For as long as humanity has existed, there have always been those who would view our species as either essentially benevolent or inherently selfish. And while individuals can undoubtedly be either or a combination of both, we are all broadly inclined to view mankind with either kindly or suspicious eyes. On a sliding scale, all of us are either with Rousseau or Hobbes, holding a position which largely correlates with politics and age.
Whether that child was his or not was not the point: how could any human being leave a baby to its own fate that way?
The dark side of humanity was on grim display last week when footage emerged of a migrant abandoning an infant in the English Channel as he clambered onto a dinghy, leaving his baby to be picked up by rescuers. Whether that child was his or not was not the point: how could any human being leave a baby to its own fate that way?
Furthermore, whether this man was so desperate to flee persecution or fear of death in the land of his origin that he would do go to any lengths to seek asylum in Britain (notwithstanding that his immediate country of origin was France), or whether he was just seeking a new life where opportunities and benefits were more forthcoming, neither reason can forgive his behaviour. No civilised person treats an infant this way.
But the whole cross-Channel people-trafficking business itself exposes the amoral, animal side of our species. Most people, irrespective of their politics, agree that those who profit from this human misery on such a monumental scale represent the worst of mankind and the epitome of wickedness. But then, to those of a more circumspect, conservative persuasion, that’s the way human beings will always behave when they revert to a state of nature devoid of morality or the firm hand of authority.
Such pessimists are also less inclined to automatically believe the good intentions and honesty of the claims of these migrants, to believe that everyone who makes their way across the English Channel is acting in good faith or are themselves helpless victims. They are less inclined to draw a clear distinction here: just as the smuggler gangs represent humanity at his most ruthless and callous, the individual we saw abandoning that infant epitomises mankind as a creature of instinct who will resort to anything to attain his goals.
Those who hold a more benign view of mankind do draw a distinction in this regard. These are those on the left who have for years proclaimed ‘refugees welcome’ in their neighbourhoods. While some are beginning to change their tune as reality has begun to impinge on their lives – such as in places such as Piddington in Oxfordshire, whose Liberal Democrat MP last year signed an open letter calling for ‘unity and compassion’ for asylum seekers – others still hold to the notion that compassion and appeals to human dignity will see everything right in the end. This stems from the idea that if we just treated others as we would wish ourselves to be treated, to show good will to other human beings who are just like us, the world would be fine.
This is the thinking that reveals itself in the slogan ‘Hope Not Hate’ and manifests itself in the actions of the human rights lawyers and charities which are not only helping those who break into this country settle permanently, but are arguably enabling their potentially fatal journeys across the water. These are the organisations such as Care4Calais, which distributes clothing, tents and food to migrants in northern France, and, as reported in the Telegraph last week, which has also repeatedly tried to persuade judges that lying adult migrants were children.
These activists not only believe in the inherent goodness of humanity, they are convinced of the unshakeable righteousness of themselves. This is why they always haughtily denounce the types who descended on Dover and Portsmouth recently as ‘fascists’ and ‘racists’ and seek to undermine anti-immigrant argument as ‘uncaring’ – knowing that it’s the worst accusation one can make in an age governed by sentimentality and feelings.
Yet delve beneath the surface, the conduct of these emoting types reveal humanity at its most cynical, calculated and selfish. Just because the expression ‘virtue signalling’ has fallen out of fashion through overuse, it doesn’t mean the phenomenon of conspicuous compassion has gone away. Many behave the way they do in politics today because there is kudos to be had from feigning altruism. The desire to boast how caring you are in order to make yourself feel good, win you plaudits, and perhaps even enable social advancement, remains in rude health.
And who cares if your grandstanding has negative consequences? So what if your actions entail more social upheaval at home and deaths in the Channel? As long as it proves you’re on the right side of history, that’s what ultimately matters.
Comments