Reform councillor says small boats migrants are from ‘unenlightened cultures'
On Thursday, Kent County Council (KCC) was set to unveil its 'first big savings' at Sessions House in Maidstone since becoming a Reform-led authority.
KCC leader Linden Kemkaran was answering questions about violence against women, when she launched into long answer about 'hordes' of men on small boats.
She said: 'It goes without saying that of course I am totally in favour of preventing violence against women and girls wherever possible.
'However there are two rather large elephants in the room and it would be remiss of me not to refer to them in answering my friend's question.
'With alarming regularity here in Kent, hundreds if not thousands of undocumented young males invade our county via small boats across the channel.'
Ms Kemkaran went on to point out research from the Centre for Migration Control, a right-wing think tank, had suggested male migrants were more than three times more likely to commit sexual offences than 'their British born counterparts'.
She continued: 'I would suggest that until the Government finds its backbone and comes up with a plan to deter these hordes of men, from deeply misogynistic and dare I say unenlightened cultures, from invading our county women and girls in Kent will continue to be in grave danger of violence and sexual abuse.'
Green party councillor Stuart Green, who had asked the initial question, said he had 'hundreds' of follow-up questions he wanted to ask, to laughter from the opposition seats.
In 2019 while running to be a Conservative MP, Ms Kemkaran found herself in the media when she reposted a social media comment saying Muslims had 'third world ways'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Illegal migrant who broke free with help of anti-ICE activists caught while wearing $1,700 Louis Vuitton t-shirt
An illegal migrant who broke free from a Los Angeles detention facility with help of anti-ICE activists was caught — while apparently wearing a $1,700 Louis Vuitton t-shirt. Anti-ICE activists helped British national Ahmed Mohamed escape as he was being transferred to a detention center in downtown Los Angeles last Tuesday, The Post previously reported. Mohamed, who has a rap sheet including charges of narcotics and weapons possession, was shackled as contract guards lined him up with several other detainees before walking them into the ICE detention center for processing. Advertisement Ahmed Mohamed escaped with the help of anti-ICE activists. ICE A masked man was seen helping Mohamed escape when the guards weren't looking, Homeland Security sources said. The migrant was then loaded into a waiting van with the help of the protestors. On Friday, ICE agents in San Diego 'swiftly apprehended' the escape artist at an undisclosed location, the agency said in an Instagram post showing the cuffed migrant wearing the designer shirt. Advertisement 'You can run from the law but you cannot hide,' the post read. The illegal migrant was caught wearing a $1,700 Louis Vuitton t-shirt. Louis Vuitton He is now charged with escaping from confinement. The detention facility was at the center of anti-ICE riots that broke out in June, when rioters hurled concrete blocks at the feds and shut down major highways in an attempt to stop President Trump's mass deportation raids. Advertisement Trump later deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the City of Angels to control the chaos. California's lefty Gov. Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration over the deployment, arguing that they exceeded his authority and ignored the 10th Amendment by calling up the Guard under a federal law intended to address an 'invasion' or 'rebellion.'
Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
Gov. Greg Abbott's options to force a redistricting vote are more limited than they appear
'Come and take it,' dared state Rep. Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic Caucus leader, in an appearance Monday morning on CNN. Wu declared Abbott's threat to be 'all bluster.' The governor's threat is rooted in a nonbinding legal opinion issued in 2021 by Attorney General Ken Paxton, amid the last attempt by Democrats to break quorum. Paxton, notably, took no position on whether breaking quorum is constitutional. The republican AG also declined to say whether fleeing Democrats could or should be removed from office. Rather, he called it a 'fact question for a court' that he said was beyond the scope of his office to decide. He noted instead that he could file what are known as 'quo warranto actions' in court, asking a judge to determine whether the missing lawmakers had officially vacated their seats. How would a judge make that call? Paxton said he wasn't certain. 'We find no constitutional provision or statute establishing an exhaustive list for why a vacancy occurs or the grounds under which an officer may be judicially removed from office,' he wrote. How long could it take Abbott to force the Legislature back into session? This is the most uncertain aspect of Abbott's gambit. Paxton's office would need to file 'quo warranto' actions in various judicial districts for more than 50 fleeing lawmakers. Judges may take up these cases on different timelines and reach different conclusions, requiring appeals that could wind their way to the Texas Supreme Court. Paxton acknowledged in an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that the timeline would be problematic. 'The challenge is that [it] wouldn't necessarily be an immediate answer, right?' he said. 'We'd have to go through the court process, and we'd have to file … in districts that are not friendly to Republicans,' Paxton said. 'So it's a challenge because every, every district would be different. We'd have to go sue in every legislator's home district to try to execute on that idea.' And even if Abbott and Paxton win a clean sweep in removing the Democrats from office, it would then require a time-intensive process of calling special elections to fill the vacancies — and guaranteeing that the winners of those elections also remain in the state as well. That timing matters when the GOP-led redistricting plan is on a fixed timeline: A new map must be adopted by early December in order to be in place for the 2026 midterm cycle. That would require Democrats to remain out of state for about four months while they accumulate $500-per-day civil fines. The current special Legislative session is slated to end on Aug. 19, but Abbott could call another one. Could the Democrats be charged with crimes? Abbott's letter, though sharply critical, stopped short of actually accusing Democrats of breaking the law. Rather, he suggested that if outsiders are helping them fundraise to cover their fines, they might run afoul of bribery laws. 'It would be bribery if any lawmaker took money to perform or to refuse to perform an act in the legislature,' Abbott said in a Fox News interview Monday. 'And the reports are these legislators have both sought money and offered money to skip the vote, to leave the legislature, to take a legislative act.' If Texas prosecutors in fact level any such charges, then Abbott's authority to return them grows stronger. He could then ask courts in Texas and Illinois to seek the return of the missing lawmakers. 'I will use my full extradition authority to demand the return to Texas of any potential out-of-state felons,' he said in his Sunday statement. Liz Crampton contributed reporting.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
WASHINGTON - U.S. appeals court judges sharply questioned on July 31 whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on July 31. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." During the July 31 arguments, Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other U.S. laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: US court to review Trump's power to impose tariffs
