Malik: Suella Braverman’s bigoted attack on multiculturalism shouldn’t blind us to its problems

Valid reflections on the risks of deeper multiculturalism approaches rather than civic integration variants:

Has multiculturalism failed?” It is a debate that raged a decade ago but had seemed to have faded into the political background in recent years. Until, that is, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, attempted to light the fires again, in a speech she gave last week to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Multiculturalism, she argued, “has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it”.

Her real audience, as many commentators observed, were not the people sitting in the room but the Conservative party back home. Braverman did not engage seriously with any of the issues she raised, from asylum to multiculturalism, but sought rather to position herself as the right’s flagbearer in any upcoming Tory leadership battle.

Nevertheless, Braverman’s speech, and the debate it unleashed, provides an opportunity to think again about multiculturalism. Part of the difficulty in making sense of this debate is that the term is used in two distinct ways: a description both of the lived experience of diversity and of the policies necessary to manage such a society.

The experience of living in a society that is less homogenous and insular, more open and cosmopolitan, is something to welcome and cherish. As a political process, however, multiculturalism means something very different: a set of policies and practices, the aim of which is to manage diversity by putting people into ethnic and cultural boxes, and using those boxes to define people’s needs and obligations.

The conflation of lived experience and political policy has proved highly invidious. It has allowed many on the right – and not just on the right – to blame mass immigration for the failures of social policy and to turn minorities into the problem. It has also led many liberals and radicals to become more detached from classical notions of liberty, such as free speech, in the name of defending diversity.

All these issues, from immigration to free speech, are central to contemporary politics, but the context has changed as the old debates about multiculturalism have shifted. Partly, this is because multiculturalism, in both its meanings, is more embedded in our social fabric.

Source: Suella Braverman’s bigoted attack on multiculturalism shouldn’t blind us to its problems – The Guardian

Colby Cosh: Multiculturalism takes some well-deserved criticism

As noted earlier, largely a repeat of 2011 criticisms in UK, France and Germany. Not a particularly insightful column and noteworthy that UK PM Sunak has already walked away from Braverman’s speech:

The concept of multiculturalism, whether you like it or not, is of acknowledged Canadian origin. So perhaps we should all flinch a little when it is grumblingly condemned by European leaders — an increasingly common phenomenon that may have reached a new pinnacle on Tuesday.

Suella Braverman, the United Kingdom’s Conservative home secretary, appeared at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Enterprise Institute to deliver a resounding critique of the postwar framework for refugee protection and of the “misguided” and “toxic” multiculturalism doctrine that has bent it out of shape.

Braverman’s speech is meeting with an orgy of denunciation among British liberals and celebrities. On the other hand, the inevitable fate of the speech is to be laughed off by anti-immigration critics who have heard British and European politicians warn for decades that humanitarianism cannot be a suicide pact for Old World nation-states — without ever doing anything much themselves to change migration policy.

In Braverman’s account, European countries devised the United Nations Refugee Convention largely to sort out the continent’s own affairs in the aftermath of the Second World War. Refugees are defined in the text as those with a “well-founded fear of being persecuted,” but the treaty is now interpreted so as to permit ill-disguised economic migration, to encourage unlawful and risky crossings of seas and borders, and to facilitate prolonged shopping by migrants among desirable destination countries.

The result, for better or worse, is that refugee protections are now potentially available to nigh on a billion people, creating a “promissory note that the West cannot fulfill.” (Or, as French President Emmanuel Macron put it a few days ago, “We (Europeans) cannot accommodate all the misery in the world.”) Braverman enumerates four critiques of a period in which “there has been more migration to the U.K. and Europe … than in all the time that went before.”

The first is the conservative “civic” argument: integration of newcomers to a nation-state is desirable, but it takes time, and is bound to take even more time in places where a ruling philosophy of multiculturalism discourages complete assimilation and homogenizing patriotism. (This is a critique likely to land on deaf ears in Canada, where multiculturalism is popularly regarded as successful — but, then, Canada isn’t really a classic nation-state, and it doesn’t exist within walking or sailing distance of hundreds of millions of much poorer people.)

