The other day I mentioned the Thought for the Day piece by Krish Kandiah that was pulled and then edited to exclude a reference to Xenophobia in criticism of remarks made by the shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick.
To date, apart from my own piece, I’m only aware of an article on Facebook by John Stevens, National Director of the FIEC raising concerns about how the BBC, Conservative Party and other media outlets have treated Kandiah. SINCE first published this article I’ve also seen a piece from CARE. The reality is that he has been censored. Not only that but the response has been a highly personal and co-ordinated attack in an attempt to belittle and discredit him. Yet the silence from Christians and free speech advocates has been deafening.
Stevens also references a previous occasion where an Evangelical Christian had made controversial comments in the slot. In that case, the opposition is more likely to have come from the political left and it would have been seen by those on the right as a free speech matter. Indeed, there are a number of issues especially around sexual ethics and beginning/end of life where if Kandiah had spoken strongly in response to politicians, faced a co-ordinated move to shut him down and been censored by the BBC that very quickly there would have been much public comment and protest from prominent Evangelical Christians. Yet on this matter, there is silence.
Even in response to John Stevens, a number of people commenting have been quicker to give their perspective on why Kandiah should not have said what he said and offered their wider assessments of him a lot of it highly personal. Some people don’t like the way Kandiah engages on social media. So what? We have all areas in our lives to be challenged on. Others think his politics are too left wing with one person complaining that he sounds like a Guardian leader writer. Well a fair few of my brothers read like an op ed for Spiked. We don’t get to pick and choose the politics or personalities of our brothers and sisters. Some people have been quick to insist that he somehow overstepped the mark, that he went beyond the remit of the slot and that he should have stuck to general comments without criticising a senior politician personally. One comment I saw suggested that this amounted to judging Jenrick and had “named and shamed him.”
This is rather nonsensical for two reasons. First, Jenrick has placed himself in the public eye. The language he has himself used in comments on the subject (incidentally going beyond his own remit as Shadow Justice Secretary, encroaching into the domain of the Shadow Home Secretary) is intended to put both him and the issue in the news. It is hardly “naming and shaming” to respond to public comments from a public figure. Secondly, one of the things that we would want to do is to distinguish the legitimate fears of ordinary people from the temptation for those in the public eye to stoke up such fears.
This is what Kandiah actually said:
““A front page story in the Mail on Sunday quoted shadow justice minister Robert Jenrick talking about his fears for his young daughters. He said: “I certainly don’t want my children to share a neighborhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally and about whom we know next to nothing.” These words echo a fear many have absorbed. Fear of the stranger. The technical name for this is xenophobia. All phobias are by definition irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact. It is understandable that many people are scared by the unknown, especially if they’ve been told illegality and unfairness are part of the story.”
It’s worth noting, first that this is not a personal attack, he doesn’t call Jenrick Xenophobic. He states that the words in the quote reflect “fear of a stranger” and states that the technical name for stranger fear is “xenophobia.” We may not like the word but, Kandiah is correct to observe that this is the technical term.
What of course people don’t like is the suggestion that there may be something irrational about their fears. They counter that
- There have been substantial numbers of asylum seekers crossing into the UK in recent years.
- Questions have been raised about the truthfulness and legitimacy of some of the claims.
- There have been reports of specific and horrific crimes committed by immigrants and asylum seekers.
Now, it is worth noting that the presence of facts and reasons within a fear does not take away from its overall irrationality. All phobias have some truth at the bottom of them. We can present good factual reasons as to why we might be afraid of the dark, heights, enclosed spaces, spiders and Billionaires bidding to take over our football clubs. However, we would still recognise the difference between spotting risks and being overwhelmed by total fear of something.
The question then is not whether or not there could be some concerns and worries relating to immigration and criminality. It is about whether it is rational to fear specifically because someone is a foreigner. A good test for this is to take Jenrick’s statement and remove reference to foreignness. What if he had said:
““I certainly don’t want my children to share a neighborhood with men t whom we know next to nothing.”
You see, the reality is that we do share our neighbourhoods with lots of people about whom we know next to nothing, such is the sad reality of modern life. And despite occasional attempts to introduce ID cards and increase forms of surveillance, that doesn’t look likely to change any time soon.
Hence the point Kandiah makes which is that there isn’t a greater danger from an asylum seeker. It’s worth noting that they are under greater surveillance and we may know more about them than is presumed. As Kandiah observes, in the vast majority of cases asylum seekers are found to be genuine.
There’s also a lot of misunderstanding about illegal immigration or illegal asylum seekers. There are lawful ways to enter the country, with leave to do so granted and recognised points of entry identified. The point being that they made an unlawful entry but that is not the same as being an illegal immigrant. Someone who has applied for asylum is here lawfully, not illegally.
Further, notice the way that Jenrick shifts the language up a gear. He does not merely talk about these people as illegal migrants or having entered the country unlawfully. He describes them as having “broke in to our country.” There may be legitimate concerns about mass immigration but Jenrick’s language here evokes sinister and violent behaviour and intent.
Now, I think it is reasonable to ask questions about criminality amongst asylum seekers and immigrants. I would hope that Jenrick would be considering those issues as part of his brief in the thoughtful, systematic manner that his party leader says that she is seeking to encourage. There are definitely things to consider.
What we know is that in terms of numbers, about 12% of the UK prison population is made up of foreign nationals, this will include but is not solely made up of asylum seekers. The majority are men. With women, the charges tended to be to do with fraud and false documentation suggestion that it relates to trafficking. It’s worth considering too that about 27% of the prison population are from ethnic minorities.
I have also seen slightly different figures via the CARe article. It reports from the Centre for Migration for control that Foreign Nationals are responsible for 16 percent of records crimes.
Those figures may seem high but consider that this does not mean that immigrants are more likely to be in prison. There are in fact 10 million (16.7% of the UK population) foreign born people living in the UK (43% with UK citizenship) so we may even consider the figures reasonably proportionate. The Centre for Migration Control figures suggest that 9 percent of the population are foreign nationals (different to being foreign born). However even under the figures quoted by CARE, especially allowing for reporting and processing issues that’s not statistically an example of massive over representation.
What we might also want to consider is why those people are in prison. There are some people currently pushing for us to link specific crimes to cultural norms in other cultures and religions. However, such claims don’t stand up to much scrutiny. The same attitudes and temptations are prevalent across cultures. We may want to pay attention to factors that might affect arrest, conviction and imprisonment rates within the criminal justice system. First that someone awaiting a leave to remain decision is going to be under greater scrutiny and more visible, so more likely to be apprehended. Secondly, consider factors such as access to good legal counsel and levels of English. It wouldn’t be surprising to see a higher probability of custodial sentences (although in fact I’m not sure that there is).
Now, there may be plenty of arguments against mass immigration. There may also be arguments in favour of tightening up the asylum process but fear of criminality is not one of those arguments. It is not a rational fear.
I want to come back to the starting point. I personally agree with Krish’s assessment but when it comes to freedom of speech, That shouldn’t matter. Further, our judgement over whether we stand with a brother should not be based on whether we like them personally or whether we share their politics. If it does then it will leave people wondering whether the principle of free speech is our priority.
Faithroots 