Nigel Farage's description of migrants as "a threat oi our national security [and] our women and children," and his plans to deport "absolutely everyone" arriving by small boats, has received a tepid response from Britain’s political establishment and media.
The Conservatives merely complain that the plans are stolen from the. Labour concentrates on their impracticality.
No-one expresses outrage that this is absolutely the wrong tone to take and the wrong thing to do.
Last month Pope Leo reminded us that:“In a world darkened by war and injustice, even when all seems lost [migrants'] courage and tenacity bear heroic testimony to a faith that sees beyond what our eyes can see and gives them the strength to defy death on the various contemporary migration routes”.
And, not only that: " [C]ommunities that welcome migrants and refugees can also be “a living witness to hope” as they show “the promise of a present and a future where the dignity of all as children of God is recognised”.
So where are our leaders with the courage to make the point?
The Conservatives are beyond the pale..
Sir Keir Starmer should be in a strong position as a former Human Rights lawyer but seems to prefer to keep quiet. (He should be emboldened by a Radio 4 programme being broadcast this week which refers to the free services he gave in the MacLibel trial, which mean that we have evidence his heart is in the right place.)
Sir Ed Davey hasn't done too badly with : "Nigel Farage pretending to be patriotic while pledging to rip up Britain’s proud record of leading the world on human rights," (but possibly a bit of hyperbole there.)
Laura Smith, a representative of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, with :" We are hearing proposals that would tear through centuries of British legal tradition - from Magna Carta to the Human rights Act - with barely any resistance from those who should be defending those values." seems more concerned with Britain’s reputation than the plight of the poor creatures shivering in squalid conditions in such as the Marston Detention Centre.
Absolutely no one is saying, loudly and clearly: "This is wrong! Farage's proposals are not how we should treat people. They are fellow human beings - men and women like us ("Humanity is single" as lawyer Sir Geoffrey Knight explained on the BBC.) We share one planet. We treat each-other as we could wish to be treated ourselves. Those fleeing danger deserve our compassion. Those seeking a better life should be applauded, as we would applaud such endeavours in ourselves and our children.".
Unless our leaders shout this out proudly we are on the road to a repeat of the Brexit error of nine years ago. Then the case for reason and optimism was lost becasue for decades our leaders had failed to speak out enthusiastically in favour of the European Union. Rather they had blamed it, usually without much justification, for any minor inconvenience for which they'd rather shift the blame from themselves.
We are in grave danger of making a similar mistake again, leaving the field open for the purveyors of lies, distortions and chauvinistic bombast.
So politicians, influencers, religious leaders, humanists, philosophers and academics, men and women who hold values of decency and compassion and know how to change a tyre, speak out now , before it's too late.
"Humanity is single" as lawyer Sir Geoffrey Knight explained on the BBC.
ReplyDeleteI think this is the crux of the matter.
No, humanity is not single.
Humanity is concentric, overlapping circles.
There’s me, my family, my family in Christ, my nation.
And there’s you, your family, your nation.
Humanity is not just one undifferentiated mass. It is a web of circles of interlocking duties and obligations,
I have greater obligations to, say, my parents, than I have to a random stranger.
I have greater obligations to my children than to someone else’s child.
I have greater obligations to a fellow-countryman than a foreigner.
Which is not to say I have no obligations to a foreigner — ‘who is my neighbour?’, as the man asked Jesus — but there are proper levels and orders of obligations.
Agreed there are different levels of obligations. Knight was speaking in the context of human rights and I assume it is in that are that "humanity is single."
ReplyDeleteKnight was speaking in the context of human rights and I assume it is in that are that "humanity is single."
ReplyDeleteWhich if you are speaking in terms of simple rights is fine, but if you’re talking about migrants then you’re talking about obligations, not rights. A ‘right’ is a moral injunction on someone else not to stop you from doing something or interfere with you. The ‘right to life’, for example, simply means that I cannot kill you. If you say that in addition to that I have to try to keep you alive, that’s not a right, that’s an obligation you’re putting on me.
Similarly the ‘right not to be tortured’ just means I can’t torture you. It doesn’t mean that if someone else is or wants to torture you I have to step in to protect you. That’s not a right you have, that’s an obligation on me.
So, when it comes to migrants, no migrant has a right to come and live in our country. If you say that we have a moral obligation to let some migrants in — those who would be in danger of being killed in their home countries, for example — then that’s fine, but that’s not a right the migrants have, it’s an obligation you’re placing on us.
And so as you agree that obligations are not single, then we can talk about the circumstances and limits to that obligation.
Right?
I don't find it particularly profitable to quibble over whether migrants and asylum seekers have a right to be treated well, or whether we are simply obliged to treat them well. Rather we should take action, and do it anyway, as they are "normal people" as Rowan Williams argues in today's Guardian, which I urge you to read.
DeleteI don't find it particularly profitable to quibble over whether migrants and asylum seekers have a right to be treated well, or whether we are simply obliged to treat them well.
DeleteOf course we are obliged to 'treat them well'. We are obliged to treat everyone well. I have never disagreed with that.
The question is what 'well' means. 'Well' cannot mean we are obliged to allow everyone in the world who wants to live in our country, for any reason, to move here. It simply can't: that isn't practically possible. And there's no point in living in a fantasy world where just saying 'be kind' and 'treat them well' would make it possible.
So 'treat them well' clearly has limits. there are limits to what 'treating them well' obliges us to do, and those limits vary with the different levels of obligations that you have already agreed exist.
So do you at least accept that such limits exist? Because if you do then we can start to talk about where those limits are, and that might b a fruitful discussion.
But if you don't then you are living in a fantasy world and I'm afraid you just have to be ignored by those of us who are trying to work out answers to these big questions that will work in the real world.
which I urge you to read
DeleteRead it. It seems fundamentally misconceived. For a start:
'The horrors of Southport last year, which had nothing to do with the immigration system'
This is simply wrong. The young man who committed those murders in Southport was only in the country because his parents were accepted by the immigration system. If it hadn't been for the mmigration system accepting his parents, then he would not ave been in the country and those children would be alive today. Therefore the horrors of Southport had everything to do with the immigration system.
But that's a side-note. The most important point is that Williams keeps insisting that the migrants are 'ordinary people'. But no one has suggested they aren't! The issue that people have with the migrants is not with their 'ordinariness' or lack of it, but with their location!
Nobody questions whether they are 'ordinary people'. Of course they are ordinary people. The issue is that they are ordinary people who are in this country when, at least according to some people, they should be ordinary people who re being ordinary somewhere else!
So the Williams article totally missed the point. Nobody claims the migrants aren't 'ordinary people'. The question at issue is not are the ordinary, but should they be here? Or should they instead be somewhere else?
To understand "well" read the Williams article.
DeleteTo understand "well" read the Williams article.
DeleteI re-read the article but I cannot see a definition of ‘well’ in it. Perhaps you could explain briefly in your own words what I missed?
(One thing ‘well’ cannot mean is ‘the exact same as if they were natives’, because they are not natives, they are foreigners, and as you already agreed above there are different levels of obligation so our obligations to foreigners are different to our obligations to natives).
Treat them as "ordinary:" PLU I think was the contraction Mrs Thatcher used (though in a different context.) A friend suggests we look also at the John Donne meditation XVII (the "For whom the bell tolls" one.
DeleteThat’s not an explanation. Can we at least agree that ‘treating them as ordinary’ does not mean that we have an obligation to let them live in our country?
DeleteAfter all I am an ordinary person and you don’t have an obligation to let me live in your home.
So would you agree that therefore we have no obligation to let these foreigners live in our country; we should treat them well while they are here and then send them home?