Freedoms in this country underpin society and should not be undervalued or easily undermined.
IMMIGRATION CONTROL
The new UK Government is under special scrutiny in these first few months of power, having promised to transform the UK. A significant media eye is on its sworn approach to be a government which cares as much for the majority of this country which did not support it as for the minority which did. Immigration has so far proven a lightning rod or a magnet for so much emotion over the years, having become a political football used by different interest groups to channel their agendas and often provoke disharmony. Basic UK freedoms could be undermined by immigration responses. It remains a live and potentially explosive issue.
Security for any country is paramount and controlling borders is at the heart of security. Uncontrolled immigration for any country can be life threatening. On the other hand, for a country such as the UK immigration and diversity has been at the heart of its development bringing skills, culture and freshness which continues to benefit society as a whole. Foreign students bring a special benefit not just in much needed fee income for universities. Excessive immigration however brings problems which have to be addressed, particularly if indigenous neighbours are, or perceive themselves to be, disproportionately and adversely affected. Are the immigrants bringing net benefit, or are they simply absorbing resources, such as housing, social and health services and education, to the detriment of the native population? Are they integrating or fragmenting society? There will be no one size answer to fit all immigration circumstances. As a background fact, the UK is ranked as one of the most tolerant towards and welcoming of immigrants from all over the world, and, while far from perfect, its integration of immigrants is broadly a success story.
And immigrants come in all shapes, colour, sizes, religions etc. Some are very skilled, some are labourers with poor education achievement, some are students, and some are family members of people in those categories. Some speak English, and some do not. Some seek asylum; some have visas; some are encouraged to come; some come on boats seeking asylum; some come on boats or other transport seeking jobs and a better economic life, but illegally. Some settle in areas where they are welcome, others where there may be antagonism.
Ignoring illegal immigration but not diminishing its significance, crude and emotional attitudes to the numbers of migrants that are acceptable need to be dismissed: plucking a target limiting numbers out of the air each year seems lazy and inevitably wrong. It has no rational basis. A philosophy is needed to plan and implement plans: so, if the country needs a number of doctors over say the next 10 years, is it not possible to predict the estimated potential number of locally educated doctors the UK will seek to produce, and then decide that the shortfall should be made up of immigrant doctors if they can be found, and act accordingly: marketing internationally and incentivising and controlling the situation through the visa rules? And cannot the same be done in other skilled areas, e.g. engineering, nursing and technology? Estimates can be based on numbers arrived at with industry cooperation. A similar approach can be taken with less skilled labour; and so also holistically accounting for the need to get UK citizens back to work, off benefits and contributing. Is it not possible to have such a plan and hone it each year? Cannot it be a cross-party exercise, so that government consistency is maximised? Yet there is no active public talk of such an approach.
As to those seeking asylum, evidently these applications need to be processed swiftly and fairly, according to law: but a practical process needs to decide the genuine asylum seekers from those gaming the system. As to illegal immigration, especially boats, despite hectoring for political positioning and righteousness, is there not in reality a widely held belief that such migrants are not allowed and must be returned home? And those criminal gangs of traffickers who rob their victims and sometimes cause their deaths must be stopped? The question is how. Whatever other measures are adopted, a major programme of deportations of those clearly not entitled to be in the UK or who are anti-social in behaviour has to be contemplated.
Most of all there needs to be transparency of philosophy and debate about immigration, taking into account the concerns of different interest groups. As yet there is no plan.
THE RISKS TO FREEDOM
Recent weeks have seen the explosion on UK streets of violence following the senseless Southport murders. It is said that rioters were incited by stories of the murderer being Muslim, all made up untruths. Terrorising of mosques and other vandalism followed. Throughout were racist undertones. The heart of the riots was said to be Right Wing extremists. Numerous journalists and broadcast reports focussed on immigration as an emotive driving factor behind the frustrations and anger expressed by rioters. Generalisations about who were inciting troubles and about what motivated rioters are dangerous and largely unproven.
There are undoubtedly people in the UK who are racist whether anti Jew, anti Muslim or anti black, or indeed anti white people who some regard as all having a racist bias which is patent nonsense. People are allowed their beliefs, but efforts are needed to dissuade from views which are based on racial or religious or other prejudice. But if they action those beliefs into violent expression, such as by violating or incitement to violate a religious group, such as Muslims, Jews or Christians, that is surely to be stopped.
This freedom of belief and freedom to state a belief are fundamental freedoms in the UK. However, arising from the riots have come statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury that extreme right-wing believers cannot be Christians; and from the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, that she will crack down on “harmful or hateful beliefs”.Who will define what is extreme right-wing beliefs, and what is a harmful or hateful belief? Is a football supporter in North London who hates Arsenal or the Jewish led Tottenham guilty of a hateful belief? Can a person be extreme right wing and not a racist? Of course they can. Can extreme left wing beliefs be harmful or hateful? Of course they can. Is a demonstrator who wishes hatred towards Israel to be cracked down on? Extreme statements such as these by influential people should only be made after the most serious consideration.
The Government has shelved legislation to prevent censorship of views in Universities, the Freedom of Speech law. There is a risk that current vitriol and hard talk from Government risks demonising those with whom they disagree. Presumably they have no problem with the Angela Raynor view that Tories are scum? Then the likes of Elon Musk are expressing views critical of the UK approach, saying civil war is inevitable given the extreme position of rioters. He believes it seems in even the most extreme incitements on his “X” social media platform, but there are considerable lobbies to control extreme behaviour on social media that incites violence or spreads inimical untruths deliberately? Should people be free to spread disinformation deliberately and cause mayhem? Surely at least hostile governments, like Russia and China and Iran and North Korea who openly do this, must be restrained?
Existing UK laws about hate speech and giving offence seriously begin to impinge on human liberty to hold and express even very controversial views. That subjective offence-taking can demonise the one giving so-called offence is a step which must be avoided but Scottish law encourages it. Hate crime needs to be confined to violent behaviour, not extending to words, perhaps. Yvette Cooper wants to go backwards and have police record non-criminal offensive words and behaviour which seriously threatens free thought and speech.
People will hate and express thoughts which offend and they always will. Government should not interfere and try to criminalise hatefulness. This is behavioural micromanagement and Stalinesque when family and friends may become expected to report people with offensive views: this is beginning to look not far off.
Hasty legislation which acts as censor is undesirable and risks unintended consequences of restricting freedom of belief and expression in a draconian and unacceptable way. Full and open, and depoliticised, debate is required. Unpalatable views must always be able to be expressed in the UK and free discussion encouraged. But violent incitement must be controlled. A hard balancing act requires balanced and tolerant consideration, not sound bite reactions by those who wish to be seen to be tough.
Perhaps the views of many working people veer towards or are ardent about disliking high immigration, believing rightly or wrongly that immigrants take away services and resources from the indigenous population, especially when times are hard. Some may even see immigrants as a channel for anger at the circumstances of life. People are after all tribal. Their concerns need to be understood not ridden over roughshod by those in power who see themselves as progressive. Perhaps a proper well communicated policy on immigration and what is to be done and why will help but that is missing from the public debate.
Most of all we must beware of Government voices which vilify those who disagree with them and seek to silence voices they dislike. Freedom demands that.
