coherent alternative to the order they are up against. This means that for conservative intellectuals and politicians, the most pressing task right now is to articulate a restorative vision for re-establishing the political order—one that will be in accordance with the foundational principles of legitimate government and national self-determination drawn from the Protestant political tradition and Hebrew Scripture, while at the same time making provision for a new era.

To have a chance of succeeding, this effort will require a meeting of minds among Old-Testament-conscious Protestants, nationalist Catholics, and Jews, in whose collective hands resides the question of how the Western nations can reconnect with the sources of their original, astonishing strength.

On the surface, Britain and America sometimes give the impression of being countries that have utterly freed themselves from their biblical heritage.

Consequences: Diverse to Mosaic Britain » A Book by Susan Popoola

But these are still nations that were formed by the Bible, and by the biblical message of freedom from empire. The events of the past year have shown just how powerful the Protestant construction remains in both countries, even after decades of ceding ground to the new liberal order that would replace it. They have also given us a chance to ask ourselves whether the biblical freedom bequeathed to us by our forefathers might not still be the better choice.

As indicated below, over 50 percent of new immigrants admitted in came from 10 source countries. Culturally diverse areas or " ethnic enclaves " are another way in which multiculturalism has manifested. Newcomers have tended to settle in the major urban areas. In Canada, there are several ethnocentric communities with many diverse backgrounds, including Chinese, Italian and Greek. During the first half of the 20th century, Chinatowns were associated with filth, seediness, and the derelict. Unlike earlier periods when significant ethnic segregation might imply a lack of integration and therefore be viewed as a social problem, nowadays ethnic concentration in residential areas is a sign of vitality and indicates that multiculturalism as a social policy has been successful, that ethnic groups are retaining their identities if they so wish, and old-world cultures are being preserved at the same time that ethnic groups are being integrated.

In addition these neighbourhoods, like their cultures, add to the definition of a city and point to the fact that integration is a two-way street. The Quebec Act , implemented after the British conquest of New France in the mids brought a large Francophone population under British Imperial rule , creating a need for accommodation. Lord Tweedsmuir the 15th Governor General of Canada was an early champion of multiculturalism; [40] from his installation speech in onwards, he maintained in speeches and over the radio recited his ideas that ethnic groups "should retain their individuality and each make its contribution to the national character," and "the strongest nations are those that are made up of different racial elements.

Unity in Diversity" in the Council on Foreign Relations journal discussing the influence of the Francophone population as a whole. The beginnings of the development of Canada's contemporary policy of multiculturalism can be traced to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism , which was established on July 19, by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority. The recommendations of this report elicited a variety of responses.

Former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker , who was now Leader of the Official Opposition after his government was succeeded by that of Pearson on April 22, , viewed them as an attack on his "One Canada Policy" that was opposed to extending accommodation to minority groups. Paul Yuzyk , a Progressive Conservative Senator of Ukrainian descent, referred to Canada as "a multicultural nation" in his influential maiden speech in , creating much national debate, and is remembered for his strong advocacy of the implementation of a multiculturalism policy and Social liberalism.

On October 8, , the Liberal government of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced in the House of Commons that, after much deliberation, the policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism would be implemented in Canada. Trudeau espoused participatory democracy as a means of making Canada a " Just Society ". Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike.

There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but humanvalues: When the Canadian constitution was patriated by Prime Minister Trudeau in , one of its constituent documents was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , and section 27 of the Charter stipulates that the rights laid out in the document are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the spirit of multiculturalism.

Canada has become a post-national, multicultural society.

Navigation menu

It contains the globe within its borders, and Canadians have learned that their two international languages and their diversity are a comparative advantage and a source of continuing creativity and innovation. Canadians are, by virtue of history and necessity, open to the world. Section Twenty-seven of the Charter states that: This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Section Fifteen of the Charter that covers equality states: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act affirms the policy of the government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government which respects and celebrates diversity. Section 3 1 of the act states: In the Multiculturalism Act, the federal government proclaimed the recognition of the diversity of Canadian culture.

All ten of Canada's provinces have some form of multiculturalism policy. In Alberta, the Alberta Human Rights Commission performs the role of multiculturalism advisory council. In Nova Scotia, the Act is implemented by both a Cabinet committee on multiculturalism and advisory councils. Ontario has an official multicultural policy and the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration is responsible for promoting social inclusion, civic and community engagement and recognition. While the territorial governments do not have multiculturalism policies per se, they have human rights acts that prohibit discrimination based on, among other things, race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed or religion.

