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/.
Tuesday, 25 July 2006
Tuesday, 4 July 2006
[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.
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.
Sunday, 18 June 2006
Britain and I.O.M. Criticized for Putting Refugees at Risk
The British government and the International Organization for Migration (I.O.M.) have been criticized for returning people to war zones, dictatorships and areas of famine.
Under the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Program (V.A.R.R.P.) run by the I.O.M. and funded by the British government's Home Office and the European Refugee Fund, asylum seekers are being offered financial incentives to get them to return to their countries of origin.
Between January and April this year, a total of 1,956 asylum seekers took up the £3,000 that is being offered and returned to countries which include Afghanistan, Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Immigration minister, Liam Byrne said, "A significant amount of work continues to promote voluntary returns, and there is a high level of interest to take up the scheme."
The Home Office publicized the scheme by writing to all the 54,000 asylum seekers whose applications for refuge are still being processed and who are currently receiving benefits and accommodation from the National Asylum Support Service.
The scheme was also advertised in government-funded centers that have contact with refugees and asylum seekers as well as in all immigration detention, reporting and removal centers.
Former immigration minister, Tony McNulty said the £3,000 that is being offered asylum seekers to make them leave Britain voluntarily was "good value for money" when compared with the £11,000 cost per person of a forced deportation.
No Borders Glasgow, a support group for refugees and immigrants, reported that Kath Sainsbury of the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (N.C.A.D.C.) described the voluntary assisted return and re-integration program as a cynical bribe.
"Instead of using the stick of enforced destitution and poverty to discourage asylum seekers, the Home Office have started using carrots — a scheme offering cash to asylum seekers to give up their claims, but no guarantees on either their safety or whether they'll get the money if they do return," Sainsbury said.
She added that giving people incentives does not make them safe.
"We know that in some countries, failed asylum seekers are put in prison on return and can only secure their release if they pay a bribe. We could now be exposing them to the possibility of further extortion if there is a perception that they have money," Sainsbury said.
At a conference organized by the I.O.M. that was held in London in May, I.O.M. chief of mission, Jan Wilder revealed that he was aware of a Zimbabwean returnee who was questioned "for a while" by that country's dreaded secret police, the Central Intelligence Organization.
"It was a woman from Bulawayo in March 2004. We brought this incident to the attention of the government. The government was satisfactorily responsive," Wilder said.
Wilder, however, would not discuss security issues despite repeated questions about the safety of returnees.
Established in 1951, the I.O.M. describes itself as "a pro-active, responsive and results oriented intergovernmental organization dedicated to promoting humane and orderly migration worldwide by serving the policy and program needs of governments and migrants."
No BordersGlasgow observed that in recent years, the I.O.M. has moved from managing the movement of economic migrants to assisting states to control forced migrants.
"Unlike the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the I.O.M. has no humanitarian remit and its move into controlling the movement of people seeking asylum has raised alarm among human rights, refugee and aid agencies," the N.C.A.D.C. said.
In May 2003, Amnesty International criticized the role of the I.O.M. as an "alternative agency for states" where states prefer to avoid their human rights obligations.
"Given that I.O.M. does not have a protection mandate for its work with refugees and displaced people, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recommend that I.O.M. should refrain from taking a role in situations which fall squarely under the protection mandate of other international organizations, such as the UNHCR," Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said in a joint statement.
Ed Schenkenberg van Mierop, coordinator of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (I.C.V.A.), pointed out that in 1996, the I.O.M. was asked to truck a group of 6,000 Zairian Tutsis from North Kivu, where extremist Hutus were creating a Hutu-land and carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing among Tutsis. The I.O.M. brought the Tutsis across the boarder to Rwanda thereby aiding the extremist Hutus achieve their aims.
Two years earlier, in Rwanda, between April and July 1994, extremist Hutus slaughtered an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus who opposed the ethnic cleansing.
