The Home Secretary’s attempt to dehumanise people for simply seeking a haven is condemned in the Humanist Opinion Column piece Barking and Dagenham Post 17.1.22
It is deeply worrying that Home Secretary Braverman used the words ‘invasion’ and ‘scourge’ when talking about desperate and vulnerable human beings in a recent speech to the House of Commons. It is reminiscent of truly despotic regimes. History tells us that denigrating and unfairly blaming problems on minorities often ends badly.
‘Invasion’ describes what the Russians are doing in Ukraine. And ‘scourge’ is used to describe pestilence, like plague or rats. But it’s a slippery slope when a government minister uses demeaning language to characterise individuals simply seeking a haven. We must never forget how Nazis referred to Jews as rats. and Hutus called Tutsis cockroaches during the Rwanda genocide.
Of course, Braverman didn’t use the word ‘rats.’ There is more subtlety in these days of ‘dog whistle’ and ‘fig leaf’ politics. Articulate politicians are now adept at crafting coded messages to whip up their base, and generally avoid directly transgressing the norms of decent language.
But Braverman’s words appear carefully chosen to try to divert blame for failed Government policies by stoking animosity towards hapless migrants. They are all generally victims in their own way, whether it be of war, the climate crisis, persecution, or disadvantage in a world of increasing wealth disparity.
Language which casts people as less than human can be a smokescreen to excuse inhumane treatment. We hear, for example, of children reduced to sleeping on mats on the floor in crowded insanitary conditions in Kent for weeks following their traumatic journeys. This is unacceptable in a country that calls itself civilised. It is entirely avoidable, and a dereliction of the Home Office’s legal, and moral, duty of care.
In one infamous comment Braverman talked about ‘dreaming’ of the first planeload of migrants being sent to Rwanda. The Rwanda policy has been condemned by leading faith groups, and Humanists UK, as cruel. It has so far proved an expensive failure. But even in the unlikely event it ‘succeeds,’ what sort of mindset describes with relish a process that will bring further heartache and anxiety to individuals forcibly detained and transported?
Migration presents challenging issues. But our response should be rooted in compassion, reason and appreciation that all human life is valuable and deserving of respect, not the language of fear and loathing.
Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists.
17.11.22
