Kemi Badenoch think BME communities shouldn't have their own neighbourhoods but be made to move to other areas

[IwantToRetire]

The UK should move to “active integration” along the lines of Denmark’s so-called “ghetto laws”, Kemi Badenoch has suggested.

Under Danish law, social housing areas with high levels of deprivation and a “non-Western” population above 50% are declared “parallel societies”.

Such a declaration can trigger requirements to reduce the amount of social housing in an area, including through evicting residents and demolishing or turning their homes into private housing, and restrictions on who can move there.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/society-policy-exchange-european-court-of-justice-conservative-b2775215.html

And what do you think about this? Or were you just hoping to start a fight?

There was a feature on this in Denmark on the Simon Reeve documentary 'Scandinavia' a few weeks ago. I wonder if she was watching!

It would appear Kemi would like to see quite a lot of social change without having any responsibility for making it happen

Speaking as a white mum to a mixed ethnicity child, living in a an area which has a mix of ethnicities works for us. But personally I'd draw the line at forcing people to move because of their ethnicity.
Occasionally I see posts on the black mn board asking for recommendations about places to live or go on holiday based on worries about fitting in or racism. I think that's beyond sad, no one should feel unsafe on holiday because of their skin colour and people should be able to go where they want.

Fortunately we've never had serious problems but we do still get some stares away from cities

The reaction to it on that programme seemed mostly negative. Also, if people are to be moved out of those areas to mix things up surely someone from a different area would have to be moved into it. Assuming people liked living where they were that's a lot of unhappy people.

I saw that, the ghetto situation in malmo is stark and it doesn’t serve any community to be isolated and segregated. My father in law was a met police officer and there were areas he dreaded going, predominantly those communities that had brought tensions from their home villages in Africa, especially Somalis and Eritreans. In his time on the beat he would regularly see machetes on the streets that weren’t there 20 years ago.

there’s a lot to be said for proper integration, and providing training, jobs, cultural lessons if needed, for some immigrants to this country. Leaving them in poor communities where they feel crime is the only option doesn’t work, and then increases right wing sentiment, even Sweden has now had enough.

Lmfao you guys are woefully late to this discussion. And you is not this board but Brits.

Long past that parallel societies are addressed, endless tolerance isn't a good thing.

Simon Reeve filmed an episode of one of his series (was it the Scandinavian one?) On this subject, it was interesting, quite a balanced view.
Desperately sad for people who were ousted from their communities, but Denmark was trying to avoid the kind of situations that had happened in other Scandi countries. Danish authorities were keen that all immigrants should learn the language of their adoptive country and learn of its customs, equality between sexes etc.
Having grown up in a very diverse town, I was aware of women who spoke no English, had to take their husbands to the doctors to translate, I'm not that comfortable with that, it lends itself to women being at risk of domestic abuse.
But I'm not convinced the Conservatives have a light enough touch to achieve anything of benefit and will probably end up inflaming the situation.

As an immigrant in another country myself, i think it makes sense to avoid ghettoes and to encourage integration and language skills. A lot of this comes down to cold hard cash though. Having lived in a town where no translation was even possible with the town hall etc, even when they can actually SPEAK the language I know how hard it can be. Language classes are free and available though. Integration is not an easy topic and it is always easier to mix with people that speak the same language as you. It's human nature.

So you risk isolating a whole generation of people, whilst their kids might get on fine. Carrot vs stick approach maybe. But I think the UK could be a bit firmer on integration type activities.

I dont think you understand the purpose of a forum, including this one.

A leading woman politician has made a statement. I saw it reported in a newspaper.

So I thought I would add the link to the article. As I have absolutely no doubt that if any others on FWR have any opinion or response on this statement they will express it.

What do you think?

What's the sex/gender angle op?

Whatever the rights and wrongs, I can see lots of practical problems- reducing social housing might be possible in a country where the social housing system is healthy and meets demand but would you really want to reduce supply and increase demand in our system - the one that is already failing the tens of thousands on waiting lists?
How would it fit with the fact that social housing is usually given on life-long tenancies- would they be abolished for all or just certain ethnicities?
Would private landlords be compelled to not rent to people of certain ethnicities? How would they feel about that and the effect it might have on the amount of rent they can get?
If limiting the resale market for privately owned homes reduces their value would you need to compensate the owners? How would it square with the tradition of an 'Englishman's home is is his castle'? The MN threads alone would be something else- 'AIBU for being angry that we lost our forever home after the council banned us from selling to Mr and Mrs Patel and our chain collapsed'.

