Council leader Gary Porter believes that local residents will respond hospitably if refugees from Afghanistan settle in the area (The Voice, August 19). History suggests he is right; but only in the short term.
The current national tone of virtue-signalling self-congratulation on such points is painfully familiar. It was prominent – especially in the same tabloids – when Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein arrived in the 1990s, Kosovan refugees arrived in 1999, Syrian refugees arrived in 2015, and when refugees from the Taliban regime version 1.0 were arriving around 2000.
There was a swift turnaround in the noisiest segments of public opinion against “generosity” in all of these cases, a U-turn largely orchestrated by the tabloids.
The novelty of current circumstances can be exaggerated. Each of these groups, like the more recent Afghan refugees (and incidentally Poles who have arrived in the area since World War Two) have been Britain’s allies in conflicts around the world.
There are clues as to whose interest is really served by such hypocritical U-turns towards xenophobic meanness (like the recent cuts in overseas aid).
When a constituent highlighted the plight of Syrian refugees five years ago, one of Porter’s council and party colleagues responded suggesting he wasn’t interested because individuals might take advantage of the offer of a “safe haven”, thus articulating the form of nastiness which is the worst enemy of all humanitarianism.
It might be nice to dream that the powers that be have suddenly converted themselves and all their supporters into better people. Unfortunately, a dream is all this is.
G Kent
Spalding
