Friday, November 10, 2023
The many sins of Suella Braverman
Over at the Guardian, Sean O'Grady outlines tha case against Suella Braverman and why she is a danger to democracy, the constitution and to multicultrism.
In doing so, he sets out the many reasons why the Home Secretary is so toxic:
She is inflicting huge damage on our multicultural society, on the party she purports to serve and the constitution of the nation. She’s not just potentially dangerous – she is undermining the police, eroding the right to protest, encouraging Islamophobia, stirring up hatred and effectively encouraging violence on the streets in a lot of what she says and does.
Whether the prime minister or his staff approved her latest article or not (in an op-ed for The Times she also claimed Islamists were using Saturday’s demo to express “primacy” and compared it to extremist rallies in Northern Ireland with links to terrorism), she is the home secretary. The fact that she feels the urge to encourage conflict is profoundly disturbing.
Her language is defiantly extreme and, it seems, designed to provoke fear and anger. It is in that respect, Powell-like. At the Conservative conference, she spoke about a “hurricane” of migration. She suggested that asylum seekers pretend to be gay in order to gain a right to remain in the UK – at odds with the statistics. According to Home Office data, sexual orientation formed part of the basis for an asylum claim in 1 per cent of all applications in 2021 (77 per cent fewer than in 2019).
She claims, again in defiance of the evidence of cities such as Leicester, that multiculturalism has failed. Before her latest foray into inciting hate, she cheerfully called the movement of small boats full of refugees in the English Channel an “invasion”.
She has openly advocated leaving the European Convention on Human Rights – something that would conveniently end the qualified right to protest and lawful assembly we’ve enjoyed for centuries. Braverman is a kind of cultural vandal, who seems to take some sort of sadistic pleasure in making us believe that what divides us is far greater than what unites us.
Frankly, she seems highly Islamophobic, and that is not helping Muslim people in Britain who want nothing more than to make a living and build a future for themselves and their families – the same as everyone else.
It is little wonder that he concludes that the kind of society Braverman represents, one where the “will of the people”, as interpreted by a handful of people in power, becomes an elected dictatorship where a part-rigged general election every four or five years hands absolute power to the leadership of one political party, is the reason she is so dangerous.
In doing so, he sets out the many reasons why the Home Secretary is so toxic:
She is inflicting huge damage on our multicultural society, on the party she purports to serve and the constitution of the nation. She’s not just potentially dangerous – she is undermining the police, eroding the right to protest, encouraging Islamophobia, stirring up hatred and effectively encouraging violence on the streets in a lot of what she says and does.
Whether the prime minister or his staff approved her latest article or not (in an op-ed for The Times she also claimed Islamists were using Saturday’s demo to express “primacy” and compared it to extremist rallies in Northern Ireland with links to terrorism), she is the home secretary. The fact that she feels the urge to encourage conflict is profoundly disturbing.
Her language is defiantly extreme and, it seems, designed to provoke fear and anger. It is in that respect, Powell-like. At the Conservative conference, she spoke about a “hurricane” of migration. She suggested that asylum seekers pretend to be gay in order to gain a right to remain in the UK – at odds with the statistics. According to Home Office data, sexual orientation formed part of the basis for an asylum claim in 1 per cent of all applications in 2021 (77 per cent fewer than in 2019).
She claims, again in defiance of the evidence of cities such as Leicester, that multiculturalism has failed. Before her latest foray into inciting hate, she cheerfully called the movement of small boats full of refugees in the English Channel an “invasion”.
She has openly advocated leaving the European Convention on Human Rights – something that would conveniently end the qualified right to protest and lawful assembly we’ve enjoyed for centuries. Braverman is a kind of cultural vandal, who seems to take some sort of sadistic pleasure in making us believe that what divides us is far greater than what unites us.
Frankly, she seems highly Islamophobic, and that is not helping Muslim people in Britain who want nothing more than to make a living and build a future for themselves and their families – the same as everyone else.
It is little wonder that he concludes that the kind of society Braverman represents, one where the “will of the people”, as interpreted by a handful of people in power, becomes an elected dictatorship where a part-rigged general election every four or five years hands absolute power to the leadership of one political party, is the reason she is so dangerous.
Comments:
<< Home
I understand that her husband has zionistic tendencies and the family have relatives in the IDF.Her past visits to right wing American meetings etc may have impressed her to act as she does.Everything implies she has been promoted above her maturity for the job.Her behaviour is definately a danger to the country.
Post a Comment
<< Home
