How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?

We have been forced to accept multiculturalism against our will

Question: How do we think about taking down controversial statues in the UK?
Position‹2 of 3›: How dare they tear down our statues
Argument‹8 of 9›: We have been forced to accept multiculturalism against our will

Britain is a white country. Multiculturalism has been given centre place in the national agenda against our will.

The argument

The tearing down of statues represent a changing of beliefs by the government. However, these beliefs, such as the larger integration of multiculturalism and immigration are not widely accepted by the British. 44 percent of British citizens had said they would prefer a decrease in immigration in 2019, while only 17 percent wanted more immigration. The influx of multicultural beliefs has come from the government of the United Kingdom, while the population has to accept these values with no say. This can be emphasized in the fact that in 2019, the European Parliament adopted a new resolution on the fundamental rights of people of African people in the European Union, the same year as the statistics above. British people, in general, have great pride in their colonial past. Which was historically very British in population and values.

Premises

[P1]Proponents argue that tearing down statues reflects a government-driven embrace of multiculturalism and immigration that most Britons did not choose—pointing to a 2019 figure that 44% wanted less immigration while only 17% wanted more. [P2] On this view such values, reinforced from above by bodies like the European Parliament, were imposed on a population that takes pride in its colonial and historically British heritage, with no say in the matter. [C] Therefore, because the public has been forced to accept multiculturalism against its will, the removal of these statues is resented—how dare they tear down our statues.

Counter-arguments

The idea that the British population, in general, is not accepting of the values imposed by removing the statues does not make sense, as this toppling of statues did not start with the government, but with large citizen protests across Britain.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The polling establishes a preference about immigration levels, not that anything was imposed. A 44%-to-17% split leaves a substantial middle, captures one moment, and sits within a survey trend in which the share wanting reductions had been falling for several years. Immigration policy across this period was set by elected governments, several of which campaigned on lowering it, so the premise's own evidence describes an unresolved democratic disagreement rather than a decision taken outside politics. [Rejecting P2] The European Parliament had no competence over member states' non-EU immigration policy or over domestic multiculturalism, so the body named cannot carry the imposition claim. The premise also treats "the population" as holding one heritage and one view, when the people said to have had no say include the British-born descendants of the migration described — and pride in British history is held by people on both sides of the statues question. [Rejecting C] The conclusion joins a grievance about immigration to the removal of particular monuments with no step in between. The statues at issue were contested for what the individuals commemorated did, and their removal followed public protest and, in most cases, votes by elected councils — which makes the episode an instance of the public having a say rather than an example of its absence.