Mmn. I've lived in Luton and in Bradford, there is isolation and separatism, there is conflict and bad feeling, women in particular tend to suffer, and it doesn't all work well. There's a conversation to be had here, and while it needs to be sensitive and thoughtful, it shouldn't be something too taboo to talk about.

Exactly. Maybe KB had more to say, but it seem a really niave, and a political statement.

Quite often communities, and not just the cliche BME end up living in areas they can afford and feel safe in.

So the problem is as much about the majority society or its politicians still being so dim, that they dont every think maybe we are the problem or job and school opportunities are not in fact made equally available.

And just as with the other cliche the media likes so much, the white working class, is the issue of if there is no change or variation in education and job prospects in certain clusters throughout the UK.

https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/cepeo/2025/03/06/inequalitiesintopjobs/

I thought the comments about housing or as described in Denmark was totally impossible to implement.

And would probably face a human rights challenge.

Perhaps if we had not massively reduced social housing building in Tory governments since 1979, then there might be less of an issue.

I think we do need a serious conversation about integration. It's not long ago there were lots of articles about 'white flights.

This isn't a single issue forum. It is about women, and believe it or not women can have opinions about political proposals.

You may not be aware but women are now allowed to vote in the UK General Elections now.

Note the keyword Feminism in the forum title.

Feminism is a political method of viewing the world.

I don’t think it’s impossible to do. Denmark also complies with the ECHR. People have a right to a private life, but that is a qualified right. The government could impose laws on social housing, but there is very little of it left in the UK. What difference this law would make transposed here is difficult to see in the absence of that.

Nearly all the problems with have in the UK is because of this.

First of all with what used to be the % of social housing in the UK meant that many people on lower wages but still doing essential work, could afford to have a home and family.

And it also meant that there was not then a shortage of homes for ownership as it was more an option if you wanted so the hysterical prices rises every year just wouldn't happen.

Its because the UK / Thatcher followed the US model (dont forget their housing crash nearly bank rupted the entire world) where sane and not particularly socialist countries like Austria have plentiful good quality social housing.

And of course in selling off council housing, ie asset stripping the state (ditto electricity, water, etc.) as a whole the UK was poorer and more money just accumulated into an even smaller section of society.

I agree with @MissAmbrosiaShe would be a far better leader of The Conservatives than Kemi!

Sex gender angle?

Well one aspect - LAs about 18 years back were trying to find strategies to make their provisions and resources more accessible to groups in their population that didn't seem to be using them, particularly ones linked to public health such as swimming and gyms. Which were often, in large numbers, women in towns and cities from BME communities, which linked with those women often having language barriers causing them issues in accessing services and support, getting health support, being able to have a community beyond immediate family and friends, and so on.

So lots of women only swims and groups were set up to be accessible and inviting, because of the many issues of some women accessing mixed sex groups and spaces. And yes, more women did start to use them. Which had a ripple effect in other positive outcomes.

Guess what happened next?

If it needs to be spelt out why it is a feminist issue is that particularly around the home, child care, etc., etc., women still do most of the work.

And quite oftern are helped out by family. This has already been one of the crushingly inhumane problems that London sending single homeless mothers to regions of the UK that have cheaper housing but means they and their children lose all the family contacts they had. Housing in the UK maybe expensive but then so is travel.

Also its the most appalling elitist concept.

Why not get all those white people who have refused to leave their white neighbourhood be forced out of their home, and made to go and live in areas that are exclusionary white. After all that is as much the problem as this backward notion that its always the fault of other cultures.

ie if you are being discriminated against, or being racially abused why are you the problem. The problem is the sections of societies who want their way of life to be valid.

I don't know how I made you so cross. Of course I vote, what a non sequitur.

This is clearly a bonkers idea on Badenoch's part. If you want more integration you need to use pull rather than push factors. Banning or evicting people is unworkable. I don't know what those pull factors might look like, but clearly neither do most governments.

However, I do think that this sub-forum is usually for sex/gender discussions, which is arguably a single issue. That's fine if you disagree but very strange leap to accuse me of never voting.

I find it interesting that racial minorities on TV (e.g. dramas and comedy gameshows) and in advertising are almost always the nice well-integrated type, often indistinguishable from white people except for their appearance. The realities of low-skilled immigrants who struggle (or don't try) to integrate into British society are rarely depicted. I think it's telling that even leftist media, which is notionally pro-minority and pro-immigration (or at least anti-anti-immigration), is only comfortable with such decidedly rose-tinted depictions.