Kemi Badenoch

[CassieMaddox]

Looking unlikely to win the Conservative leadership now and has gone very quiet about women's rights/the EA during her campaign.

Current favourite is Cleverly.

I know she had a lot of support on here so just wondering what people thought had gone wrong for her?

You need to read more of the thread. As it is you've just jumped in guns blazing.

That's not quite what she said. You should look a bit more at whole discussions rather than just get information from social media or twitter - which tends to brutalise all nuance and channel it towards polarisation and extremes.

That's not quite the case. Did you actually watch the interview in full?

Rather than speak down to people, why don't you explain your understanding of what she said. I get my information from the press but I'm interested in your interpretation.

Ummm its single sex spaces.

Yes that's as far as I've got and I'm already irritated by "safe spaces" shite.

Off to read rest now.

I did earlier in the thread -hence why I've suggested people look at full discussions; both on here as well as the actual interview with Badenoch, before jumping to conclusions.

Actually looking back, it was in another thread which someone had started in order to misrepresent Badenoch.

I'm not actually a Tory voter and never have been; in fact until seven years ago I was a Labour party member - but in that time since I've really come to appreciate Badenoch and her grasp, honesty and clarity on issues ( especially on Gender Ideology, but also on some other issues) . Because she's a Tory, though, people love to hate her and misrepresent her. Hating on people not of one's tribe has become a popular sporting activity.

TBH I think she's brilliant - even if too economically ideological for my taste.

My understanding is that she's trying to garner support from the Tory hard right and Reform. In her article on immigration she talked about how we shouldn't let in people from certain cultures and how not all cultures were equal.
In follow up interviews she gave examples of Muslim culture.

In my opinion, having read the article and subsequent interviews, she's using dog whistle politics. In that she's aware of her audience and what they want to hear.

The hundreds of thousands potential immigrants from Hong Kong should presumably be sent back because the Chinese crackdown and imposition of anti-democracy laws is equally valid? Funny how you are arguing for Reform.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56669016

Some cultures are worse. Much, much worse. I mean just look at the state of Afghanistan, how terribly women and girls are treated there. We really don't want that in the UK.

I don't know what you're talking about but that wasn't what she meant.

Then there are the ‘culturally equally valid’ Uyghur internment camps…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22278037

Perhaps we should import Chinese ‘equally valid’ cultural attitudes to workers rights and child labour rather than just their clothes?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4glzzdd88lo

As I explained some time ago, that's not what she said. She wrote an article on immigration saying that we should be careful who we let in as not all cultures are equal. Then clarified that she was talking about Muslims.

Though you make a good point, she could have chosen mainland Chinese but a. We don't want to annoy the Chinese because of trade and b. Reform voters don't care about the Chinese so it wouldn't have the desired effect.

Badenoch doesn't care about genocide btw.

Muslims like those in Afghanistan that silence women, imprison them in their homes including those with no means of sustaining themselves, and ban girls from education?

Or those that beat a women to death for exposing her hair or deciding that nine year old girls could be married in Iran?

Or those that decided a rapist’s sister being publically raped was fit punishment for the rapist in Pakistan?

Or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria who committed genocide against the Yazidi’s and sold thousands of Yazidi women and girls into sexual slavery?

Or those in Nigeria that kidnapped hundreds of school girls?

Are all these practices equally valid to our culture?

There are many people who come to the UK every year from countries with dubious human rights, however we give them visas by the truck load. Muslims however are a special case - I wonder why.

It couldn't possibly be because Reform voters are open in their dislike of Islam could it? Never!

I don't really see how that follows? She seems to think that the answer to women's needs around childbirth is not best addressed the way it is being done now. I don't think you can conclude that therefore it isn't a problem that needs some kind of solution.

I think you could probably make an argument, and she might well think something along these lines given her mention of low birth rates - that the current set up, even though the payments are pretty reasonable by worldwide standards, isn't allowing women to have as many kids as they want, and not as many as are needed to keep the population at a sustainable level. So some other solution would actually be better for women individually and also society.

It's a fairly typical difference between people on the left politicians those on the right that the former see policy in terms of idealist, ideological goals, whereas the latter are more inclined to be pragmatic, seeing policy choices as a series of trade-offs. I think this accounts for some differences in interpretation, particularly where some on the left see her statement as a repudiation of commitment to women's equality, simply because it rejects what some think is the only vehicle to get there.

There haven't really been any large scale issues with integration of people fleeing Hong Kong, not that I have heard of. (Though, there are some questions that could be asked about Chinese students on visas to study, I hope the government knows what it is doing with this.)

There have been issues with integration of Muslims, culturally, and radicalization. Both domestically and online.

Not All Muslims, obviously. But it's enough of a problem that it's not surprising people want to address it.

But you think those countries’ dubious human rights are as equally valid as our human rights? Or is it only Muslim countries with dubious human rights and cultures like those I listed above that are equally valid and not non-Muslims countries?

She wasn't talking about asylum seekers or refugees, she was talking about immigrants given visas to live and work in the UK.

In her article, she didn't mention a particular culture, just said some fluff about being careful who we let in because some cultures are less equal than others.

We do let in a lot of people from countries with dubious human rights records for example, India, China and Nigeria. She spoke of women's rights in particular and we let in people from countries with appalling records in women's rights.

What would have been great would be her solution to this. Would the Home Office only let in people to study and work in the UK with good human rights records? Would there be integration schemes in order to help immigrants integrate into life in the UK and learn about British values?

Alas no, she clarified that what she meant was people from Muslim countries were from cultures that were not of equal value.

Badenoch is known for playing to the gallery and this is no exception. She's got hard right Tories and Reform defectors eating out of her hand.

I really don't understand the point of anything you have said here. You see this as some kind of rebuttal of, what?

This doesn't seem to say anything different than what has been said, which is that there seems to be, and not just in the UK, some significant problems with integration of some Muslims.

It would be interesting to have a conversation about how it would be possible, and practical, for those granting visas etc to differentiate between individuals likely to integrate well, and those who wouldn't. Or whether it could be done on the basis of nationality alone - I'm inclined to think that wouldn't be the most effective.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I don't trust the motives of Kemi Badenoch and do not believe she wrote her article in good faith. I can't be clearer than that.

The groans whenever Badenoch and Jenrick got through were interesting? Telling? Hilarious?

The Tory Party have a death wish.

I think Jenrick is doing more of that. He seems to be the one who is prioritising 'the boats' above all else in a clear attempt to capture Reform voters.

Rather, what I've seen is Kemi actually trying to understand why the Tories lost so badly, and attempting to re-visit what she sees as core conservative values. It was in this context that she talked about immigration and illegal migration - that a nation cannot have stability and cohesiveness if incomers do not share in its core values, or if they actively adhere to beliefs and mores which go against those values.

She mentioned women's rights......that in the U.K women have a voice and equality in law ( still, just about....); women have equal divorce rights and rights to custody of their children after divorce; FGM is illegal, and the concept of 'honour' crime is a total anathema. Feamle teachers have as much authority as male teachers - and fathers have to be willing to speak with them.....and so on.

It is not acceptable to have a sub community which operates and acts on principles which go against all of the above. Women's rights cannot be culturally realtive.

No she didn't...the interviewer was trying to herd her into saying that...but she didn't.