How appropriate that just as the United Nations was holding a special conference on racism, the headlines were dominated by stories about asylum seekers. Sadly, the two issues are closely connected.

These days, racism is the hate that dare not speak its name. It is generally accepted by decent, educated people everywhere that to judge a person on the basis of the colour of their skin or their country of origin is shameful, stupid and immoral. Yet at the same time, politicians around the world have found that attacking those who come to their country claiming to need refuge from persecution is not only acceptable, it can be a quick route to popularity.

It doesn't always work, as the Conservatives found out at the last UK General Election. But in Australia, Prime Minister John Howard has seen his popularity rising after taking a merciless stance against a boatload of refugees. When the Indonesian ferry the refugees were on began to sink, Captain Arne Rinnan of the Norwegian cargo ship Tampa, which happened to be nearby, received a message from the Australian coastguard asking him to help out, and telling him that there were around 80 people on board the sinking ship.

Actually, when Captain Rinnan got there, he found well over 400 people on board, many more than the Tampa was designed to accommodate. But he and his crew took them on board anyway. He set sail towards Indonesia, but some of his new passengers made it abundantly clear that they'd just been there and had no wish to return. He changed course and headed for Christmas Island, an offshore island of Australia.

Then, when the Tampa was within sight of Christmas Island, Captain Rinnan got another call from the Australian authorities, telling him that under no circumstances could he enter Australian waters with his hapless human cargo. To underline the point, troops were sent to board the Tampa and guard its deck, lest any of the would-be immigrants were tempted to jump overboard and try to swim to Christmas Island. And just in case the unfortunate Captain Rinnan had any thoughts of heading back to Indonesia, that nation's authorities let it be known that military action would be taken against the ship if he tried to do so...

A ludicrous diplomatic battle between then ensued for eight days, with Howard resisting calls from the United Nations and the Norwegian government to allow the Tampa to dock. Finally, on Monday, the refugees were taken on board the Australian navy troop carrier HMAS Manoora, which set sail for Papua New Guinea. From there, the Australian authorities plan to fly some of them to New Zealand and others to the tiny Pacific island of Nauru while their asylum claims are assessed.

The usual method used by politicians when trying to win votes by being hostile to asylum seekers is to question the legitimacy of their asylum claims. In this case, with most of the refugees having come from Afghanistan, that technique can't really be used. It isn't hard to believe that large numbers of people might genuinely need to flee from the nation ruled by the Taleban, where education for girls has been banned, women can be flogged for showing their faces in public and homosexuality is punishable by death.

But that hasn't stopped Howard rejecting all pleas for Australia to do the decent, humanitarian thing. He's posturing away for all he's worth as the great defender of Australia's self-interest. It is surely no coincidence that there's an election due in Australia in a few months. Reports from Australia suggest that Howard is already being praised as 'a strong leader', just like Margaret Thatcher used to be in Britain. What this really means is 'he may be an arrogant bully but he's our arrogant bully! He'll put the foreigners in their place!'

The hate that dare not speak its name, once again. It appeals to the lowest, most primitive instincts in people. Among the dispossessed, those who perhaps should feel most instinctive sympathy with refugees, some will instead feel, 'Well, I may not have much, I may not be much, but at least I belong here. At least I'm not foreign'. That might account for the phone calls that have reportedly been received by some Australian radio stations, suggesting that the refugees at the centre of this controversy should be thrown into the sea for the sharks to deal with.

I do not mean to single out Australia. There is racism everywhere, as that United Nations summit surely should conclude. On the BBC's message boards, there have been some moving messages from Australians appalled by what their government has been doing. But Australia certainly hasn't made many friends overseas this week; and with the loathsome Pauline Hanson's blatantly xenophobic One Nation party showing up too strongly for comfort in that country's electoral opinion polls, it looks clear enough that there's a big bigot vote available to any Aussie politician willing to make a bid for it.

John Howard obviously is willing to make a strong bid for it.

Then again, when it comes to the treatment of asylum seekers, we in Britain have little to be self-righteous about. According to some reports, Home Secretary David Blunkett has decided against abolishing the system by which such people are paid most of their welfare benefits in vouchers, thus making them easily identifiable and open to abuse at the supermarket checkout.

But as if that wasn't bad enough, it has now been reported that asylum seekers are to be put to work cleaning and cooking in a new detention centre due to open near London's Heathrow airport later this month. Which sounds fine, until you hear that they are to be paid 34 pence an hour, less than a tenth of the UK's minimum wage. UK Detention Services, the French company that will run the detention centre, has been granted a special exemption from the legal requirement to pay the minimum wage to those who work at the detention camp, which will hold around 500 people.

UK Detention Services is a subsidiary of Sodexho, the company that runs the asylum seekers' voucher scheme. This special favour from its friends in the Government will give it a chance to make even more money from human misery, by saving millions of pounds in staff costs. One can certainly see Sodexho's point of view. Why should they offer real, if unglamorous, jobs to people already legally resident in Britain, when the UK Government is willing to let them pay asylum seekers about £12 a week to do most of the work in the centre in which they are imprisoned?

