Most severely affected at Dover were coach passengers, perhaps because it takes rather longer to inspect and stamp the passports of 50-odd passengers than a couple, or family, in a car, or the driver of an artic. So would Ms Braverman like to own up to this Brexit non-benefit? As if. It wasn’t to do with Brexit (dishonesty) and travellers just had to be patient.
Then came those two linked subjects of migration and deportations to Rwanda. When would she and her pal Rishi “Stop The Boats”? Evasion this time, plus it was the courts and lawyers to blame. Also, the UN saying Rwanda was not safe were wrong because Our Judges effectively said so. But there was video of Rwandan security forces shooting migrants dead.
This time we got Misleading: it was five years ago and things are different nowadays (no citation). Deliberately opening fire on protesters with live rounds doesn’t sound very Safe Country. Then it was back to Evasion as it was put to her that the agreement signed with Rwanda provides for that country to relocate its most vulnerable refugees to the UK.
But all of this was a mere hors d’oeuvres for a rather more pungent entrée - child sexual exploitation. And it was here that Ms Braverman’s language cranked up the blame game, dog-whistling the racist far right with not a trace of subtlety. Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who styles himself Tommy Robinson, will be rubbing his hands with glee at the sight of a minister in his corner.
The sexual exploitation, she told Ms Kuenssberg, was affecting “White Girls” and was being perpetrated by overwhelmingly “British Pakistani Men”. Honk that dog whistle! Mic Wright had seen enough: “her own department says 80% of abusers are white men. The far right is a nest of child abusers. Are the British Pakistani abusers disgusting? Yes. Do they represent the majority of abusers? No. And do girls who *aren’t* white get abused? Yes”.
“How can Suella Braverman not know about the refugees who were shot in Rwanda? Surely she would have done her own research? It’s one of the most written about stories regards refugees and Rwanda. This has been discussed before”. Which suggests she is either shockingly badly briefed, or just inept.
Ella Cockbain, who you can tell as she’s a doctor, has done some work in this area, and was equally unimpressed. “Braverman is promoting outrageous misinformation about both child sexual abuse & human trafficking. Propped up by pathetically poor client journalism. Yet more deflection, scaremongering and shameless politicking on the backs of abused and exploited people”.
Former prosecutor Nazir Afzal also had the correct information. “Home Office research 2020: ‘There is no credible evidence that any one ethnic group is over-represented in cases of child sexual exploitation’ … Suella Braverman knows that 84% of child sex offenders are white British, but chooses to focus on those who are not”. Falsehood and misinformation from the Tories.
So who was Ms Braverman speaking up for? “Patriotic” people, the “silent majority”, and targeting “A practice whereby vulnerable white English girls…were pursued and raped and drugged and harmed by gangs of British Pakistani men”. “Othering” a minority. Muslim bashing. Playing to the far right - and the worst side of our free and fearless press.
She may not believe this to be the language of fascism, but that is what it is.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
Even inspecting and stamping one person's passport takes longer. It al mounts up. Before a quick glance at the photo was enough. Sometimes merely holding up a passport sufficed.
ReplyDeleteRidge and Kuentssberg "questioning" a fascist? Oh my aching sides.
ReplyDeleteThe equivalent of Starmer/Reeves/Cooper reappearing to repeat this latest fascism is "too little too late".
It keeps readers of the Rothermere Heil and Murdoch Scum in "happy" fear and loathing.
That's how low Britain has fallen. Braverman as one more messenger girl for the Far Reich. A race to the bottom of the toilet.
But did Kuensberg correct Braverman's erroneous comments about Pakistani grooming gangs? If not, why not, for if she asked a question about this, she must have had the facts to hand.
ReplyDelete