Why Kemi Badenoch's Comments on Cultural Validity Miss the Mark Spectacularly (and Dangerously)

Exploring the dangerous oversimplification of culture, integration, and British values in the immigration debate

Well, it would appear that my post yesterday on the Bird Place about Kemi Badenoch’s comments* seems to have opened a can of very angry worms, and not least because it was somehow written in all bold like I was shouting like some sort of mad person (I'm still trying to figure out exactly why that is, but for the moment, I'm putting it down to Space Karen breaking the algorithms and worsening Twitter just that little bit more).

Now, looking at the post, which, of course, was very sweary and shouty, it appears that a bit of the message I was trying to get across got lost. There was also rather a bit of a big twisting of words and conflating of issues, so let's get the Explaining Crayons out and start addressing a few things - starting with exactly why Badenoch's comments were so very divisive.

Why Badenoch’s Comments Are Reprehensible

When Badenoch says, "not all cultures are equally valid," she’s not targeting specific human rights abuses; she’s making a sweeping, blanket statement about entire cultures. This sort of language plays directly into cultural superiority, implying that some societies are fundamentally less worthy of respect, and by extension, so are the people within them. It’s a shorthand way of saying, “we’re better than them,” without directly saying the quiet part out loud.

Her example of immigrants hating Israel adds another layer of trouble. She’s equating political beliefs with culture, as if hating Israel is somehow inherent to certain ethnic groups. This is a gross oversimplification of a complex geopolitical issue, and by framing it this way, she’s suggesting that entire cultures are defined by their worst political views. That’s not only reductive but also creates unnecessary divisions.

The Myth of Cultural Incompatibility

Badenoch’s comments also feed into the dangerous narrative that immigrant customs and values are fundamentally at odds with "British values." This type of rhetoric fosters an us vs. them mentality, creating the idea that certain cultures can never truly fit into British society. Now, it’s true that some practices should absolutely be condemned - absolutely no one is arguing that FGM or denying women education should be tolerated. But Badenoch isn’t talking about those specific issues; she’s suggesting that some cultures, as a whole, are simply "invalid."

The truth is, cultures are complex, and they evolve over time. Immigrants can maintain connections to their roots while also integrating into British life. The idea that using WhatsApp to stay in touch with family back home somehow means they’re not committed to the UK is absurd. In a globalised world, everyone - immigrant or not - has connections that span borders. It doesn’t make them less British.

The “Feet in the UK, Head Elsewhere” Argument

Badenoch’s comment about immigrants having their "feet in the UK" but their "heads and hearts" still back in their country of origin is one of the most troubling aspects of her remarks. It reinforces the blatantly xenophobic trope that immigrants can never truly belong here and that their loyalties are inherently divided. It’s the kind of rhetoric that’s been used time and time again to suggest that people who look or sound different aren’t “proper” Brits.

But here’s the reality:

People are capable of feeling connected to more than one place. Immigrants can value British society and integrate while still maintaining a deep connection to their heritage. In fact, that’s the beauty of a multicultural society - people bring diverse perspectives, experiences, and traditions, and that makes us richer, not poorer.

The Burden of Integration

What Badenoch’s comments fail to acknowledge is that integration is a two-way street. It’s not just up to immigrants to abandon their culture at the border; it’s also up to society to create an environment where people feel welcomed and valued. Yes, people should adapt to their new homes, but expecting them to erase their entire cultural identity is both unrealistic and harmful. British society benefits from diversity, and forcing everyone into one narrow version of "Britishness" is a step backwards.

Let's also not skim over the fact that immigrants often face significant barriers to integration - overt racism, economic hardship, and social exclusion, to name a few. It’s a bit rich to blame them for not integrating “properly” when society isn’t always doing its part to help them feel welcome.

Oversimplifying Culture

Badenoch reduces culture to a simple binary of "valid" or "invalid," which is a deeply flawed way to look at the world. Culture is multifaceted and constantly changing. Just because a particular country has laws or customs we disagree with doesn’t mean that its entire culture in full is invalid. There are people in every society working to change harmful practices, whether it’s activists fighting for women’s rights or LGBTQ+ rights, and we should support those efforts rather than dismissing the whole culture as incompatible with British values.

