Call for Participants - Forced Migration and The Arts

Forced Migration and The Arts is an online series that brings together people with lived experience of forced migration, artists, activists and academics for conversation exploring questions around forced migration and the arts.

The conversations take place in the evening on the last Thursday of each month.

A playlist of videos from conversations we have held so far is accessible here. 

As part of the series, we would also like to explore topics that include (not limited to, and not necessarily in this order): refugee camps, internment camps, detention centres, museums and galleries, libraries and archives, decolonisation, community and participatory arts, theatre, music, poetry, creative writing, methodologies, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, the UK's minimum income requirement, visual art, fine art, street art, public art, film, Haiti, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Kenya, Libya, Venezuela, Mexico, Ukraine, and more.

Have you done any work around forced migration and the arts in any of these contexts? Did the work include people with lived experience of forced migration? Would you and the people you worked with like to speak as part of the series? 

If yes, please email civicleicester@gmail.com and let us know.

About CivicLeicester:

CivicLeicester is a community media channel that uses the arts, digital and print technologies and social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to highlight conversations. 

The channel is unfunded and was set up after realising that, year in, year out, there were a lot of very significant activities and conversations taking place at a grassroots, community, national and international level that should be more visible but were not receiving any mainstream media coverage at all.

Books we have published include Welcome to Britain: An Anthology of Poems and Short Fiction (2023), Black Lives Matter: Poems for A New World (2020), and Bollocks to Brexit: An Anthology of Poems and Short Fiction (2019).

Ambrose Musiyiwa

Facilitator, CivicLeicester 

This post was updated on 29 April 2023 to include a list of some of the topics we would like to explore as part of the series. 

[Transcript] Leicester - Red Cross Refugee Service

Piotr Kuhiwczak is Project Worker with the British Red Cross' Refugee Services in Leicester.

In an interview with CivicLeicester, Kuhiwczak talked about how the Red Cross Refugee Service operates in Leicester. The interview took place on 16 December 2011, at an event organised by the Zimbabwe Association and the Zimbabwe Action in Solidarity (ZAS) Leicester Drop-in:



Piotr Kuhiwczak: My name is Piotr Kuhiwczak. I work for the Refugee Services of the Red Cross in Leicester, which is quite a big service compared to other services of a similar kind in the UK. And the reason for that is that Leicester is a dispersal city: that is, the Home Office sends asylum seekers to Leicester, puts them in accommodation, and they [asylum seekers] come up with all kinds of needs, which we help them to find answers to. So, the range of work we do is very wide - from helping people to get legal support, solicitors; helping with appeals when asylum seekers lose support, NASS support; to medical help; schools... it's the whole range of needs which everybody has got and all these problems, especially for people who come from overseas and they don't know how to operate within the system.

We also have got a large programme to alleviate destitution because a lot of asylum seekers, in between appeals, they end up either homeless or destitute. They have no food. So we have got a large programme of food distribution that is helping, supporting basic needs.

The service has been going for, I think the 10th year now and we don't see the needs decreasing. I would say the needs are increasing.

So, that's what we do.

Civic Leicester Community Network: And where in Leicester are you based?

PK: We are in Oadby, which is on the southern end of Leicester, down A6, London Road. Bus 31A can take anybody just nearly to our doorstep.

And we moved there because we had very small premises in the city centre. Now the building is large. We have got a large food store and we can do more things than we used to do.

CLCN: And if I want to find out more about the work you are doing, how do I go about it? How do I get in touch with you?

PK: You can come to us. You can call us on [0116]2710359. Make an appointment. Come and we shall explain to you in detail what we do. We shall give you examples of our work; show you our premises; introduce you to our volunteers, so you will be able to see the whole range of work we do.

CLCN: Thank you very much, Piotr.

PK: OK. Thank you.

[Interview] John Nyamande, Zimbabwean opposition political party activist

Between June 25 and 29, 2007, I had a wide-ranging interview with the veteran Zimbabwean opposition political activist, John Nyamande in which he talked, among other things, about the Save Zimbabwe Campaign’s visit to the U.K.; the talks that were then still going on in South Africa and about the conditions under which Zimbabwean asylum seekers are living in the U.K.

The following is a lightly edited version of the interview:

During one of MDC president, Morgan Tsvangirai’s last visits to the U.K., he held a rally in Luton. What was the purpose or significance of the visit?

The rally in Luton, on June 23, 2007 was purposeful and had lots of significance.

At this rally Morgan Tsvangirai and Lovemore Madhuku were able to address the people. The President [Tsvangirai] spoke about the talks in South Africa and asylum issues in the U.K.

Lovemore Madhuku talked about a new constitution.

The party travelled under the Save Zimbabwe Campaign (SZC) and the delegation comprised of Morgan Tsvangirai, Prof Arthur Mutambara, Paul Siwela of ZAPU, Lovemore Madhuku, Rev. Levee Kadenge of the Christian Alliance and Miss Mudehwe for Zinasu.

