Analysis: Labour's leadership candidates on LGBT asylum, Balls the winner

Ed Balls image by Downing Street via Flickr  

By Paul Canning

LGBT Labour has released the leadership candidates final answers on LGBT asylum.

Although the winner will be either Ed or David Miliband, the others are likely to either take up senior shadow cabinet positions or positions of influence. Overall, the statements reflect the sort of information they have been paying attention to during the campaign as well as during their time as politicians. It's a fair measure of their knowledge of the subject and that's also a fair measure of the importance that the gay community and gay Labour people place on the issue.

On both of those measures mostly it's not good and overall the answers reflect badly on whether Labour as a party is prepared to look out for the most marginalised LGBT in the UK. They fail to correct the idea, which undoubtedly did lose them some votes in the last election, that they don't think there was any problem either with their treatment of LGBT asylum seekers or the pandering by some Labour people (such as Woolas and Blunkett) to anti-foreigner, anti-migrant sentiment (which backgrounded the LGBT asylum issue) or that this all happened because they were prepared to put votes before principals.

Starting with the answer from the leading candidate, David Miliband.

Read more »

UK Labour leadership candidates final answer on LGBT asylum

Image via Wikipedia

LGBT Labour has today released the answers to a Q & A from them to the Labour Party leadership candidates on LGBT equality. It includes their answers to the following question:

How can we ensure a fair asylum system to help LGBT people who face persecution in their countries of origin?

Their answers are as follows.

Diane Abbott

I understand the many problems with the immigration system better than any of my rivals and I frequently meet asylum seekers within my constituency.  The application process is flawed in many ways and lets down LGBT people and many others.

Read more »

Homophobia in Jamaica

Image via Wikipedia

Source: Jamaica Observer

By Diane Abbott MP

Jamaican society's stance on homosexuality continues to get bad press abroad. Most recently the New York Times ran an article on Jamaica entitled "Gays Live and Die in Fear in Jamaica". It featured a victim of violence called Sherman. The article said, "Even now, about three years after a near-fatal gay bashing, Sherman gets jittery at dusk. On bad days, his blood quickens, his eyes dart and he seeks refuge indoors.

"A group of men kicked him and slashed him with knives for being a 'batty boy' - a slang term for gay men - after he left a party before dawn in October 2006. They sliced his throat, torso and back, hissed anti-gay epithets, and left him for dead on a Kingston corner."

The article went on: "Sherman, meanwhile, is simply trying to move on with his life. But he said he will always remember how, after his attack, patrolmen roughly lifted his bloodied body out of their squad car when a man admonished them for aiding a 'batty boy'. A woman shamed them into driving him to a hospital; they stuffed him in the car's trunk."

The article also quotes Jamaican poet Staceyann Chinn - now living openly as a lesbian in Brooklyn, New York - who described how she was raped in Jamaica because of her sexual preference. The article quoted Yvonne McCalla Sobers as well who said, ''My thought is there are far more men having sex with men in this country than you would ever think is happening.'' There was the obligatory discussion of the homophobic lyrics of Jamaican popular music. And Dr Trevor Tulloch of St Andrew's Hospital ascribed the soaring level of prostate cancer in Jamaica to men being scared of the digital rectal examinations needed to diagnose it, he is quoted as saying, "because it is a homophobic society, there's such a fear of the sexual implications of having the exam that men won't seek out help''.

Because attitudes to homosexuality in Jamaica are so hostile, it is not sufficiently understood how damaging its stand on the issue is outside the country. Just a few months ago a boycott of Jamaican tourism and products like rum and Red Stripe beer was launched in a gay bar in New York. The organisers said, "Most people view Jamaica as a laid-back tourist destination. This easy-going image is betrayed by the immense brutality against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) individuals. Indeed, public officials, media, entertainers, and much of the population seem to celebrate homophobia, as if it is a national pastime. The anti-gay sentiments have become a frightening national psychosis that urgently needs to be addressed and treated. A boycott is an unfortunate measure that must be taken to influence Jamaican officials, so they will stop allowing murder and violence against GLBT people."

The boycott has so far been unsuccessful. But a country dependent on tourism cannot afford to ignore the fact that attitudes to homosexuality in other countries have moved on. There are probably as many people in Britain who are privately judgemental about homosexuals and lesbians as there are in Jamaica. But the British take the view that what people do in the bedroom is their affair. So gay marriage is legal and leading politicians in both the government and opposition parties have publicly acknowledged their sexual orientation and married their partners. It is difficult to imagine such a state of affairs coming about in Jamaica any time soon.

