Activity 18: Internment Today – Reading and Discussion
Read these two articles from The Guardian. One explains the government case for detaining asylum seekers in reception centres. The other sets out some of the problems with detention centres.
Article 1
Asylum seekers can be detained, judges rule
Alan Travis
Saturday October 20, 2001
The home secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday won his appeal against a high court ruling which could have led to the release from detention of hundreds of asylum seekers and compensation running into millions of pounds for wrongful imprisonment.
The appeal court ruled that it has been legal for the home secretary to detain for up to 10 days more than 8,000 asylum seekers at Oakington detention centre in Cambridgeshire since it opened in March last year while their "fast-track" claims were decided.
Three appeal court judges, including the master of the rolls, Lord Phillips, said in their ruling that such a short of period of detention was justified especially when the government was faced with 7,000 new asylum applications every month even though detention in such circumstances might go beyond what the European court of human rights might require.
"No responsible government can simply shrug its shoulders and do nothing. A short period of detention is not an unreasonable price to pay in order to ensure the speedy resolution of the claims of a substantial proportion of this influx. In the circumstances such detention can properly be described as a measure of last resort," the judges said in their ruling.
However, the appeal court did stress that the use of such detention for "a significant length of time" would be objectionable to "most right thinking people".
The original ruling knocked the government's immigration policy off course and so frustrated Mr Blunkett he angrily attacked "triumphalist" human rights lawyers and warned them not to undermine reforms expected to be announced in the next fortnight.
The home secretary expressed his delight yesterday that the original decision had been overturned. "I am extremely pleased that the court has found in favour of the Home Office and that common sense has prevailed. This rational and understandable judgment reinforces confidence in our judicial and legal system. Oakington is an important element in the effective operation of tough but fair immigration controls."
The government had taken the unusual step of bringing out its biggest guns to fight the case with the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, present in court.
But the lawyers who represented the four Kurdish asylum seekers at the centre of the original case said the decision was "very disappointing" and claimed it would greatly extend the home secretary's powers of detention.
Their solicitor, Michael Hanley, said: "The Home Office does not have to show that detention is necessary to prevent unlawful immigration. If the appeal court is right, this leaves asylum seekers without any significant protection to the right to liberty.
"It gives the Home Office the ability to detain purely for administrative convenience. We will seek to establish this is unlawful in an appeal to the House of Lords." Leave was granted for the Lords appeal.
The decision also appears to clear the way for the expansion of the use of such fast-track detention centres, but Home Office sources said yesterday they had no immediate plans to open another Oakington. It is expected though that Mr Blunkett will announce plans in the next fortnight to increase the use of "open door" reception centres for new asylum seekers.
Louise Pirouet of Oakington Concern, which was set up to monitor conditions at the former RAF barracks, said it was not a prison and should not be used as one. "Asylum seekers need only be asked to agree to reside at the detention centre and be available for interview. They do not need to be locked up," she said.
Article 2
'There was stone throwing... but it is better now'
Sighthill fears changes as refugees find new tolerance
Kirsty Scott
Tuesday October 30, 2001
Sheyda cried for three months when she was sent to Sighthill. The 30-year-old mother fled persecution in Iran only to find abuse and stigmatisation on the streets of the Glasgow housing estate.
Sighthill was the end of the road for the government's asylum dispersal programme. Almost 2,000 refugees were moved into one of Scotland's most deprived neighbourhoods in a matter of months. Tensions rose and a series of racial attacks culminated in the murder of 22-year-old Kurdish refugee Firsat Dag in August.
Since then, city officials, asylum seekers and local residents have been working to bind the community together. They say the situation has improved markedly and yesterday the talk on the estate was not of Sighthill's problems but how their efforts might be unravelled by the revised asylum strategy.
"At first I have never imagined I will be living in an area like here," said Sheyda. "I have never seen an area like here in my own country. I was crying for three months. It was very difficult. There was shouting and throwing stones. But it is better now. The local people understand us better than before.
"Now our fears are of these reception centres. What is this? It is not a reception centre. It is a detention centre. They hope people will be so happy with the end of the vouchers that they will forget about the detention centres.
"But people came here because they were afraid in their country, they had no freedom to speak, no freedom to think. They were in prison. And they do not want this."
Glasgow city council is to ask the government to complete the existing dispersal agreement with the city. Glasgow is in its first year of a five year contract to house refugees for which it is paid £20m a year.
City officials say huge strides have been made to improve integration since Firsat Dag's death.
"There have been enormous improvements in the last five months and it would be really ironic if our efforts to create an infrastructure which allows us to integrate people are to be dismantled," said Councillor Archie Graham.
Mohammed Asif, a spokesman for the Sighthill asylum seekers, said: "Dispersal was a good idea but the government didn't do the proper planning. Most of the asylum seekers are not against dispersal but there was no proper planning.
"But these reception centres will create a lot of problems. It is like prisons. It is against our basic human rights. They have done this to satisfy the opposition and some sections of the media.
"It is better now in Sighthill because we have tried very hard to work together in the area. I think people are trying to understand. Since September 11 people realise why asylum seekers are coming to their country. At last people sense that there is a real problem, that people do not choose to live this life."
Mary Young, 60, has lived in Sighthill for 35 years. She thought the estate was not ready for such a large influx of refugees but would be diminished if they left.
"There is a lot of good people amongst them. And it is much quieter here than it was in the summer. It was difficult then. But people now are trying to get along. And I am pleased for them about the vouchers. I think it will make it easier for them. How do you expect people to try and fit in when you make them different from the start?"
Hassan Khandahari will not miss the vouchers. The 47-year-old father of three fled Afghanistan last year and was sent to Sighthill from London. He fears for the family he left behind in Kandahar. "I am very worried for my country, for my people," he said. "Of course I am pleased about the vouchers because it is something shameful.
"Perhaps they should not have sent people to Sighthill and it may be a good idea to stop, but when I see what is happening in my country, it is difficult to think that it is hard for me here."
For Discussion
- Should asylum seekers today be placed in reception centres when they first arrive in Britain? Explain your answer.
- What responsibilities do governments have towards asylum seekers who seek refuge in their countries today? (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1156406.stm )
- Find out the organisations and agencies in Britain today that support refugees.
- What are their roles and responsibilities?
- For some myth-busting about refugees check out:
