EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- 'Masters of Austerity' Targeted as Blockupy Activists Shut Down European Central Bank
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
Refugees Fight Forced Return To Iraq War Zones
The United Nations last night accused the government of holding a 'sword of Damocles' over the heads of Iraqi refugees in Britain after it emerged that the Home Office had won a landmark test case giving it the power to return refugees to war-torn parts of their home country, including Basra and Baghdad.
The ruling, which is being studied closely by other European countries, has alarmed refugee support groups, who say it means asylum seekers from war zones could be returned to other dangerous countries, such as Somalia.
The Refugee Legal Centre has launched an urgent appeal against the ruling by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, which it says paves the way for the removal of the majority of Iraqi asylum seekers in the UK.
'If we didn't appeal the tribunal's decision, the government would have a free hand to forcibly remove hundreds of Iraqi civilians to Baghdad,' said Caroline Slocock, chief executive of the legal centre.
The test case, the culmination of a series of legal challenges that started last year, hinged on a European Council directive guaranteeing refugees the right to protection in the UK if their return to their native country meant a 'serious threat to their life' because of 'international or internal armed conflict'.
The UK has been returning Iraqis to the north of their country for some time. But the test case is considered pivotal in legal circles in defining what protection should be given to refugees fleeing war zones. Neither the Refugee Convention nor the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees refugees from war zones the right to remain in the UK, whereas the council directive was considered to offer them a much higher level of protection.
But following the tribunal's decision, the government now has the power to remove anyone to any part of Iraq. 'We are pleased that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has agreed with our view and found that conditions in Iraq are such that an ordinary individual Iraqi civilian is not at serious risk from indiscriminate violence,' a spokesman for the Home Office said.
'We will continue to consider every asylum and human rights claim on its individual merits in accordance with our international obligations. We will ensure that we continue to monitor the situation in Iraq carefully so that our asylum and human rights decisions continue to reflect the latest available information.'
The government argued at the tribunal that there was no 'internal armed conflict' in Iraq as defined by the directive. And Home Office lawyers successfully argued the general risks to the refugee in the test case - a man known as KH - were not sufficient for him to be granted protection.
The tribunal ruling has wide implications for Iraqi asylum seekers. It stated: 'Neither civilians in Iraq generally, nor civilians even in provinces and cities worst affected by the armed conflict, can show they face a "serious and individual threat" to their "life or person"... merely by virtue of being civilians.'
The ruling has prompted a strong reaction from the UN, which has urged the government not to start sending people back to the most dangerous parts of Iraq. 'We strongly advise against the return of anyone to central or southern Iraq,' said Jacqueline Parlevliet, deputy representative with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 'As things now stand a sword of Damocles hangs over the head of every Iraqi in the UK. The way this ruling has been phrased means their protection needs are no longer recognised by the Home Office.'
The government's decision to argue for its right to return Iraqis has highlighted its increasingly tough line on asylum issues. Before 2003 the government recognised that people fleeing war zones could be granted a limited period of leave to remain in the UK until the situation improved.
But the Home Office scrapped the policy in 2004 amid concerns it acted as a 'pull factor' which encouraged asylum claims. Although the government recently started accepting Iraqis' asylum claims if they had worked for the British military, it is reluctant to allow other Iraqis to remain. The European Council for Refugees and Exiles has found 13 per cent of Iraqis' asylum claims were approved in the first instance in the UK last year compared with 82 per cent in Sweden and 85 per cent in Germany. Last year just over 500 Iraqis were allowed to remain in the UK. 'Despite its active role in the region, the UK has given very little support to Iraqis,' Slocock said.
More than two million people have fled Iraq since 2003.
© 2008 The Guardian
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

17 Comments so far
Show AllA great novel to read is "Camp of the Saints" by Jean Raspil. It proposes the flip side the forced return, but stems from some of the same forces.
(sigh)
The 'government' point of view in such FICTIONAL films as 'V for Vendetta' and 'Children of Men' seem to be coming to life.
More's the pity.
Those films could have been a chance to learn to be more tolerant of other cultures. instead, it seems that they are being taken as primers on how to act like totalitariarn dictatorships.
Just wait 'til the UK and US begin deporting ALL residents - naturalized citizens, asylum seekers, visitors, green card holders, whatever- of Middle Eastern origin back to their places of origin.