At least some British politicians have been prepared to condemn the scheme. The Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, Norman Baker MP, commented:
'This is like the Chinese or Soviet gulags. If they [the Government] have any shame left this will be scrapped within 24 hours... It is a disgrace that the Government is prepared to pay millions to a company that is prepared to exploit asylum seekers in such a cruel manner.'

The question of whether this Government has any shame left is certainly an interesting one. I have mentally filed it alongside another question I ask myself frequently:
'Can I ever bring myself to vote Labour again while this kind of thing goes on?'

Meanwhile, the plans have also been condemned by charitable groups who work with refugees. Sally Price of the Refugee Action charity commented:
'The only people who stand to benefit from this are Sodexho. This is nothing short of slave labour.'

Now there's a thought. At the UN summit on racism, the UK has been one of four European Union countries opposing plans by the EU to issue a formal apology for European countries' past involvement in the slave trade.

Perhaps now we know why. They can't condemn slavery because they're planning to reintroduce it, especially for the prisoners at the Gulag Heathrow.

Believe it or not, at one point this week I decided to try to get through a whole column this week without mentioning the UK Conservative Party leadership contest. But then I realised that we are now in the last lap. By this time next week, we shall know whether Britain's remaining Tories have decided to follow Iain Duncan Smith into the far right of the political spectrum, or follow Kenneth Clarke in a bid to win back the centre ground that they've recently conceded to Labour.

At the weekend, Duncan Smith made a surprising attempt to cast off his image as the candidate of the hard right by expressing mixed feelings about Section 28 of the Local Government Act, the controversial piece of legislation that prevents local authorities from 'promoting' homosexuality. Previously, he had supported the retention of Section 28. But at the weekend, in an oddly-phrased statement on the issue, he said:
'Section 28, I accept, has about it a totem which is about saying to a group in the community, "We actually rather dislike you".'

This statement caused immediate anger from many of those on the Tory right who, quite openly, do actually rather dislike homosexual and bisexual people.

Kenneth Clarke has also apparently been trying to amend his amiable, avuncular image - in a rather alarming fashion. Writing in that great journal of thoughtful political analysis 'The Sun', he raged:
'I will cross any road to start a fight with Tony Blair and his shallow, rootless, spin-drunk New Labour administration. The Conservatives must choose a leader who can give Labour a bloody nose now and boot them out office at the next election.'

'Start a fight?' 'Bloody nose'? 'Boot them out?' Who does he think he is, John Prescott?

Anyway, I cannot condemn any U-turns on either candidate's part, because I too have been having second thoughts about the contest. A couple of weeks ago, I'd definitely have preferred Clarke to win, because I found many of Duncan Smith's policies alarmingly reminiscent of those perpetrated by George W. Bush in America. I still find Duncan Smith alarming, but I am concerned that a Clarke-led, centre-right Tory party might leave a gap on the right in British politics that could be exploited by the likes of the British National Party.

Whoever wins, there are dangers. So I am now watching impartially, just waiting to see whether the Tories pick that old devil Clarke or the deep blue Duncan Smith. My vote is for 'neither of the above'.

I am enormously grateful to Sven Goran Eriksson for giving me the chance to enjoy watching and supporting England for the first time in years. I say this not just because the Swedish coach has improved the quality of the England team beyond recognition, as last Saturday's 5-1 win¹ in Germany demonstrated in spectacular style. Mr Eriksson is obviously superb at his job, but there is another great thing about having him as England coach. His presence in that job offends all the right people.

There has, sadly, always been a knuckle-trailing element among the England support. Not too long ago, they would jeer any black players who were picked to play for England. When it was announced that a non-English coach was to be given the job of leading the England team, such people were apoplectic with rage at the idea that the racial purity of 'their' team was going to be corrupted. There were hysterical campaigns on the Internet to 'save England'. Right-wing newspapers like the 'Daily Mail' joined in the frenzy of condemnation.

Amazingly, there are still those who can't accept the scholarly Swede as England coach. I heard one caller on the BBC Radio Five Live football phone-in show '6:06' say after last weekend's game that Eriksson should not have the job no matter how good he was at it, because, he said, it should only be open to Englishmen. But his view was curtly dismissed as nonsense by presenter Alan Green, and the caller was clearly in a small minority. Most of those who rang in were obviously very, very happy indeed with Eriksson's England.

And so am I. In the past, I was sometimes a little uneasy about supporting England, because of some of the company I was keeping if I did so. Now I can thoroughly enjoy supporting Eriksson's England, partly because they are an excellent, entertaining team, and partly because I know that the more they improve under their imported coach, the more the narrow-minded nationalists are proved wrong.

Nice one, Sven Goran!

Ormondroyd

06.09.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page