The purpose of the SZC was to lobby the diplomatic community in Europe, about a new constitution before free, fair and internationally supervised elections take place.

They visited Belgium, Germany and France and were able to have fruitful talks with the governments of these countries. I understand the campaign is going to be taken to the SADCC countries, Central and West Africa, Canada, Australia, United States and other progressive countries in the world.

It is only fair for the progressive groups like the SZC to have their views regarding problems in Zimbabwe heard as well. However, on the sidelines of these diplomatic manoeuvres, members of this group had an opportunity to meet their members to listen and brief them about progress regarding talks in South Africa. Tsvangirai met his group at Luton and, Mutambara met his at a hotel in London and I hope Siwela did the same. It was fair for them to meet their supporters because a lot of Zimbabweans are now in the Diaspora as refugees and need to hear about developments at home from their leaders.

In the U.K., many Zimbabweans have had their applications for political asylum refused. How would you describe the conditions under which they are living?

The position of the MDC is that under the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Zimbabweans who are seeking asylum and currently in the U.K., must be treated with dignity and humanity.

These are people with skills, who are trainable and hard working. Evidence shows that the health and social care sector is immensely benefiting from Zimbabweans who are legally and illegally working in this country. This group is contributing to the GDP of this economy.

Those who have been refused political asylum are not allowed to work and do not receive any government benefits at all. Some have committed suicide and others have children.

Surely the government of the U.K. is a champion in condemning other governments that violate such kinds of human rights. The U.K. government must reconsider its position and give asylum seekers temporary work permits that become invalid as soon as the situation in Zimbabwe is resolved. However, the MDC does encourage its members to be law abiding and does not support those who break the laws of the host country.

What is the background to the talks in South Africa? How significant are they?

Mismanagement of the Zimbabwean economy, bad governance that has left 80% of the population unemployed, price madness with inflation galloping at well over 5000% [at the time of the interview], hunger, reduced life expectancy to 37years for men and 34 years for women, politicized judiciary and police, human rights abuses, amending of the Constitution and other issues have forced the opposition, civic groups and even SADCC to speak their concerns.

Zimbabwe is having Presidential elections in 2008 and ZANU (PF) which is in government has amended the constitution so that Robert Mugabe, whose term had expired would extend his term, increase the number of constituencies in the assembly and also increase the number of senators who were introduced only last year.

The view of the majority is that Robert Mugabe is afraid to face a challenger under the same constitution he has been enjoying for the past 25 years. If Mugabe is still popular, Zimbabweans are demanding impartiality in the conduct of elections, according to SADCC protocol, conduct and conditions laid down by himself and other members of the community.

Before the elections in March 2008, Zimbabweans at home and Diaspora are demanding a new Constitution designed by all groups, which would then address issues of repressive laws like AIPPA, POSA, and voter registration, delimitation of constituency boundary and composition of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC).

If these talks succeed and elections conducted and supervised by a neutral body, surely, there is no reason why sanctions should not be lifted and Zimbabwe slotted back into the progressive community. Sanctions should not be lifted before an agreement because (ZANU (PF) is not faithful when it comes to negotiations of such a nature. He did this when Mbeki was engaging them during the first initiatives of talks.

What will be needed for the talks to succeed?

The ZANU (PF) government must start by re-orientating its attitude towards opposition movements, civic groups. They must also listen, respect the views of the ordinary people who are facing the price madness, and shortages of basic commodities.

ZANU (PF) has failed to tell Mugabe the truth about the hunger, disease, poverty and suffering on the grassroots level, because of the patronage system of governance he has entrenched. His cronies are afraid to tell him in case they lose the farms, business contracts, houses and food they receive. It is high time Robert Mugabe starts listening to the opposition and other civic groups if he has the country at heart. Time is running out.

The ZANU (PF) government must stop harassing the opposition, trumping up charges of petrol bombing and terrorist training. These are cheap charges, bogus and can easily be laughed at by any person on the street. A government must treat its people by dignity and humanity irrespective of their political affiliations.

The other factor that I hope will force the talks to succeed is: the state of the economy that has reached rock bottom.

A number of MDC activists have been accused of bombing various institutions and places in Zimbabwe. What do you think really happened?

Zimbabweans are peace loving people and all the bomb accusations are tactics that were used by Ian Douglas Smith and have been borrowed by Robert Mugabe.

Ian Smith had the Selous Scouts that disguised themselves as freedom fighters and killed villagers to discredit our freedom fighters who were doing a sterling job. Now we have a clandestine group of youths who are on the payroll of Gideon Gono masquerading as MDC youths. This is cheap propaganda and people are fed up of it.

I think there is some congruence and relationship with what was said by Shadreck Chipanga in the Herald a month before this spat of bombings started. Shadreck Chipanga chronicled how he was trained to make petrol bombs in Gweru, ran away from Rhodesian intelligence and crossed into Zambia for guerrilla training. It seems to me that this is by no means coincidence. His chronicle has something to do with this.

