THE TABLET THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY FOUNDED IN 1840

ASYLUM SEEKERS

A POLICY THAT SHAMES BRITAIN

Suella Braverman has described the crossing of the English Channel by 40,000 refugees in small boats this year as an “invasion”. Even some in her own party deplore such language as inflammatory. Since returning to the job of home secretary last month, Braverman has been accused of deliberately treating refugees so badly that others would be deterred from making the Channel crossing. This is what can happen when groups of people are stripped of their humanity, and demonised.

Refugees from the boats, almost all of whom seek political asylum once they have arrived, have been taken to a processing centre at the disused RAF airport at Manston in Kent. Conditions there became so appalling that a senior official who inspected the site was rendered “speechless” by what he saw. What was meant to be, at most, a 24-hour wait has turned in some cases into two or three weeks. People had to sleep on the floor, with not enough blankets, with poor sanitation and toilet facilities, amid a constant undercurrent of stress, anger and violence. The previous policy of moving them on quickly had been suspended – illegally, it is said – since Braverman became home secretary, only to be resumed this week once the story became headline news.

This crisis calls for an urgent reality check. Once they have reached Britain and provided they can demonstrate they are fleeing persecution, refugees have a right to stay in Britain

under the 1951 Refugee Convention. They are not, as Braverman and her supporters seem to think, uninvited and unwelcome. The convention is their invitation. They cross the Channel in small boats because they have no alternative way to claim asylum. Successive Conservative governments, taking their cue from the right-wing press in the demonisation of asylum seekers, have refused to open an immigration office across the Channel, where humanitarian visas could be issued, allowing refugees to enter Britain by more normal routes.

France has agreed; Britain has rejected this obvious solution. The belief appears to be that there are votes in being hostile to asylum seekers. Creating a system that makes them wait years for their asylum applications to be granted is part of that approach. They cannot work or receive normal benefits while waiting; yet Britain is suffering a severe labour shortage.

It is the government and a section of the media that is obsessed with Channel boat crossings, not the general public. A recent poll found that immigration in all its aspects rated only eighth in a list of public concerns, well below inflation, the cost of living and the NHS. A decent and sensible government – and Rishi Sunak was chosen by Conservative MPs because he was thought to be sensible – would start from scratch, identify the correct legal and moral imperatives, and put in place a system for dealing with asylum seekers of which the whole country would no longer be ashamed, but proud.

THE DEAL WITH BEIJING

VATICAN GAMBLE IS – PROBABLY – WORTH A TRY

Astorm of protest has greeted the announcement that the agreement between the Holy See and the government of China, concerning the status of the Catholic Church there, has been renewed. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under its totalitarian leader, President Xi Jinping, is an enemy of political and religious freedom and, the argument goes, the Catholic Church has jeopardised its reputation for global moral leadership.

Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, wrote in The Tablet two years ago: “If people aren’t concerned about the harvesting of human organs, about repression in Tibet and Xinjiang – they really should be.” Xinjiang is where millions of Uyghur Muslims have been persecuted and forced to conform to the stringent ideological requirements of the CCP.

Since then the pressure on dissidents in Hong Kong (many of whom are Catholics) has increased. Yet the agreement between the Vatican and Beijing, struck in 2018 and extended for two years in 2020, has again been renewed. Little is known about its terms, except that it aims to reconcile in one ecclesial body the two Catholic Churches which had existed side by side (with considerable overlap in the middle) – one loyal to Rome but underground, the other loyal to Beijing but disowned by Rome. The agreement supplied a means by which bishops could be appointed who were acceptable to both sides.

A degree of normalisation in their relationship with the Holy See has to be good for Chinese Catholics sacramentally,

spiritually and psychologically. And for Catholics formerly of the underground Church, easing of persecution would be welcomed. But has it ended? The CCP seeks the “sinicisation” of religion in China, which appears to go beyond use of local languages in the liturgy to accepting the ideology of the CCP.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has embraced the concept of “inculturation” and national Catholic communities often reflect the values of the societies in which they operate. This is where dangers lurk. The Vatican agreed a concordat with Hitler’s Germany that was intended, on the church side, to protect Catholic interests. Instead it largely silenced the voice of protest that should have been raised by German Catholic bishops and Catholic politicians. Many became complicit with Nazism and its atrocities.

This is one of many examples where history judges the Catholic Church to have failed in its duty to be a voice in defence of human rights and the rule of law. On the other hand, English Catholics know the price their spiritual ancestors paid when Elizabeth I was excommunicated by Pius V in 1570. That decision inflicted far more damage on the Catholic community than it did on the Queen. So in dealing with China the Vatican has no good options, only a choice between bad ones. But a living and worshipping Catholic Church in China outside total CCP control – just – is a chink of light. There is absolutely no guarantee the gamble will work. But it is worth a try.