But Jamaica could do more to stress that despite the blood-curdling lyrics of much of its popular music, it is a more tolerant society than people think. And violence against gay people should be universally condemned.

Oakington Immigration Reception Centre: 'It's a living hell'

A HARROWING account of life inside Oakington Immigration Reception Centre has been told to the News by an asylum seeker.

The detainee, who declined to be named, said the people inside it are treated "as animals" and told how staff "use force" on them.

The immigrant said there was limited health care, "very poor food" and security problems at the centre, where immigration cases can take anything from "six months to two years" to tackle.

"Oakington is unsafe," warned the detainee.

"Something needs to be done."

The asylum seeker said there was another escape attempt on Saturday and a fight among 8-10 detainees in the TV room, when no staff were present.

"This happens generally 2-3 times a week," revealed the insider. "There are no staff sometimes to control or monitor detainees, leaving detainees alone to self-harm, commit or attempt to commit suicide.

"I have witnessed one in my block where a detainee tried to kill himself in the toilet before another detainee had to shout for help before he was later revived by medical staff."

The asylum seeker's comments follow a Parliamentary debate introduced by Labour MP Diane Abbott on Monday.

She reminded the Commons how an inquiry into conditions at the centre, conducted after a BBC Panora m a programme in 2005, found a "subculture of racism, casual violence and abuse".

She added: "Visiting the centre recently, I was shocked to find the very same G4 security manager who was in charge of Oakington at the time of the BBC documentary is still in place."

The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington went on: "I am also concerned about the increasing use of force at Oakington. The prisons inspector found 53 uses of force since 2007, 34 of which had taken place in the first six months of 2008."

She warned that as it is unsafe to deport some of the individuals from Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, they are detained indefinitely. She said they are not "detained humanely" and the officers there were working in "stressful conditions".

Independent monitors of Oakington recently condemned the living conditions for the asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and ex-foreign national prisoners at the site, which is close to its 408 capacity.

The insider told the News it was as if they were "animals".

"The block room where detainees are housed is always filthy. The toilets are the worst place you want to visit because one is used by 11 people while the bath is used between 22. It is regularly out of action, leaving detainees sometimes fighting over toilet spaces. It's really appalling, nauseating and really unclean.

"There are no activities for detainees to participate in. The general atmosphere is always moody."

Dr Louise Pirouet, from the campaign group Cambridge Oakington Concern, said: "There has been a decline in respect for detainees. The prison inspectorate found people were being called by their numbers, rather than their names.

"There used to be quite friendly relations between staff and detainees, but that has disappeared with some, although not all, staff.

"They cannot close down this place down soon enough."

Phil Woolas, minister for Borders and Immigration, announced on Monday that the centre would close within the next two years. However, he said he was "satisfied that it provides a satisfactory level of service to detainees".

A UK Border Agency spokesman told the News: "We take any concerns about the welfare of our detainees extremely seriously. Our removal centres play a vital role in enforcing immigration rules and we are determined to make sure they are well run, safe and secure.

"We have been praised for the progress we have made. A recent report by the Independent Monitoring Board noted an improvement in the health care and facilities we provide for detainees."

Source

What freedom of information?

When journalists try to find out the true picture of asylum in the UK, the government's secrecy shutters keep coming down

By Matthew Taylor

Another week, another glimpse into the twilight world inhabited by asylum seekers. The latest report offers a grim portrayal of lives lived truly on the edge – where people who came to the UK in search of safety are forced to choose a between a semi existence of grinding poverty and a return to their home countries where they risk persecution, torture or even death.

Shocking though the latest findings are, anyone who has followed the issue of asylum in the UK will not be surprised. Study follows study, one set of findings paints the same picture as the last, and the message is always the same – the system, and those caught up in it, are in trouble.

But when journalists try to find out the extent of the trouble – and, crucially, who is responsible – the government's secrecy shutters come down.

At the end of last year I sent a series of requests to the UK Border Agency under freedom of information legislation. Among the things I wanted to know was how much taxpayers' money had been paid out in compensation to people – migrants and asylum seekers – held in the UK's 10 detention centres in relation to allegations of assault and unlawful detention. This was not a speculative punt: there have been repeated allegations of physical and verbal abuse against detainees and, according to lawyers working in the area, compensation payments are regularly paid by the government and the private contractors that manage the centres – often before cases get to court. I also wanted to know how many children had been locked up in these centres, and how many of them were there without family or friends.