And was there really a coup attempt in Zimbabwe?

I do not believe there has been any coup attempts in Zimbabwe. As I have mentioned earlier on, Zimbabweans are peace loving, and they would not like to experience the killings of innocent civilians like what happened during the wars of liberation. I believe it is a tactic that is used by Mugabe time and time again to shift people’s attention on real issues of hunger, disease, poverty, unemployment. The country is bleeding and Mugabe is good at creating situations that draw people’s attention from the real issues.

Lookout Masuku, Dumiso Dabengwa, Joshua Nkomo all were accused of having arms caches in Matebeleland that Mugabe said were going to be used to overthrow the Government. Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole was accused of trying to kill Robert Mugabe at Heroes Acre on his way from Zvimba. Bishop Abel Muzorewa was arrested on his way from America and accused of having plans to overthrow his Government. The Bishop was tortured at Goromonzi and that is why the bishop went silent for a very long time. Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested and charged with planning to eliminate Robert Mugabe in a case that in the end embarrassed the government.

It seems to me that the Zimbabwe intelligence are going to torture and force the victims to sing statements that are going to implicate the opposition groups. This is a ZANU (PF) ploy that is aimed at disturbing the MDC and other groups in making preparations for the elections in 2008.

What do you think is going to happen during the March 2008 elections? Are they going to be free and fair?

These elections were supposed to be Presidential Elections but the ZANU (PF) Government, as usual has shifted the goal posts by bringing forward parliamentary elections in the name of harmonization. Most rural forks are going to be confused and in this confusion the state machinery will rig the election. There are players in this game who have got an unfair advantage over other players who do not have control over the state machinery.

At the moment ZANU (PF) has already started campaigning for the elections. Village headman are now receiving a salary, War vets allowances have been increased to Z$3.5million and Gono is funding a project that is going to see more than 300,000 Scotch carts distributed to the communal farmers and at the same time disturbing the activities of the opposition by banning all meetings and rallies.

Institutionalized torture, abductions of opposition members is taking place daily. It is sad that this is all happening when talks in South Africa are taking place and Thabo Mbeki and SADCC not cautioning ZANU (PF) at all. Thabo Mbeki and Robert Mugabe have a game plan and the negotiating team has got to be careful especially Tendai Biti who is representing Morgan Tsvangirai. It seems to me most SADC countries are not comfortable with a government born out of a trade union movement. Trade Union movements have structures already and if they decide to form political parties, they can easily use the structures to launch the party. They also represent the working class who always suffer when governments mismanage the economies. Most SADCC leaders believe that if this happens in Zimbabwe, the next country could be South Africa (COSATU) or Namibia. Even in South Africa, COSATU played a very important role in bringing down apartheid.

ZANU (PF) has already started rigging the elections and will stop the beatings, torture, bans and abductions when observers start coming into Zimbabwe. Surely, SADCC and other interested bodies who have been monitoring elections in Zimbabwe should be aware of this ZANU (PF) strategy.

Robert Mugabe has already started instilling fear ahead of the crucial elections. He should also not be allowed to choose observers like he did in the last elections. Any observers from bodies like SADC, AU, UN or Commonwealth should be allowed and be deployed now if the exercise is going to be credible. However if Mugabe is allowed to do what he likes, only those he feel are his friends would be allowed [to monitor the elections]. By that time he would have finished vote buying, torturing and putting rigging systems in place.

Will the two factions of the MDC ever unite?

As far as I am concerned, the fact that Tsvangirai, Mutambara, Siwela, and others have accepted to work under the Save Zimbabwe Coalition its enough evidence to show that people are united in trying to set the atmosphere for free and fair elections. The party’s priorities is to set the ground for free and fair elections. Time is not on their side to engage is serious talks on unity.

As far as I am concerned, the issue of uniting will naturally fall in place as soon as the conditions for the elections have been agreed and finalized. After all, the groups agree on the fundamentals for free and fair elections; a new constitution, which would solve the issue of repressive laws; and, elections supervised by international observers.

Link

Notes on Asylum Seekers and the Right to Work

At present, asylum seekers are not allowed to work during the first year of their application for political asylum. They can apply for permission to work after those 12 months but even then permission to work is not always granted.

• “Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards of reception for asylum seekers”, Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees in the UK (ICAR), 2005.
  
• “ECRE Information Note on the Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 Laying down Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum Seekers”, The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), June 2003.
• “Good practice in the reception and integration of refugees: networking across Europe”, The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), November 2001.
  

Those who have had their claims refused are not allowed to work at all. They are given subsistence support in the form of vouchers if they are unable to return to their countries of origin and sign forms to say they are willing to go back to their countries as soon as possible.

• “Support for failed asylum seekers”, Tony McNulty, Home Office minister for immigration, citizenship and nationality, The Guardian, March 23, 2006.
  
