During last week's BBCQT when all hell let loose between 'surburban' Rod Liddle and 'utter leftie snob' and New York resident Simon Scharma on the UK's best response to the tide of immigration that is coming inexorably from the Middle East to Europe, one audience member effectively stole the show and you may think won the argument by playing the 'these are human beings' card.
Fellow human beings who need our help was the message. And so we should obviously offer whatever help we can, was the unspoken bottom line. Indeed, I'd go further. The 'they're human beings' mantra didn't use the words 'just like us', but it was there writ large of course.
The problem is that they are not 'human beings just like us' at all, and therein lies the problem. You may say 'I'm out' at this point and condemn me, but I'd ask you to read on if you want to give me a fair hearing on this massively difficult subject. If you don't enjoy being challenged in your views, why the hell are you reading my stuff in the first place? :)
In an ideal world I would have every sympathy for this generous but naive view. My solution would not be for us to then take everyone in, which is what she was implying, but it is, on the face of it, a compelling argument and illustrative of the generosity and care that is part of our western culture. It was, if anything, a comment that did her credit in a fundamental humanitarian sense even if it was essentially flawed and terribly naive in my opinion.
My solution, as I have blogged about here and here, would be to try to help these people in their own region so that a; they're not forced to risk their lives at the mercy of ruthless people traffickers in order to get here and b; that we are not swamped by a mono-culture that clearly does not share the same values that made the 'human beings' message so compelling.
Because - and I know this is a very harsh, controversial and likely unpopular thing to say - these 'human beings' are not the 'human beings' that the audience member had in mind when making the point. Her point was made, in my view, based on the naive assumption that these are 'human beings' just like us. And that if we 'human beings' were in the same sort of peril as they are, we would want to be treated and helped in the same way that she was proposing to help them. By treating them as if they are the same as we are.
But they are not the same as we are. There I've said it. Puts on tin hat.
Let me please just say here for the avoidance of doubt, that I do care about people and I am not saying any of this in a selfish way. It breaks my heart to have to say that these people are not 'human beings just like us', because in an ideal world they should be. But I am right in saying that they are not. And that is a tragic fact. Let me also say that some - but not all - of these 'human beings' are throwing people off tower blocks for being gay and are beheading people for not converting to Islam. Not all. But what I have said is also a fact. An important fact.
Had they all been born in the West and been brought up in our largely free, fair and democratic society, they might well be the same as us; have the same generous values as us, whatever their original background or religion - I'm not making a racist point here in any way. But they weren't and that means that there is a massive difference between our idealistic view of them being 'just' human beings and what they actually are, and have become because of where they grew up, where they have lived their lives thus far and their indoctrinated, religion-driven belief systems.
They don't share the same beliefs and values of generosity and care that we do and whilst that is certainly a source of sadness and sympathy towards them, they simply are not the 'just human beings' that was implied in the comment.
It is nowhere near as simple as just saying 'they're human beings' (just like us). Because they're not.
I'm sure the woman who made the comment would extend her view about just 'human beings' to gay people. I bet she'd be one of the first to stand up for gay people as 'human beings'. I bet she'd stand up for the rights of women not to be controlled or enslaved or for people who don't believe in one religion or another not to be persecuted. She'd probably be outraged by the fact that young girls are being forced into marriage at age 11 and being sexually mutilated (FGM) at a very young age. Routine practises in the world of these 'human beings' of whom she speaks. And if so, I'd be standing right beside her.
The 'human beings' she was in favour of helping without reservation, are human beings many of whom (and not just the 'extremists') are intolerant of gay people, intolerant towards people who don't believe in the same God or religious doctrine that they do.
Yes we should help our fellow human beings if we can: Given the sheer numbers involved it is imperative that we endeavour to help them in their own countries so that they don't have to risk their lives to get away and also so that we are not swamped by 'human beings' who don't share our values in any meaningful way. Because if we do take people into the UK who have these values it will certainly undermine our society and the very belief system that spawned the 'human beings' comment. And if their views are welcomed in their own countries but not in ours, that's a bigger and better reason to try to help - and keep - them where they are. Because if (when?) it so happens that we take millions of these 'human beings into the west and the UK in particular, hers will become a hollow argument very quickly as their intolerance sweeps her engaging, attractive, naive and ultimately flawed stance from under her feet.
And those that we do help by welcoming them into the West, must understand that the western values and generosity that has welcomed them in, to help them, must be reciprocated and not undermined.
Harsh? Perhaps. Practical and necessary? Undeniably in my view.
If we don't act to ensure that the 'human beings' we help, understand what being a 'human being' means in the West and in the terms implied by the BBCQT speaker, then the values, generosity, care and the very humanity she was talking about, will be lost and rendered utterly irrelevant. The status of 'human being' might mean one recognisable thing to us in the West, but it certainly is not the same thing that is understood amongst those we seek to help in this increasingly tragic situation.
Of course, in the end, these people are just human beings, in peril, in need and deserving of our concern and our care, but sadly they are not 'just like us' and if we are to survive, retain our values and generosity, we need to understand this difficult issue in my opinion.
The BBCQT speaker had the right idea and the right values but what she was espousing will result in the exact opposite of what she has in mind. And that's unutterably sad. But true nonetheless.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment