The Myth of British Exceptionalism: How Migrants Crossing The Channel Debunked British Exceptionalism.
“Britain is the least racist and most tolerant country in the world”. How often do hear this in Britain?
I’ve lost count at this point. However, in the face of very small scale migration, we see all the things that make Britain the most ‘tolerant country in the world’ wither away.
This week, the country witnessed migrants on a rubber dinghy traverse the English Channel. Widespread coverage of this event was given by some of the largest media outlets in Britain, namely: Sky News and the BBC. The coverage of the story was grotesque, to say the least, and what passed as journalism was embarrassing and inhumane at best. The BBC broadcasted live from a boat that travelled alongside the rubber dinghy, and what proceeded was an abysmal attempt in journalism.
The reporter, Simon Jones — in somewhat of very British way — pulled alongside the dinghy and told viewers “we have seen them trying to get water out of the boat, they’re using a plastic container to try and the bailout of the boat. So obviously, it’s pretty overloaded there — it is pretty dangerous, just the number of people on board that boat”
Watching this spectacle was very reminiscent of watching poverty porn. You know, those pseudo-documentaries centred around poverty, not affording any explanation as to how poverty is socially constructed, but more to show how people of benefits are workshy and have flat-screen televisions. No nuance or context was given, as viewers, we were left to watch a vacuous scene of Syrian refugees on a rubber dinghy make their way across the channel.
What would proceed was inventible and unimaginative. A slew of rightwing pundits — never missing an opportunity to further culture wars — took the opportunity to fan the flames of xenophobia and suspicions of the ‘other’. In particular, rightwing mouthpiece and all-round bad guy, Nigel Farage, dubbed this event as an ‘invasion’. The fallout of such a declaration undoubted only served to mobilise the right and their outriders. So proceeded the onslaught of right-wing rhetoric to demonise ‘illegal immigrants’. A simple yet effective tactic quite often used to deflect major structural issues within societies. Once again, migrants would be used to scapegoat the failings of the government.
But whatever happened to Britain being the most ‘tolerant country in the world’? The moniker didn’t seem to extend to Syrian refugees fleeing danger. Did Britain run out of tolerance… Don’t All Lives Matter? The reality is: the treatment of the ‘other’ is the central argument of British immigration scaremongering. Never are we afforded an explanation as to why people arrive under such dangerous circumstances such as crossing the English Channel on a rubber dinghy. Surely the public would want to how British foreign policy impacts immigration on refugees fleeing from their countries of origins… or is that an inconvenient truth.
Debunking British Exceptionalism.
British Exceptionalism aims to solidify that we are one of — if not — the greatest countries in the world. This ideology tells us that we are a special country, a country which once ruled the world, and a country that established the rules of society. Britain perceives itself to be a type of plucky under-dog and simultaneously a towering empire. This central idea stems from the notion that Britain is inherently different from and superior to, other nations and empires.
British Exceptionalism tells us that Britain is a prosperous land, boasting the 6th largest economy in the world. The country is filled with opportunities if you are prepared to pull up your bootstraps and work hard. However, the irony is that the same commentators who forward this assertion will argue that the country is too full and that we have to take care of ‘our own’. Consequently, this self-perceived level of benevolence and tolerance is easily unravelled by migrants entering the country.
British Exceptionalism is easily dismantled as such tolerance is never directed at the ‘other’ or the ‘invaders’ who are fleeing real and tangible threats in their own countries. Those on the right will argue that we need a system of governance rooted in empathy, but at the same time, call for obstacles to be put into place to restrict those seeking asylum. Such recommendations are as extreme as lacing the English Channel with barbed wire. How quickly the response turns to the sanction of the ‘others’ death.
The normalisation of such language only serves to further frame rightwing rhetoric and attitudes towards immigration in Britain. By no means is this a new phenomenon; as demonstrated by the countries hostile environment stance on immigration and in most recent history the Windrush Scandal.
The notion of a hostile environment was underpinned by Theresa May during her time as home secretary. The primary objective of this policy was to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants — the plan was to make their lives miserable.
‘Illegal Immigrants’.
In such matters, the legality of humans is often contested. The phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ strips away all sense of human dignity and agency, rendering the legitimacy of migrants humanity null and void. It must be noted, however, that it is enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention that crossing a border ‘illegally’ should not impact your asylum claim. Controversially, these people are dismissed as ‘illegal’ before they’ve even applied for asylum, never mind that human beings can’t be illegal.
Another tactic used to delegitimise the validity and legitimacy is to throw in the mix that refugees must have passed several ‘safe countries’ before the U.K, so why not stop there? As Maya Goodfellow discusses in her poignant piece for the Tribune, she articulates that:
“One supposed sign of their illegitimacy is that they’ve left a safe country, France, to come to the UK. Despite what the EU and certain countries might want, there is no hard rule in international refugee law that says they have to stay put. There is also a multitude of reasons that people might want to come to this country to claim asylum; maybe they speak the language or they’ve friends or families here. But the very politicians who’ve floated through life with every single possible opportunity at their fingertips act like these people should be grateful they made it to France in the first place”
The threat of the ‘invaders’.
The anti-migrant mob will assert that the country is too full, or that we are swamped with migrants and we cannot take any more in. The fact of the matter is that migrants crossing the Channel is a dangerous mission, one where the threat of death is more than hyperbole.
The issue with the media’s reporting of migration into the U.K; is that little to no attempt is made in dispelling the persuasive narrative that the U.K is facing a crisis, or is under threat from external forces. The media — whether they can or choose not to — offer no context as to why people migrate to the U.K and in particular — seek asylum. This creates a void of information and only serves to whip up hysteria amongst those who already are looking to preserve the ethnic-purity of Britain. The image our rightwing media paints is that migrants are here simply to claim benefits.
The reality is, that thanks to the U.K’s hostile environment; migration to the U.K (especially if you’re not from a country where you’ll be dubbed an ex-pat)is riddled with legal potholes designed for failure.
Those that deliver the story of the ‘crisis’ that befalls us, rarely look at it from a nuanced position. Never are we informed that asylum seekers only have a meagre £37.75 to live off of a week; never is the myth that the U.K is burdened by migrants debunked. We are not privy to the fact that 85% of refugees are hosted by developing countries. Or that the U.K does not even feature in the 10 ten of countries who receive refugees. Nor do we learn that comparatively speaking, the U.K receives fewer asylum applications than Germany.
Inadvertently, migrant refugees traversing across the English Channel has succeeded in revealing the hypocrisy that is British Exceptionalism. The idea that the British political establishment is inclusive and welcoming of refugees falls flat when you observe the xenophobic rhetoric of the media establishment. It is one laced with dehumanising language that further legitimises the condemnation and vilification of the ‘other’.