Van Mierop said, "much more must be done in order to increase I.O.M.'s accountability especially when it sees itself as providing 'assisted and orderly migration services.'"
This article was first published in the World Press Review.
Sunday, 11 June 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, 3 June 2006
Trade Unions and Religious Leaders Call for Illegal Immigrants Amnesty
Trade unionists and religious leaders are calling on the government to consider an amnesty for illegal immigrants living and working in the United Kingdom.
It is estimated that there are between 310,000 and 570,000 illegal immigrants currently living and working in the U.K. If the British government does not allow them to settle and if the immigrants do not leave the country of their own accord, it could take over a decade for the government to trace and deport them.
"Assuming we can find them, and assuming that people aren't going away of their own accord, it would take some time," former immigration minister, Tony McNulty told the BBC (May 18, 2006). He went on to calculate that it would take at least 10 years, at a rate of 25,000 per year.
A leading trade union official called for debate around granting amnesty to the half a million immigrants living and working in the U.K.
Jack Dromey, deputy secretary general of the Transport and General Workers Union said the Government should acknowledge the contribution the immigrants are making and adopt a sensible approach towards them.
He told the BBC (May 20, 2006): "The economy needs migrant labour. They are the backbone of the service economy, cleaning, catering, looking after the old, the sick and the dying, and of food and agriculture.
"Yes, it is true that there are probably half a million here without documents. The question is what do we do about that?"
He said the government should stop criminalising illegal immigrants.
"They live in fear of the knock at the door and they are exploited by too many employers.
"What we need, therefore, is a sensible approach which does not criminalise those good men and women."
Dromey said it was neither practical nor sensible to seek to deport all the illegal immigrants.
"You can't deport half a million workers -- who would clean, who would cook, who would pick in our fields?
"The time has come for a debate around an amnesty for those workers," he said.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor also called for the government to consider an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The Cardinal said that although the Catholic Church does not encourage or approve of illegal immigration, it could not ignore the plight of people without legal status.
"While our nation benefits economically from the presence of undocumented workers, too often we turn a blind eye when they are exploited by employers," he said.
"Is it not time to consider, as other countries have done, ways of regularising their situation? those who are working in the country and do not have a criminal record - to the benefit of our economy and to enable them to play a fuller part in society?"
A leading think-tank said the move would raise over ￡1bn in tax revenues annually which could them be spent on public services.
In its study, "Irregular migration in the U.K," the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said £1.04 billion in potential fiscal revenue could be raised if the Britain regularised illegal immigrants and allowed them to settle, work and pay their taxes.
The IPRR said trying to remove the almost half a million people living in the country illegally is could cost as much as £4.7 billion annually and was "simply not feasible, nor is it desirable."
"Nobody likes illegal immigration and the subject is a deeply difficult one for politicians. But the bare truth is that we're not going to deport hundreds of thousands of people? our economy would shrink and we would notice it straight away in uncleaned offices, dirty streets and unstaffed pubs," said IPPR director Nick Pearce.
"So we have a choice: make people live in the shadows, exploited and fearful for the future, or bring them into the mainstream, to pay taxes and live an honest life."
In 2002, a House of Lords report called for an amnesty for the "growing underclass of people" who cannot be removed, whether failed asylum seekers or "illegal" migrants.
The report entitled "A Common Policy On Illegal Immigration," emphasised that some form of regularisation is unavoidable if a growing underclass of people in an irregular situation, who are vulnerable to exploitation, is not to be created.
It said more could and should be done across the EU to increase the opportunities for legal immigration in order to meet identified labour shortages.
It urged government to manage migration in a way that controls illegal immigration effectively while bearing in mind that they are dealing with people, most of whom are motivated simply by a desire for a better life for themselves and their families.
It also emphasised that in devising measures to control illegal immigration the Britian must ensure that it scrupulously observes its human rights obligations.