In Whitehorse , the Multicultural Centre of the Yukon provides services to immigrants. British Columbia legislated the Multiculturalism Act in Saskatchewan was the first Canadian province to adopt legislation on multiculturalism. Manitoba 's first piece of legislation on multiculturalism was the Manitoba Intercultural Council Act in Ontario had a policy in place in that promoted cultural activity, but formal legislation for a Ministry of Citizenship and Culture now known as Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration only came to fruition in Quebec differs from the rest of the nine provinces in that its policy focuses on " interculturalism "- rather than multiculturalism, [70] [71] [72] where diversity is strongly encouraged, [73] but only under the notion that it is within the framework that establishes French as the public language.

A Policy Statement on Integration and Immigration which reinforced three main points: In , Quebec passed legislation to develop the Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities , their functions were: New Brunswick first introduced their multicultural legislation in Nova Scotia introduced their multicultural legislation, the Act to Promote and Preserve Multiculturalism , in Prince Edward Island introduced their legislation on multiculturalism, the Provincial Multicultural Policy , in Newfoundland and Labrador first legislated their Policy on Multiculturalism in Canadian multiculturalism is looked upon with admiration outside the country, resulting in the Canadian public dismissing most critics of the concept.

Emma Ambrose and Cas Mudde examining surveys of Western nations report:. Data confirm that Canada has fostered a much more accepting society for immigrants and their culture than other Western countries. For example, Canadians are the most likely to agree with the statement that immigrants make their country a better place to live and that immigrants are good for the economy. They are also the least likely to say that there are too many immigrants in their country, that immigration has placed too much pressure on public services, and that immigrants have made it more difficult for natives to find a job.

Ambrose and Mudde conclude that: Canadian supporters of multiculturalism promote the idea because they believe that immigrants help society grow culturally, economically and politically. That is something unique to Canada. It is an amazing global human asset. Aga Khan explained that the experience of Canadian governance — its commitment to pluralism and its support for the rich multicultural diversity of its peoples — is something that must be shared and would be of benefit to societies in other parts of the world.

Critics of multiculturalism in Canada often debate whether the multicultural ideal of benignly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, is sustainable, paradoxical or even desirable. Critics argue that multiculturalism promotes ghettoization and balkanization, encouraging members of ethnic groups to look inward, and emphasizing the differences between groups rather than their shared rights or identities as Canadian citizens. Canadian Neil Bissoondath in his book Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada , argues that official multiculturalism limits the freedom of minority members, by confining them to cultural and geographic ethnic enclaves "social ghettos".

According to a study conducted by The University of Victoria , many Canadians do not feel a strong sense of belonging to Canada, or cannot integrate themselves into society as a result of ethnic enclaves. Stoffman points out that many cultural practices outlawed in Canada , such as allowing dog meat to be served in restaurants and street cockfighting , are simply incompatible with Canadian and Western culture.

Professor Joseph Garcea, the Department Head of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan, explores the validity of attacks on multiculturalism because it supposedly segregates the peoples of Canada. Furthermore, he argues, it perpetuates conflicts between and within groups. Martin Hewson, politics and international studies professor at the University of Regina, argues that in reaction against multiculturalism, , a post-multicultural world history is now appearing.

The West was both peculiar and inventive across many domains. The poll also asked respondents about their comfort levels around people of different races and religions, a question that was also asked in Despite an official national bilingualism policy, many commentators from Quebec believe multiculturalism threatens to reduce them to just another ethnic group. As part of its policy to promote multiculturalism in Canada the federal government established a Multiculturalism Directorate. In the s and '90s this department funded various cultural programs: Since the s Canadian literature had been dominated by authors of British or French origins with only a few writers being recognized as persons of different cultural backgrounds.

With funding from the Multiculturalism Directorate authors who self-identified from various cultural communities began to publish individual histories of immigration and anthologies that included work by many other ethnic minority writers. Some of the first were Italian-Canadian authors with such books as: He also wrote, Echo: Writers working in French were included in Quetes: Asian writers produced Beyond Silence: Beyond Autoethnography edited by Eleanor Ty. South Asian Canadian Literature edited by novelist, M. Vassanji, The Geography of Voices: Two of the first African-Canadian anthologies are: Fire on the Water: He also wrote the original academic study, Odysseys Home: Mapping African-Canadian Literature The Great Black North: Anthologies that include many different ethnic authors are: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Part of a series on the Culture of Canada. Human rights in Canada. Multicultural media in Canada. Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Canada portal Human rights portal Society portal. Jackson, II June 29, Social affairs and population: Multiculturalism Archived March 6, , at the Wayback Machine. The Politics of Race: Canada, the United States, and Australia. A Social geography of Canada. Gibney; Randall Hansen University of Toronto Press. Encyclopedia of African American Popular Culture.

Multiculturalism and the history of Canadian diversity. Human rights from a comparative and international law perspective. Canadians and the Demand for a National Bill of Rights, — From to the Present.

• .
• Comments & Discussion » Consequences: Diverse to Mosaic Britain;
• Media » Consequences: Diverse to Mosaic Britain!
• The Vertical Mosaic!
• .
• Vortex, Return of The Effra 1.