Braverman adds the “practical” argument that state services and housing markets can’t adapt quickly to mass uncontrolled immigration by asylum-seekers; the “national security” argument that some asylum-seekers are threats to public order, the public treasury and public safety; and the “democratic” argument that domestic voters almost everywhere in the West strongly favour, but rarely receive, tight control of national borders.

I’m not sure whether this enumerated list is the best way for Europeans to think about their immigration problems, but Braverman’s four points all deserve to be considered, even here in the original fastness of multiculturalism.

It’s certainly not a coincidence that the list format seems designed for future political campaigning: the U.K. Conservatives are still headed for an epic electoral disaster, and Braverman is obviously lining herself up to be a potential successor to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

In any event, the critics seem determined to ignore the actual content of Braverman’s argument in favour of unsubtle ad hominem, asking how a half-Tamil, half-Goan child of (thoroughly legal 1960s) immigrants can possibly harbour such terrible views. The awkward implication is that only pur laine Brits are entitled to critique British immigration policy — or, in practice, that nobody at all is.

Source: Colby Cosh: Multiculturalism takes some well-deserved criticism

Braverman: Multiculturalism has ‘failed’ and threatens security – The Independent

Seems like a rinse and repeat from former PM Cameron comments in 2011 along with leaders of France and Germany. The Canadian variant has always stressed integration and participation as objectives, along with removing barriers:

Caricature of multiculturalism as properly understood is a variant of civic integration that balances identities and accommodation within a national context.

Suella Braverman has declared that multiculturalism has “failed” in Europeand threatens social cohesion in the nation state.

The Home Secretary, giving a speech on migration in the United States, said a “misguided dogma of multiculturalism” has allowed people to come to the UK with the aim of “undermining the stability and threatening the security of society”.

Setting out the “civic argument” against illegal migration, Ms Braverman said: “Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades.

Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate. It has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it. They could be in the society but not of the society.

“And, in extreme cases, they could pursue lives aimed at undermining the stability and threatening the security of society.”

She said “the consequence of that failure” are evident “on the streets of cities all over Europe,” pointing to clashes in Leicester as an example.

Migration to the UK and Europe in the last 25 years “has been too much, too quick, with too little thought given to integration and the impact on social cohesion”, she said.

“If cultural change is too rapid and too big, then what was already there is diluted. Eventually it will disappear.”

It “does not make one anti-immigrant” to say that the nation state must be protected, Ms Braverman added.

The senior Cabinet minister, a child of migrants from Mauritius and Kenya working under a Hindu Prime Minister, said: “It is no betrayal of my parents’ story to say that immigration must be controlled.”

She contrasted her parents migrating to the UK “lawfully” with those who “are coming here gaming the system”.

Source: Braverman: Multiculturalism has ‘failed’ and threatens security – The Independent

Mohammed: Britain punishing poorer nations who sell citizenship is simplistic and destructive

Header doesn’t accurately capture this balanced analysis given that the author also stresses the “need to to address due diligence concerns related to inequality, alongside fraud, tax evasion and national security:

The move by the British home secretary Suella Braverman to impose visa restrictions on people from Dominica, Honduras, Namibia, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu has reflected again the tendency to employ a sledgehammer to crack a nut when managing immigration and border security.

In July, Braverman expressed concerns about the way Dominica and Vanuatu administer their citizenship by investment (CBI) schemes – so-called golden visas – citizenship in exchange for financial inputs in the host country.

According to her, these two Commonwealth countries have been conferring citizenship on individuals recognised as security risks to the UK. Braverman failed to identify these dangerous people.

Her decision has been met with scepticism. Critics contend that the numbers involved in these countries are scarcely large enough to warrant such measures. The move appears to disproportionately target black and brown-majority nations, raising concerns again about the justice in Britain’s immigration policies.

Against a backdrop of anti-migrant sentiment, the step aligns with the UK government’s normalising of restrictive immigration policies, distracting from the cost-of-living crisis, public transport strikes, NHS issues and economic inequality. The focus on externalising immigration challenges ignores migration as an issue that requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach.

It also prompts a closer examination of citizenship by investment schemes. Transparency International, a global civil society organisation that campaigns against corruption, has previously highlighted problems in Europe, stating: “Golden passport and visa schemes have turned EU citizenship and residency rights into a luxury good: with enough money, anyone can buy in.

