The coverage of the news story regarding the attempted terrorist attack on a migrant centre in Dover earlier this month has raised many questions of how such news is perceived, shared and disseminated in our society. Hypothetically, let’s turn the tables around. A person of foreign descent, perhaps Middle Eastern, threw petrol bombs in a shopping mall or a predominantly white or prominent neighbourhood and proceeds to end their life; yet luckily no one was harmed otherwise, and there is evidence that this was ideologically driven in some way. I can assure you that most of you would have heard about this, even if you do not follow the news, because the media would have ensured it reached every single outpost. What I can also guarantee is that every single news story would describe this almost immediately as a ‘terrorist attack’, which is indeed what it is.
Yet why do we not hear about it so much when a migrant centre is put in such a position? Might I suggest it is because these are the people often ostracised by the media and portrayed as villains, coming here to take our jobs, houses and money: a storyline we have all probably heard of by various means for years on end. However, when these defenceless people are in the position of being victims, the media coverage quietens down significantly. Yes, it is reported- but only for the sake of being done so. We see such news stories being pushed to the back of the cupboard, since these same individuals can no longer, for the time being, be used for political gain or blamed for what is wrong in our country instead of other underlying issues which many would rather overlook, such as an overwhelmingly irresponsible government. As a result, many fail to see that these individuals, the majority of whom pose no harm to our society, are in fact the ones who face more dangers and uncertainties everyday than we could possibly imagine. They’re cooped up in overcrowded migrant centres and hotels, in countries foreign to them, surrounded by those speaking tongues often alien to them, often penniless, insecure, and in need of adequate healthcare and stability in their lives. And yet they are presented time and time again as only a ‘problem’; never an individual human being with all the wants and worries that the rest of us have. Surely there is something wrong with a media and political system that allows this constant demonisation and ‘othering’ of helpless individuals in need to continue, without even overt criticism or signs of future change.
It is worrying how little coverage this story received, and how little concern was shown towards the victims themselves. There is increasing hate and scapegoating of migrants in such centres. The attacker was linked to a now deleted Facebook account, which erroneously claimed that these individuals receive free aid and benefits, even though they cannot even speak English. And with a government that encourages this narrative, that people who flee their homes, carrying nothing but themselves, are a threat to our economy and livelihoods, they are simply ensuring that such reactions will persist and spread. Initially, the Conservative MP for Dover appeared to blame the attack on the tensions rising in the country over the numbers of immigrants arriving in town, claiming that Dover is not an appropriate place for a migrant receiving centre. The blame here is shifted onto helpless immigrants, who do nothing but wait in that centre, for weeks, sometimes months or longer, looking, vainly it seems, for a better life. Now, the man who caused this, does not even cross her lips. Victim-blaming in this case is blatant and disgusting, although done indirectly.
What about the caption titles of this news story initially? These are some of the early ones:
BBC – “Dover migrant centre: Man found dead near scene of fire attack”
Reuters – “Man attacks UK migrant processing centre in Dover, kills himself”
Guardian – “Petrol bomb thrown at immigration centre in Dover”
Telegraph – “Dover migrant centre: Man kills himself after petrol bomb attack”
Sky news – “Suspect found dead after petrol bombs thrown at Border Force Immigration centre”
The definition of terrorism is – “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”. Now let’s review the facts of this case. An unidentified man throws three petrol bombs in a migrant centre in Dover, at a time when there are rising tensions due to a greater arrival of immigrants. Furthermore, the campaign against illegal immigration, with Rishi Sunak vowing to continue Priti Patel’s Rwanda plan, further portrays migrants as a threat to our country, simply to fuel political propaganda, while the far right continues to propagate immigration as a big factor which “cripples” our country. However, we do not see the word “terrorist” yet utilised in this context. Why? Is it because the individual is a white male, attacking a largely non-white group? That I cannot be certain of, but the coincidence is too great to entirely be ignored or dismissed. This circumstance, had the roles been reversed, would have been deemed as an act of terrorism immediately by the media, especially if the individual had any sort of Middle Eastern descent or trace of Muslim faith. And this is not to be stereotypical – it is based on facts due to precedents which were indeed acts of terrorism too. Attacks, and even scares would be described as terrorism in the immediate instance then – yet in this circumstance, none of the news outlets even entertain the prospect of using the word itself to start with.
Fast track to a few days later, on 5th November, the counter-terrorism police released a report deeming that the attack was indeed ‘motivated by extreme right-wing terrorist ideology’. Commenting on this, Tim Jacques, senior national coordinator for counterterrorism policing, states that despite evidence that the suspect was “primarily driven by an extremist ideology”, the matter of “strong indications that mental health was probably a factor” is highlighted too. In no way should that be negated, as anyone capable of such an act should clearly be considered regarding their mental health too. But the outstanding thing here is: the suspect is a white male, and we are once again fed the same narrative, as for most white suspects involved in such scenarios, begging the question of representation in the media once more depending on your background.
Any act of terrorism, against any one or any group, is disgusting and should be treated with severity regardless. That is not up for argument here. The issue is how these people are portrayed based on who the victims and the attacker are. We have seen unfortunate incidents in the past, where individuals have proceeded to attack and kill innocent people, due to religious or political ideology and motivation. In this case, we have an extremist political motivation that led this attack, where fortunately, no one was harmed. Yet the way in which they have been portrayed is utterly different, despite the severity of the situation being so great. The shadow home secretary has raised a concern too for how long it took the anti-terror police to take a lead on this case and the lack of vigilance displayed. Does being an immigrant make one any less human, and any less worthy of safety, justice and representation in this country? That should not be the case, yet it is what we are seeing and thus should be addressed more directly. And us, as individuals, should be making the effort to make sure this happens, even if it simply means that we ensure such stories are not buried and demand that better precautions are taken for those living in situations such as the victims of this migrant centre.
So long as such negative perceptions of immigration continue to persist within our society, then immigrants cannot hope to safely seek a better life here. The previous Home Secretary Priti Patel pushed through the plan to send “illegal” immigrants to Rwanda, and spoke against the “activist lawyers” who were standing up against what seemed like an inhumane plan. Earlier this month, our current Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, stated that she is determined to stop “an invasion of migrants”. Inflammatory language, such as “invasion”, produces an extremely dangerous rhetoric, especially among the extremist far right movements. MP Zarah Sultana pointed out that similar language was used 10 years ago by the BNP, creating an unsettling precedent considering this set of events. Figures of the government who continue to push such a narrative brings us nowhere near solving these issues, as they almost encourage rather than condemn what is plainly an act of terrorism.
The minute we choose to see someone in a weaker, more vulnerable position than us as a threat simply because they are different, because they do not look like us, do not speak our language or have separate customs, we go down a very dangerous road. Such disgraceful attacks should receive equal attention and action regardless of who the victim and the attacker are. These supposed “illegal” immigrants are individuals who are entitled to seek asylum, considering that it is no longer safe or viable for them to survive in their own country. No one leaves their home because they want to, no one puts their life, and their children’s lives in danger, crossing seas, forests, and deserts if they have another viable choice. So why is it that these people are portrayed as the villains, even when they are victims? This then begs the question, that if this event and the way it has been handled is not a wake-up call, then whatever needs to happen next for it to be one?