Lee Anderson’s vulgar comments reinforce a culture of fear around migrants

Language matters, and the death of some 41 people – fellow human beings – capsized in the Mediterranean is a reminder that the language people use to describe those seeking shelter, freedom from persecution (or, for that matter, simply a better life) is of crucial importance. It matters because it frames the debate about migration and the refugee crisis – and words can all too easily strip people of their rights and dignities by dehumanising them.

Lee Anderson, for example – the boorish deputy chair of the Conservative Party, and the dog whistler-in-chief for his more fastidious colleagues – recently earned himself some further ugly publicity for remarking that if the people ordered onto the Bibby Stockholm barge didn’t like the offer then they could “f*** off back to France”.

He does not seem to understand that some of these refugees – none of whom have committed any offence apart from seeking refugee status – may well find such overcrowded, cramped prison-like conditions rather too reminiscent of, say, the cells they were once forced into in some squalid place of torture. Does Mr Anderson really believe that the fears of traumatised people count for nothing? If so – and it seems at least possible that this is his level of morality – then he should not be in the role he is in.

Mr Anderson operates under a kind of informal licence to offend, issued by the prime minister. Yet Mr Sunak, who has fine personal manners, should not tolerate such language and the debased political culture it represents. Mr Sunak surely cannot approve of such a coarse, dismissive attitude towards potential refugees. It is inflammatory and encourages verbal and even physical abuse of blameless refugees. It is aggressive, and it is wrong.

Some Tory MPs have said as much, off the record. Yet little unease in ministerial circles is audible in public. The justice secretary, Alex Chalk, praised Mr Anderson for expressing in “salty” terms the “righteous indignation” of the nation, as if the foul-mouthed MP for Ashfield were some kind of Old Testament prophet. Immigration minister Robert Jenrick, a man who ordered a Mickey Mouse mural be painted over at a children’s asylum centre for the spurious reason that it wasn’t “age appropriate”, confines himself to remarking that: “I think everyone chooses their own language, but I think the point Lee Anderson was making is a fair one which I agree with.”

But Mr Chalk and Mr Jenrick, both trained lawyers and experienced politicians, should know better, and not condone such careless talk. Even if Mr Anderson did have a point, the way he expressed it was unacceptable. There is no need to swear about people claiming asylum in a way that would be unthinkable if directed at others. Some of Mr Anderson’s own colleagues mumble that it is fascistic. They are right; and the way that Mr Anderson behaves demeans himself and the whole government.

If anything the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and some others can be even worse. Despite relatively high proportions of people arriving on small boats – desperate souls whatever their motivations – being granted leave to remain, all refugees and potential asylum seekers are called “illegals” by politicians and in the press. This clearly prejudices any case they might have, and erodes their status as equal human beings with the same universal human rights as anyone else, guaranteed under international conventions.

So none, in law, are ever “coming here illegally”, whatever Ms Braverman’s legislation purports to claim. The right to claim asylum is absolute. A human being, as such, cannot be “illegal”, or “legal” for that matter. They are people, and not to be reduced to mere pejorative adjectives.

Ms Braverman seems happy to describe the flow of humanity crossing borders and fleeing from war as an “invasion”, with no sense of irony. Some of the extremists in politics and their allies on social media use the phrase “young men of fighting age”. Too often racial or religious stereotypes about criminals and terrorists creep into the debate about those arriving from Africa and the Middle East, in a way they never did with the Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees.

These people are automatically referred to as threats, as a burden, and routinely stigmatised. Even if some of them come from peaceful but poor lands, and are making the crossing merely to make a better living for themselves and their families, that doesn’t make them evil or violent. There are many people in the West whose forebears made similar journeys, indeed including a number of prominent world leaders presently spreading hate against people forced to migrate by hunger or unbearable poverty today. Indeed, war and hunger often go together.

Fleeing such privations shouldn’t be a crime, and it isn’t. Nor is it worthy of the sort of scorn that spouts so readily from Mr Anderson. To put it politely, a period of silence from the honourable gentleman would be most welcome.