• “Refugee Council condemns vouchers as expensive, damaging and proven to be wrong,” Refugee Council, March 20 2006.
• “Asylum voucher extension sought”, BBC News, March 16, 2006.
• “Asylum seekers’ vouchers”, The Guardian, September 28, 2000.
  

Those who cannot sign to say they will go back to their countries of origin are deprived of both the right to work and subsistence support.

Some of the effects of not working and not receiving subsistence support.

• “Living ghost endurance challenge”, Jonathan Cox, March 29 -- April 6 2006.
  
• “Charities urge Britain to ditch forcing refugee children into care,” Worldpress.org, February 25, 2006.
• “Asylum seekers needlessly made destitute,” Anne Singh, Independent Race and Refugee News Network, April 19, 2005.
  
• “Asylum seekers left destitute”, politics.co.uk, January 8 2005.
  
• “Government policy leaves refugee children destitute,” Worldpress.org, November 17, 2005.
• "'Dispersal of asylum seekers creating ghettos in deprived areas’, says Home Office report”, The Guardian, December 23, 2005.
• “Asylum policies make 10 000 people destitute a year”, The Guardian, February 4, 2004.
• “Destitution by design -- withdrawal of support from in-country asylum applicants,” Greater London Authority, London, February 2004.
• "Breaking the Cycle: Taking Stock of Progress and Priorities for the Future", Social Exclusion Unit, London, September 2004.

Why should asylum seekers should be allowed to work?

Benefits of work or gainful occupation or employment on the health (in the broadest meaning of the word "health") of individuals and communities and conversely,

The effects of enforced idleness/unemployment on the health of individuals and communities

• “Protecting the human rights of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced people,” Human Rights Watch.
• “Newspapers flout ruling on asylum seekers”, The Guardian, December 31, 2004.

Benefits to the economy

• “Are immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers an economic advantage,” ICAR 2005.
• “Any talents to declare Sir?” David Smith, The Sunday Times, September 11, 2005.
• “Report shows the economic contribution asylum seekers make to the economy,” Refugee Council, June 15, 2005.
• “A place of refuge -- a positive approach to asylum seekers and refugees in the U.K.”, Church of England, March 2005.
• “Asylum and employment: developments in the creation of a common European asylum system”, Peer Beneke, April 1 2004, ECRE.
  

Who has been calling for asylum seekers to be allowed to work?

Asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants and organizations representing them

• “Asylum seekers, the employment concession and access to the UK labour market”, [PDF file], ASSET UK.
• “Afghan hijackers aid calls for asylum work rights”, Worldpress.org, May 14, 2006.
  
• “They have hands, let them work”, National Coalition of Anti-deportation Campaigns (NCADC), Feburay 17, 2006.
• “January 8th Stand up for asylum seekers,” LCADAS.
  
• “Let asylum seekers work”, Positive Action in Housing, June 7, 2005.
  
• “Positive immigration and asylum rights”, The Black Manifesto 2005.
• “Religious leaders urge British government to stop victimising asylum seekers”, Worldpress.org, December 17, 2005.
• “Call to employ asylum seekers”, BBC News, May 27, 2003.
  

Health professionals

• ‘“Asylum seekers should be issued temporary work permits’ – say physiotherapists”, Chartered Society of Physiotherapists, May 12, 2004.
• “Worried about xenophobia? Then let asylum seekers work”, Theodore Dalrymple, Telegraph, January 16, 2004.

Parliamentarians

• “47 MPs call on UK to grant Zimbabwe asylum seekers right to work”, New Zimbabwe, January 17, 2006.
• “EDM 1293: Zimbabwean asylum seekers and the right to work”, House of Commons.
• “Failed asylum seekers 'must work'”, BBC News, June 8, 2004.
• Caroline Lucas MEP, May 31, 2001.

[Interview] Matthew Nyashanu, Zimbabwean journalist

Matthew Nyashanu is a Zimbabwean teacher, journalist, political analyst and media commentator currently living in the United Kingdom.

He is a member of the Zimbabwean Association of Journalists in the Diaspora.

He writes for a number of newspapers, particularly zimbeat, www.zimbeat.com and since 2002 he has been a contributor to SW Radio Africa where he presents a political commentary program.

Nyashanu is also the U.K. spokesperson of the Zimbabwean opposition political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

In addition to this, Nyashanu is one of the founding members of, and spokesperson for, the Diaspora Vote Action Group, which took the Zimbabwe government to court in an effort to secure the right to vote for Zimbaweans living outside the country.

In a series of ongoing emails and telephone conversations that started in January 2006, Matthew Nyashanu spoke about the Diaspora Vote Action Group and the hardships journalists are facing in Zimbabwe.

What motivated the Diaspora Vote Action Group to take the Zimbabwe government to court?

We were motivated by the fact that despite getting independence in 1980, many Zimbabweans living in the Diaspora were unable to exercise their basic fundamental right of choosing the leader they preferred. Other countries in the region, countries like Mozambique, for example, have been able to put such arrangements in place.

