Abstract
This study employed critical discursive and rhetorical psychology to analyse the discourses drawn upon to justify an arguably violent protest outside a previously disused hotel in rural Ireland, where 34 male asylum seekers had been accommodated. Interviews with protesters and public representatives were retrieved from three mainstream media platforms. The protesters drew on three contradictory and deracialized discursive strategies to inoculate their justification for the protest against accusations of prejudice, which we label compassionate exclusion. The first is a compassionate concern about the suitability of the accommodation for the asylum seekers, whilst engaging in collective action to force the asylum seekers into homelessness and risk of further violence. The second positions the protesters as compassionate towards the asylum seekers whilst demanding that they receive vetting and that the local community receive prior consultation on their suitability for accommodation. The third presents the 'male' asylum seekers as a threat to women in this isolated rural community, even though the protesters position themselves as compassionate towards the 'lovely men' who are already accommodated. This highlights how compassionate humanitarian concerns can be co-opted to justify an arguably violent demand for the forced removal and exclusion of asylum seekers, whilst avoiding accusations of racism.