The report said it was disappointing that the government, while enthusiastically endorsing measures designed to improve the enforcement of immigration controls, had consistently chosen not to opt into positive immigration measures, such as those relating to admission for employment and self-employment; family reunion; and protection for the victims of trafficking.
This article was first published on OhmyNews International.
It is estimated that there are between 310,000 and 570,000 illegal immigrants currently living and working in the U.K. If the British government does not allow them to settle and if the immigrants do not leave the country of their own accord, it could take over a decade for the government to trace and deport them.
"Assuming we can find them, and assuming that people aren't going away of their own accord, it would take some time," former immigration minister, Tony McNulty told the BBC (May 18, 2006). He went on to calculate that it would take at least 10 years, at a rate of 25,000 per year.
A leading trade union official called for debate around granting amnesty to the half a million immigrants living and working in the U.K.
Jack Dromey, deputy secretary general of the Transport and General Workers Union said the Government should acknowledge the contribution the immigrants are making and adopt a sensible approach towards them.
He told the BBC (May 20, 2006): "The economy needs migrant labour. They are the backbone of the service economy, cleaning, catering, looking after the old, the sick and the dying, and of food and agriculture.
"Yes, it is true that there are probably half a million here without documents. The question is what do we do about that?"
He said the government should stop criminalising illegal immigrants.
"They live in fear of the knock at the door and they are exploited by too many employers.
"What we need, therefore, is a sensible approach which does not criminalise those good men and women."
Dromey said it was neither practical nor sensible to seek to deport all the illegal immigrants.
"You can't deport half a million workers -- who would clean, who would cook, who would pick in our fields?
"The time has come for a debate around an amnesty for those workers," he said.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor also called for the government to consider an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The Cardinal said that although the Catholic Church does not encourage or approve of illegal immigration, it could not ignore the plight of people without legal status.
"While our nation benefits economically from the presence of undocumented workers, too often we turn a blind eye when they are exploited by employers," he said.
"Is it not time to consider, as other countries have done, ways of regularising their situation? those who are working in the country and do not have a criminal record - to the benefit of our economy and to enable them to play a fuller part in society?"
A leading think-tank said the move would raise over ￡1bn in tax revenues annually which could them be spent on public services.
In its study, "Irregular migration in the U.K," the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said £1.04 billion in potential fiscal revenue could be raised if the Britain regularised illegal immigrants and allowed them to settle, work and pay their taxes.
The IPRR said trying to remove the almost half a million people living in the country illegally is could cost as much as £4.7 billion annually and was "simply not feasible, nor is it desirable."
"Nobody likes illegal immigration and the subject is a deeply difficult one for politicians. But the bare truth is that we're not going to deport hundreds of thousands of people? our economy would shrink and we would notice it straight away in uncleaned offices, dirty streets and unstaffed pubs," said IPPR director Nick Pearce.
"So we have a choice: make people live in the shadows, exploited and fearful for the future, or bring them into the mainstream, to pay taxes and live an honest life."
In 2002, a House of Lords report called for an amnesty for the "growing underclass of people" who cannot be removed, whether failed asylum seekers or "illegal" migrants.
The report entitled "A Common Policy On Illegal Immigration," emphasised that some form of regularisation is unavoidable if a growing underclass of people in an irregular situation, who are vulnerable to exploitation, is not to be created.
It said more could and should be done across the EU to increase the opportunities for legal immigration in order to meet identified labour shortages.
It urged government to manage migration in a way that controls illegal immigration effectively while bearing in mind that they are dealing with people, most of whom are motivated simply by a desire for a better life for themselves and their families.
It also emphasised that in devising measures to control illegal immigration the Britian must ensure that it scrupulously observes its human rights obligations.
The report said it was disappointing that the government, while enthusiastically endorsing measures designed to improve the enforcement of immigration controls, had consistently chosen not to opt into positive immigration measures, such as those relating to admission for employment and self-employment; family reunion; and protection for the victims of trafficking.
This article was first published on OhmyNews International.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)