Suella Braverman Racist Home Sec’y Sacked

UPDATE: The UK Supreme Court rejected the Governments appeal from a lower court ruling that struck down the Home Secretary’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda for processing and resettlement. The Supreme Court’s ruling protects migrants’ rights to a fair assessment of their situation. From the Guardian:

Steve Smith, the chief executive of the refugee charity Care4Calais, a claimant in the initial legal challenge, said the judgment was “a victory for humanity”.

He added: “This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral but, most importantly, it is unlawful. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on this cruel policy, and the only receipts the government has are the pain and torment inflicted on the thousands of survivors of war, torture and modern slavery they have targeted with it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/supreme-court-rejects-rishi-sunak-plan-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda

Vishvapani Blomfield published an article in Tricycle Magazine in June 2023 that sheepishly capitulates to the power of fascist authoritarianism under the guise of “nice Buddhism”. Vishvapani, an ordained member of the Triratna Buddhist Order, argued that his version of Buddhism does not allow him to take sides on the issue of whether the ultra-conservative policies of then UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman should be considered contrary to the teachings of Buddhism.

Braverman was passionately committed to the utterly insane and racist policy that “boat people” who migrate to the shores of the UK should be sent to Rwanda for processing and settlement, who could then be resettled in a hostile country. Rwanda has no legal or historical connection with the UK; it has never been a British colony. Regardless, Braverman sought to be a champion of this vicious and racist policy, even as it was being challenged in the British courts.

Vishvapani argues that Suella Braverman, a Triratna Buddhist, was entitled to her ultra-conservative, and many would say, fascist beliefs and policies. Vishvapani argues that where Braverman went awry from Buddhist principles was to couch her advocacy for these policies in language that is “false, unkind, unhelpful, and foster[s] disharmony”, i. e. that run afoul of the four Buddhist principles of “right speech.” In other words, it’s perfectly within the ethical practice of Buddhism to enforce policies that are racist, inhumane and cause significant harm to people, physically, mentally and legally, so long as you do it “nicely.”

I am also a member of Triratna Buddhism community, a Mitra at the same level of commitment as Braverman. Several members of Triratna have tried to distance themselves from Braverman by saying that she wasn’t really a member, or hasn’t been involved with Triratna since she became a Mitra several years ago. But again, that’s just avoiding the issue. The fact is, Braverman is as much a member of Triratna as I am and many others who became Mitras or participate in Triratna’s programs. She took her oath of office on a copy of the Dhammapada.

The version of Buddhism that I practice seems to be quite different from that of Vishvapani or Triratna. I understand Buddhism to teach that, above all, we should avoid doing harm to people, or cause others unnecessary suffering. There is no doubt in my mind that Braverman’s policy to send migrants to Rwanda would not only cause suffering to potentially thousands of people, but her stated intent was to cause suffering, i.e. to use the Rwanda policy to deter migrants from coming to the UK in the first place. As with many of these fascist authoritarian policies, “cruelty is the point.”

It makes me wonder what kind of Buddhist training Triratna is propagating that would impart to its members the notion that it was within the practice of Buddhist ethics to cause harm to others, to perpetuate racism and xenophobia; to enact policies that are intentionally cruel, that violate human rights and basic human dignity; where is the “compassion” in that?

Hannah Arendt reminded us that the Nazis exterminated millions of people in a manner that was rational, systematic, detached, and without the requirement of personal vitriol. In her report on Adolph Eichmann, the Nazi operative responsible for transporting millions to concentration camps as part of the Nazi’s Final Solution, she revealed the “banality of evil” that is done by people who are cordial, decent and well-spoken:

Arendt found Eichmann an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat, who in her words, was ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’, but ‘terrifyingly normal’. He acted without any motive other than to diligently advance his career in the Nazi bureaucracy. Eichmann was not an amoral monster, she concluded in her study of the case, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). Instead, he performed evil deeds without evil intentions, a fact connected to his ‘thoughtlessness’, a disengagement from the reality of his evil acts.

https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil

In the face of this, it is rather ironic that Braverman was sacked, ostensibly, because she used language in an article published in the UK Times that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak found offensive. She attacked the police for being too lenient toward thousands of people marching in support of Palestinians in the Gaza conflict. Sunak asked her to edit the article; Braverman refused and was fired. Here again is the notion, this time from authoritarian conservatives, that one may perpetrate racist, xenophobic, harmful and inhumane public policies, so long as you do it politely.

In her studies in preparation for becoming a Mitra (assuming some sort of study was required) did Braverman ever encounter the life and teachings of another Buddhist exemplar in the Triratna lineage, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the Indian champion of human rights for Dalit outcasts, women, tribal peoples and laborers? If she did, she might have been horrified that a “woke radical marxist liberal” could be elevated as a Buddhist teacher within the Triratna tradition.

Triratna owns this. The community cannot distance itself from Braverman’s cruelty by saying “Suella who?” or by eliding the issue under the guise of “right speech.” It is our responsibility as Buddhists to denounce and prevent policies that cause unnecessary suffering to people and perpetuate racism, which the Buddha was clearly and adamantly against. It is within the practice of Buddhist ethics to call out “the banality of evil”.