A photo should not dictate policy
After a few days of Diana-like hysteria in response to the refugee crisis, level heads are beginning to prevail. The pictures of the dead body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi were indeed distressing but were no basis on which to make policy.
There are now questions to ask about the refugee crisis and the way in which the world is reacting in response to an entirely foreseeable problem for which governments could have been better prepared.
The first serious question we should be asking is why it took a heart-rending image of Aylan Kurdi to wake the consciences of the Twitterati (almost the only thing that can panic politicians)? For at least the past two years, especially since the rise of socalled Islamic State, we have seen horrendous images of crucifixions, beheadings and death. We have heard stories of the rape of Yazidi and Christian women. We have been subjected to reports of constant atrocities.
We knew that millions had been displaced and were filling refugee camps in the Middle East and venturing to Europe by every conceivable means. Are we so fickle and perverse that we are previously indifferent to the sufferings of millions and only touched by the image of one dead child?
The second question is why this march into Europe is dominated by such large numbers of angry young men? Rock stars like Bono are calling for a ban on the use of the word ‘migrant’. The complaint is that the term ‘migrant’ distorts the true picture of what is in reality a ‘refugee crisis’. Yet, the pictures we see are dominated by young men, leading to the impression that many of these people are indeed economic migrants. Why should we use the term refugee when it is not accurate? Until we know who is coming to Europe we need to use both terms – refugees and migrants.
The third question is, since when did refugees march through so many safe countries to go straight to the richest nations in northern and western Europe? The vast majority of these ‘refugees’ began their journeys in Turkey rather than Syria. Am I the only one who is concerned about the sense of entitlement on the part of some of these ‘asylum seekers’, who have no respect for barriers and borders?
A further question is why the agenda has moved from the role of traffickers and smugglers to the blameworthiness of EU nations, which will not accept binding quotas. The absence of borders in the Schengen area of Europe is making the whole continent into a very attractive magnet for migrants.
Commentators like Fraser Nelson of The Spectator observe that migration is here to stay and is fuelled by increased prosperity rather than poverty. The poor, he says, cannot move and certainly cannot pay the smugglers and traffickers. From Syria and elsewhere the first people we are seeing are the prosperous and assertive middle classes.
Where are the Christians in this migration? They continue to be at great risk throughout the region and should be treated as a special case and given refuge. Unfortunately EU rules and political correctness prevent any special treatment for suffering minorities. This intransigent, bureaucratic attitude increases the suffering of the Christian community. Where are the terrorists and the Islamists in this migration? It is instructive to note that the reasons given by some of the Gulf States for not accepting refugees is that they fear admitting terrorists. And it is known that Christians have been thrown off some of the boats that have crossed from Libya and Turkey. So we can confidently say that among the many peace-loving and moderate Muslims who have crossed into Europe are a minority of Islamists, fanatics and perhaps even terrorists.
There are grounds for being cautious, careful and sceptical. Anyone who suggests welcoming all those who are entering Europe must be totally mad.
Our faithful Defender of the Faith In the week that the Queen becomes Britain’s longest-serving monarch it is worth remembering what a faithful and humble ‘defender of the faith’ and ‘Supreme Governor’ she has been.
In particular she has often spoken strongly about her personal faith in the Queen’s Speech on Christmas Day. Her gentle but courageous advocacy of forgiveness and reconciliation based on a spirituality that means so much to her has been a powerful witness. She has held the line against an aggressive secularism by being so visibly faithful. And she has embodied the gracious and hospitable establishment of the Church of England during a reign other faiths have grown exponentially.