The Daily Mail reports:
This is the moment Suella Braverman was accused by a black man of being 'racist against herself' after claiming she is not English despite being born in Britain.
Reform UK's education spokesperson told the BBC's Question Time that she is 'British of Asian ethnicity' rather than English, because of her family's Asian heritage.
But the former Conservative home secretary was accused by a black member of the audience in Tottenham, north London, of 'reinforcing the racist argument'.
The new 'crime' of self-racism shows just how daft this debate is becoming.
What's next? Enshrining this nonsense as a 'self-hate crime' and prosecuting people for their racist self-hatred?
What seems to the problem here is that Braverman, a daughter of immigrants who has undoubtedly done well in the UK, does not stick to the line of condemning colonial oppression and limited opportunities for (legal) immgrants in the UK. Instead she is grateful for her opportunity to become 'British' and take advantage of it in a positive way while asserting her Asian heritage.
And what it means to be British means different things to different people. There is no single definition outside of a strictly legal one which I am sure Ms Braverman is aware of. So going aha! when someone doesn't rattle off exactly what it means to be British doesn't mean they don't know what it means to them.
In reality, Braverman's principal crime is not 'self-racism' but that she defected to Farage's Reform party, so now she is nothing more than a right-wing 'coconut'.
The audience member also asks the question: How can we debate immigration without making people feel unwelcome?
What this question ignores is that the debate about immigration is not about legal immigration but illegal immigration and in what world do people make illegal immigrants welcome?
Presumably the same world that welcomes anything else illegal like shoplifting and looting for example.
These kinds of questions tell you more about the questioner than anything else.