The aim is one thing, but the plan of action is something else. The evidence from similar schemes around the world suggest that this will not help, as you say, to stop people drowning to death in the English Channel. It’s the specifics of Act on real people that make it inhumane, not the motivation and aim behind the policy.
So far, any asylum seekers in the U.K. can still apply to have their family come and join them. If they cross together as a family, then they won’t be split up. As for motivation, I thought Buddhist morality was based on the notion that the intent is really what matters?
I’ve heard Australia does something similar with detention centers in another country/remote location?
I’m cynical about politicians. There are very few who are motivated into the field from compassion. Even if they start off that way, they soon fall into the usual traps. They can put both their hands on the entire hardbound PTS Tipitaka collection and cover themselves with prayer flags for all I care, doesn’t change much …
If they want to win elections they pick those topics that rile people up. What better time than a recession, war and energy crunch to cut benefits and pick on the vulnerable. This is what it looks like to me. One wonders maybe if the illegal immigrants turned up with a suitcase of cash, they might get to jump the citizenship line…
It’s more about your ability to be an asylum seeker. We had a similar thing with the ‘hostile environment’, (where I actually had ‘skin in the game’ so to speak) and we ended up with the Windrush scandal. That’s why I think we have to be so careful now with the policy and legislation.
Interesting. Yes. There’s a difference between motivation and intention I think? Your understanding may be different - I’d be happy to hear it. So, here goes… I’m not sure how it works in the EBTs, but from my discussions with the Thai Forest monks in the (English) Midlands. Motivation is your reason for doing something. Intention is the plan of action that you make. So for example (we were having this discussion during the Iraq war, hence the example), I may be motivated to rid the world of a terrible tyrant. A good motivation. A great aim. But there will be a number of ways that I can formulate a plan to do that. If the plan of action I choose involves killing a whole bunch of people by bombing the country, then those parts of the plan will be unwholesome - the intent there will be unwholesome.
Sure, the motivation is simply the reason why you are doing x. In this case, the motivation is to stop illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel. What will decide if it is immoral or not, in Buddhist terms, depends on the intention. Is the intention driven by fear, thus being unwholesome, or is it driven by compassion? Of course, you and I can’t really know the intentions behind it all. From a non-Buddhist POV then, is it moral or not? As far as I can see, since it seems families aren’t split up and it can possibly reduce the numbers crossing then I don’t see how it is bad. If it does fail to deter migrants however then I don’t see the point in it, and as I said I was never fully sold on the idea to begin with.
Indeed we do, it’s disgusting. Some of our ex-politicans, like this Oxford-educated gentleman, have been hawking Australia’s cruel policy to Europe for years, to the delight of the nazis there.
Lol, true. Still, though, there is a difference. Not all those in power are the same. And if we tar them all with the same brush, it doesn’t make it easier for the few good folks to thrive.
It’s scarcely possible for an asylum-seeker to arrive in the UK without passing through a “safe country,” though, so doesn’t your argument amount to “those seeking asylums should not come to Britain”?
People may have a perfectly good reason for wanting to head specifically to Britain. They may have parents, siblings, or children here. It would be unfortunate to treat human beings as if they were disconnected, non-sentient machine parts, without reference to their personal circumstances. I guess that’s in part why there’s an asylum process.
As a member of the Triratna Buddhist Order, I can report that most people I know find her delight at the prospect of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda positively ghoulish. At the same time, she’s not a person with any institutional responsibility, and it seems unseemly to turn too much of a spotlight on someone who is relatively new and just beginning to explore the Dharma, so it’s a delicate situation. I think to myself, how would she feel about the way I just discussed her, and I feel uneasy.
Anyone surprised by a Buddhist being a (as I would see it) far-right conservative probably hasn’t been paying attention. More Buddhists these days hold views of ethnic, national, and gender identity that are strongly conservative and which I have difficulty reconciling with the Buddha’s teachings on non-identification (not to mention his teachings on compassion). Braverman is by no means the only person in Triratna who holds very conservative views: there is a small but very vocal minority who strike me as essentially “alt-right.” I hear from them that racism doesn’t exist, that talking about racism is racist, that racism affects white people as much as minorities, that it’s a “both-sides” situation, and so on. They tell me that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. I hear that Trump is great, that Muslims in western countries are part of a dangerous religion, and even that people should arm themselves to defend against immigrants (this last only from one person so far). I see Buddhists with a DNA-essentialist view of gender (i.e. only sex chromosomes matter and are real — let’s forget that people have minds too). Also liberalism (ordinary, garden-variety democratic liberalism) is an offshoot of Marxism, and therefore dangerous. That view — often in terms of warnings of cultural Marxism — is becoming fairly common.
I suppose there may be some here thinking that the people I’m talking about are obviously right and are the only ones who have their heads screwed on properly. If so, those people and I probably don’t share much in common, politically speaking.
I don’t know about the situation in other Buddhist organizations, but it does seem that as soon as a discussion like this starts someone will jump in justifying deportations etc — usually after having declared how they’re not being political, while other people are of course mindlessly clinging to liberal views. I’m getting the feeling that right wing thinking that until recently would have been seen as extreme is making strong inroads in western Buddhist organizations. It’s an odd world we live in.
To some extend my response has to be one of patience. I heard lots of profoundly naive and potentially dangerous left-wing views when I first got involved in Buddhism, and I probably held some of them myself. People go through phases. At the same time, there are dark forces on the move right now, and some of the views I’ve mentioned align with them in ways that (unlike the pro-communism I’d encounter among very young Buddhists) is resulting in real suffering for some very vulnerable people.