The idea that British culture is somehow inherently superior because we’ve “moved past” certain practices is also problematic. Let’s not get too smug - it wasn’t that long ago that the UK criminalised homosexuality or denied women the right to vote. Every culture has its flaws, including our own, and we’ve evolved because of progress and activism. Cultures around the world are capable of the same growth, and we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them.

Weaponising “British Values”

Finally, Badenoch’s use of “British values” deserves closer scrutiny. It’s a phrase that’s been tossed around a lot lately, but what does it really mean? Too often these two words are used to push a narrow, exclusionary version of Britishness that leaves little room for diversity. It draws a line between “us” and “them,” implying that to be truly British, you must conform to a specific set of cultural norms. In reality, British values should encompass openness, respect for diversity, and a recognition that different cultures contribute something valuable.

It’s also important to remember that British values themselves have evolved over time. What we now see as core ideals - like openness and inclusivity - weren’t always part of the national identity. It’s this capacity for change that has allowed British society to grow and thrive.

---

Now that we've thoroughly unpacked why Badenoch’s comments are harmful, let’s look at some of the common defences and respond to them directly.

“If you believe all cultures are valid, explain those that restrict women’s rights.”

Yes, there are practices in some cultures that are completely indefensible. But that’s not what Badenoch is addressing. Instead, she’s making a sweeping generalisation that dismisses entire cultures based on the actions of a few or the laws of authoritarian regimes. Condemning specific practices is necessary, but it doesn’t require us to reject entire cultures in the process. Take the United States, for example, which faces a significant issue with its culture of gun violence. Does that mean we should write off the entire country and its culture because of this extreme issue? Of course not. Cultures are complex and multifaceted, and reducing them to their worst elements is both lazy and harmful.

“Cultures with FGM, or where being gay is illegal, are not equal. Yes or no will suffice.”

Culture isn’t a “yes or no” issue. Cultures are not defined by their worst practices - if they were, there are a few Western countries that would suffer very, very badly from this. FGM is a terrible violation of human rights, but there are activists within those communities working to end it. Should we dismiss those efforts and write off the entire culture because of one practice? Or should we support those fighting for progress?

“Our culture got rid of these things, so we are better.”

Let’s not pretend we’re without fault. We’ve come a long way, yes, but the UK has its own very dark history of discrimination, colonialism, and oppression. No culture is inherently better. We’ve evolved through activism and progress, and other cultures can - and do - do the same.

“Some cultures stone women for being raped—that’s not equal to mine.”

This is conflating government-enforced laws or extremist practices with culture. People within those societies often oppose such practices. Dismissing entire cultures because of the actions of a regime is intellectually lazy. We can - and should - fight against human rights abuses without condemning an entire people.

The (very) long and short of it all is that Badenoch’s comments aren’t just an oversimplification of culture - they are dangerously divisive. We should absolutely call out human rights abuses, but doing so doesn’t require us to dismiss entire cultures as “invalid.”

Cultures evolve, people change, and the real challenge is supporting those within every society who are fighting for progress. Instead of drawing lines between “valid” and “invalid” cultures, we should be working towards a world that values diversity, inclusivity, and mutual respect.

*Original Excerpt from Telegraph Article:

"Culture is more than cuisine or clothes. It’s also customs which may be at odds with British values. We cannot be naïve and assume immigrants will automatically abandon ancestral ethnic hostilities at the border, or that all cultures are equally valid. They are not. I am struck for example, by the number of recent immigrants to the UK who hate Israel.

That sentiment has no place here. We must recognise that the world has changed. When I moved back to this country 30 years ago, it was impossible to communicate quickly with my family. Letters would take weeks to arrive, I had to schedule calls with the few people who had working telephones let alone mobiles.

Today’s immigrants, even those arriving on boats come with WhatsApp and Instagram. Their feet may be in the UK, but their heads and hearts are still back in their country of origin."