Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Grayling Syndrome: an acute form of social blindness


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

Originally posted at the Justice Gap.

From as early as the 1880s doctors began to report a truly puzzling medical condition. Eventually named ‘Anton’s Syndrome’, medics noticed that some patients who had suffered a sudden loss of sight continued to deny their blindness, pretending that they could see, constructing ever more elaborate stories to justify their stumbles and collisions with furniture. This phenomenon provides us with an alternative lens to view not only Chris Grayling’s plans to cut Legal Aid to ‘immigrants and foreigners’, but the ethos underpinning the Government’s Immigration Bill, which has its Second Reading today. Because what we are witnessing unfolding before us is a syndrome that rather than being medical in origin is social – an acute form of social blindness. So let’s call it, for want of a better word, Grayling Syndrome, and consider its characteristic symptoms.

BlindfoldWhat we typically find is the patient denying the reality of the immense damage to the social fabric (and furniture) he or she is causing. A chronic insensitivity to the harm inflicted on vulnerable others. The constructing of evermore delusional and hysterical stories to justify the patient’s loss of attachment to the real world and the suffering of the people in it. Sociologists call this behaviour a ‘state of denial’. When faced with the appalling and the atrocious, we develop a kind of mind-blindness, a glazing over of the urgently human implications of what we are seeing and doing. And this offers us a privileged insight into the Government’s breathtaking callousness towards migrants. Because we spy in HMG’s proposed stripping of legal rights, extensive use of biometrics and cultivation of a climate of fear, both its hard outer shell – its grotesque exoskeleton – and something deeper and more disturbing: the moral soul of a political machine designed not to care. Two cogs drive this pernicious mechanism. Firstly, the systematic dehumanisation of its target victims. And then secondly, a spreading of social blindness through the unspoken suggestion that their suffering can be passed over, ignored, disqualified – that it just doesn’t ‘count’.

A crucial part of this process is the ‘hostile environment’ that Theresa May is determined to create for anyone having the temerity step on our shores without a piece of stamped paper. However, her contrived siege mentality, her tiresome little islander bigotry, amounts to a denial of human history. For since our ancestors left Africa 1.8 million years ago, human history has been meaningfully shaped by a succession of waves of migration, from those that brought down the Roman Empire, to the colonisation of the New World, to the movement of peoples from former colonies to the West. Historically, of course, one of the principal drivers of these movements has been the search for life-sustaining resources. In this, modern migrants are no different, seeking a better life for themselves and their families. But what the Government seeks to accomplish by these policies is to impose an increased cost on those seeking to share in our resources. The policy interventions are an act of deterrence – to deter migrants from coming at all or to make their stay unbearable by, for example, severely curtailing health and social welfare support. However, this strategy ignores two fundamental facts.

Firstly, it is trying to turn the tide of the world’s advancing globalisation. But secondly, and more critically, it palpably fails to understand that people in desperate situations do not rationally calculate a plan of action. Think about the catastrophic deaths of 300 Somali and Eritrean migrants, whose fishing boat caught fire and sank off the coast of Sicily earlier this month. While we might find it hard to imagine the horror those hopeful travellers endured in their last moments, it is also hard to conceive of the desperation that drives our fellow human beings to pack themselves and their children into what have been chillingly called ‘floating hearses’. The truth is they will continue to come, however hostile the environment, however unpromising the odds.

Therefore we are left with three things. Firstly, the inevitability that migrants will still migrate. And thus all the Government will achieve is the infliction of further suffering upon them. Next, the Government will necessarily remain rigidly mind-blind to the deepening misery it causes its victims. And lastly, the policy, as we’ve already so vividly seen, will be accompanied by a deeply cynical propaganda campaign aimed at inducing in others the same kind of social blindness. All this is certain. So what can be done – what is the antidote to Grayling Syndrome?

