With reports of more lives lost while attempting to cross Europe’s sea borders generating little response, is there a way to talk about this that can move the needle?
Following reports of at least 8 deaths among a group of people attempting to make the crossing from France to the UK, there remains a general sense of apathy both among the general public and policymakers.
With channel crossing deaths since the start of the year now numbering around 40, one prominent refugee rights advocate seemed at a loss for words. Zoe Gardner expressed her desperation on Twitter, saying she was “trying to find a formulation of words that will change something”.
Policymakers continue to frame so-called “irregular arrivals” as a threat to security, against which emergency measures need to be strengthened (as provided for in the EU’s new PACT on asylum and migration), and conflating this movement with criminality.
This lens is reflected in much of the media, and is a dominant narrative in public debate. This was evident from the responses to Gardner’s tweet, many of which focused on the illegality of the act of crossing the channel, to paint those attempting to cross as “criminals”, with lives of lesser value as a result. By knowingly undertaking an illegal journey, “irregular migrants” forfeit their rights to security, dignity and justice, according to this logic.
Of course, as human rights campaigners ceaselessly repeat – committing this crime become unavoidable when safe routes to asylum remain virtually non-existent, and a punitive approach has been shown to be ineffective.
But in reality, this response is underpinned by another factor: racism.
Shen Narayanasamy, a human rights lawyer and campaigner, discussed this in an episode of the Words to win by podcast that focused on people seeking asylum in Australia. “Underlying this rhetoric its always been about race – the other, religion, colour of skin” and the fear of “dark-skinned criminals”.
What kind of communication can counter this? While there is of course no silver bullet, evidence suggests that discourse which humanises those undertaking these journeys is most effective to mobilise public support.
In practice, this can seem rather indelicate, “when you’ve been othered, you have to prove your humanity,” says Narayanasamy. Ways to get people “recast as human”, include asking about them about their hobbies, or their taste in music, which may seem “trivialising”, she admits. “But to focus only on their trauma reduces them to victims rather than three-dimensional beings.”
“When you’ve been othered, you have to prove your humanity”
Shen Narayanasamy
Narayanasamy’s campaigning experience in Australia (Let them stay, Kids off Nauru) has taught her that “winning messages evoke empathy.” The key is to pitch a message to the intended audience as “values based and aspirational”, appealing to “who they want to be”, to try to foster a “willingness to see themselves in people intentionally demonised by the right”.
The New Economy Organisers Network (NEON)’s messaging advice on channel crossings echoes this. It encourages campaigners to appeal to shared values, attempting to establish an emotional connection with the public, while avoiding terms that reinforce an “us and them” frame. Rather than labels such as “migrants”, “refugees” and “asylum-seekers”, they recommend talking about normal people, with the same family ties, the same fears and aspirations as we all have. But also people who have agency and make decisions motivated by the same complex factors we all do.
The predominance of the security and criminality discourse for discussing migration and resulting tragedies is now well-entrenched, meaning campaigners such as Gardner will no doubt have to continue repeating themselves for the foreseeable future. But we shouldn’t give up hope that sustained efforts to “rehumanise” those risking their lives to cross borders can make a difference.
Image “Prayer Vigil for Refugees” by Catholic Church of England of Wales, Flickr Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Leave a Reply