This morning I received an e-mail from UNHCR: [The United Nations Refugee Agency], in all probability, because I sent them a donation yesterday. And while I prefer to keep the details of my charitable giving to myself, on this occasion, and in the light of recent experiences, I have decided to share this e-mail with you.
Some time ago when enjoying a pub lunch with friends that we hadn't seen for some time, the subject of "Brexit" {The UK decision to leave the European Union] came up; and in that context, it wasn't long before the subject of refugees "reared its ugly head." Not because refugees are "ugly," but because of a poisonous, or if you prefer, a debilitating attitude of mind that surfaces during such discussions. And it surfaced yet again more recently, when, with a different group of friends we were discussing the likelihood of Jeremy Corbyn [the leader of the Labour Party] becoming Prime Minister, now that Teresa May, by her own hand, has gone from having a parliamentary majority, to heading a coalition government.
What for me is "poisonous" when the subject of refugees comes up, is what I describe as, the coupling of a positive with a negative, or put another way, a professed sympathy for refugees, "but"! A "but" that in an instant devalues them as human beings, not withstanding the fact that for reason of war and persecution, and having lost everything, they are trekking across Europe in search of sanctuary, and a better life. A "but" that besides ignoring their immediate needs is especially reprehensible when applied to children and accompanied with the word "terrorist", (as it was in our recent discussions,) as it was to in the past to those children living in the unofficial refugee camp at Calais known as "The Jungle." Why? Because 18 year old's are officially classified as children, and at that age are perceived as potential "terrorists." And when we widened the discussion and asked, why they don't see the desperation of refugees trying to get to the UK as a compliment to our way of life, they were unimpressed; what motivates them, we were told, is the UK's generous system of state handouts; as they were unimpressed, when we made the point that it was reputable agencies, who, having visited The Jungle at Calais, expressed concern about the large number of unaccompanied children living there, who were considered especially vulnerable to unimaginable forms of exploitation; and who, on that account should be offered sanctuary in much greater numbers than was proposed, in the UK.
Now before I go any further, (and not withstanding what I have just written,) let me tall you a little more about our friends. Put at its simplest, not only are they are not without compassion, but in their lives more broadly, they have proven track records in being there for the disadvantaged, and, they have a way of coping.
As the conversations unfolded, we learned of a form of charitable giving organised by the Salvation Army, of which they approved, and to which, I am happy to assume they contributed. What they liked about it was that it was a way of giving where they could be confident that whatever they donated, went to the people in need: a system of numbered boxes that were filled with the necessities of life, (including cooking utensils) that once dispatched, could be traced to specific camps and families within the camps. As outlined, it was self-evidently a scheme of which we could all approve, but one, as we pointed out, that falls well short of the actual needs of refugees, in particular, the needs of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are living in official camps. And so the discussion continued, especially as our friends were of the view that managing the international refugee crisis, in a way that was transparent, should be left to the Salvation Army. So we found ourselves explaining the obvious, to people who had more than enough intellect and experience of life so as to see it for themselves, except, that they choose not to.
What should have been apparent, had they wanted to see it, was that their expectation that the Salvation Army could manage the international refugee crisis was not credible. As was the idea, however good in itself, that the distribution of numbered boxes of aid to people living in sprawling refugee camps, could ever be sufficient in itself. And had they wanted to, they could have worked out for themselves, that hard cash, (as donations,) is essential, given the vast sums of money needed to provide sanitation, schooling, medical facilities, trauma counselling and such like, within the official refugee camps.
As for the e-mail that I received this morning, at one and the same time it was a thank you, and a reminder of the enormity of the international refugee crisis as reflected in the following profile:
In recent times the UNHCR who are working in 130 countries "to tackle the highest level of displacement on record" has distributed:
As for the e-mail that I received this morning, at one and the same time it was a thank you, and a reminder of the enormity of the international refugee crisis as reflected in the following profile:
In recent times the UNHCR who are working in 130 countries "to tackle the highest level of displacement on record" has distributed:
"2.7 million blankets to people who have nothing."
"Enrol[ed] more than 850,000 children in school."
"Give[en] more than 200,000 people emergency shelter."
and they tell us that:
"51% of refugees are children below 18 years of age."
and that "65.6 m have been forced to flee worldwide."