It adds: “This is a particularly attractive prospect for criminals and the corrupt – and numerous scandals have proven they are taking advantage. These EU golden passport and visa schemes are not about genuine investment or migration – but about serving corrupt interests.”

The problem is insidious in the Caribbean, which has become a magnet for members of super-rich elites from the US and Europe seeking to take advantage of vulnerable nations to satisfy their need to create more wealth at the expense of the climate crisis, human rights and equality.

Golden visas have gained traction in Caribbean islands, especially those heavily dependant on tourism and foreign direct investment.

Advocates argue that CBIs can stimulate economic growth, create jobs and benefit local economies and infrastructure. Attracting overseas investment can provide valuable sources of funding for public services and development, benefiting both citizen and immigrant, and countries can diversify beyond tourism and agriculture. But they come with their own set of challenges.

They often require property investment, which can bolster real estate markets but exacerbate wealth inequality, catapulting house prices beyond the reach of local people. Providing privileges to the wealthy deepens the divide between elites and locals.

This is especially true for countries belonging to the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States – Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Montserrat, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Martinique and Guadeloupe.

Reports from the International Monetary Fund show CBIs contributed nearly 30% of GDP for Dominica and 25% for St Kitts and Nevis in 2022. Citizenship scheme income helps to support hospitality, infrastructure, banking and youth development projects. CBI revenues have been pivotal in aiding these countries during Covid.

However, without robust background checks and enhanced due diligence, the risk of corruption, money laundering and illicit activities increases. The rush to attract foreign investments can make economies more vulnerable to external economic shocks and national security concerns.

A report last year by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project highlighted one of the best-known firms enabling these passport sales, Henley & Partners, whose chairman Christian Kälin has been dubbed the “Passport King”. The report illustrated the number of CBI applicants from countries including Russia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Armenia and Nigeria attempting to gain citizenship in Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis.

Golden visa holders are often subject to tax in the host country. Income, property and other taxes bring other revenue streams. Tax evaders have ingeniously employed CBIs to obscure financial misconduct. Essentially, these individuals exploit tax havens to evade their obligations, relying on the host’s cooperation to reduce discovery risk. A key complicating factor is the acquisition of foreign citizenship as a safeguard against detection, a strategy favoured by the wealthiest tax evaders.

CBIs wield a transformative influence, redefining tax evasion in two ways: by reducing detection, thereby curtailing potential penalties from high-tax jurisdictions, and disrupting the international framework of tax information exchange, diverting potential revenue. This allows countries offering golden visas a discreet influence over global tax information-sharing initiatives.

The privileges conferred by investment visas vary significantly from country to country and even within programmes in the same nation. Generally, golden visas are premised on a significant financial investment, but specific rights and limitations can differ. Some convey rights to work, start a business or give access to services such as healthcare and education.

Some countries require a period of residency before granting voting rights, while others might not offer them at all to golden visa holders. This has led to controversy in the Caribbean where there have been allegations of using citizenship by investment for electoral manipulation.

The retired supervisor of elections in St Kitts and Nevis, Elvin Bailey, expressed concern that CBI holders were being allowed to vote. It has also been reported that a large number of Indian nationals, who are also Commonwealth citizens, and Chinese nationals, have been granted CBIs in St Kitts and Nevis that confer voting rights and ultimately allegiance to whichever administration dispenses these visas. Some were found to be involved in corruption and criminal activities.

Caribbean nations need to strike a balance between attracting investment and safeguarding their interests. In implementing robust procedures, including criminal background and funding source checks, they can ensure that those seeking these visas are genuinely contributing to society, and maintain the credibility of schemes.

Braverman’s approach to immigration raises questions about the UK’s commitment to equitable policies. Meanwhile, the Caribbean’s investment visa programmes offer economic opportunities but need to to address due diligence concerns related to inequality, alongside fraud, tax evasion and national security.

As the world grapples with issues of migration, corruption and governance, it becomes paramount for countries to wield more nuanced approaches to immigration, not the blunt force of sledgehammers.

Kenneth Mohammed is a Caribbean analyst with a focus on corruption

Source: Britain punishing poorer nations who sell citizenship is simplistic and destructive – The Guardian

UK: Braverman seeks to backdate Channel crossings law amid fears of rush

The latest effort by the UK government. Numbers are comparable to Roxham Road. And like Roxham Road, France may be less interested than the UK in adopting measures that restrict asylum seekers from leaving France:

Refugees who cross the Channel in small boats from Tuesday could face detention and deportation under a new migration law that Labour and charities have called “unworkable” and “cruel”.

In an acknowledgment that the law will prompt a fresh rush of refugees across the Channel, the Home Office is seeking to make the illegal migration bill apply retrospectively from the day it is introduced to parliament, the Guardian has been told.

Suella Braverman, the home secretary, will ask for the proposed law to be applied from the moment she stands up in the Commons on Tuesday. The move follows criticism from unions that the legislation could result in an increase in trafficking across the Channel as refugees attempt to reach the UK before it is passed.

A Home Office source said: “If parliament passes the bill, the measures will be retrospective and apply from the date of introduction. That’s to stop people smugglers seizing on the opportunity to rush migrants across the Channel to avoid being subject to the new measures.”

Lucy Moreton, of the Immigration Services Union, said the plans would “fuel the service” for people smugglers, at least in the short term, “who could tell would-be arrivals that they needed to travel soon”.

Braverman is expected to say that under the new law, asylum claims from those who travel to the UK in small boats will be inadmissible, and the arrivals will be removed to a third country and banned from returning or claiming citizenship.

Details about how the policy will be implemented are scarce, with previous efforts to tighten procedures – such as the policy to send people to Rwanda – mired in legal challenges.

On Monday evening, a Downing Street spokesperson said Rishi Sunak had spoken to Rwanda’s president ahead of Braverman’s statement.

The prime minister and Paul Kagame “discussed the UK-Rwanda migration partnership and our joint efforts to break the business model of criminal people smugglers and address humanitarian issues”, the spokesperson said.

Source: Braverman seeks to backdate Channel crossings law amid fears of rush

UK: Rishi Sunak faces Tory backlash over record immigration figures

Of note:

Rishi Sunak faces backlash from Conservative MPs after new figures showed net migration to the UK soaring to a record high, with 504,000 more people arriving in the country than departing over the past year.

“Unprecedented” global events including the lifting of Covid lockdowns, war in Ukraine and the Chinese security clampdown in Hong Kong sent immigration figures soaring.

At 1.1 million, the total number of arrivals in the 12 months to June was the highest since statistics were first gathered in 1964 and far outweighed the 560,000 departures, despite the fact that for the first time since 1991 more EU nationals left the UK than arrived.

Even after allowing for humanitarian schemes for Ukrainians and Afghans, the figures gave additional weight to the observation that Brexit has not reduced overall migration, as many supporters of the Leave campaign hoped.

Instead, the figures suggest that the result of EU withdrawal has been to alter patterns of migration to the UK, with departing Europeans replaced by nationals of countries like India, Nigeria and China who dominate the tables of work and study visas.

More than 20 Conservative MPs are believed to have signed a letter to Mr Sunak demanding action to bring overall migration numbers down.

Organised by Sir John Hayes – the chair of the Common Sense Group of traditionalist Tories and a close ally of home secretary Suella Braverman – the letter calls on ministers to get a tighter grip on the system for work and study visas, as well as clamping down on unauthorised Channel crossings by boat.

Home Office figures showed an 87 per cent increase to 381,459 in the number of work visas issued over a 12-month period, while visas to study rose by 38 per cent to 597,827. Both figures were more than double pre-Brexit levels.

Sir John said the influx of migrants was placing pressure on the UK’s environment, housing and infrastructure and “displacing” homegrown workers from jobs and training.

“The home secretary has been very open and honest and straightforward about the need for robust action to take control of our borders in relation to small boats,” he told The Independent. “There is a similar job to be done to retake control of visas, which I think are out of control now.”

The scale of immigration flew in the face of a promise in the 2019 Conservative election manifesto – endorsed by Mr Sunak since his arrival at 10 Downing Street – to get overall numbers down, said Hayes.

