Some years ago professor Nathan Glazer published a book titled “We are all Multiculturalists Now,” and at the time it seemed a very apt title to describe the state of progressive Western thought: multiculturalism was the wave of the future: it extended the ideas of equality from the sphere of individuals to that of cultural groups and minorities; it denoted the end of white hegemony and patronage; it paid special attention to “the different other;” it was a revolt against colonialism in the old world and racial discimination in the new world. It was a lofty idea: to treat different cultures on an equal footing.

In recent years, however, things have changed. In a recent decision, Britain’s highest court rejected a plea by a Muslim high school girl student to wear a head-scarf and a long dress – as is customary under Islam – and not the ordinary school uniform. The court held that the school’s decision did not infringe the relevant sections on freedom of religion provided for in the European convention on Human Rights.

This decision is based on the specifics of the case, but it does reflect a new mood in England: multi-culturalism is declining and is giving way to an emphasis on European-Western values. Most significant is the case of Holland, a former bastion of the multiculti-doctrine, which has recently tightened its immigration laws in order to strengthen Dutch values. The Dutch turnabout was accelerated by the brutal and semi-ritual murder of Theo von Gogh, a cinema director who produced a film about women’s inferior status under Islam.

Similar steps are taken in other European countries: Denmark has imposed drastic restrictions on immigration – demanding that immigrants prove their ties to Denmark more than to any other country. Even more apparent are a series of new tests that immigrants to various European countries have to pass and that seek to verify that they are consonant with the cultures of the host countries. Thus in the United Kingdom, the citizenship tests include detailed questions in English history. Immigration tests in Holland will include obligatory watching of a film depicting a topless woman and gay men kissing to test the readiness of would-be citizens “to learn Dutch values.” These tests will not be applicable to immigrants from Western countries.

On March 23, the six biggest EU countries agreed to weigh drafting integration agreements which would oblige immigrants to abide by liberal, Western values such as “democracy, respect for other faiths, free speech, the rule of law, free media.”

Voices against the multi-culti fashion are heard from unexpected sources. The Archbishop of York rails against it as being un-English and calls of the celebration of St. George’s day as a symbol of the English identity. A British Broadcasting Corporation news reader, Sri Lankan-born George Alagiah, writes in a forthcoming book, “Home from Home,” that the bombs in London’s subway call into question the benefits of multi-culturalism. The chairman of the British commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, warns that multiculturalism belongs to another era and that the fact that Shakespeare is not taught is bad for immigrants.

Not even all progressives are multiculturalists now. American feminists have long pointed to its dangers. Susan M. Okin asked five years ago, “Is multi-culturalism Bad for Women?” Her answer was a resounding yes.

What went wrong?

From the beginning the theoretical basis of this doctrine was shaky. Not all cultures are equal. Some espouse inequality, brutality and maltreatment of women and homosexuals. The Canadian scholar who is considered father of multicultural theories, Will Kymlica, excluded such cultures from the ambit of multiculti equality. But such an exclusion begs the question as the issue is raised principally when the clash is with non-liberal cultures. This inherent difficulty began to be felt dramatically when the inevitable clash between Western-liberal norms and the Islamic customs broke out. As a result of this clash, Congress passed in 1996 a law – “Criminalization of Female Genital Mutilations Act” – that also instructed the American administration to act against aid to countries where this practice is widely used. Britain has recently passed an act forbidding forced marriages. Saudi families practicing slavery were indicted in the U.S., as reported by Daniel Pipes in The New York Sun in June 2005.

Thus it became clear that not all cultures are equal, and that liberal democracies could not countenance breaches of their norms and laws under the guise of multiculturalism. Western concepts of equality cannot truly be described as just another culture competing with others. Western thought is not a mere tradition but rather the outcome of a special political philosophy. It is an artificial construct that derives rules of behavior from reason, as distinct from traditional societies.

So, is multiculturalism dead? Not necessarily. It remains in the form of tolerance of other cultures; in the end of the hegemony of a white, Eurocentric tradition. It has become part and parcel of the democratic norm, in which the “different other” is fully accepted. But in its absolutist form – i.e., in the form that holds that all cultures are entitled to equal treatment – it is dead and buried.

Mr. Rubinstein is president of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel.