The Gryphon: Freshers Guide 20/21

Page 10

10

|

Features | 13 thegryphon.co.uk

Views

Voyeurism and the fantasy ‘migrant crisis’ Ruby Wait-Weguelin

people smugglers, a narrative adopted to move blame from the hard borders that forced Hamdallah into a dingy, which only further encourage the human trafficking business. The migrant safari we enjoyed from the comfort of our own sofas last month perfectly represents Britain’s self-avowed existential crisis. According to the mainstream media and our Government, it is the 4000 undocumented migrants arriving in dinghies that

Image: Wikipedia

The cyclical nature of migrant moral panic has once again reared its ugly head - this time the script was seemingly straight out of Black Mirror season 6. In their coverage of events, BBC and Sky News provided us with live voyeuristic commentary on the desperate journey of refugees, enlightening the public of their plight by shouting ‘are you okay?’ with an added thumbs up. This failure to provide any context as to why these people are risking their lives in the most dangerous route into the UK was accompanied by Nigel Farage’s video campaign of a fantasy ‘invasion’. The consequences of encouraging common misconceptions surrounding migration and validating xenophobic discourses were shown in the recent YouGov poll, which recorded 49% of respondants having ‘little’ or ‘no sympathy’ towards those crossing the Channel. Migrant crisis? To me, it looks more like an empathy crisis. Prevailing misconceptions regarding migrants’ rights were articulated most effectively by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s description, claiming Channel crossings are “very bad and stupid and dangerous and criminal”. In this case, Johnson is wrong on 3 counts. In reality, seeking asylum is not illegal, and neither is choosing the country in which you wish to stay. The lack of safe and legal routes into the UK forces desperate people to make this journey the PM claims to be “stupid”, especially due to the COVID-19 travel restrictions in place. There has been no travel on humanitarian grounds during the pandemic, and a reduction in the number of lorries crossing the Channel, resulting in the rise of small boat rides. Rather than providing this necessary context, BBC and Sky News presented dehumanising footage of vulnerable migrants and asylum seekers on their perilous journey. By toeing the line of the Government’s stance on immigration, the mainstream media are eroding the public’s ability to form an educated perspective on migration. The fabrication of this crisis has particular significance when used as a scapegoat for the highest Coronavirus death toll in Europe and the United Kingdom’s largest recession on record. Who is the real threat, a dingy load of immigrants or our own representatives? This toxic narrative of a ‘migrant crisis’ has been inherent in tabloid media for decades now, legitimised by the policies of New Labour and reinforced by Farage’s ability to spread his language of hatred through social media. Both Farage and Natalie Elphicke - the MP for Dover - have recently posted videos denouncing refugees, encouraging the Government to announce further militarization of migrant policy. This attempt to make the Channel crossing “unviable” proved depressingly successful following the death of Abdulfatah Hamdallah, who was fleeing war-torn Sudan, and was found drowned on a beach near Calais. Priti Patel was quick to condemn

pose the largest threat to British civilisation in 2020. It seems as though the United Kingdom’s media culture is struggling to separate facts from popular sentiment. Alternatively, a push for safe and legal routes, stronger resettlement programmes and humanitarian visas starts with more accurate representation of asylum seekers and migrants in the media. Throughout this often callous debate, I believe it is particularly powerful to remember Warsan Shire’s poem ‘Home’, there to remind us that

“No one puts their children in a boat / unless the water is safer than the land”.

Kamala Harris as VP: A step in the wrong direction? Ishmael Silvestro History was made by Joe Biden last month when he selected Californian senator Kamala Harris to be his running mate – the first-ever female person of colour to be selected for the ticket. In many respects, this serves as a landmark moment for US politics, potentially allowing Harris – who is of mixed Jamaican and Indian descent – to help usher in a much- needed movement of increased diversity and representation within the political sphere. There is no denying that representation is important, both within the Democratic Party itself and in relation to the voting public as a whole. Harris’ selection shows that the Democratic Party believes she can play a powerful role in the future of the party and provides her with a platform to help disprove the misconception that it is only white men who are palatable to the average American voter. Whilst all of this holds true, it does not necessarily mean that the Democrats’ attitude towards progressivism is anything more than merely symbolic. In the current age of identity politics and the prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement, it could be said that the Democratic Party establishment are simply jumping on social trends to try to increase the appeal of Joe Biden as a presidential candidate. This seems especially true given his poor track record on criminal justice reform, historic “tough on crime” stance, and support of policies that helped worsen deep structural inequalities within the US justice system. Harris’ past career is similarly problematic. Despite currently advertising herself as a

criminal justice reformer, certain choices she made when she acted as district attorney of San Francisco and California’s attorney show Harris has often done the opposite. She frequently failed to act upon cases of black individuals killed at the hands of the police, dismissing cases of appeal from innocent civilians wrongfully convicted, and actively working to decrease the release of prisoners across California, despite levels of overcrowding in prisons being so severe that the US Supreme Court declared them as a form of “cruel and unusual punishment”. Harris’ selection is being presented by the Democrats as a bold move that will help reform US politics, but her track record suggests this will be anything but the case. The prospect of Harris being Vice President, although groundbreaking in some ways, is nowhere near the step in the right direction that it appears to be. Biden’s presidential run seems hauntingly similar to Hillary Clinton’s lukewarm attempt in 2016, and Harris’ selection as running mate looks too much like a surface gesture aimed to increase support for a candidate for whom enthusiasm is lacking amongst the electorate. In truth, painting Harris’ selection as a win for women and POCs is a distraction from the reality of the situation – a perpetuation of the neoliberal policies favoured by the Democrats that will inevitably leave marginalised communities much worse off. The choice of Harris as a potential Vice President is a hollow attempt by the Democratic Party to come across as radical and progressive, despite blatantly being neither.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.