Responding to the ONS figures on Thursday, Ms Braverman said the record number of people arriving in the UK was “thanks to the generosity of the British people” towards Ukrainians, Afghans and Hong Kong holders of BNO (British national overseas) passports.

“The public rightly expect us to control our borders and we remain committed to reducing migration over time in line with our manifesto commitment,” said the home secretary, who in October told the Conservative conference her personal ambition was to reduce net migration below 100,000.

“My priority remains tackling the rise in dangerous and illegal crossings and stopping the abuse of our system.”

Downing Street said Mr Sunak remained committed to reducing net migration but has not set “a specific timeframe” for achieving the goal. The prime minister’s official spokesman blamed “some unprecedented and unique circumstances” for the record figures.

ONS deputy director Jay Lindop said that a significant driver in the figures was migration from non-EU countries by students, who are no longer forced to work remotely by Covid lockdowns.

An estimated 277,000 arrived in the UK over the past year, an increase from 143,000 in the year before.

The numbers also revealed a growing backlog in dealing with asylum claims, with 117,400 awaiting an initial decision, of whom almost 80,000 have been waiting more than six months.

Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the statistics revealed “serious problems with Conservative mismanagement of the immigration and asylum systems where they have completely failed to get a grip”.

Ministers have failed to tackle the criminal gangs organising Channel crossings and have managed to process the claims of only 2 per cent of the people arriving in small boats over the course of the last year, she said.

“Work visas have also substantially increased as a result of major skills shortages in the UK – yet the Conservatives are not taking any serious action to address skills shortages here at home,” said Ms Cooper.

Maria Stephens, head of campaigns at charity Refugee Action, said that the “snowballing delays in processing asylum claims are destroying lives”.

And Amnesty International called for a “complete overhaul” of the asylum and immigration system, saying that the government should provide safe routes for people seeking to come to Britain.

The organisation’s refugee and migrant rights director, Steve Valdez-Symonds, said: “These figures show the UK’s system for processing asylum claims remains in complete disarray.”

But leading Tory Brexiteer Peter Bone defended the government’s record, telling The Independent: “The fact that we are taking in people from Hong Kong, from Afghanistan and especially from Ukraine is the right thing to do.

“The point is that we are controlling our borders and we are making the decisions, not the EU. Imagine what the figures would have been if we still had free movement of people. That is what Brexit was about – it was never about having no immigration.”

“Student numbers may be rising, but most of them will go back to their home countries. The government’s priority must be stopping the illegal migration by boat across the Channel.”

Source: Rishi Sunak faces Tory backlash over record immigration figures

ICYMI: Home Office reclassifies modern slavery as illegal immigration issue

Despite all the chaos in UK politics, the UK government still has time for further policy errors:

The Home Office has taken the modern slavery brief away from the minister responsible for safeguarding and classed it as an “illegal immigration and asylum” issue, updated online ministerial profiles show.

The move is seen as a clear sign that the department is doubling down on Suella Braverman’s suggestion that people are “gaming” the modern slavery system and that victims of the crime are no longer being prioritised.

The previous safeguarding minister, Rachel Maclean, had modern slavery on her official list of ministerial responsibilities but her successor, Mims Davies, has no mention of the crime on her list. Instead, modern slavery is listed at the bottom of the “illegal immigration and asylum” brief of immigration minister Tom Pursglove.

Under Theresa May, the government pledged to be world leaders in combating modern slavery but Braverman said last week that trafficking claims from “people gaming the system” were “derailing the UK’s policy on illegal migration”.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: “The largest single group of modern slavery victims under the referral system last year were British children – including those who were exploited through county lines

“The evidence shows the majority of exploitation takes place in the UK rather than across borders.

“The government should be treating this as an enforcement and safeguarding issue and taking stronger action against the crime of modern slavery wherever it takes place.”

Charities working with victims say characterising the crime as an illegal immigration issue is dangerous. More than a quarter of all people identified as potential modern slavery victims are British, according to official statistics.

Olivia Field, head of policy at the British Red Cross, said: “Modern slavery is a crime that can impact people no matter where they are from or where they are in the world.

“From our work supporting people who have been through horrific experiences including sexual exploitation and human trafficking, we know there are urgent improvements needed to better protect and support survivors.

