“Who could be against children joining their families?” Few
questions better capture the cruelty of the Conservative government’s approach
to child refugees than that posed by Labour peer Alf Dubs
this week.
Dubs was protesting against the government’s decision to scrap a commitment
from the Brexit withdrawal agreement that allows unaccompanied child refugees
to reunite with their families in Britain.
The House of Lords struck down the measure on Tuesday – only for the government to promptly overturn its changes. Dubs’ question pinpointed the confusing priorities of Boris Johnson’s hard-right government: why did it pick this fight?
ALSO READ: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/ofsted-chief-sir-michael-wilshaw-spitting-blood-over-row-with-michael-goves-education-department-9085969.html
The government’s position is riven with contradictions: it publicly supports protecting family reunification but argues that including the commitment within the Brexit withdrawal bill ties its hands in EU negotiations.
The government’s position is riven with contradictions: it publicly supports protecting family reunification but argues that including the commitment within the Brexit withdrawal bill ties its hands in EU negotiations.
How
can your hands be tied by something you’ve publicly supported? Vulnerable
children should not be made bargaining chips, but the row over child refugees
plays into a culture war that has proved a winning electoral formula for the
right.
Much
like right-wing politicians’ tirades against international aid,
which pit overseas donations against the needs of British pensioners waiting
for beds in hospital corridors, the debate around child refugees fortifies a
nativist narrative: (white) Britain comes first.
This
message is finding a growing audience among a population that has experienced
the economic hardships of austerity and absorbed its belt-tightening mantra.
The
populist right preys on this invented feeling of economic scarcity. While
debating the issue of unaccompanied child refugees recently on Sky News, my
fellow panellist, a Conservative supporter, argued the government’s priority
should be housing the many deprived British children and families living in
temporary accommodation.
It
was a perfect example of the racialised antagonism that pits groups against one
another. Having helped to plunge a fifth of
the population into poverty, the right now uses
Britain’s straitened circumstances as justification to attack progressives for
wanting to help refugee children.
This
deepens the divisive rhetoric of “us” and “them”; the latter category now
includes not just migrants or foreigners, but also people who are anxious to
defend them.
‘Minnesota elected the
first Somali-American, Ilhan Omar, to Congress.’ SCREEN GRAB: Photograph: |
Across
the world, progressives are consumed by the question of how to dismantle this
dog-whistle racism.
The
communications expert Anat Shenker-Osorio works on political messaging designed
to defeat far-right narratives. She has closely studied successful progressive
campaigns, from New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s 2017 victory
to Ireland’s 2018 referendum on abortion.
During
the 2018 US midterm elections, Shenker-Osorio worked with grassroots groups in
Minnesota that were attempting to counter Republican race-baiting and
immigrant-bashing.
They
found that messages focused only on economics weren’t cutting through. As JaNaé
Bates, communications director for the Isaiah coalition of faith communities
for racial and economic justice in Minnesota, has explained, some voters who
wanted free healthcare, education and childcare would add: “If my Somali
neighbour is going to get it [too], I don’t want it.”
Labour peer Alf Dubs speaks
at a protest to demand protection for the rights of refugee children in
Parliament Square, London, on Monday. |
Progressive
groups worked with Shenker-Osorio to develop a campaign message with an
inclusive narrative capable of persuading swing voters. It focused on a
relatable subject: long Minnesota winters.
A
campaign ad, which ran on radio and online, claimed that everyone knew how to
dig their neighbours out of the snow – regardless of whether they had lived in
Minnesota for one year or 50. The ad concluded with a rousing message that
called out the divisive rhetoric of opposition candidates:
“There
are lots of ways to be Minnesotan and all of them are greater than fear”. Minnesota,
previously a marginal Democrat state, wound up with resounding Democrat
victories for governor, attorney general and Senate races, taking control of
the state house and elected the first Somali-American, Ilhan Omar, to
Congress.
Its
story is a lesson for the challenges facing the UK left: how to build a more
inclusive version of the collective “us” and share ideas with progressive
movements in other countries – which is exactly how the populist right is
organising.
As
Shenker-Osorio says when we talk on the phone: “The right uses the same talking
points everywhere, all they do is run it through a localised spellcheck.”
The
alternative is to be dragged into a nativist narrative that incites division.
And that’s where everyone loses, from desperate families forced to use food
banks, to children living in camps far away from their families.
•
Rachel Shabi is the author of Not the Enemy: Israel’s Jews from Arab Land: (Link) - https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/child-refugees-have-become-pawns-in-a-rightwing-culture-war/ar-BBZjoxK?ocid=spartandhp
No comments:
Post a Comment