You may have seen that the village of Piddington, in Oxfordshire, took a symbolic vote to cede from the UK. The vote was prompted by government plans to house 1000 asylum seekers at a converted Ministry of Defence site in the town of Bicester. Here, in no particular order, are some thoughts about that.
First, it is worth noting that Piddington has a Liberal Democrat MP. Whilst that doesn’t tell you everything, it does tell you something. Specifically, it tells you that these folks are quite happy with high migration levels (the Lib Dems are not exactly against it) when all the migration they benefit from does not affect them. Now that asylum seekers being housed in their area have been proposed, they are up in arms.
Second, it is deeply frustrating that when places like Oldham or Rochdale raise any concerns about mass immigration, the best they can hope for is that nobody cares. More likely, they will be barracked with hollers of racism. But when white middle-class villages in Oxfordshire suddenly face the prospect of living with the problems that come from immigration rather than farming those issues out elsewhere so they can enjoy the benefits migration brings without any of the mess, suddenly the whole country must sit up and take notice. It is entitlement on another scale and it is particularly irritating.
Third, the symbolic vote to cede from the UK is utterly stupid for a host of reasons. The only reason it garnered so much support is because everybody voting knew there was no realistic possibility of it actually happening. Which doesn’t actually tell you very much at all. It also doesn’t take a genius to see that it would be entirely unworkable if it was enacted. I would personally welcome the government accepting the result and turning off all national infrastructure to the village until they can work out a suitable remuneration. If they are not willing to receive asylum seekers near them but are happy to let others foot the bill, we should perhaps take the same position on all national infrastructure that they currently enjoy.
Fourth, this is symptomatic of a wider issue. What is being proposed is entirely fair. Some places, like Rochdale and Oldham, take a disproportionate number of asylum seekers. Other places have precisely none. What the government is proposing is a fairer dispersal system. Yet, people who have taken no asylum seekers ever before are suddenly up in arms that they might have to house any. Nobody is suggested all, or most, or even a vast number. But this happens a lot. People who have benefited from the status quo without anything asked of them are often very vocal when those carrying a much larger burden ask then to give up a small amount of that benefit. This is just the latest example of that.
Fifth, unless your position is that we should accept no asylum seekers, they must be housed somewhere. The cycle of HMOs being deemed to block up housing for indigenous people, hotels that are deemed extortionate and former public buildings being either too expensive to make habitable or being too near to places that have the ability to kick off continues on. Nobody wants asylum seekers near them, but if you accept any at all, you have to house them somewhere. Few are prepared to offer any constructive answers; most are just into nimbyism.
Sixth, addressing these issues defies simple answers. Some insist all are bogus, or mainly bogus, so we shouldn’t accept any at all. The problem here is that we do not know who is or isn’t bogus until we have heard their case and we cannot hear their case until they are here. Others suggest we should just welcome everyone come what may. But, again, we don’t know who is a genuine asylum seekers and who is just queue jumping economic migrant routes until we have heard a case, which involves them first being here. Some want us to setup routes whereby applications can be taken from home countries, which sounds excellent until that involves regimes that people are fleeing and who must be involved in such a system. We cannot expect people to sit tight while we process an application if imprisonment, torture or death await, and the ability to do so would suggest they are not in much need. Others say things like ‘just send them back to France [or, insert some other random country]’. But unless those countries want them (which they typically don’t) and unless we are global dictators able to enforce our will on the world (which we are not and shouldn’t be), ‘just send them to…’ doesn’t actually work and is nothing more than a worldwide version of the Piddington nimbyism currently on display. All of which is to say, anybody peddling simple and easy answers either do not understand the issues at play or are lying.
Seventh, it is painfully clear that some people are unwilling to name the specific issue they are concerned about. It is not racist to recognise that largely numbers of people from a foreign culture landing at the same time will bring issues to a local area nor to name what some of those issues are. It is racist, however, to simply be irrationally scared and prejudiced because people with different colour skin or speaking another language are near us. Few ever name what their problem actually is, which leads me to believe they know the reason is not kosher. Some who name an issue often cite being intimidated and scared by large numbers of foreign men. But other than their foreigness, it isn’t clear what they are intimidated by and if that is the only matter of intimidation, it is difficult to reckon that to be anything other than prejudice and racism.