“So it doesn’t become any harder for people to get the help they need, we would urge the lens on tackling modern slavery to be a safeguarding one focused on protecting people impacted by this crime, as opposed to being treated as an immigration issue.”

Despite Braverman’s claims of people “gaming” the system, 97% of all modern slavery referrals concluded in the first half of this year were confirmed as genuine by the authorities.

The home secretary’s comments were contradicted by the chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, Elysia McCaffrey, who said: “We don’t see people gaming the system … What we see is vulnerable people who are being exploited by opportunists and criminals.”

Kate Roberts, head of policy at Focus on Labour Exploitation, said: “Modern Slavery is a serious crime which is carried out against individuals and to see it as an immigration matter is wrong and is risky.

“Preventing and addressing modern slavery should take a person centred approach – starting with safeguarding and ensuring the rights of potential victims. While restricted or insecure immigration status can be abused by exploiters who use immigration detention as a threat against seeking help from the authorities, this is only one of many tools traffickers use, as evidenced by the fact that many British people are victims of trafficking.”

In another sign that the government is no longer prioritising tackling the crime, there has been no independent anti-slavery commissioner in post since Sara Thornton left in April, despite it being a legal requirement since the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery and in the UK we have a world-leading response. However, it is clear people are abusing our system when they have no right to be here, in order to frustrate their removal.”

Source: Home Office reclassifies modern slavery as illegal immigration issue

UK Home secretary pledges to crack down on ‘unexamined drive’ towards multicultural Britain

Trying to change the channel after a disastrous mini-budget? Even more hardline that previous home secretaries. But again, a reminder that visible minorities and immigrants have diverse views:

In a sweeping speech which pledged to regain control of Britain’s borders and fight back against left-driven “identity politics”, Suella Braverman also said police in England will be given “all the powers necessary” to stop guerilla demonstrations and jail participants – and added that officers should never “take the knee” – a symbolic gesture against racism – or take part in any protests themselves.

Speaking at the Conservative Party Conference, Ms Braverman said she would create legislation to allow the government to send back refugees who crossed the Channel on small boats, or arrived in the UK helped by people smugglers, without giving them a chance to apply for asylum.

She told a fringe event at the conferrence earlier that it would be “her dream” to see a newspaper front page with a photo of a plane taking off to Rwanda with asylum seekers on board.

Unveiled earlier this year to heavy criticism, the scheme would send refugees who arrive in the UK and are considered “inadmissible” – ie have not arrived on a government-sanctioned scheme – to the African country, where they will stay if their application is granted.

“We cannot allow a foreign court to undermine the sovereignty of our borders,” she said, referring to a last-minute move by the European Court of Human Rights to stop the first plane of refugees from taking off in June. “We need to find a way to make the Rwanda scheme work.”

She said Britain needs to “cut down on the numbers” of migrants in the country, saying the current system was not “meeting the needs of our economy”.

“We mustn’t forget how to do things for ourselves,” she said. “There is absolutely no reason why we can’t train up enough of our own HGV drivers or fruit pickers. The way we build a high skilled high wage economy is by encouraging businesses to invest in capital and domestic labour not relying wholly on low skilled foreign workers.

She insisted that it was not “racist”, or “xenophobic or bigoted” to tackle immigration.

“This is the best place on earth to come and live,” she said, adding that her own parents had emigrated to the UK from Kenya and Mauritius. “But I feel that we are losing sight of the core values and the culture that made it so. The unexamined drive towards multiculturalism as an end in itself, combined with the corrosive aspects of identity politics, has led us astray.”

Ms Braverman also warned that the “left are attacking our profound elemental values”, to replace them with the “poison of identity politics”.

“When this poison seeps into the public sphere, it distracts our public servants from doing their real job,” she said. “And that’s why it’s not only wrong for the police to take the knee. It is wrong for them to join in with political demonstrations. It is wrong for biologically male police officers to strip search female suspects. And it’s not just that pandering to identity politics is a huge waste of time. They need to stick to catching the bad guys.”

Source: Home secretary pledges to crack down on ‘unexamined drive’ towards multicultural Britain