Who else was involved in these efforts?

The court case was actioned by seven people namely Matthew Nyashanu, Makusha Mugabe, Emily Madamombe, Lincoln Makotore, Jefta Madzingo, Brian Makuzva and Farai Maruzani.

How did you go about it?

We set up a website and we received a lot of support in the form of signatures from Zimbabweans in the Diaspora. We also had a very wide press coverage, which helped us to reach far and wide in terms of building a support base. The only problem we had was that of paying legal costs but we managed to fork the money out of our own pockets.

Although the Zimbabwe government still would not allow Zimbabweans living abroad to vote, I believe that our campaign was successful. Our action exposed, to the world, one of the many ways the Zimbabwean people are being oppressed by President Robert Mugabe's regime.

How did your participation in this affect you and your family?

The participation further strained my relationship with the Zanu PF administration and I am viewed as a traitor especially for suing them from U.K., the former coloniser and number one enemy to Zanu PF. Because of that and because of my broadcasts and writings I am one of those not allowed in the country by the regime.

What would happen to you if you returned?

Anyone trying to fight for justice and anyone trying to inform the international world about the dark side of President Mugabe's rule is likely to face the wrath of the ailing regime.

In Zimbabwe just before Christmas, last year, a number of journalists were arrested. More journalists have been arrested again this year. What, in your view, is the Zimbabwe government's motivation for these and other arrests?

The journalists were arrested because the Harare administration is under immense pressure following their unplanned land seizure and the establishment of political thuggery in the country. Zanu PF is looking very insecure especially after demolishing the shelters of poor urban dwellers and moving them to remote and unsanitary places like Hopely Farm.

These arrests are a well-calculated strategy to put on hold the free flow of information -- especially the information disseminated by the independent press. The government is hoping to create a vacuum of information on Zimbabwe and, in this way, make sure that the inhumane way, in which it is treating its citizens, remains a secret. This is also meant to induce fear in all journalists and human rights activists wishing to square up with the regime.

Although these arrests may induce fear in the media fraternity, in another way they will make journalists to grow stronger in their quest to expose the wrong activities of this despotic regime.

What would you advise journalists currently living and working in Zimbabwe?

The way forward for journalists in Zimbabwe is to keep the pressure on by reporting all the abuses coming from this regime. The journalists should also, where possible, file stories with international media organizations to make sure that the regime is exposed for what it is.

This article was first published on OhmyNews International.

Child Trafficking in the UK

She was a teenage orphan living on the streets of Nairobi when a man approached her and promised her work in the United Kingdom. He told her she would be working as a house girl.

True to his word, her "savior" brought her into the U.K. -- but instead of placing her with a family the man took her to a brothel, where she was systematically raped, beaten, and forced to work as a prostitute.

Three months later, when the 16-year-old Kenyan girl became pregnant, she was forced to continue sleeping with a succession of men until she was almost due to give birth. The heavily pregnant teenager was then removed from the brothel, driven out of the town where she had been held, and dumped many miles away on the streets of Sheffield.

"It's been a painstaking process but we now have a clearer picture of when and how the girl arrived in Sheffield and the terrible ordeal she has been through," said Detective Inspector Matt Fenwick of the South Yorkshire Police. "As you may expect, she is still extremely distressed. All interviews have been conducted entirely at her pace, and she is now being looked after by specialist carers.

"The sequence of events that has emerged during those interviews is both shocking and tragic. It involves imprisonment, beatings, and systematic rape over a lengthy period. Anyone who can subject a teenage girl to such abuse needs to be caught as a matter of urgency before they can do the same again. I'd ask anyone who thinks they may have encountered this girl or her captors to come forward -- even if they were one of her clients."

The 16-year-old girl's ordeal is similar to that of more than 4,000 other women who have been trafficked into the U.K. A Home Office study in 2002 suggested that the scale of trafficking of women may range anywhere from a hundred to several thousands annually.

End Child Prostitution, Pornography, and Trafficking (ECPAT), U.K., is a children's rights organization that represents a coalition of nine U.K. organizations working on children's issues. It says the true scale of human trafficking is unclear because no updated statistics are available on the problem in the U.K.

In an effort to determine the scale of the problem and to assess the level of awareness and mechanisms for dealing with it by the social services and other authorities, ECPAT U.K. conducted research in 2001 and 2004 into the trafficking of children into the U.K.

In "Crossing Borders: The Trafficking of Children into the U.K.," a briefing paper published last year, ECPAT U.K. says the 2004 research indicates that girls, in particular, are being brought from Africa and Eastern Europe for purposes of domestic servitude and prostitution:

"There were 35 cases of child trafficking with the 17 boroughs of London, including nine children under 16 years of age; there are many more reported cases that the social services did not disclose. Increasingly, an influx of young Vietnamese, Chinese, and Thai children, particularly boys, has been noticed by various agencies. In addition, ECPAT U.K. has received reports indicating the issue is not confined to London."

