Last year, shortly after securing my academic position at King’s College London, I faced a concerted effort by certain Home Office advisers to get me dismissed. They wanted me ousted due to my outspoken opposition to the “Rwanda plan,” which would deport Britain’s rejected asylum seekers to that country regardless of their place of origin. During a lecture to postgraduate students, I described the policy as “cruel, evil, and illegal,” warning that the government’s actions would likely fuel racism and Islamophobia in Britain.
For years, the Home Office has served as a platform for ultraconservative figures to push policies against vulnerable groups and asylum seekers, marked by Islamophobia and a strong commitment to punishing dissent. Activists and researchers have long warned of the potential consequences of such rhetoric — and emphasized the importance of hateful language.
The architect of the Rwanda plan, Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman, was fired in November for criticizing the police as “too lenient” on pro-Palestinian protesters. She repeatedly labeled the protests as hate marches, in a monthslong crusade against Palestine. Yet Braverman’s eventual sacking — in response to a series of articles she had published in the Telegraph — proved merely a communications gambit.
The Tories continued to intensify the stance on deportations that she had advanced. But the lines between the two parties also became blurred. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party followed suit with the Tories, adopting alarmist rhetoric on migration, scapegoating Bangladeshi people, and even implying the possibility of collaboration with European far-right leaders.
Their persistent dog-whistling has blinded these parties to the escalating damage…
La suite est à lire sur: jacobin.com
Auteur: Georgios Samaras
