A document intended to explain the law became, for this chamber, evidence of what the government feared it had to explain. Yes won by more than two to one, with the result driven less by the booklet’s wording than by what voters believed its existence revealed.
Yes voters treated the need for guidance as evidence in itself. The floor’s most-respected Yes case said: “If those things need pointing out to them, then they are not the people we want entering our country”; another highly respected voice argued that protection from sexual assault should “transcend language”. The louder claims went further, presenting the policy as proof of deliberate governmental recklessness.
No voters made the narrower case that arriving in a new country means learning its laws, not confessing to an inherent danger. Their strongest argument was that “Many countries provide immigrants and refugees with information or resources about important laws”, while another insisted: “The booklet highlights how UK customs may differ. That is it and that is all.” Their side also described the wider inference as “dog whistle nonsense”, but the two camps largely talked past each other: one debated what the guidance signalled, the other what it actually said.
The debate then widened into the UK’s argument about violence against women and the uses of immigration in that conversation. A respected Yes voice warned that “Women face sexual harassment and assault daily across the UK”, while other voters argued that concern about asylum seekers should not obscure danger from partners and other men already here. As a self-selected platform vote, this cannot establish the prevalence of any group’s offending; it does show how readily an administrative measure was absorbed into a much larger argument about trust in government and public safety.
The verdict was not that the leaflet had been read closely and found alarming. It was that its very existence was read as an admission.
44 Opinions
It’s an admission that they know these people are more likely to rape and be violent than the native population. But they will still spread them among the country anyway, because the alternative, being called racist, is far worse to them.
The assumption that all migrants are intent on raping people is rooted in racist scaremongerimg. There will be specific cultural attitudes & misconceptions that need addressing and so they have . And yes some among them will be dangerous, but no more dangerous or prevalent than homegrown monsters who we as yer haven't issued the same guidelines to .
we not what social and sexual education our schools teach but we dont for underdeveloped countries. They will be influenced by Western porn.
Shame on this government for helping the far right to spread lies about the relative dangers of asylum seekers. This only helps whip up fear – and fuel the kind of racist pogroms we've seen recently, with far right thugs burning people out of their homes and harassing and physically abusing people of colour.
We have been told we are racist if we suggest that some cultures have dangerous embedded attitudes to women and children in the men. These men have been filmed explaining what they want to do - and arrested for grooming vulnerable white girls.
You don't need guidance not to rapeseed or molest anyone,but obviously the government have information,,statistics saying that a lot of these people do. What is being hid from us ??
Not all cultures are equal. We've seen it in countries of these cultures origin and we had examples of new behaviours when the governments let these cultures in masse here. I do not believe the guidance will make any difference, I suspect it was supposed to be prove for us, citizens that government is doing something about the issue. It would require a whole deradicalization programme but even then it is difficult to change habits of the whole life.
Surely it's quite common to give people guidance to a country they don't know. Cultures are different and what we consider blindingly obvious isn't necessarily to everyone. Saying that this equates to knowingly bringing in rapists is dog whistle nonsense.
I now think this gov is knowingly putting white girls and women in danger! Can't we start a class action against this gov for importing illegal rapey stabby men ? Surely it's a crime against humanity !? I want a Nuremberg Trail 2.0! I don't feel safe in my own country!
I don’t know what information they are given anyway on arrival but I do think all our laws and culture need to be spelt out. Personally I would just stop the boats.