Miriam Cates is a presenter on GBNews and the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.
I imagine there were some tense moments for the Number 10 press team last week after the leak of a Home Office pamphlet that implores asylum seekers not to rape women and girls.
The government can no longer pretend that British residents living near camps, hotels and HMOs housing illegal migrants are ‘safe’. The very existence of the document proves that authorities know that some men from some countries and cultures simply have no understanding of women’s rights or sexual consent.
To admit that some cultures are inferior to others has long been a taboo on the Left. Liberals are more than happy to criticise the behaviour of individuals – whether that is calling out ‘misogyny’ or ‘racism’ – but can’t, or won’t, draw the link between cultural norms and individual actions. Over the last few months, the Guardian newspaper has printed a number of informative pieces about the appalling treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan, where the Taliban continues its assault on women’s rights since the withdrawal of US and UK troops in 2021. In Afghanistan, there is no longer a minimum age of marriage. Girls have no choice over who or when they marry, and there is no such thing as marital rape, which means that there is no legal concept of sexual consent.
Of course not every man in Afghanistan thinks it is acceptable to force sex on a woman – just as not every man in Britain thinks such acts are unacceptable. But it is sensible to assume that many of the young men from Afghanistan who arrive in Britain on small boats or in the back of a lorry do not see women as equal human beings. This assumption is borne out in court proceedings. At the trial last year of Sadeq Nikzad, a 29-year-old Afghan asylum seeker convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in Falkirk, Scotland, Nikzad’s lawyer argued in mitigation that her client had not been educated about the significant “cultural” differences between the UK and Afghanistan, where child marriage (i.e. rape) is prevalent.
The Prime Minister and many Labour MPs defend the Home Office pamphlet by arguing that it is important to inform recent arrivals of the law of the land. But that is to trivialise the nature of the offences being described: it’s easy enough to adhere to a new country’s regulations on speed limits or drink driving tolerances. But, just as a British person arriving in Somalia will not suddenly start believing that Female Genital Mutilation is an important traditional practice, neither will all Somalians give up their determination to cut their daughters just because a nine-page government document informs them it’s against UK law.
All individual human beings have a degree of agency and independent thought. But many on the Left vastly underestimate the importance of upbringing and culture in determining a person’s world-view and ultimately their behaviour. To assume that a man from Eritrea may have a set of values completely alien to our own – and views on women that have not been held in Britain since the Christianisation of Europe – may be an example of prejudice, but it is not racist or bigoted. As individuals, we can and should overcome prejudice when it is safe to do so; but governments cannot operate at the level of the individual. When it comes to border control, the state can and must make assumptions based on known facts about countries, cultures and groups.
Underestimating the importance of culture is not the only mistake made by the Left on the issue of immigration. Labour Party politicians and commentators frequently preach to the British public that we should have ‘compassion’ on those fleeing war-torn or poor countries. I doubt anyone reading this column would choose to live in Sudan or Iran, and it is right and natural to feel great sympathy for those trapped in desperate situations. There is a strong argument that charitable organisations – and even foreign aid and the UK defence budget – should do much more to alleviate suffering around the world.
Yet just as it is not my responsibility as a mother to welcome every underprivileged British child into my home, neither is it the responsibility of the British state to welcome and house every impoverished person who finds a way to cross the border into the UK. Just as it is the first duty of a parent to care for and protect their own children, the primary responsibility of the British government is to ensure the safety of our own citizens, which includes preventing illegal border crossings, and deporting those who make it to our shores illegally. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the situation in Eritrea or Somalia; he is responsible for preventing the brutal rapes of British women and girls by men who could have been refused entry to our country.
Yet even brutal facts of sex crime statistics are not enough to persuade those on the Left to take more decisive action on immigration. Even feminists – like former safeguarding Minister and self-identified champion of women Jess Philipps – maintain that it is a distraction to focus on assaults committed by migrants when the majority of sexual crimes in the UK are committed by British men. Again, this attitude betrays a misconception of what is, and isn’t, our responsibility as a nation. British society is responsible for preventing, punishing and rehabilitating British citizens who commit crime. But we should accept no liability for the offences of those who are not born and raised here, just as parents are not liable for the misdemeanours of the children of others. The government cannot – or at least not in the short term – prevent all crimes committed by British citizens. But it can prevent every single one of the crimes committed by foreign nationals who arrive illegally, simply by maintaining effective border control.
The failure to understand the importance of culture, and the conflation of compassion with responsibility are common mistakes of the liberal left. The route of these misunderstandings lies in the false beliefs that we are entirely autonomous, rational beings and that we choose whom to care for rather than accepting that our duties are mostly given not chosen. Conservatives believe that we owe loyalty first and foremost to the family, neighbourhood and nation we happen to have been born into.
It is interesting to watch the Left’s ‘luxury beliefs’ disintegrate when they come into contact with reality. Labour MP Rachel Maskell has been a vocal proponent of refugee rights, and an opponent of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s (rather moderate) proposals to restrict immigration. Yet the prospect of 1200 fighting age young male migrants arriving at RAF Linton-on-Ouse, a camp close to her York constituency, has prompted Maskell to object, citing the ‘unsuitability’ of the site.
Sadly we are likely to see many more horrific crimes committed before the political pressure is sufficient to force the Prime Minister to take a tougher line on illegal immigration and asylum. Yet a denial of reality is not the only obstacle standing in the way of a sensible Labour Party border policy. Fundamentally, those on the Left do not seem to acknowledge just how remarkable, good and, yes, superior, British and Western cultures are in comparison to many others across the world.
Britain has not just arrived accidentally at a point in history where women are allowed to vote, own property and refuse marriage and sex; where virtues such as honesty, integrity and fairness are cherished, and where all people are held to be equal under the law. Over centuries, successive generations have built a society where individual freedom is prioritised, where hard work is rewarded and where the democratically governed state – rather than tribes or militias – have the monopoly on the use of force. To deny the preciousness and exceptionalism of our British culture is a kind of civilisational heresy. Those on the Left who maintain that all cultures are worthy of respect are also deeply hypocritical; you cannot on the one hand praise such ideas as women’s equality and individual freedom while failing to condemn those cultures that oppose such principles.
Our new prime Minister says he listened to the concerns raised about illegal immigration when he was canvassing in the recent Makerfield by-election. Yet Andy Burnham’s recent statements claiming that the situation is improving, and his characterising of the asylum system as a ‘burden’ we must all share – rather than a problem for the government to solve – suggests that he is not yet hearing the message. Tackling homelessness and freezing bus fares are just noble distractions; if the PM really wants to restore ‘hope’ to the nation, he should start by restoring our borders.
(UKR)