STOP anti-human rhetoric
At the heart of our fight against anti-human rhetoric lies a simple, but often forgotten truth:
the people seeking asylum are just that - people.
People with hopes, families, fears and futures. Over the past years, the narrative around refugees in the UK has hardened, turning us into threats and statistics into scapegoats. This rhetoric, fueled by fear and misinformation, strips away the humanity of those who have risked everything for safety.
When we talk about anti-human rhetoric, we’re talking about something that isn’t just abstract or theoretical - it’s real. It’s in the language that’s used about us in the media, the way we’re framed in political debates, the way people look at us in the streets. And it doesn’t just hurt; it fuels hostility, pushes policies that dehumanise and justifies mistreatment.
We’ve lived it. We’ve felt it.
And we’re here to stop it.
STOP anti-human rhetoric Campaign Champion:
Karlie Toame (PGR)
Too often, we’re referred to as “asylum seekers,” as if our entire identity is defined by a process, not by who we are. But we are people - people seeking safety, people with stories, families and futures. Words matter.
When we’re spoken about in cold, dehumanising terms, it makes it easier for the public to forget our humanity.
We’ve seen how this rhetoric fuels real-world harm. Look at what happened in July and August 2024. The riots, the hate, the violence - fueled by lies, by toxic narratives that paint us as a threat. It’s exhausting, but it’s also why we’re fighting harder than ever.
This is a campaign to reclaim our humanity, to ensure that people understand what’s at stake when they speak about us in these dehumanising ways. We refuse to be seen as a problem to be solved.
TAKE ACTION:
Say “people seeking asylum,” because that’s who we are. It’s not about being politically correct - it’s about being human.
Say “movement of people” rather than ‘flood’ / ‘wave’ / ‘invasion / ‘swarm’ / ‘crisis’ because these words bring with them the language of fear and chaos, evoking imagery of unmanageable forces. It strips away individuality and context, reducing people to something uncontrollable and dangerous.
Say "safe routes" rather than ‘safe and legal routes’ because the term ‘legal’ should inherently imply safety. The moment we feel the need to qualify legal routes as ‘safe’, we subtly acknowledge a failure in our obligations to protect those fleeing from harm.
Say "two-way integration" rather than ‘assimilation’ because integration requires both sides to adapt, creating a shared space where multiple identities coexist and enrich each other. ‘Assimilation’ demands that newcomers abandon their own culture entirely, which strips away diversity and reduces the potential for mutual growth.