Conservative/Reform politicians and the right wing media are in uproar. The BBC has engaged in a bit of censorship. They made a mistake, instead of putting up the usual liberal theologian for Thought for the Day and instead of that person testing listeners to a few harmless platitudes, they only went and got in an Evangelical, someone who actually believes in God and the Bible. Then, that Evangelical has the audacity to offer some straight talking and tell us what he was thinking. This caused some offence. So the BBC pulled the programme until they had the opportunity to erase the offending word.
So, you would expect Reform, the Conservatives and The Daily Telegraph to be up in arms against this censorship. After all, these are the people who have long argued for freedom of speech, even when it offends.
But no, that’s not what was exercising them. Rather, their problem was that the speaker, an unknown nobody has got above his station and said some mean things about the shadow justice secretary, that were all s bit woke.
Well, it’s worth noting that the point of Thought for the Day is the thought not the fame or status of the speaker. In fact back when radio had a greater reach, people became prominent by sharing the thought rather than being chosen because they were prominent. In any case, Krish Kandiah is hardly an unknown nobody in the context of church and religion. He has served with the Evangelical Alliance and prior to getting involved in refugee charity work set up Home For Good, a charity that has led the way in encouraging people to foster and adopt. Kandiah’s involvement with refugee work has played a significant role in encouraging responses to the Afghanistan and Ukraine challenges.
Now the thing that has caused offense is that Kandiah responded to comments that the shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick made about fear for his and others’ children from the risk that asylum seekers pose. Kandiah pointed out that we have a term for fear of the outsider “Xenophobia”.
Surely if a politician is free to give his opinion, then others are free to respond with theirs. You may disagree with Kandiah’s critique. You may legitimately point out that there is a risk of dismissing legitimate fears. There may be issues in terms of criminality among asylum seekers that need to be addressed. However, surely we need to have the conversation and that won’t happen through silencing either side of the debate.
This means too that we do need to listen to those articulating fears, even if we disagree with them. We don’t get far by dismissing thoughtful responses in support of asylum seekers as woke. Nor will we get very far by labelling anyone raising concerns as far right.
Kandiah is right to observe, just factually that fear of the foreigner is the literal definition of xenophobia. At the same time we need to recognise the genuineness of fear. Sometimes that fear is stoked up by those with malign agendas. Fear can also reflect our prejudices but the fear is real.
I write as someone who is pro free movement especially pro a generous approach to asylum seekers. This means though that I too have to listen and then respond carefully in making that case. I think in this situation it is simple. Fear of criminality amongst asylum seekers is a red herring in the debate. Yes, some asylum seekers will be prone towards serious criminality. The truth is that so too are many indigenous people. Closing the borders to those seeking to come in won’t make us safer from crime.
As a Christian I also want to push this further and insist that fear of the danger of evil from others distracts from what God’s Word tells me about my own heart disposition towards sin and need for a saviour..
Faithroots 