UK: ‘Refugees’ good, ‘Migrants’ bad?

What is the most important issue in the debate about the crisis on Europe’s borders? Is it the causes of the conflict in Syria? Or the consequences of allowing thousands more people in or trying to keep them out?

None of that, apparently. To judge by the attitude of some campaigners and their celebrity spokesmen, it appears that the most important thing when discussing the transient masses is to use the correct words to describe them. As so often these days, the attempt to impose a linguistic etiquette is being used to limit what can be said, which opinions have a right to be heard. This process risks stifling the open argument required to decide what we should do.

In the Newspeak of the crisis, the rule appears to be: ‘“Refugee” Good, “Migrant” bad’ (excuse mixed Orwell references). If you transgress the rules and use the wrong words you chance being shouted down as at best xenophobic, at worst some sort of Holocaust denier.

Bono, frontman for celebrity righteousness, spelt it out this week addressing a world poverty event at Expo 2015 in Milan. ‘We should not use the word “migrant”’, declared the Christian rock crusader. ‘“Migrant” is a political word, used to take away the real status of these people. They are refugees. They are running from war.’ They do not want ‘to live in Italy or Ireland’ declared Bono, for any reason other than safety. His attempt to ban the word ‘migrant’ was cheered to the rafters.

This is worse than trivialisation. It distorts and seeks to dictate a much bigger discussion. The attempt to police the words we use is also about policing how we should see and react to the crisis. In particular it influences whether we view the masses trying to enter Europe as passive, dehumanised victims deserving pity, or active human agents to be treated as equals.

SOURCE