I have not come across such ridiculous views in the Buddhist-related circles I frequent in NZ, but as you know there is plenty online. And in real life here there are some prominent people in the wellness-spirituality sphere who are vocally covid/climate/etc denying. My impression is that these views grow out of a distrust of expertise. Many of the wellness people have been distrustful of mainstream medicine for some time (sometimes with good reason), but this has now spilled over into other areas, including politics.
It’s a bizarre world we have, where we are increasingly reliant on knowledge and technology, but a significant fraction of the population thinks that their opinion on technical issues is as valid as any expert. That’s a key issue in the world-wide rise in populism (calling these movements conservative isn’t very accurate in my view).
Yes I haven’t seen that amongst Buddhists yet (though there’s still time!), but the value of masking and social distancing compared to the disruption caused by those things has very much been questioned, in ways that aren’t balanced or helpful. It’s not the questioning per se that I mind; policy can’t be made without weighing up such things. But as you say there’s a disparaging of expertise, and even a conspiratorial mindset whereby experts are seen as having hidden, malign, agendas. This means that their research can be dismissed out of hand.
The link between anti-science and new-age thinking is quite strong. There’s a privileging of intuition and gut feeling there that leaves people free to dismiss any fact that’s inconvenient to them.
No, I don’t think the Abhidhamma is far right. In this case I think it’s simply wrong.
The Buddha didn’t say, “I’m not a deva, gandhabba, human being, etc. Oh, but by the way let’s get it clear that I’m 100% ultimately male.”
I, a spiritual doofus, can regard myself as conventionally male (checking that on the box, being aware that I have conditioning typical of a male) but have a sense that who I am is not ultimately defined by this thing called maleness. The Buddha was big on not defining ourselves — or at least that’s my interpretation.
So I’m with Soma when she said,
"What does womanhood [or manhood] matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
“One to whom it might occur,
‘I’m a woman’ or ‘I’m a man’
Or ‘I’m anything at all’—
Is fit for Mara to address."
Identities are for acknowledging, seeing through, and dropping, not for clinging to or taking as absolutes.
No, but if they have passed through safe countries they aren’t really fleeing anymore. If they have family in the UK, as far as I understand the law, they can still come here to be united with them.
I hear from them that racism doesn’t exist, that talking about racism is racist, that racism affects white people as much as minorities, that it’s a “both-sides” situation, and so on.
If one person or a group of people believed all those things they must be very confused, since they are contradictory beliefs.
No, I don’t think the Abhidhamma is far right. In this case I think it’s simply wrong.
That’s fine. We don’t have to all agree. I’m glad you said that it isn’t a far-right view. People can think that sex and gender are one in the same, and both are ontological facts rather than being social constructs without being on the extreme end of the political spectrum. I mean, they might not even be political at all.
The Buddha didn’t say, “I’m not a deva, gandhabba, human being, etc. Oh, but by the way let’s get it clear that I’m 100% ultimately male.”
I, a spiritual doofus, can regard myself as conventionally male (checking that on the box, being aware that I have conditioning typical of a male) but have a sense that who I am is not ultimately defined by this thing called maleness. The Buddha was big on not defining ourselves — or at least that’s my interpretation.
So I’m with Soma when she said,
"What does womanhood [or manhood] matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.
“One to whom it might occur,
‘I’m a woman’ or ‘I’m a man’
Or ‘I’m anything at all’—
Is fit for Mara to address."
Identities are for acknowledging, seeing through, and dropping, not for clinging to or taking as absolutes.
There isn’t a contradiction between accepting the reality of the male and female faculty and the Soma sutta, or between that and anatta. The Buddha too accepted these realities in the suttas. We are, however, getting wildly off topic here.
The moderators wish for discussions to remain open but this requires the cooperation of everyone. Mods may temporarily silence individuals if directives are not being followed.
Thanks for your help and hope everyone has a nice weekend!
Braverman has also been accused of inciting ill will towards the trans community
In the UK there has been a 56% increase in reported hate crimes toward trans.
My personal view is that Braverman’s political stance is not in anyway shaped by her association with any particular Buddhist group. I imagine that she is highly compartmentalized.
As far as I understand it, that’s one of the things that changed in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. You get a different status depending on your route into the country.
‘Group 1’ refugees (those who arrive directly from a country where their life or freedom was under threat, and present themselves to the UK authorities immediately) and ‘Group 2’ refugees (those who do not fulfil these two requirements). Group 2 refugees (being assigned that way, having maybe passed through a safe country) no longer have family reunion rights, among other things. I believe that this is one of the things that have the human rights community so perplexed.
It’s an elaborate Catch 22 that has been set up by the UK government. It hinges on shutting down the safe and legal routes into the UK. So if we put normal migration aside and just focus on refugees, here’s the plan as I see it …
You can’t claim asylum until you are in the UK, you can’t get into the UK legally unless you are directly airlifted in by the UK government.
If you enter the UK illegally, you get sent to Rwanda where you are assessed to see if you are a refugee. There’s only one of two outcomes of that assessment, you are either not a refugee, or you are a Group 2 refugee without many of the normal rights given to refugees including family reunion or access to public funds. This effectively stops the refugee from rebuilding their lives.
… They get protected as asylum seekers who are certainly not being shipped off to Rwanda, much less being extradited back to their country to face justice!
Case in point… Vijay Mallya … India’s ex- King of Good Times.
If Ms Braverman is serious about her policy, she should start with a big fish like this one! Ship Mr Mallya to Rwanda! I daresay he might benefit their economy single handedly.
…