I want to suggest that you and I have three obligations. Firstly, we have a duty to challenge the invidious barbarities of this policy whenever we can. Find some form of protest today. Even just tell someone else about it today. Secondly, we must endeavour to publicise the plight of its victims wherever we are able. But even in doing so, we must guard against the trap of speaking too broadly about an undifferentiated category of ‘immigrants and foreigners’, a discourse that in itself can dehumanise them. As philosopher Peter Singer urges in his matchless book The Life You Can Save, let us find real stories, individual stories, human stories, for that is the scale we humans understand. And finally – what? The hardest thing of all: getting the wider public to care. I believe, however, that we can make a compelling case that an administration so thoroughly desensitised to the suffering of outsiders is well along the ravaged road to dismissing the suffering of those closer to home. And that kind of government is a danger. To the entire social fabric. To the future. Armed with this argument we are in a position to remind the public and politicians of what we share with the victims of the Immigration Bill: a common ancestral history, and a precious thing called humanity. It is simple, and sublime.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Dexter Dias QC

Dexter Dias QC

Dexter Dias QC is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers, a Researcher at Harvard University and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Cambridge.


8 Responses

  1. Your piece on “Graylings syndrome” is both witty, learned and humane. Your learned senior Apostle Paul QC was called “mad” when he gave a similar expose before King Agrippa in his apostolic letter in Acts of the Apostle 26: 24. If you wrote that piece in Iran, Libya, Iraq, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, Malaysia, Algeria, Egypt and a host of nations you will at the very least get a letter from the chairman of the bar association advising you to “behave yourself” and probably the minions of the earth will be set loose on you. So lets celebrate the freedom we enjoy.

    The heart of the matter is that politicians like prostitutes play to the highest bidder. The only thing a prostitute cares about is the money. The little Islanders just want to win and keep winning elections, the human misery it costs to get there is in their warped minds collateral damage. The Ronddah Valley was a vibrant place to be before Mrs. T; after her and three general elections, it is a waist land, poverty stricken and a bleak future. The same thing is repeated in Nottingham, Sheffield, Scunthorpe and Newcastle. Now, if they can do this to our own countrymen and women on the grounds of political ideology, self preservation and greed, foreigners have no chance.

    As a researcher, you might like to look into (funding permitting) how many Brits are in Nigeria, their income, what job they did, their immigration status, whether they paid any tax, how the local population treat them, how much profit Shell BP, Taylor Woodrow, A J Carper, Custian Construction Company Ltd etc and compare them with Nigerian citizens in the UK.

    I lost my two grandfathers in the world war fighting for Queen and country, and I have made my own personal contributions, but if I wanted a flat in downtown Black heath or Lee Green, a landlord was entitled to ask to see my passport. Not so with KJ or CM my pals in Law School as it will be pretty obvious that they are white middle class. Black GP’s are taking the GMC to task. The English pen God was right when he wrote “…..from that source when comfort seemed to come discomfort swelled”

  2. Excellent piece Dexter. I will be tweeting to encourage people to read it. Very clearly but passionately argued – which is often difficult to achieve. Interesting response too from Nnaemeka.

  3. Apostle Paul’s senior ,the Apostle Peter wrote in 2Peter 2 that God will “reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.”

    Governing is hard enough without back seat commentators pulling every move to bits…..Anyone who feels they could do a better job should.

    1. I’m sure you aren’t really suggesting that we should not criticise politicians where we disagree with them and should simply leave them to get on with running the country how they see fit because they always know best.

  4. I am not a theologian, but an interpretation of 2 Peter 2: 10 – 11 which suggests in any material particular that politicians should not be criticised and or applauded is with respect misconceived and offends the basics of hermeneutics and exegesis. Peters letter to the wider church addresses the work of false teachers and the immorality which results from such teaching. It has nothing to do with politicians or any earthly “dignitaries”. The passages reads verse 9 – 11 “And so the lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials and how to keep the wicked under punishment for the Day of judgement, especially those who follow their filthy bodily lusts and despise God’s authority. These false teachers are bold and arrogant, and show no respect for the glorious beings above; instead, they insult them. Even the angels , who are so much stronger and mightier than these false teachers, do not accuse them with insults in the presence of the Lord”. (TEV). It is our democratic right to hold our leaders and politicians to account. We elected them to “serve the people” and the fact is that uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. If one can’t stand the heat then get out of the hot house!!

Or become a member of Free Movement today
Verified by MonsterInsights