AIBU to think that this is political and should not be supported by a state school

[FlamingoCroquet]

(I have name-changed as this is very identifiying to any other parents or teachers from the same school. But I've been on here for 8 years)

DC's primary school informed us in the newsletter that the school is supporting a scheme to provide aid - specifically a backpack of items - to unaccompanied boys age 11-17 at the Jungle camp at Calais, in partnership with an organisation called Calais Action. They are asking parents/children to donate. This is to coincide with Refugee Week.

I'm very uneasy about this. I don't want to get into an argument about the whole migrant/refugee debate, but I feel that this is a political action and should not be supported by a state school. I am not against helping refugees in general, and would not complain if they were raising money for the Red Cross or Medicins Sans Frontieres. But I have major misgivings about supporting a group called Calais Action.

I'm thinking about emailing the school governors to raise my complaint, but I'm reluctant to be seen as that person who is anti-charity, when my DD has several years left at this school. What do you think?

"If I was going to support refugees I would do it through a charity."

See that's the problem - there aren't charities on the ground at Calais in the same way you would get at an official camp. Because it's not a legal settlement, much of the work there has been done by volunteers who are just ordinary people who have been moved to go help.

It's a bit more coordinated now than it was at the beginning, but if you give money to say Save The Children or someone that's brilliant, but it won't reach these children, in this camp who are desperately in need of help.

If you do want to help them then you need to go through those who are actually there e.g. Calais Aid who are doing great work.

Incidentally if you do donate through a group like Calais Aid you can be sure that what you donate will go directly to the people at the camp, the volunteers are not paid and there is no huge organisation behind it to pay admin overheads to.

"We should be supporting France in putting all these children into care, not keeping them in these squalid conditions until they can get trafficked somewhere else."

Perhaps we could do that by putting pressure on the authorities to stop tear-gassing and beating children and reach out to them with kindness, rather than suggesting we treat the children like rats that need to be stopped by removing their food supply.

Depriving the children in that situation of charity from the school is NOT going to stop them trying to get to the UK, it will just remove an opportunity to make their suffering a tiny, tiny bit less.

YANBU in the slightest.

"These children are in France, which is one of the safest countries in the world"

Maybe it is safe for you and me.

But if you were routinely beaten and tear-gassed by the authorities, and at risk of serious attack by brutal right wing militias whom the police did not appear to try to stop - would you think it was a safe country to be in?

there aren't charities on the ground at Calais in the same way you would get at an official camp. Because it's not a legal settlement, much of the work there has been done by volunteers who are just ordinary people who have been moved to go help

This is interesting, even though its not a legal camp why don't big charities go in?

Mrs Jay I am sure the boys do suffer from attacks too sadly but they are still stronger and more able than the women and the girls to make the journey.

I'm presuming the backpack doesn't contain a dingy and an oar?

YABU. I can't see anything political about making children in shit conditions more comfortable.

I'm wondering which charities would count as not political if we applied the OP's logic:

Shelter - well, housing and being homeless can be articulated as being politically understood within the context of capitalism.

Child abuse/neglect - also often discussed politically as being related to feminism and capitalism.

Animal charities - often discussed with reference to animal rights and ecological discourses.

Why, OP, are you insisting on some (futile) ideal of complete 'innocence' of the 'taint' of any kind of political discourse about this one charity?

What worries me about people who say things like "Shouldn't we be supporting France to help them" is that it becomes a cop-out. It becomes "I won't give to Calais Action, because we should be supporting France. And I won't do anything about supporting France, because that's the government's job. So I'll just sit comfortably pontificating behind my keyboard and do nothing."

I hear what you are saying feedthebirds but sending a 10 year old boy alone is just the same as a 10 year old girl the boys are just as vulnerable

They are CHILDREN living in terrible, dirty, dangerous conditions. The school is not raising money to transport them to Calais, they are already there.

I can't believe that anyone would have a problem with this. Imagine if it were your children, alone, living in a dangerous situation having escaped a war zone.

I am completely appalled!

I've just read Ego's post.

OP, have you been surprised by the response? Genuine question. I'm not being goady. I'm just interested.

I'm interested in the OP's reaction too. OP did you know you were so out of step?

At primary school level I would not want charity to be mixed up with politics. This type of gesture is the beginnings of trying to establish and sway public opinion.

The people in Calais are there because (i) they did not want to register for asylum in France or before France because (ii) they know they are not eligible. These are economic migrants who almost certainly would not succeed in gaining legal entry, and they know it. The French camps is longterm attrition against Britain. Think about it, no legitimate asylum seeker would put their kids thru living in a dump when they could get the ball rolling NOW in France.

No one is teargassing or beating children, blinkowl.
There were skirmishes when the Jungle was being dismantled, but the occupants had been given notice well in advance and chose to fight with knives. That is when gas was used, against men waving weapons around. So let's keep it real.

At primary school level I would not want charity to be mixed up with politics. This type of gesture is the beginnings of trying to establish and sway public opinion.

Charities and politics are inextricably linked.

Perhaps the school should just support the PTA?

I agree blackriver

10 year old boys, coming here, nicking our British jobs - needing clothes and stuff, fuckers the lot of them.

blackriverloretta

Gilly Teargas was not thrown at children. It did not happen. The police used it against men with weapons who believed they would succeed in stopping the dismantling of the Jungle. Some teenagers were persuaded to throw stones and other things at police, so instead of leaving the Jungle they lingered.

There are children but none are unaccompanied. Sometimes it is useful politically to make it appear that a 12 yr old is entirely alone but they are travelling with a member of their family who keeps his distance to make it appear that the kid is by himself. It's a known tactic.

BlackRiver - are you actually denying that children have been tear gassed? Even when children have received treatment in the UK for tear gas damage to their eyes?

Under i think she's saying they were collateral damage not intended victims and thus irrelevant?

Children were not specifically gassed, but gas travels. My BiL, ex-IED disposal expert, was an independent observer over 2 days during the dismantling of the Jungle. The children were being encouraged to take up stones and other missiles to throw.

you have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land
no one burns their palms
under trains
beneath carriages
no one spends days and nights in the stomach of a truck
feeding on newspaper unless the miles travelled
means something more than journey.
no one crawls under fences
no one wants to be beaten
pitied

Some of the attitudes on display on this thread are enough to make a maggot retch.

When you are at the point of wanting to complain about a children's charity who are trying to ease the lives of children living in the most appalling conditions then surely some part of your would would scream out in despair at what you had become.

BlackRiver, it's staggeringly naive of you to comfortably assume all children have someone accompanying them. Some parents and relatives died on the way, or got separated from their children. That's what happens when people are displaced due to terrorism, famine, war, floods. They don't all hide to con the West into handouts. Find your heart.

Some economic migrants will do anything to get into Europe. That is why they are still stuck in the ports of France. Why do you think that is? Could it be because they are not eligible? They could have applied many months ago for asylum, or to be considered to remain for humanitarian reasons, but they have not. Take off your blinkers and just have a little think about why that is ......