Every community has leaders. My comment was about the quality and legitimacy of some of the leaders that receive public funding - it was clearly stated in the quote!
The other aspect which I'll repeat is that we are more than happy for sub groups like the Islamic community to choose leaders in a way which is completely contrary to our values. Islamic community leaders are almost always men, and almost never women. They're definitely never LGBT. Now, my belief is a community can choose whoever it wants to be their leader/s, but I think that throwing public money at it is wrongheaded; if a "white" community had the same approach to picking leaders then we'd be absolutely more critical of their standards - contrast our hand wringing and defence of "ethnic community leaders" with how we treat white working class community leaders, who get a much stricter standard applied to them. Look at how long it took Mo Ansar to get found out.
It's this which is the sticking point of multiculturalism - the double standards, and the patronising way in which we apply much lower standards of conduct to leadership of minority communities compared to white, and particularly working class communities. You can look at how the Anglican Church community is spotlighted as an example - constantly being informed they should pick leaders more in line with contemporary values, being told that much of their laity are backwards, and generally being hassled to improve their standards. Or have a look at Ulster loyalist communities, who are relentlessly pilloried - in many ways, rightly so, too - but in a way which we would deem grossly unacceptable to do to a Muslim community.