And such is the enormity of the task that the UNHCR are not alone in responding to the crisis.
Medicins Sans Frontieres : (Doctors Without Borders) is another, and it is worth recalling here that their emergency hospital in Syria was bombed by the Syrian army, who, at an official level, and for reasons of safety, had been given the coordinates for the hospital. And there are other charities, both lay, and religious, also working with and for refugees.
Now as I am neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist, and have my own limited insights, it would be wrong for me to presume to know, with any degree of certainty, why the attitude of our friends to the refugee crisis, is what it is, but I can hazard an intelligent guess.
What they have in common is that they see the world from their point of view, and not from the point of view of refugees, and to a degree, they don't quite trust foreigners, hence their failure to recognise, that when it comes to charitable giving, we can't always be in control, that in terms of giving, sometimes we have to take a risk: do what we know to be right, and trust others to do their very best on our behalf. And if I think more deeply as to why they take refuge in themselves, one possible answer is, that if they tried to see the world from the point of view of refugees, it would bring them closer to the painful realities of life. As for linking "children" with "terrorist," apart from the fact that it is a perspective that clouds their judgement, and inhibits them in their response, it mirrors the insidious point of view of some of the more notorious tabloid press. A point of view that was challenged, when we recalled that some of the more recent terrorist outrages in this country had been carried out by "home grown" terrorists. All of that said, and in defence of our friends, I must tell you that they are not alone.
In a recent interview on Radio 5 Live, Tim Farron who recently resigned as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, (because he found his role as leader incompatible with his Christian commitment,) was asked what he would like to do next. And in broad terms, this was his response.
Having visited The Jungle at Calais and other refugee camps, he spoke of the refugees he met there, as having been through "unspeakable experiences." and he acknowledged a general reluctance among politicians and the wider European public, to rise to the challenge and do more. And it was this reluctance, that was motivating him to want to spend his time working as an advocate for refugees: for those who, uprooted, have lost everything, and as yet have not found a place that they can call - home.
__________
and they tell us that:
"51% of refugees are children below 18 years of age."
and that "65.6 m have been forced to flee worldwide."
And such is the enormity of the task that the UNHCR are not alone in responding to the crisis.
Medicins Sans Frontieres : (Doctors Without Borders) is another, and it is worth recalling here that their emergency hospital in Syria was bombed by the Syrian army, who, at an official level, and for reasons of safety, had been given the coordinates for the hospital. And there are other charities, both lay, and religious, also working with and for refugees.
Now as I am neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist, and have my own limited insights, it would be wrong for me to presume to know, with any degree of certainty, why the attitude of our friends to the refugee crisis, is what it is, but I can hazard an intelligent guess.
What they have in common is that they see the world from their point of view, and not from the point of view of refugees, and to a degree, they don't quite trust foreigners, hence their failure to recognise, that when it comes to charitable giving, we can't always be in control, that in terms of giving, sometimes we have to take a risk: do what we know to be right, and trust others to do their very best on our behalf. And if I think more deeply as to why they take refuge in themselves, one possible answer is, that if they tried to see the world from the point of view of refugees, it would bring them closer to the painful realities of life. As for linking "children" with "terrorist," apart from the fact that it is a perspective that clouds their judgement, and inhibits them in their response, it mirrors the insidious point of view of some of the more notorious tabloid press. A point of view that was challenged, when we recalled that some of the more recent terrorist outrages in this country had been carried out by "home grown" terrorists. All of that said, and in defence of our friends, I must tell you that they are not alone.
In a recent interview on Radio 5 Live, Tim Farron who recently resigned as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, (because he found his role as leader incompatible with his Christian commitment,) was asked what he would like to do next. And in broad terms, this was his response.
Having visited The Jungle at Calais and other refugee camps, he spoke of the refugees he met there, as having been through "unspeakable experiences." and he acknowledged a general reluctance among politicians and the wider European public, to rise to the challenge and do more. And it was this reluctance, that was motivating him to want to spend his time working as an advocate for refugees: for those who, uprooted, have lost everything, and as yet have not found a place that they can call - home.
__________
