A war has erupted between the Home Office and Ben & Jerry’s.. yes, the ice cream brand, after its social media team published a thread about migrants and refugees directed at the Home Secretary, Priti Patel.
It was in response to a lengthy thread Patel had posted, where she tweeted: ‘The number of illegal small boat crossings is appalling and unacceptably high. The figures are shameful.’
The spat started when Ben & Jerry’s replied: ‘the real crisis is our lack of humanity for people fleeing war, climate change and torture’. The thread pulled together a series of facts and resources about asylum seekers.
They went on: ‘People cannot be illegal. And, it is enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention that crossing a border “illegally” should not impact your asylum claim.’
Next, the Conservative minister James Cleverly entered the fray and accused Ben & Jerry’s of ‘virtue signalling', tweeting: ‘Can I have a large scoop of statistically inaccurate virtue signalling with my grossly overpriced ice-cream please.’ He didn't mention which part of Ben & Jerry’s post he thought was inaccurate though...
Even ‘Home Office sources’ joined the fight, remarking: ‘Priti is working day and night to bring an end to these small boat crossings [….]. If that means upsetting the social media team for a brand of overpriced junk food, then so be it.’
Whether Ben & Jerry’s are ‘virtue signalling’ or not, they’re drawing attention to the plight of desperate people on perilous journeys. Nobody flees their country without very good reason, and that should be the main concern here.
Virtue signalling is a calculated risk anyway, because brands are always going to alienate some potential customers with their views. But they have decided the issue is worth it, both morally and commercially.
Just this week, Prime Minster Boris Johnson scapegoated migrants crossing the channel when he described the crossings as ‘very bad and stupid and dangerous and criminal’ on Monday. If Ben & Jerry’s become part of a wider counter narrative that challenges the hostile view put out by the government, that’s a good thing. At least someone is trying to understand and address the real reasons behind migrants risking their lives like this.
Whether it’s genuine concern from Ben & Jerry’s or a cynical ploy for branding purposes, does it matter if they draw attention to the moral side of the story? The more companies or celebrities, whose main goal is to make a profit, show concern for humanitarian issues the better. It can help to change the public mood.
This is part of a bigger trend in companies feeling they have to show they’re concerned about ethics and the world these days. They can’t just be profit-making machines anymore – whatever the underlying reasons, surely this is a move in the right direction?
Virtue signalling is a calculated risk anyway, because brands are always going to alienate some potential customers with their views.
If it’s window dressing and covering up the murkier aspects of their business, then that is clearly problematic. But we should applaud their ethical positions if there’s a chance it will help to change opinions around an issue and encourage other brands to show concern for things beyond the commercial sphere.
So, before you sneer at companies getting involved in political or social issues which feel a million miles away from their brand, remember influential voices like theirs can help to change the world.
Whatever your flavour of politics, we shouldn’t undermine an ice cream company for trying to do the right thing.
READ MORE: Is 2020 About To Cancel Percy Pigs?
READ MORE: Here’s Everything That’s Wrong With Donald Trump’s Latest Comments