The FOI legislation introduced in 2005 requires 100,000 public authorities, including Whitehall departments, to respond promptly to requests for information and, subject to some exceptions, to give it up. But some weeks later I recieved a curt response to say all my requests had been denied. I was told that in some cases the government did not hold the information and in others that it would be too expensive to collate. Undeterred, MP Diane Abbott took up the case, drafting a range of parliamentary questions to the Home Office minister Phil Woolas, again asking how much compensation had been paid over to detainees – this time over a precise 12-month period – and how many children have been held in detentions centres.

We waited. And waited. And then Woolas responded: "The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only through examination of individual records at disproportionate cost."

So according to the government that's that. Hundreds of thousands of people (again we don't know how many) who came here to find safety are living in destitution. The courts are ruling in favour of an unknown number who claim they have been victims of state-backed abuse and unlawful detention. The government and private security firms are reportedly paying out undisclosed amounts of taxpayers money to compensate these people – including children. But because the "information is not collated centrally" and would be too expensive to dig out, we should all just shrug our shoulders, accept the government knows best and move on.

Source

Guards at asylum seeker centre unmasked as BNP members

An investigation has been launched after two immigration staff working with asylum seekers were revealed to be members of the far-right British National Party.

The two employees worked as guards in a detention centre but were unmasked when a list of BNP members appeared on the internet in November.

After the list was made public, one resigned and the other was suspended, a UK Border Agency spokesman said.

The guards' BNP affiliation was revealed when a list of members was leaked on the internet. The Border Agency is now investigating how the two staff - who were employed on behalf of the Home Office by a private contractor - managed to slip through the net.

The contractor is investigating the case of the suspended guard, who will not be able to work with refugees or enter any immigration building during course of the probe.

Today's revelation will add to long-standing fears that race-hate extremists are working within the immigration system.

One newspaper claims to have uncovered nearly 300 allegations of brutality by private security and immigration staff over the past two years.

Of these complaints, all made by asylum seekers, 38 were claims of racism, with refugees being called 'monkeys' and told to 'go back to their own countries', The Independent said.

The BNP wants immigration halted, all 'criminal and illegal immigrants' immediately deported, and for all others 'a system of voluntary resettlement ... to their lands of ethnic origin'.

Its policy states: 'We will also clamp down on the flood of "asylum-seekers", all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.'

The Border Agency spokesman said today: 'There is no place for racism in the immigration system,' said.

'We ask anyone carrying out duties on our behalf to sign a declaration stating they are not a member of the BNP, the National Front or Combat 18.'

However, only the police and the Prison Service treat BNP membership as grounds for dismissal.
Labour MP Diane Abbott said last night: 'If it is true that staff employed to work with asylum-seekers and immigrants are members of the BNP then it is yet another sign that the Home Office are allowing for the mistreatment of immigrants in this country.

'For years, campaign groups and my colleagues and I have been pointing out that hiring private contractors to work as immigration guards is a bad idea. It seems we will now have more proof of this.'

Source

Investigation into claims of abuse on asylum-seekers

By Robert Verkaik, Law editor

Claims by hundreds of asylum-seekers that they have been beaten or abused by British guards during their detention and removal from this country are to be independently investigated for the first time, The Independent has learnt.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has appointed Nuala O'Loan, the former Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland, to conduct an investigation into mistreatment allegations first reported in this paper last year. Dame Nuala, who won praise and criticism from Catholics and Protestants for her robust style in dealing with complaints against the police and led the inquiry into the handling of the Omagh bombing, has been given a wide remit to reopen cases of alleged brutality. She has also been asked to report on any failures of a system that allows private security guards to use "reasonable force" in restraining asylum-seekers.

The Home Secretary's intervention follows the publication of a detailed report in July that revealed nearly 300 cases of alleged physical assault and racial abuse in the past four years. The report, entitled Outsourcing Abuse, raised concerns about the control and use of private security firms in the detention and deportation of some of the most vulnerable people in British society.

Nearly 50 of the complainants contacted by the researchers and lawyers gave permission for the Government to reinvestigate or begin fresh investigations into their claims. Their names have been passed to the UK Border Agency.

Last night, the authors of the report welcomed Dame Nuala's appointment. Emma Ginn, of Medical Justice, which helps victims of abuse, said: "The Home Office had previously described allegations as 'unsupported assertions'. We note their change of tone now that national and global organisations have picked up on the issue."

Romain Ngouabeu, of the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, added: "We continue to get allegations of assaults, including one on the day we published our report."

Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said last night: "I am very pleased to hear that Nuala O'Loan has been appointed to look into the allegation of abuse against immigrant. This is an incredibly serious matter that deserves nothing less than the most rigorous of investigations. I look forward to the results of the investigation – both in terms of justice being done and in terms of a concrete improvement in the way immigrants are treated while being detained or deported."

