It was not surprising, though deplorable, that riots and violence erupted in the Northern Irish capital, Belfast, two nights ago, amidst an atmosphere of incitement following a crime committed by a refugee who had been granted residency. Britain has been experiencing a charged atmosphere for some time due to the rising debate around the issue of immigration and its political exploitation by some political parties.
The incident behind the unrest involved a man in his thirties, reportedly Sudanese, named Hadi Alodid, who attacked a man in his forties, Stephen Ogilvie, in the street and attempted to kill him with a knife, only for passers-by to intervene and save him. Under other circumstances, this could have been treated as a crime like any other serious offense that might occur anywhere, to be referred to the courts for consideration and sentencing of the perpetrator once the crime was proven.
However, the Belfast crime did not pass unnoticed for several reasons, chief among them the atmosphere of incitement and tension surrounding immigration issues, which have become a heated topic in political conflict, especially with the rise of far-right voices attempting to exploit this file by instigating fears, even hatred. In this climate, agitators found their opportunity: the perpetrator is a refugee who arrived in February 2023 and was granted a five-year residency. His crime can be used to fuel the raging debate about immigration and stir up claims that it threatens British society by highlighting the practices and transgressions of a few who commit crimes and disregard the law, or other groups who live on social welfare, implying they are a burden on the state.
There is a reason why a number of politicians exploit the issue of immigration whenever public anxiety rises. Rarely do other issues provoke stronger emotions that offer opportunities for the political grandstanding often accompanying debates and political sparring over this topic.
From this perspective, one can view the statement by British politician Robert Jenrick that his party, Reform UK, will seek to impose a ban on entry visas for all arrivals from Sudan.
At the core of his argument lies a simple idea: because individual Sudanese people have committed crimes in Britain, the UK should completely stop issuing visas to Sudanese nationals. This is how individual crimes are used in a flawed generalization to stigmatize an entire people and to call for measures that fall under the category of collective punishment. There is a significant moral and legal flaw in this position.
In justice systems, individuals are held accountable for their actions, and their punishment does not extend to others simply because they share the same nationality. It is illogical, for instance, for someone to demand the imprisonment of criminals' relatives, or to punish and criminalize entire communities because a single individual committed a crime. What is the fault of a Sudanese doctor seeking to work in the British health sector, or a student wanting to enroll in a British university, or a person wishing to visit relatives in the UK? Should all these individuals be treated as potential threats due to crimes committed by people they don't know, have never met, and over whom they have no authority or control over their actions?
Most Britons reject such logic because it is unjust and constitutes collective punishment for individual crimes. Even for those who are hesitant, the picture would become clearer if someone were to say, for example, that there are Britons who commit crimes abroad, or that some English football fans have gained an international reputation for hooliganism and violence, and therefore this justifies calls to ban all British visitors. The logic is twisted and remains so, regardless of nationality.
There is a fundamental difference between targeting criminals and targeting nationalities. This distinction is often blurred by populist policies and the rhetoric of far-right movements. The formula is familiar: take a shocking crime, highlight the perpetrator's nationality, and use it to imply that an entire ethnic or religious group, or those of a specific nationality, collectively represent a threat for which measures that generalize the offense or justify collective punishment should be taken. It is a strategy that plays on instigating fear or bigotry for political gain.
The danger is that it encourages people to judge millions based on the actions of a limited few. The result is that it destabilizes societal peace and stability, and inflates feelings of hatred and incitement.
Britain has the right to control its borders. It also has the right to demand that those who come to it respect its laws. However, it should always remain, as it has been, a country that evaluates individuals by their actions, and does not view them through the lens of collective stereotyping, as some political entities attempt to do.
When a politician states, or a party adopts a position calling for a ban on the entry of every student, nurse, academic, businessman, or refugee from a specific nationality and an entire country, due to the crime of one or more individuals, this is neither justice nor an acceptable policy. It is simply collective criminalization and punishment disguised as immigration policy. History provides more than enough examples of where this type of thinking can lead.
