When anti-asylum demonstrations have so much support from the mainstream, a smarter, more tailored message is needed, says campaigner and barrister David Renton
There’s no magic slogan that will make the fascists go away in shame, and calling them names is never a substitute for saying something more substantial. But if they’re fascists, call them fascists.
I think you (we, people in general) need to do better than that.
Being racist isn’t the same as being fascist. I don’t see how you can impute fascist values in people who turn up to protest asylum seekers being housed in hotels, because where are you getting a read on their attitudes to the role of the police, military and liberty?
When people say that they’re protesting asylum seekers because they represent a danger, that is based on a xenophobic or racist understanding of crime. But firstly, it’s necessary to say that, because to someone who does actually believe that asylum seekers are more likely to commit crime, just replying with “that’s racist” (or worse, “you’re a fascist”) is a non-sequitur.
It’d be like if you said that immigrants contribute positively to society compared to the native population, and someone saying you “hate British people.” Obviously you don’t hate British people; you’re merely talking about a way in which (you believe) the immigrant population is “better” on average than British people (and no doubt you could explain the boring demographic reasons for this). This doesn’t actually change if, in fact, the statistics you’d read about immigrants and the economy were wrong! So put yourself in the shoes of someone protesting asylum seekers; you have this belief which, in your opinion, warrants protesting their presence. These beliefs are amplified by sources that are respected in your circles like the papers. Then someone calls you racist. Do you use this as an opportunity re-examine yourself, or do you reject what they’re saying because they never engaged with your actual beliefs?
Or from another angle: it’s not racist to think that different populations have different, specific likelihoods of, for example, being in work, doing well in education, or committing crimes. If a press captured by racists and the right wing amplifies stories about a certain population committing crimes, people are likely to believe that that population does so disproportionately, without ever harbouring an actual hatred of that population.
If your main message to them is that this is racist, that message will fall on deaf ears, because it’s not attacking the source of their beliefs.
There’s no magic slogan that will make the fascists go away in shame, and calling them names is never a substitute for saying something more substantial. But if they’re fascists, call them fascists.
I think you (we, people in general) need to do better than that.
It’d be like if you said that immigrants contribute positively to society compared to the native population, and someone saying you “hate British people.” Obviously you don’t hate British people; you’re merely talking about a way in which (you believe) the immigrant population is “better” on average than British people (and no doubt you could explain the boring demographic reasons for this). This doesn’t actually change if, in fact, the statistics you’d read about immigrants and the economy were wrong! So put yourself in the shoes of someone protesting asylum seekers; you have this belief which, in your opinion, warrants protesting their presence. These beliefs are amplified by sources that are respected in your circles like the papers. Then someone calls you racist. Do you use this as an opportunity re-examine yourself, or do you reject what they’re saying because they never engaged with your actual beliefs?
Or from another angle: it’s not racist to think that different populations have different, specific likelihoods of, for example, being in work, doing well in education, or committing crimes. If a press captured by racists and the right wing amplifies stories about a certain population committing crimes, people are likely to believe that that population does so disproportionately, without ever harbouring an actual hatred of that population.
If your main message to them is that this is racist, that message will fall on deaf ears, because it’s not attacking the source of their beliefs.