Statewatch News Online: Expulsion of two leading participants in Yarl's Wood protest is "political reprisal," say campaigners
28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
UK 
Expulsion
of two leading participants in Yarl's Wood protest is "political
reprisal," say campaigners
29.01.2013
The decision to deport by charter
flight two women who played key roles in recent protests at the
Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre has provoked outrage
amongst their supporters.
Shazia, a Pakistani national
who was given removal directions for 21 January and Aderonke,
a Nigerian national issued with a charter flight deportation
order for 24 January, were involved in protests involving over
100 women last October, following the attempted forcible deportation
of a fellow detainee. [1] Supporters have requested that they
only be referred to by their first names.
The campaign group Movement for Justice (MFJ), which supported
the detainees' protests, has denounced the deportations of Shazia
and Aderonke as "a cynical attempt to crush the spirit of
thousands of women asylum seekers, in and out of detention."
[2]
During the October protests, mass meetings inside Yarl's Wood
led to the publication of a list of demands including an end
to detention, deportations, the UK's "fast-track" asylum
system, and more immediate demands such as respect for freedom
of speech, expression, organisation and privacy.
Five women, including Aderonke, were brought to prison shortly
after the protests, a move described by MFJ as an infringement
on the "fundamental democratic right to organise and protect
in order to demand justice."
No risk of homophobic persecution in Nigeria
"Aderonke was the main organiser and leader of the Movement
for Justice group in Yarl's Wood, a Nigerian lesbian who galvanized
other lesbians in Yarl's Wood to fight homophobia, and then widened
that group to women of all nationalities and backgrounds fighting
for their freedom," according to MFJ's communique calling
for her release.
Aderonke has been detained under immigration rules in the Styal
prison near Manchester since October. Following an information
request by Statewatch, the UKBA explained that immigration detainees
may be held in prison "when it is unsuitable to detain someone
for their safety."
Detention in prison has been challenged as illegal by Aderonke's
lawyers who claim the UKBA is abusing its powers: Aderonke was
not under threat in Yarl's Wood, they say, nor was she a threat
to anyone else's safety.
The UKBA rejected her asylum application, based on the risk of
persecution in Nigeria due to her sexuality, and issued her with
a charter flight deportation order. In a press release issued
last week, MFJ claimed that the deportation order was a reaction
by the UKBA to the legal proceedings taken against the Home Office
for illegal detention:
Their "immediate response is to deport the key witness in
her own case!" said the group.
Discrimination and persecution against the LGBT community in
Nigeria has been widely reported. [3] A law criminalising same-sex
relationships - punishable by fourteen years imprisonment - passed
a second reading in the Nigerian House of Representatives in
November 2012. [4] Aderonke's deportation was cancelled at the
last minute by the High Court on medical grounds. Medical Justice,
Public Request Lawyers (who are dealing with her case) and MFJ
have asked for a full assessment by a psychiatrist of Aderonke's
mental health to evaluate the psychological effects of her prolonged
detention and the risks of a return to a prison environment.
This request has yet to be addressed. Aderonke, who was transferred
in Colnbrook detention centre on Wednesday 23 January, then to
Yarl's Wood after the High Court's decision, is back in Styal
prison since Saturday 26 January. She applied for bail based
on medical grounds.
The use of charter flights by the UKBA has been criticised by
migrant rights activists who refer to them as "ghost flights"
due to the difficulty in finding out exactly when and where they
are flying from and to.
The use of private airplanes rather than aircraft from major
airlines is seen by some as a way to ensure that no member of
the public can be a witness to or oppose the deportation. Successful
charter flight deportations are "dependent on the (mis)use
of force and violence that can be implemented on a private aeroplane"
argue one campaign group. [5]
Rejection of gender-based
violence in Pakistan
Shazia escaped Pakistan after fleeing attempts by her family
to force her to marry. She was living in the UK with a British-Pakistani
man for two years when the UKBA arrested her during her wedding
ceremony. Her family was strongly opposed to her wedding in the
UK.
Despite the adoption of the Forced Marriage Protection Act in
2007 which identifies and criminalises forced marriage as a form
of persecution, and despite women in Pakistan being part of what
UK courts consider a "particular social group" at risk
of persecution, Shazia's application for asylum was rejected
and she had no right to remain.
The UKBA did not believe she would be at risk if returned. This
case corroborated the findings of the UK-based charity Asylum
Aid that the UKBA often questions the credibility of many claimants
and is likely to rejects claims based on forced marriage allegations.
[6]
The UKBA argued that her relationship was not genuine and refused
all requests for the wedding to take place, although this is
possible under Immigration Detention Rules. After six months
in Yarl's Wood, the UKBA suddenly agreed to the wedding which
took place on 8 January, with the bride in handcuffs. A few days
later, Shazia was issued with a removal order.
She was particularly involved in the protest movement in October
2012, translating the proceedings of meetings and standing against
attempts to separate protesters based on their nationality.
The UKBA told her she could apply for family reunion once in
Pakistan under new Immigration Family Rules adopted in July 2012.
In a report published this month [7] evaluating applications
to enter, remain and settle in the UK on the basis of marriage
and civil partnerships prior to the adoption of the new rules
in July 2012, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
stated that:
"Requiring the applicants to leave the UK and apply for
entry clearance clearly interferes with the family life of both
the applicant and their family. Given the House of Lords' judgment,
which envisaged that it would be relatively rare for such a requirement
to be proportionate, we were concerned to find that the Agency
had felt it appropriate to adopt this approach in 20% of the
relevant cases in our sample. "
The new Immigration Family Rules have been criticised by migrant
rights organisations - the Migrant Rights Network argues that
new, very stringent selection criteria "will still prevent
many thousands of people from exercising their right to a family
life in the UK." [8]
Sources
[1] Statewatch News, Campaigners demand freedom for immigration detainees transferred to prison after protests, 9 November 2012
[2] Movement for Justice, Why Shazia and Aderonke must stay - stop these brutal deportations, 15 January 2013 (Movement for Justice's blog)
[3] 'Gay man faces death by stoning in Nigeria', ILGA, 12 July 2005
[4] 'Lib Dem peer calls for asylum change for gay Nigerian men', BBC online, 9 January 2013
[5] Stop Deportations! Growing the Resistance against Mass Deportation Charter Flights
[6]Asylum Aid, “I feel like as a woman I’m not welcome”: A gender analysis of UK asylum law, policy and practice, January 2012
[7] Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, An inspection of applications to enter, remain and settle in the UK on the basis of marriage and civil partnerships, January 2013
[8] Migrants' Rights Network, Government changes to the family migration rules - MRN e-briefing, June 2012
Statewatch News online | Join Statewatch news e-mail list | Download a free sample issue of Statewatch Journal
© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.
Our work is only possible with your support.
Become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
Previous article
Next article
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.