Current efforts by the government to come to terms with the problem of child trafficking seem to be focused on legislation and law enforcement.

The Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act of 2002 covered the offence of trafficking. This was later replaced by the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, which defines a child as someone below the age of 18 and criminalizes trafficking for sexual exploitation. It also makes it an offence to traffic into, within, and out of the U.K., imposing a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Additionally, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act of 2004 makes it an offence to traffic in all forms of labor exploitation and imposes a maximum penalty of 14 years.

Organizations working with victims of trafficking say these measures are not enough. They point out that victims of trafficking are rarely willing to testify because of threats the victims and their families receive from the traffickers.

ECPAT U.K. gives as an example what happened between 1995 and 2001 when West Sussex Social Services took into its care a number of unaccompanied minors, many of them Nigerian girls, who were claiming asylum as soon as they arrived at the airport.

Many of the children went missing within days or months of being in care. There were indications that they were being further trafficked to other parts of Europe. Those remaining in care were not considered safe: some of them were suspected of having contact with their traffickers and being prostituted or made to deal drugs.

"Police assistance was considered ineffective in cases where social workers reported suspicious or abusive characters around children. Some felt that police viewed the children only as asylum seekers and not as child protection cases," ECPAT U.K. said.

The organization emphasizes that strategies for tackling child trafficking issues need to concentrate on child protection and prevention, not just law enforcement.

"On a wider regional and international level, greater synergy and cooperation is vital. The implementation of existing legislation is necessary, as is including effective protection measures for victims in national plans of action," the organization says.

Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International U.K., said:

"Currently, victims of trafficking have almost no rights in the U.K. In the eyes of the law, they are simply illegal immigrants and are routinely detained and deported.

"The government should sign the European Convention Against Trafficking -- something it could do tomorrow. Signing would turn the system around, so that trafficked women are recognized as the victims and not the perpetrators of crime."

This article was first published by OhmyNews International. A podcast of the article is available at http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=293231&rel_no=6/.

[Interview] Conrad Nyamutata, Zimbabwean journalist

Over the past five years, the Zimbabwean government has been routinely detaining, torturing and harassing journalists as part of an on-going campaign to stop them from reporting on human rights issues, the economic crisis in Zimbabwe and the escalating opposition to President Robert G. Mugabe's rule.

Repressive legislation such as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (2002) has made it a crime to practice journalism without a government license.

At the same time, journalists who include Geoff Nyarota, Nqobile Nyathi, Lloyd Mudiwa, Basildon Peta, Caroline Gombakomba and others have been placed on a list of people whose passports are to be seized should they try to leave or enter the country. The Mugabe regime accuses them of being traitors and of threatening the country’s national interests.

The Media Institute of Southern Africa reports that in June last year, President Mugabe signed the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Bill, which allows journalists to be jailed for up to 20 years for publishing falsehoods. The law, among other things, prohibits the making, publicly and intentionally, of any false statement about or concerning the President or Acting President if the person knows or realises that there is a risk or possibility of engendering feelings of hostility towards or causing hatred, contempt or ridicule of him, whether in his official or personal capacity.

In addition to all this, the ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs are currently deliberating on draft regulations that will require Zimbabweans to obtain exit visas before they can be allowed to travel outside the country.

Critics say the new passport laws are aimed at immobilizing journalists, human rights activists and opposition political party leaders in order to prevent them from highlighting government repression and human rights violations. The laws have been described as a serious and unacceptable assault on people’s freedom of movement.

The Index on Censorship, (November 2005) reports that at least 90 Zimbabwean journalists, including many of the country’s most prominent reporters, now live in exile, making them one of the largest groups of exiled journalists in the world. Some of the exiled journalists left as a direct result of political persecution, others because the government’s crackdown virtually erased opportunities in the independent press.

Ambrose Musiyiwa interviewed Conrad Nyamutata, one of the journalists, via email.

How long did you work as a journalist in Zimbabwe?

I worked as journalist for about 10 years. First, for The Herald and then for The Daily News. I was a correspondent for a few other external organisations as well.

While at The Daily News, I was arrested and charged with criminal defamation; threatened by Joseph Chinotimba, the war veterans’ leader; and, our offices and printing presses were bombed.

Fortunately for me, Chinotimba accosted and attacked the wrong person at the Harare Magistrates' Court, thinking it was me.

I have no idea what became of the criminal defamation charge as I was released and told I would be called by way of summons. All this was a result of a perfectly legitimate and accurate series of stories, about [opposition political party] Movement for Democratic Change members suing President Mugabe before a court in the United States.

There were just too many happenings at The Daily News because we crossed swords with the mighty.

How did all this come about?

The Daily News was the first media institution to mount a sustained campaign against Zanu PF leadership. We took the regime head-on and without fear, on a daily basis. Our sales and readership shot up because what we were doing was unprecedented.

And of course we paid the price.

The arrests, I talked about, the beatings and the bombing. And ultimately being shut down. But as staff we remained united. Adversity created firm bonds amongst us; it was like huddling in a corner during a fierce thunderstorm and springing back into action after the storm.

What made you decide to leave the country?

I left Zimbabwe because I didn’t feel safe working in such an environment anymore.

I had just carried out an investigation, which heavily implicated the C.I.O. and the police in the bombing of the M.D.C. offices in Harare a few years back.

The trouble is that, with such a partisan or, to be more precise, complicit police, you could not feel safe or protected at all as a citizen. My informants told me it was time to go. You ignore such intelligence at your own peril.

Are you still working as a journalist?

Today, I work remotely from the media. I work for the British Red Cross' refugee support services in Leicester [in the United Kingdom].

But I must mention that I am exceedingly proud to have worked for The Daily News, which, historically, will always be a landmark in the democratisation project. That project is continuing, and I salute all who are taking it further. Zimbabwe will be free again.

Do you see yourself ever working as a journalist again?

Maybe in the long term.

I see myself back in the communications and media field, but serving the voluntary sector.

You were working on a documentary recently. How did that come about?

A few months ago, I was invited by Safe Media, a new film production company in Leicester, to produce a three-minute documentary. It was to be part of a set of four documentaries produced by refugees and asylum seekers about their own experiences in this country or related themes.

The theme of my documentary embodied a few strands: the general perception of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants by the media, local people and employers. I was challenging the how immigrants or foreign professionals now settled in the U.K. are perceived. I was poking at, not the proverbial glass ceiling, but the "glass wall" that bars such skilled persons from jobs they can perform. It challenges prejudice.

The documentary was naturally premised on my own experiences as a foreign journalist now settled in this country. It is about many other journalists, very good journalists for that matter, from abroad now living here, who have failed to secure employment in the field simply because they are foreign. It is about all skilled migrants denied top jobs in top companies because of prejudice.

I absolutely abhor the sentiment that dirty jobs should be reserved for foreigners or migrants, no matter how skilled or educated they are.

What were the other documentaries about?

One was about the controversial issue of tagging of asylum seekers, and the other was about problems encountered by a refugee/husband in reuniting with his wife. The other was about a musician Ebi, an Iranian asylum seeker. Sigli Ahmed, a Ghanaian, did the one on tagging. Boris, a Serbian did the one about Ebi and Idil (family reunion).

How are refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants perceived by the media, local people and employers in this country?

There is a deliberate misrepresentation of the refugee and asylum seeker by certain section of the local media.

For instance, there were outrageous claims in the past about asylum seekers killing the Queen's birds, the swans, and also false reports that they were eating donkeys. All were found to be untrue.

But even more serious is the wilful blurring of lines between who is an asylum seeker, a refugee, an illegal immigrant or a terrorist. The media seeks to band them together to create confusion and generate animosity against anyone who is foreign.

Why do you think this is happening and what effect is it having?

It's all about the ideological construction of the immigrant by the media. That inevitably results in racism, xenophobia and social exclusion.

Because the immigrant, whatever his status, would have been constructed as unworthy, that exclusion extends to employment; immigrants are then seen as people deserving of the lowly paid jobs. Jobs which local people do not want to do. And yet many foreigners are better educated than some local people.

This article was first published on OhmyNews International.

Social Exclusion and Poverty: Britain Sending Mixed Signals

At first glance, the agenda of Britain's social exclusion minister, Hilary Armstrong, sounds impressive. It gives the impression that the British government has a genuine interest in enabling the poor to lift themselves out of poverty.

Armstrong has a cabinet-level responsibility for early identification of at-risk children and families, improving the outcomes of children in care, tackling teenage pregnancies, partnership work with other agencies and taskforces in dealing with problem families and for finding routes into employment for those with mental health problems. All of this is in an effort to reduce poverty as well as the social exclusion these groups experience.

Sue Stirling, director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) North, welcomed the creation of the social exclusion cabinet post and Armstrong's appointment as minister responsible for leading cross-departmental work on tackling social exclusion. She said that the IPPR anticipated the most challenging issues Armstrong will face would be to improve the life chances of looked after children and those with mental health problems, and to expand action for people who live in the very poorest areas and who are furthest removed from decent jobs.

"Increasing accountability and developing the right incentives across all departments will be the key, instead of looking for new interventions or eye catching initiatives," she said.

She emphasised that there was need to find policy solutions that work at a local and regional level.

"On the ground, it is not just a matter of delivering ministerial priorities but reconfiguring services to meet local need. We should be brave enough to support radical local solutions to entrenched problems. Otherwise the casualties will keep coming," Sue Stirling said.

In the United Kingdom, groups that are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion include children and young people, families in no-work households, children and young people who no longer attend school, those who may be additionally disadvantaged by racism and other forms of discrimination, as well as asylum seekers, refugees and illegal/irregular immigrants.