I know this sounds like I’m playing devil’s advocate, but most migrants are Muslim men. Islam isn’t a race. So to question whether we’re going to be turned into an Islamic State is a legitimate concern I think.
What isn’t legitimate is to be afraid of Muslim male migrants. Many of them may have never heard the Gospel in their home countries. Instead of seeing them as a threat to crusade against, we can see them as an opportunity to proclaim the love of God for all who will repent and trust in Christ crucified on our behalf.
I love how pragmatic the Apostle Paul was. He didn’t pontificate about Roman politics and the threat of barbarians at the gates. Instead, he was ‘all things to all people’ and proclaimed the Gospel to all and sundry. I repent of the seduction of politics and resolve to know nothing except Christ and him crucified.
For a host of reasons, I think the supposed threat of Islamic takeover is wildly overblown (but that is another post for another day).
I share your view though, that whatever our politics, here are lost souls who need to know Jesus. I am not the home office and so I make no judgement on the legitimacy of their claim. I just share the gospel with those the Lord puts in front of me.
Given the concerns about the asylum seekers at Piddington. you note that “Some who name an issue often cite being intimidated and scared by large numbers of foreign men. But other than their foreignness, it isn’t clear what they are intimidated by and if that is the only matter of intimidation, it is difficult to reckon that to be anything other than prejudice and racism.”
Let’s illustrate a likely reason for feeling intimidated. Only recently Archbishop Sarah Mullally gave an award to the Muslim cleric Ashrafi. In the photographs there is a person, or should I say an unidentifiable anonymised non-person standing between the two, who is apparently Ashrafi’s wife.
The issue is not about ‘foreignness’ but a completely different culture, illustrated by the anonymising clothing worn by the lady. One might even speak of misogyny. I should think the citizens of Piddington are very aware of such cultural differences and the longer-term effect it might have on the identity of the area and even the country at large. They may not all express it in such specific terms, but the underlying issue of cultural identity is not difficult to discern.
While you recognise this at the start of your final paragraph, I think local awareness of serious cultural differences should be your focus, which might then qualify your concluding charge of prejudice and racism.
So, you are suggesting (as an exemplar) people are intimidated by women wearing face veils?
I’m not merely ‘suggesting’ as you put it; I’m being explicit. I mentioned the cultural background no less than four times. That background is not just about women wearing face veils but about the overall cultural-religious environment to which those veils belong.
I shall be even more explicit with a short but authoritative snippet from that environment. “Prosperous are believers who … guard their private parts, save from their wives and what their right hand owns.” Quran XXIII-5. This refers to polygamy and slave women, never mind the veils. (See also Q LXX-30) Intimidation? Draw your own conclusions, as I’m sure many women will.
However, it’s probably unnecessary for me to comment further. To adopt a famous proverb: “A picture speaks a thousand words,” which takes us back to the clothing worn by Ashrafi’s wife. Let’s keep her at the centre of our attention rather than leaving her in an anonymised and veiled background derived from a very different culture. Perhaps that’s at least partly what the Piddington ladies also had in mind, and rightly so.
I’m still entirely unclear why someone wearing a veil is necessarily intimidating to you. I live in an area replete with Muslim people, with many veiled women (though not all are veiled, of course – maybe not even most) and I am totally unclear what’s to be intimidated by. It does seem to be people who don’t live in areas like mine who seem the most afraid, which I’ve never really understood why.
Unless we are into enforcing blasphemy laws and cultural uniforms, I didn’t think we were typically on board with dictating what people must wear and what views they must hold.
I’m not dictating what people must wear to what views they should hold. That does still leave me free to criticise various views and the clothing that represents those views.
You make the point that you have never really understood why people are intimidated given the area you live in. Fortunately however, you live in a country significantly culturally shaped by Christianity. By contrast, many Christians live in countries dominated by Islam where they understand intimidation all too well.
However, I think this conversation is coming to an end. While we have significant disagreements, I have read your profile and appreciate that you are doing much good work.
So may God bless you in your work.
Henk