Is it just my imagination or is this election campaign passing most people by in a fog of irrelevance? I know the media are fired up to cover every angle possible (but, for pity’s sake, WHY has the Guardian stooped to rating the clothing style of the party leaders’ wives? ), but I get the impression that outside of the chattering classes there isn’t a lot of interest.
Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising. After the rubbishing of and by politicians in the wake of the expenses furore, the pat response to any mention of politicians seems to be, ‘well, they’re all liars, innit’. Arcane arguments about who supports or rejects National Insurance increases from 2011 shed little light on how a new government might behave in the round. The knockabout stuff between the main parties – accompanied by the hectoring posturing of the leaders – is very theatrical, but doesn’t tell us a great deal more than who can play the game best. They all appear to be arguing over the best way to bury a corpse.
Don’t you just long for someone to speak with vision? I was listening to Bruce Springsteen’s Working on a Dream yesterday and wishing he’d called it Desperate for a Dream instead. An Old Testament prophet claimed that ‘without a vision people perish’ – and never was a truer word spoken. But it is hard to detect a vision in this election that inspires the heart and mind. I’m not looking for a better financial deal for ‘me’, but a better way for our society to be shaped and nurtured. Calling it ‘broken’ in every sentence really doesn’t take us any further.
However, one campaign is full of light and vision and – will wonders ever cease - has the merit of being achievable. It is the Citizens campaign to turn the sterile ‘immigration’ rhetoric into something more humane by changing the language we use. This campaign aims to get politicians of all shades to sign a pledge which calls for an end to the language of ‘asylum’ in favour of the word ‘sanctuary’ and an end to child detention in the UK.
‘Sanctuary’ gets us away from subliminal notions of locking people away (because they are strange) and returns to them their humanity. This is not about immigration control or the debate about how to limit the number of illegal immigrants to the UK; but, it is about focusing on the experience of many people who come to this country – with its noble history of providing sanctuary to those forced to flee their homeland because of violence, torture, fear or oppression.
The centre for processing immigrants and (what have so far been called) ‘asylum seekers’ is Croydon. I have yet to meet anyone of the Daily Mail persuasion who has actually met and listened to the stories of genuine sanctuary-seekers. In the churches of my Episcopal Area we cannot avoid this experience. My clergy deal every day with real people with real stories and real fears. Some of those stories make you weep with shame. Yes, there are people who play the system, but their victims should not be the genuine seekers whose lives have been appallingly destroyed and yet who show immense courage and dignity in the face of the coldness or hostility they face.
The Sanctuary Pledge deserves to succceed. It isn’t party-political in any sense. It avoids pointing fingers and making accusations. But, based on real relationships and real knowledge (instead of sloganising based on ignorance or mere statistical game-playing), it aims to restore some dignity and humanity to the public discourse on matters of life and death.
April 11, 2010 at 6:03 pm
“Arcane arguments about who supports or rejects National Insurance increases from 2011 . . . ” suggest that Tories have rejected a rise in NI Conts for 2011.
Not so. They advocated a 1/2% rise while Darling intends a 1% increase.
You may regard the arguments re this as arcane, but the facts are as above, and the ToryBBC, for one, regularly misrepresents the Tory proposal as being no rise whatsoever.
Media propaganda re immigration has already gone way beyond dissemblance. The foreign owners and expat non doms and etc in whose interests most of the media follow will tweak the issues and facts until the violence which some politicians now threaten us with actually occurs imho. Pray.
April 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I would suggest that you are right with the media coverage of the election passing many people by outside of the chattering classes. The big thing for me is that we seem to be in a position where the policies of the parties represented have converged too much. The electorate is being offered more of the same to more or less of a degree. All the main parties seem to be agreed on the major issues. Not a healthy position for a so called democracy to be in.
April 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm
“asylum seekers” was already a euphemism for “refugees”. The problem is the xenophobia, not the terminology.
April 11, 2010 at 7:03 pm
David Gerard, fair comment. But language influences xenophobia, so it isn’t unimportant.
April 12, 2010 at 7:18 am
Thank you for this.
