Badenoch says organisations should be able to decide if staff can wear burkas
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said employers should be able to decide if their staff can wear burkas in the workplace.
Mrs Badenoch also said people who come to her constituency surgeries must remove their face coverings 'whether it's a burka or a balaclava'.
Ms Badenoch posted a video on X of part of her interview with the Telegraph, in which she said: 'My view is that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, not what their husband is asking them to wear or what their community says that they should wear.
'I personally have strong views about face coverings.
'If you come into my constituency surgery, you have to remove your face covering, whether it's a burka or a balaclava.
'I'm not talking to people who are not going to show me their face.
'Organisations should be able to decide what their staff wear for instance, it shouldn't be something that people should be able to override.'
She added that France has a ban and has 'worse problems than we do in this country on integration'.
On Wednesday, Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin asked Sir Keir Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions whether he would support such a ban.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice said his party has 'triggered a national discussion'.
Asked if he wants to ban burkas, Mr Tice told GB News on Sunday: 'We've triggered a national discussion. I'm very concerned about them (burkas).
'Frankly, I think they are repressive. I think that they make women second-class citizens.
'We're a Christian nation. We have equality between the sexes, and I'm very concerned, and if someone wants to convince me otherwise, well come and talk to me.
'But at the moment, my view is that I think we should follow seven other nations across Europe that have already banned them.'
He called for a debate on the topic to 'hear where the country's mood is'.
Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said 'employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not', when discussing face coverings.
Asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme if the Conservative Party's position is not to speak to people who cover their face, Mr Philp said of Mrs Badenoch: 'Well she was talking specifically about her constituency surgery I think, and it is definitely the case that employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not.
'But I don't think this is necessarily the biggest issue facing our country right now.
'There's a legitimate debate to have about the burka.
'You've got, obviously, arguments about personal liberty and choice and freedom on one side, and arguments about causing divisions in society and the possibility of coercion on the other.
'That is a debate I think we as a country should be having, but as Kemi said, it's probably not the biggest issue our nation faces today.'
Asked if he would talk to people who would not show their face, the Croydon South MP said: 'I have in the past spoken to people obviously wearing a burka – I represent a London constituency – but everybody can make their own choices, that's the point she was making, each employer should be able to make their own choices.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform threat. Telling people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday?
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy wants Trump to pressure Russia and help broker an end to the war
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told ABC This Week co-anchor Martha Raddatz that he sees Donald Trump as a key figure who can end the war between his nation and Vladimir Putin 's Russia. In an interview that aired Sunday, the Ukrainian President noted that 'the majority of wars were finished with some kinds of agreements … [with] strong third parties involved who can put pressure on the aggressor,' Zelenskyy told Raddatz. 'Are there enough levers and powers to stop this in the United States? Yes, I am convinced that the president of the United States has all the powers and enough leverage to step up,' Zelenskyy continued. 'He can unite around him other partners like European leaders,' he concluded. 'They [are] all looking at the President Trump as a leader of the free world, a free, democratic world, and they are waiting for him,' Zelenskyy added. The Ukrainian President also called for America to pressure Russia via economic sanctions, noting that only the United States can actually make a difference. 'It doesn't matter who wants, apart from the United States, to apply sanctions against Russia,' Zelenskyy stated. 'If it's not the United States, there will be no real impact.' Ukrainian Pres. Zelenskyy told @MarthaRaddatz his country is ready for a ceasefire brokered by the Trump administration: "I am convinced that the president of the United States has all the powers and enough leverage to unite European leaders.' — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 8, 2025 Some Washington, DC Republicans agree with the Ukrainian President's calls to be tougher on Russia. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emeritus, Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told Fox News' Shannon Bream in a Sunday morning interview that he believes his House colleagues would support a bill by Senator Lindsey Graham to put extreme pressure on Russia. 'So, you have to put pressure. How do you do that? Secondary sanctions. Lindsey Graham has a bill. If he passes it tomorrow, we'll pass it in the House,' McCaul said. 'And secondly, keep the flow of weapons going into Ukraine to pressure Mr. Putin to act in good faith. I have little confidence in him,' McCaul added. Graham's bill would place a 500% tariff on any nation that purchases Russian oil, uranium, and petroleum products. The legislation presently has the support of a bipartisan group of 82 members of the United States Senate. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala) is one of the cosponsors of Graham's bill, but is at the same time no fan of Zelenskyy's. Tuberville told WABC 770 AM host John Catsimatidis in a Sunday morning interview that he views Zelenskyy as 'dictator'. 'He knows that if he had an election he'd get voted out … Back during World War II, we had elections. You can't stop your constitution just because there's a war going on.' 'That's when you really need to look into your constitution. Zelenskyy is a dictator, and he has created all sorts of problems,' Tuberville stated. 'We've got a lot of money that's been missing. No telling where it's gone … It's way out of control. But the Biden administration allowed it to happen. It really escalated the last couple of years.' 'My God! It would be like our Vietnam War. But it's probably three or four times worse than the Vietnam war, because we only lost 50,000. I think both of these [nations] have lost close to 500,000 to 700,000 people. It's devastating to the world,' Senator Tuberville added.
