The court ruling on the Bell hotel does not just legitimise anti-immigrant sentiment; it also risks erasing a whole category of people

When the high court ruled this week that the Bell hotel in Epping could no longer be used to house asylum seekers, the triumph of anti-migrant zealots looked a little unwarranted, or at least premature. Nigel Farage hoped loudly that the ruling would provide “inspiration to others across the country”. Tabloids and GB News called it an all-caps VICTORY, while Epping locals popped champagne on the hotel’s doorstep.

Meanwhile, the ruling itself felt impermanent and technical more than principled. The judge ruled that Somani, the company that owns the Bell, had not notified the council of its intended use; it was hardly an endorsement of the general proposition, memorably spelled out by Robert Jenrick recently, that “men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally” pose an active threat to his daughters. And while the victory calls were resounding, there was no answering message of defeat from those who support asylum seekers – nobody thinks hotels are a sound and humane way to accommodate refugees. Liminal, often squalid, eye-wateringly expensive for the Home Office, they hardly scream “welcome”.

Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.