On “terminology” a person is an asylum seeker initially and then when their case has been considered they are then, hopefully, granted “refugee” status. The extremely sad thing is that achieving this status takes so long and is so stressful for all concerned, including those of us who visit and support those who are going through the “system”.
April 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm
The Daily Mail will rant about ‘bogus sanctuary seekers’ instead of ‘bogus asylum seekers’.
My local supermarket recently started to call its staff ‘colleagues’. I doubt they got a pay rise, and I doubt they are stupid.
Changing the language does not change the facts. There is only one way to solve the “refugee problem”, that is to spend more resources on it. Imprisoning any innocent person is dreadful, whatever their age.
It would be interesting to know how the clergy of Croydon feel about the non-genuine sanctuary-seekers.
KK
April 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I Think though this campaign very well intentioned i cannot help but agree with David Gerard that it is indeed moor a case of Xenophobia and while the language we use may have some impact i believe the root of xenophobia is nearly always about fear, and the fear i see today in England has everything two do wiht total despair and lack of hope and vision in the future as mentioned in todays blogg this point was very well raised and i think is central tow everything and has two be at last addressed by leaders if society is ever going two change in its understanding and compassion towards the rest of life
April 12, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Isn’t the real problem that none of the parties has any principles or stands for anything. The Tories seem to say you can’t trust the other lot (true!) so elect us (hmm!) labour say we screwed it up last time 9true) but trust us we will do better next time and will promise all the things we promised last time and didn’t do (really!)The Libdems don’t seem to say anything much.
I’m not really interested in promises about NI rates or asylum seekers, once they are elected they will find it isn’t as they expected and will go back on them anyway.
What I want to know is who has a vision for making Britain a good and ethical country and how do they propose to do it. Where there is no vision the people perish, somebody once said.
April 12, 2010 at 6:47 pm
c2drl says: ‘The Libdems don’t seem to say anything much.’
That does surprise me. I suppose it does depend on which paper one reads as I suspect certain papers are so politically biased that there is over reporting/or commenting about 2 parties and under reporting about the Lib Dems and other parties.
I am not a member of any party and since becoming an elector (1948 my 1st General Election) have voted for candidates of 6 different parties – if Independent counts as a party!
I am all for Bishop Nick’s feeling for the restoration of some dignity and humanity to the public discourse.
April 13, 2010 at 1:27 pm
I think that the way UK & world politics is going is alienating more and more people from wanting to get involved or even care about voting. It reminds me God’s words to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon in a vision – “The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.” Shortly after this God turns him into a wild animal for 7 years so that he would acknowledge that it was God that had put him in charge.
If our next PM acknowledges that he’s only there because God put him there then maybe he will do his job with a bit more humility and do some good. We all know that’s not going to happen though is it…
April 14, 2010 at 5:48 am
Shortly after this God turns him into a wild animal for 7 years so that he would acknowledge that it was God that had put him in charge.
Well, it explains at least 7 years of Blair’s behaviour…
(sorry, couldn’t quite resist)
April 14, 2010 at 7:08 am
“Don’t you just long for someone to speak with vision?” Well, you could take a look at our local candidate MP, one Rory Stewart. He is a Conservative candidate who believes we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan.
April 14, 2010 at 10:22 am
One can only applaud the efforts of those who want to engender harmony amongst those seeking refuge and those offering it and those having to live with refugees regardless of their opinions. But for us all to understand that in a very short time we are likely to be submerged under a wave of climate refugees would seem to be beyond most peoples’ ken. Something more than well-meaning messages of non-discrimination are needed. If a country has insufficient water, it cannot be aided back to reasonable food production and its people cannot in all humanity be repatriated. If we’re not all to be reduced to panic stricken food grabbing, surely a global plan of migration and settlement is needed? Any politicians up for that I wonder?
April 15, 2010 at 8:36 am
I applaud your attempt to bring a sense of responsibility to our neighbour both in our attitude to those seeking help from our country and in our politician’s attitude to them.
Would it be possible to quote you in our weekly Church news letter.
April 15, 2010 at 8:51 am
Norman, yes.
April 20, 2010 at 10:18 am
Re terminology:
Q: If you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs has it got?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.