The House has passed HR 1955, a law to prevent radicalization and "homegrown terrorism" by sending a commission (appointed by ???) around the US to identify those "extremist ideologies" that are likely to lead to radicalization. It also calls for establishing a "Center of Excellence" in a university to study this phenomenon.
What will you bet that this list will NOT include these proven producers of economic and military state-sponsored terror: neoconservativism, pre-emptive war, corporatism, "free" trade, economic fundamentalism, religious fundamentalism (including Zionism and Christian Zionism), intentionally supporting right-wing dictators instead of elected politicians -- you get the idea.
Let's not forget America's role in this. America threatens trade relations and corporate deals if we (Canada as well as the UK) doesn't "harmonize" their Immigration policies with those of the US.
Why doesn't the US want those who have both witnessed and managed to escape war atrocities to end up, either in their own country or in countries controlled by their friends?
What does the US want the UK and Canada to send innocent people back into dangerous (and possibly life ending) situations?
This is how our Tories are trying to do it:
NDP steps up fight against Harper's immigration changes
TORONTO – Today, NDP Leader Jack Layton unveiled a new parliamentary strategy to stop the irreversible damage that will be caused by the Conservatives' immigration changes embedded in the Budget Bill C-50.
"The changes that Stephen Harper has proposed are bad for immigrant communities and bad for Canada," said Mr. Layton at a downtown Toronto community centre. "I certainly don't trust giving sweeping, arbitrary and discretionary powers to the Conservative minister of Immigration."
http://www.ndp.ca/page/6350
Note that the backlog, before the Tories came to power, was 6 to 8 months, now it is 6 to 8 years. First you create a problem and then you implement the policy to "solve" the problem you intentionally created:
Tory bill proposes new powers on immigration applications
The proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which the government says are aimed at reducing backlogs of immigration applications, are embedded in a 136-page budget-implementation bill tabled Friday in the House of Commons. The budget-implementation bill is a confidence motion. ...
The changes would:
* Give the immigration minister the authority to instruct immigration officers to set limits on what types of immigrants — "by category or otherwise" — can have their applications processed each year.
* Require an otherwise ineligible person who wants to immigrate on humanitarian grounds to already be in Canada for their application to be processed.
(video has more information than article)
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/14/immigration-residents.html
Bill would fast-track some immigrants, reject others
The Tories have slipped significant changes into Canada's immigration laws into a budget implementation bill introduced in the Commons Friday.
The changes, which amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, were included in the budget bill, making them a confidence matter. If they're passed, the changes would speed up the processing of applications for skilled workers, but they would also throw other claimants to the back of the line and reject others outright. ...
"Under the previous government (the permanent residence application) number ballooned from 50,000 to 800,000 ... It used to take three to six months to get an application processed. Now it takes three to six years," Immigration Minister Diane Finley told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080314/immigration_reforms_080314/20080314/
It has been a topic of Question Period as of late.
Be warned that, whether or not they get away with it here, they will be trying to push it through other places as well.
' The government argued at the tribunal that there was no 'internal armed conflict' in Iraq as defined by the directive. And Home Office lawyers successfully argued the general risks to the refugee in the test case - a man known as KH - were not sufficient for him to be granted protection.'
In just five years, over four million displaced, one million widows, one and a quarter million dead and I think there is a figure of five million orphans. Iraq destroyed and poisoned with radioactivity for four and a half billion years from British and American weapons.
Heaven help Iraq if 'internal armed conflict' does break out. In seriousness, one can only conclude the Home Office employ the seriously psychologically challenged or those with stone hearts and flint where compassion should be.
R I P Humanity.
no 'internal armed conflict' in Iraq
No, it's still an illegal British and American armed invasion and occupation...they US-UK haven't finished starting the "internal armed conflict"yet...and it will only be an "internal armed conflict" until Cheney gets it to spill over into Iran and become a "Regional War"
Oh, those ungrateful Iraqis! They just refuse to be liberated (from their lives).
Population appx. 38 million.
One Million Dead. Five Million Maimed.
At Vegas straight odds that's a 1 in 38 chance of being murdered, 1 in 7.5 chance of permanent disfiguring, blinding amputaions etc...upon forced return.
Good Show Old Chaps. For The Queen Don't You Know.
Go home? To What!
A locked house with all your belongings just like you left them!
Too Bad... homeless in Baghdad; that's pretty scarry.