Many of the allegations, often supported by medical evidence, concern the use of excessive force in the removal of failed asylum-seekers on a scheduled flight. In some cases, pilots have refused to take off while the refugee is still on board, citing concerns for the safety of passengers.

Noreen Nafuna, a 38-year-old Ugandan woman, came to the UK three years ago after claiming to have been detained and beaten by the Ugandan army. Her application for asylum was turned down and she was held at Yarl's Wood removal centre in Bedfordshire before being taken to Gatwick by private security guards employed by the Home Office.

"I was carried up to the plane. I started screaming when I was brought to the top of the stairs. I was only wearing underpants and a bra. A jacket was placed over my neck and I was held around the neck so I couldn't make a noise."

In her complaint about her treatment, Ms Nafuna recounts: "Two of them sat on me. One of them placed her hands over my mouth to stop me shouting out. I was finding it hard to breathe. The plane was not full of passengers. A lady in a red suit came up with another woman. I heard her ask if I was still alive as I had stopped moving or making any sounds. They got off me then so I sat up. I was crying again. Then other passengers became aware of what was going on and told the officers to leave me alone. Everyone saw me bleeding. Eventually they called the pilot and he came up and said, 'We are not taking her.'"

Her complaint was eventually upheld by the Home Office after her legal action for assault was settled by the security company.

In another case, HM, a 16-year-old girl from Rwanda who claimed asylum after coming to Britain as a sex-trafficking victim, says she was assaulted by guards who removed her from a shower unit in a detention centre. She says she suffered bruising when she was handcuffed from behind in a semi-naked state and taken to a holding cell. Her claim was investigated and dismissed by the Home Office, although there was criticism of the way the guards had handled her.

The Home Office says that it properly investigates all complaints of such a nature but it does not recognise the large numbers contained in the report.

*In July last year, RH, an asylum-seeker from Burundi, was taken from his room in a detention centre by immigration escorts. He was handcuffed, and his legs were crossed at the ankle before being tied together with tape.

After struggling on his way to a van bound for Heathrow, he says he was beaten and kicked by the escorts before being dragged half-naked on to the plane. During the alleged assault, his handcuffs caused him to incur severe injuries to his wrists which were clearly visible.

The pilot came to investigate, and told the escorts he would not fly Mr RH out of the country in his current physical state. Other cases include that of Amos Alajaibo, a Nigerian who says he was beaten unconscious by guards after admitting he had talked to the media during a protest, and an Algerian man who was allegedly assaulted while in a wheelchair.

Suren Khachatryan, an Armenian, suffered a punctured lung after allegedly being stamped on by his immigration escorts in the back of a security van. Another detainee said he was "bound up like a parcel" by officials trying to force him on to a deportation flight. None of these complaints has been upheld.

Source

Outsourcing Abuse

MPs from all parties support Mehdi

MPs from all three main political parties have joined peers to call for a moratorium on the deportation of asylum-seekers to Iran.

A letter signed by seven MPs, including Chris Huhne (Liberal Democrat), Andrew Dismore (Labour) and John Bercow (Conservative), says ministers have a moral duty to halt the deportation of any Iranian fearing persecution if returned to the state.

Simon Hughes organised the Commons letter.

The Lords' letter about the Mehdi Kazemi case shows growing awareness that sending asylum-seekers back to countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe is unacceptable because of the risk to their safety and the abhorrent behaviour of those regimes.

Diane Abbott has tabled an early day motion in support of Kazemi.

It is not sufficient to implement laws to protect oppressed groups without giving protection to asylum-seekers in the same groups from different countries."

EDM 1180

MEHDI KAZEMI AND THE TREATMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN IRAN
12.03.2008
Abbott, Diane

That this House is concerned by the case of Iranian teenager Mehdi Kazemi who is currently living in Holland; notes reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was forced by Iranian authorities to denounce other gay men, including Mr Kazemi himself; is appalled at reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was then hanged for the offence of homosexuality; believes that Mr Kazemi's life is in serious danger if he were returned to Iran; further notes that the Dutch authorities have rejected Mr Kazemi's appeal for asylum in Holland and are likely to deport him to the UK; believes that the Home Office view that Iran is safe for homosexuals as long as they hide their sexuality is contrary to human rights standards on sexual freedom; and calls on the Government to uphold its asserted position as a supporter of human rights by refraining from sending Mr Kazemi back to Iran and near-certain human rights abuses.