The Open University publication, "Care and Communities" (2003), observes that current efforts to reverse the effects of social exclusion on communities are currently being driven by government through its Social Exclusion Unit and other related national, community-based campaigns like Sure Start and Barnados as well as by communities themselves through grassroots initiatives like the St Matthew Project and the Longberton Lads.

In its 2004 report, "Breaking the Cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future," the Social Exclusion Unit says since 1997 major initiatives have been implemented to: tackle key economic causes of social exclusion such as unemployment and poverty, particularly child and pensioner poverty; promote equal opportunities for all; support communities, particularly in deprived areas; reintegrate some of those who have experienced more extreme forms of social exclusion, like rough sleeping; and to improve access to advice and services.

It maintains that these policies have resulted in significant progress particularly in tackling poverty and it lists the following as some of the achievements that have come out of the policies: a reduction in child poverty; large-scale expansion of nursery education and childcare services; there are now 1.85 million more people in work than in 1997 and there have been faster than average increases in employment among disadvantaged groups; educational attainment has risen in all key stages; the number of homeless people sleeping rough has fallen by 70 percent; there has been a reduction in crime and the fear of crime, including among older people; and there are early signs that the gap between the most deprived local authority areas and the rest of the country is narrowing on some indicators such as rates of unemployment, educational attainment, and teenage conceptions.

However, in an article that appeared in The Guardian in 2002, researcher Peter Kenway says research by the New Policy Institute think tank and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that in the UK employment alone does not guarantee an escape from poverty and that while the breadth of poverty was declining, there was no reduction in the depth of poverty.

Kenway analysed 1996/7 and 2001/2 household incomes and said: "The government's anti-poverty strategy rests on the idea that employment should be the way out of poverty for all those who can work.

"These figures show that, for millions, work is not yet providing an escape from poverty."

In 2005, researchers Guy Palmer, Jane Carr and Peter Kenway found that despite the importance of employment in bringing poverty down, employment, even with the help of tax credits, does not guarantee an income above the poverty line and they pointed out that 50 percent of children in poverty are living in households where someone is doing paid work, most of them in two adult rather than one adult families.

They argue that other policies will be needed that will ensure higher wages and higher out of work benefits. They also suggest that the government could also exercise more control over the level of council tax and rents in the social housing sector.

Another major shortcoming of the government's current efforts to combat social exclusion can be found in its treatment of asylum seekers. In passing laws that prohibit asylum seekers from working, accessing legal representation, education and primary health care, the British government is in effect legislating for the social exclusion of asylum seekers and the perpetuation of prejudice and discrimination against them.

The Social Exclusion Unit in its 2004 report, for example, identifies asylum seekers and refugees as falling in one of three broad and overlapping groups of people for whom policies consistently seem less effective.

"Poverty and Asylum in the UK," a joint study by Oxfam and the Refugee Council (2002) showed how the asylum system is institutionalising poverty among asylum seekers. The report revealed that 85 percent of the asylum seekers in the UK experience hunger, 95 percent cannot afford to buy clothes or shoes and 80 percent are not able to maintain good health.

Asylum seekers receive benefits below the poverty line. A single adult receives 37.77 pounds per week in addition to accommodation and utilities -- this is around 30 percent below the basic level of income support for a UK citizen, which is generally considered as the minimum level of income necessary to maintain an acceptable standard of living (Oxfam, 2005). Those with additional needs (such as pregnant women, families with young children, people with disabilities, victims of torture and the elderly) are also not entitled to additional special needs provision or "passported" benefits on the same level as UK citizens.

In addition to this, Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act of 2004 removes or significantly restricts the welfare entitlements of families who have reached the end of the asylum process and who have "failed to take reasonable steps" to leave the UK.

In "The End of The Road: The impact on families of Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004," Nancy Kelley and Lise Meldgaard (2005) reveal that a recent investigation by Barnado's and the Refugee Children's Consortium found that the removal of basic support from families who have reached the end of the asylum process and have had their applications turned down is leaving refugee families destitute.

"Refugee children often come to this country traumatised by what they have seen. Unfortunately arrival in the UK rarely marks the beginning of a safe and comfortable life; indeed they are likely to experience continued stress, hunger, poor health and extreme poverty. Whatever the intention of Section 9, it is being implemented in a way that runs the risk of causing life long damage to children and families who are already some of the most vulnerable people in society," Kelley and Melgaard said.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu and other church leaders, in a letter published in The Times (December 3 2005) argue that it is inhumane and unacceptable that asylum seekers are being made destitute by government policies.

They maintain: "All those within our borders -- including people seeking asylum -- should have the opportunity to help themselves and society through paid employment. Where this is not possible, people seeking asylum, whatever their status, should be given the necessary rights to food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services."

The British government's public announcements on its commitment to tackle poverty and social exclusion are impressive but they are being contradicted by legislation such as the Asylum and Immigration Act of 2004 which has the effect of targeting asylum seekers and condemning them to a life of social exclusion, destitution and poverty.

This article was first published on OhmyNews international.