Suella Braverman a disgrace to humanity

@EasternStandard - she was a barrister, it is reasonable to assume she knows how to deflect, if she wanted to. She also went to Cambridge and is highly educated and will understand all the historical detail including the Oxford university study I linked.

She has two young children and is married to a Jewish man I think. She could easily have turned this to her advantage and talked about her identity and how her children will be free to identify just as they wish in years to come. She can still do this. If you think about it in that light, then Kemi’s comments on her own children make sense too.

And making critical comments about what a politicians says, and the impact on society more widely, is part of free speech and a fundamental democratic right. I am not sure who was supposedly abusive on this thread, although the title is click baity.

Ethno nationalism or even a hint of it via ambiguity in any shape or form, should have 0 place in British society today.

Yes agree, plus people seem to view online abuse as ok if from one group.

Suella Braverman doesn’t owe anyone an identity they demand of her. In fact she doesn’t even owe an answer and could say why do you ask me not him?

@Dadalus - where do you stand on ethno-nationalism? Because that is what this is about.

Nobody is denying anyone their identity. Most politicians in both the Tory and Reform Party are trying to make sure they are defining themselves, away from the ethno nationalists.

And if you now want to have the discussion on religion? You don’t need a religion to be English, a lot of people are atheists anyway these days.

@pointythings
It's completely reasonable to be concerned about far/hard right parties and the potential for policies of remigration & deportation. But can't you see the arguments put forward on this thread by some are utterly counter-productive to your aims?
Calling a British-Asian politician a deplorable human for discussing her identity, denying the existence of an English ethnicity, and calling anyone who thinks it exists a racist, and your liberal use of "flagshaggers", whilst complaining that you are in return denounced as a lefty, as if that's a denunciation at all.

IMO this all fuels hard right politics and adds evidence to their sense of a national identity under threat. The only way to help them more would be to start a thread proposing to make the word Christmas illegal.

Yes and no. I haven't seen enough people linking what Tommo et al are doing to the toxic discourse about foreignness and Englishness. It's the connection that's missing and needs to be made explicit. Plenty of condemnation of the balaclava boys, but the links to Reform, Farage and the right wing media are not being talked about except in niche groups; and if those groups speak out, they're denounced as 'lefties'.

Blimey loads of English people have stood up and spoke out about the "flagshaggers" and "balaclava brigades"! Where have you been? Under a rock?

It's sad, but maybe if more English people stood up and spoke out about the flagshaggers and balaclava brigades, things would get better. Every time a Muslim does something, Muslims are expected to denounce it publicly. The same should apply to proud English people who cannot abide Tommy, Tommo and the blackshorts.

I agree with you up to a point. It is a real pity that it has come to this but you have to understand why. The English feel that their identity is being eroded and, worse still, they are called racist for talking about it.
Contrast this with the reaction to anyone who says they are proudly Irish or Jewish or Native American.

I don't think anyone said the English aren't allowed to describe themselves by their ethnicity. The only problem is that when one political movement starts setting arbitrary boundaries around what it means to be 'sufficiently English' and then plans to make policy around that, i.e. remigration, deportation. That is a bit historical, IYSWIM. Define yourself any way you want, but don't make it policy.

Here is another good article on the matter. It also discusses the supposed views of some “ex” Tory politicians including JRM and Sunak.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/26/sunak-definition-britishness-englishness-ethnonationalism

“Attempts to impose a simplified ancestry-based definition quickly become absurd, as Lowe saw when, in August, he could not answer, whether or not he would consider King Charles, whose father was born in Greece and who has German and Danish ancestry, a “white Briton”.”

I would expect at the next election whenever that is called.

Why is it the English are the only people not allowed to describe themselves by their ethnicity? English means descended from Anglo Saxons. It is those that deny this that are dividing the country, not those like Suella who are simply stating facts.

and I don’t disagree with this. Being ‘English’ is different to being ‘ethnically English’.

I haven’t seen the question time with suella but there’s a lot of confusion on here.

English ethnicity does exist. A relative of mine did his dna and it was not only 100% English, but pinpointed very specifically his area of the UK to c. 50 miles. They are home birds so we wondered whether that was genetic too!

This stands true, although it seems to apply only in some cases so on it goes. People will lob it back online at those who don’t see it applies to them.

Nobody should use stereotyping, dehumanizing and degrading language anywhere to describe an entire group of people of a certain ethnic, religious or geographic origin.

Oh I couldn’t agree more. 🤔

I think describing someone as a disgrace (note: an individual) based on things they have done is not dehumanising. On the other hand, saying things like 'men of fighting age coming here to rape' - yep, that's dehumanising.

I am also of the opinion that the way you are picking on me is really not in the spirit.

That doesn’t work with this then.

And I stand by that. Choosing to join Reform says something about who you are as a human being. Their only virtue is that they are less awful than Restore and that bar is so low an ant couldn't get under it. That is my opinion.

But I disagreed with OP that SB's statement's about ethnicity are what make her a disgrace. It's the Reform thing.

I mean here where you say she is.

Having just read back my posts on here, I don't think I did. However, just in case I wasn't clear, this is where I stand

SB can identify her ethnicity any way she wants.
So can everyone else.
There are valid reasons for gathering ethnicity data in terms of managing a country's resources.
Making policy based on skin colour and whether someone belongs in a country to a sufficient degree is dangerous and divisive.
SB is an opportunist who only moved to Reform because she felt it would be advantageous to her.
Reform are grifting, incompetent and xenophobic, and utterly unfit to govern.
Nobody should use stereotyping, dehumanizing and degrading language anywhere to describe an entire group of people of a certain ethnic, religious or geographic origin.

Agreeing with the posts that followed my first, several above.

The op’s line? Didn’t you agree in an earlier post.

@ScribblingPixieagree

Agree. It's awful. I'd hope at least on Mumsnet there's a chance users will understand the consequences for women.

And in a section of the press every single day, if you want to go there...