Britain is one of the world's more civilized countries. So it came as no surprise that it allowed a hijacked Afghan airliner to land at Stansted last week, or that its security officials were able to resolve the standoff with no loss of life.
But reaction to the news that more than 70 of these accidental tourists now want to stay has cast the country in a uglier light. Britain's tabloid press has played on popular fears that immigrants want to take people's jobs or dole money.
"We'll wager that most 'victims' of the Stansted hijack are still enjoying life on benefits in Britain, five years hence," said the Daily Mail. Even British home secretary, Jack Straw, has said he wants the remaining passengers to leave the country "as soon as is practicably possible".
Mr Straw has of course pledged to consider each of the asylum applications on an individual basis, as he is bound to do by a United Nations convention on refugees.
But his reaction is far from what one might expect from the chief legal officer of such a rich and historically tolerant nation. With Afghanistan's fundamentalist Taliban regime recognised by only three other countries (Britain is not among them), it would seem that the case for asylum might have merit.
The fact that the Taliban have already said that the hijackers themselves could face the death penalty, a seemingly disproportionate punishment, suggests that they too should be dealt with under British law.
But so far Mr Straw seems to be echoing the Taliban party line. In words that could easily have sprung from the mouth of virtually any government minister, Taliban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, said: "We have to differentiate between political and economic asylum seekers."
That kind of distinction between "political" and "economic" freedom certainly sits well even with New Labour, who would have us believe that people are free so long as consenting adults are left alone in the bedroom, no matter how crushing the burden of government is on the pursuit of happiness generally.
But if such a distinction is spurious at best, it is almost impossible to make in the case of the Taliban regime. Are women who are not allowed to work or be educated in Taliban Afghanistan political or economic asylum seekers? The same question could be asked of everyone suffering from an economy doomed by a misinterpretation of Islamic law to forbid the payment of interest.
To be sure, Britain has never explicitly asked the world for its "huddled masses". But how can this Labour government not recognise the potential public relations coup it could have if only it were willing to show a bit of leadership?
For what the remaining Afghans are effectively saying is this: we respect your country so much that we are willing to leave our families and all our possessions behind if only you'll give us a chance to stay.
And they respect it for good reason. Britain's tradition of democracy and the rule of law is second to none. Every year Britain does indeed open its doors to more asylum seekers than any European country but Germany.
It is a pity that Mr Straw seems bent on passing up this high-profile opportunity to lead by example. Britain should show the likes of Austria's Jörg Haider how civilised countries treat the dispossessed, not present him with an opportunity for accusations, however unwarranted, of hypocrisy.
