England's profoundly racist cross-party consensus
England has always been a racist country. We often do a good job of hiding this: in our national curriculum, for example. Every now and then though, an issue comes along that exposes our double standards. Our treatment of Ukrainian and Palestinian refugees is one such issue.
Yesterday, Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition, said:
The Conservative Government established the Ukraine family scheme. In total, more than 200,000 Ukrainians have found sanctuary in the UK. However, a family of six from Gaza have applied to live in Britain using this scheme, and a judge has now ruled in their favour. That is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. Are the Government planning to appeal on any points of law, and, if so, which ones?
Badenoch is wrong on the details here. The case wasn’t allowed under the Ukrainian scheme but on human rights grounds. That’s not the point though. The point is that her position is explicitly racist.
It’s ugly stuff. No need to worry: our Prime Minister, former human rights lawyer Sir Keir Starmer, is on his feet approaching the dispatch box. Starmer has a strong track record on this issue. He once said, “Labour has been scared of making the positive case for immigration, and we need to turn that around.” Let’s see what he has to say:
Let me be clear: I do not agree with the decision. The Leader of the Opposition is right that it is the wrong decision… The Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.
Are we sure this is the same guy? He accepts Badenoch’s misrepresentation of the case and adopts her pernicious narrative, placing people in a racialised hierarchy. The “loophole” he wants to close seems to be that they wrongly classified Palestinians as human beings?
Why is a so-called human rights lawyer attacking the judiciary and the dignity of refugees? It’s a cynical electoral tactic. He’s making villains of some of the most vulnerable people on earth in a doomed attempt to boost his dismal approval rating of -25. The papers call this “taking the fight to Reform”. It’s unclear to me how marching towards your enemy chanting “we agree with you!” constitutes fighting.
Labour’s plan is to copy the xenophobic and Islamophobic politics of Nigel Farage. They’re denying citizenship and safe passage to refugees from predominantly brown-skinned countries, while offering a warm welcome to whites. It should go without saying that this is a recipe for moral degradation and defeat.
When I heard the Prime Minister say that Ukrainians deserve sanctuary but Palestinians do not, I felt the urge to write to my MP, Chris Curtis. But then I remembered what he said the last time I wrote to him. I complained the UK was sending weapons and military gear to Israel, and he replied:
Because the UK also provides similar exports to other countries, particularly Ukraine against the Russian invasion, the advice the Government received was that any F-35 parts which were not going directly to Israel should not be suspended, as that was deemed to have the potential to disrupt the international supply chain and the global F-35 fleet, which would have serious implications for international peace and security, and weaken the ability of other nations we provide exports to-such as Ukraine- to defend themselves.
You can disregard the detail about “parts going directly to Israel”. That’s just a supply chain quirk. Curtis uses it to hide a simple fact: British components are exported to Israel, albeit indirectly. Israel use them to commit war crimes in Palestine. The British government had to admit this in court after failing to cover it up.
Curtis’ argument is that Palestinians must die so that Ukrainians may live. It’s a grotesque proposition that would lead any half-decent MP to ask questions like:
Can we support Ukraine’s defence without supplying Israel’s genocide?
We know our components might be used for war crimes. Can we exclude Israel from this supply chain?
Shouldn't we follow the UK's legal rules? Arms sales must end if there’s a clear risk that weapons could be used to violate international law.
The British government has asked none of these questions. It’s also issued a D-notice urging the press not to ask them. D-notices are not legally enforceable. But the British press are a compliant crowd. So they’re quite effective.
The press often supports the government's clear racism instead of challenging it. Dan Hodges is a national newspaper journalist. Last week, he advocated war crimes against Palestinian children. If he’d said the same about Ukrainian or Israeli children, he’s be out of a job. This week, he praised Starmer’s response to Badenoch:
Starmer gave her a clear and direct answer on the Gaza family. It was embarrassing to watch.
The far-right now leads in the polls. If these politicians face any punishment it will be, perversely, for failing to convince voters that they’re racist enough. I don’t see eye to eye with Hodges on many topics, but I do agree with his final point: we should all feel deeply embarrassed.