A few days ago, the Independent Asylum Commission published a report entitled "Saving Sanctuary". I was very keen to read it and to find out about conclusions which may have a certain vision for where asylum could go with a strong government leadership.
You can hear the however already, can't you.
Well, to start with, the big recommendation is to get rid of the term "asylum" and replace it with "sanctuary". To set an example, they use "sanctuary" throughout the report. At the same time, they are still called the "Independent Asylum Commission", rather than the "Independent Sanctuary Commission".
Now, if you had an organisation called the Independent Sanctuary Commission, would you have any idea of what they were about? I wouldn't, and I work in the field.

So why the change of language? Well, it's along the same lines that history becomes herstory and why an actress should be called an actor. They don't like the connotations associated with a word, and rather than challenge and change connotations, we use a different word. So, asylum calls up negative connotations, is confused in the public with economic migration and therefore its meaning is not as intended.

While I can understand the argument in relation to words which have a long history of negative connotations and, above all, abusive use (such as "nigger" or "papist"), I am very concerned by the argument in relation to a term which has a clear definition, legal status and appropriate use in professional discourse. For anyone who cares to find out, it's easy to know exactly what asylum means, what an asylum seeker is, and what the asylum process in the UK is. We are dealing with a legal term, which gives legal status to a person.

Then, consider the term "sanctuary". It's derived from latin, means a holy place, and still has religious connotations. Personally, I think of birds when I hear it. Not of asylum seekers or refugees that's for sure. It's woolly, all too well-meaning and has the potential of further alienating those already critical of immigration through the asylum system.

Furthermore, I'd like to challenge the issue that the commission has with "economic migration". Again, I understand it - anyone supportive of having a well functioning asylum system tend to stress that asylum seekers are not economic migrants. But to be honest, economics affect us all, and the reason for war, displacement, hunger, torture etc are always economic. Where do you draw the line, and how can you draw the line? Is someone who flees their country in the light of people burning their lifelihoods not an economic migrant? Doesn't economics and the gulf between rich and very poor create the basis for ware, abuse and the need to flee a country? I think it does.
Of course, not every economic migrant is an asylum seeker, but I don't see the term "economic migrant" as intrinsically evil or at odds with seeking asylum.

Wouldn't it be more productive to continue raising awareness of what it means to be an asylum seeker, how few asylum seekers there are in comparison to other immigrants in the UK, and how incredibly difficult it is to be granted asylum? I certainly won't change my job title just yet.