Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Suella Braverman didn’t mince her words when declaring multiculturalism a failure.

Also, the United Kingdom’s home secretary isn’t afraid to be called names for exposing what she infers is largely a rort.

In a 50-minute address on illegal migration, Braverman told Washington DC thinktank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that the crisis was an existential challenge for the West.

There’s a lot to like.

A daughter of migrants, Braverman (a Buddhist) said,

“It’s a basic rule of history that nations which cannot defend their borders will not long survive.

“It’s a basic rule of politics that political systems which cannot control their borders will not maintain the consent of the people, and thus not long endure.”

Anticipating criticism, the home secretary warned against embracing the seemingly cosy notions of open borders.

Such policies undermine the shared identity and purpose created by the nation-state, she explained.

The first obligation of the state is to serve its people.

Divided Lands

Open borders and uncontrollable immigration suffocate sustainability, Braverman added, saying,

“Integration takes longer – if immigration is uncontrolled, it makes it harder for society to adapt and accommodate new cultures, and customs and for communities to meld together.”

She then said,

“Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades.”

What comes next is where Braverman has landed her in hot water with wobbly Wokeshevists.

Multiculturalism has failed, she brazenly declared.

This is “because multiculturalism makes no demands on the newcomer to integrate.”

“It allows people to come to our society and live parallel lives, where they are in society, but not of it.”

Mass illegal migration, current invasions — and in the more extreme, also terrorism — are consequences of this failure.

The entirety of Braverman’s DC speech was a clearer reiteration of her “Stopping the boats is a moral imperative” address.

This was delivered three months ago in the House of Commons.

There, Braverman outlined the Conservative Sunak Government’s response to illegal mass immigration.

“The current accommodation system is unsustainable and unfair to taxpayers,” she said.

Fitting in with reforms to stop “people trafficking,” Braverman said the UK was working better with France and the EU to mitigate channel crossings.

“We’re determined to send back those who have no legal right to be in the United Kingdom, by abolishing modern slavery protections.”

The DC comments are also consistent with her calling the mass influx of illegal immigrants an ‘invasion’ late last year.

“Some 40,000 people have arrived on the south coast in 2022 alone. Many of them are facilitated by criminal gangs and are actual members of criminal gangs.

“Let’s stop pretending that they are all refugees in distress. We need to be straight with the public: the system is broken. Illegal migration is out of control,” she added.

Backlash

Already disliked by the BBC and The Guardian, Braverman has now fallen into ill repute with the United Nations.

The UNHCR fired back, saying they “had taken note of the speech.”

Playing the LGBTQ+ card, they dug in, saying,

“The Refugee Convention remains as relevant today as when it was adopted.

“Where individuals are at risk of persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, it is crucial that they are able to seek safety and protection.”

Ignoring the legitimacy of Braverman’s finer points, the UN replied,

“We don’t need reform; we need more responsibility-sharing.”

Online, the hate was swift and predictable.

Braverman was framed as a Nazi, lambasted as anti-LGBTQ+ and accused of “wolf-whistling to racists.”

Elton John’s AIDS Foundation was particularly peeved.

Elton John and company issued a joint statement implying Braverman was “further legitimising hate and violence against those who identify as LGBTQ+.”

Back-Up

Braverman was backed by the reasoned arguments of others, which included a response from Reclaim Party leader Laurance Fox, saying, “Every single word of this is true. Multiculturalism is destroying our society.

“Those who wish to become part of Great Britain should assimilate to our culture,” he added.

“We must, all of us, from any ethnic background, be British first. If you don’t like it. Leave.”

In her DC speech, not only did she say multiculturalism had failed; she said the post-World War II 1951 UN Refugee Convention was outdated.

“We now live in a completely different era. It’s time for politicians and thought leaders to ask whether the refugee convention is fit for our modern age.”

Most people would agree that genuine asylum seekers are those facing death, torture, oppression, or violence.

However, Braverman said,

“We’ve seen an interpretative shift away from persecution in favour of something more akin to the definition of discrimination.”

For example, “we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay or a woman, or fearful of discrimination is sufficient to qualify for asylum.”

Throwing in an additional point, Braverman criticised the loopholes used to work around Article 31.

Asylum seekers cannot island-hop safe states in order to shop around for their preferred protection.

Braverman described this practice — one encouraged by NGOs and the UN — as “absurd and unsustainable.”

This is, in most cases, she said, economic migrants “gaming the system to their advantage.”

In sum, “the global asylum framework is a promissory note that the West cannot fulfil. It has no capacity to meet the fraction of demand.”

Ergo, we need reform.

The more cynical reader would be right to quip that perhaps seeing the West fall apart was the point of multiculturalism.

If there’s no place safe, then globalists might then be free to action a one-world government.

Createing the crisis, then presenting yourself as the solution to that crisis, has historically been the bread and butter for tyrants looking to take power.

With this in mind, Braverman isn’t the biggest threat to compassion, social cohesion, and the nation-state; her dishonest critics are.

___

Originally published at Caldron Pool. Photo: Wikimedia Commons