In a recent segment on Good Morning Britain, UK television presenter Narinder Kaur called for the replacement of England’s national flag.
Dismissing the historic Cross of Saint George as “outdated” and burdened with “too much negativity,” Kaur, who is of Indian heritage, argued that the flag fails to reflect the values of modern England.
“It’s not inclusive,” she claimed, insisting that a new design is needed to embody multiculturalism and tolerance.
According to Kaur, rising opposition to asylum seekers and refugees underscores the need for a national rebranding—one that, in her view, moves beyond the traditional symbol of English identity. The remarks, later circulated on social media, were met with widespread criticism—and for good reason.
'I am proud to be British'
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) April 25, 2023
'Let's get a new flag because that one is outdated.' @narindertweets@iamtomskinner has claimed that he’s 'proud' to be English after receiving criticism for his post on Twitter celebrating St George’s Day.
Are we ashamed to be English? pic.twitter.com/cn5RWRlFAX
By definition, a national flag is not “all-inclusive.” It represents a specific nation—and, inherently, distinguishes that nation from others.
Most nations are shaped by a predominant ethnic group that forms the core of their cultural identity. In England, it is the English—that is, the ethnic group, not just anyone who chooses to identify as “English.” In that sense, a national flag symbolises this foundational ethnic family, along with those who choose to align themselves with that family.
Waving one’s national flag is not an act of “racism”; it is an expression of identity and belonging.
As such, true division arises not from national pride, but from entering a foreign land, living among its people, and refusing to integrate and assimilate with the cultural and historical identity that defines them.
It is this kind of nation-undermining sentiment that we should all guard against. Nobody should be expected to tolerate those who undermine and despise them, their ancestors, and all that they built for their children.
Everyone has the right to protect and preserve their people, their land, and their nation—and to raise their flag without condemnation from those who enter their country yet characterize them as evil, reject their culture, refuse to assimilate with them, and shame them for honouring who they are and what their ancestors achieved.
If there is division within our nations, it is not caused by those who take pride in their people, place, and country, but by foreigners who enter those nations and yet refuse to identify with them. What are they here for if not to integrate with the people, the culture, the way of life, and the defining religion?
Would you tolerate someone moving into your home who refused to associate with your family, called your parents bad names, disliked how you managed your household, actively tried to change it, and branded you racist, intolerant and divisive for resisting? By definition, is that not divisive?