Bernice, H.R.1955 was passed by the House only, read by Senate twice, referred to Committees, not a bill, absolutely not a 'Law'. They've been doing as they wish forever, anyway. Actually it's 'Center', kidding with you but read the text again. The Center of Excellence shall heretoforward be referred to as 'Center', no The, that whacky Department of......
What homes?? Bulldozed, Bombed, Occupied by the US, used as we desire for whatever it is we might, I said might, do there. Hmm, I wonder whatever it could be????
The audacity of bush telling Congress it's none of anyones business what Petraus and HIMSELF conclude, not even the US Citizens. Then Crocker always with the cup of coffee from Starbuck's during the ?questioning? by the Senate Special Committees. Quite horrid conditions in that Green Zone, they say. Size of a football field? Well. Why is it General Petraus was fielding questions bush should have been answering, Petraus is a four star General he does as ordered by the CiC, will it ever end??
No.
Pardon, I meant, SO??????
It seems to me when you start a totally unnecessary war. You have a obligation to the refugee's you have created to at least house them until the war is concluded. Then and only then could you force them to return to that country. Any thing else in inhumane. But then of coarse. When has this administration been known for being humane?????? Any country who would go along with invading a country who is no threat is just as evil as the original one. Everything they have done from day one has spoken to their inhumanity. Anyone who would torture and call it justified has a serious problem.
None of this could happen without the complicity of the rest of the world. Appeasing Americans is no different than appeasing Hitler - and will bring the same results for the rest of the world (all those who think they'll just ride this one out.) We took a wrong turn back in the '80s - and kept doggedly on the wrong track, so you can't blame this insanity on the current administration - or even Americans. This horror couldn't happen without the collaboration of the rest of the world - and we will all pay for this terrible mistake, no matter which country we're living in - this is global, and coming soon to your own back yard.
'Peace in our time!', anyone?
Armybrat, all those German Jews that Canada turned away who were trying to escape Hilter during WWII - the Americans did not turn them away (see Evan Solomon interview to right).
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/10/07/asper_dead031007.html
Do you consider temporary workers who are shipped to Canada for seasonal work and then kicked out of the country again "immigration?"
There is speculation that Harper wants to use immigration, not for family reunification, not for those trying to escape violence etc - but so that corporations have workers when they need them and Canada doesn't have to look after them when the corporations no longer have a use for them. What they want is a group of people who won't stick up for themselves because they are too afraid of being kicked out of the country if they do - in other words, to break unions.
Think of it as win-win for the Chicago boys - temporary workers too afraid to stick up for themselves make good scapegoats, as well as good disposable workers.
Neo-Cons from around the world do get together to share strategy. You tell me what your baby-neo-cons (Labour Party) are doing in the UK and I will tell you what our neo-cons are doing here:
The story broke on March 14th, but the first time it was talked about was on March 31 (because of the two week break). Just click on each date from March 31 to April 10 and put "immigration" in the edit/find. There is too much to print it all, so here's a sample:
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, family reunification is the most successful part of our immigration system. Immigrants who join family here integrate faster, are happier, and contribute more to society and the economy.
Conservatives, with Liberal support, are downgrading family reunification to instead emphasize temporary foreign workers. Now the minister even wants the power to ignore legitimate applicants.
Why are the Conservatives doing irreversible damage to the promise made to immigrants that they can reunite their families in Canada?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the whole objective of this exercise is to get more immigrants here and get them here sooner, whether that is getting families reunited faster or skilled workers that work sooner.
What we are doing is trying to fix a very broken, messy system that the Liberals left by bringing in transparency and providing flexibility in the authority for the minister and the government to manage the backlog.
I would like to read a brief quote, "The opposition Liberals' and the NDP's whisper campaigns...are just that — smear tactics aimed at frightening new Canadians". They should be ashamed.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, decades of demands by new Canadians have been ignored. Canada invites foreign doctors, nurses and teachers to come to Canada because of their skills. When new Canadians get here, they cannot use their education to benefit Canada or their families. The result is that Canada has some of the best educated taxi drivers in the world. Adding insult to injury, the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, want the power to prevent immigration applications.
Why are the Conservatives doing irreversible damage to the promise made to immigrants that they can reunite their families in Canada?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the real question here is, why do NDP members think it is fair to let immigrants wait 10 years in line to get their applications looked at? That is not fair to them. It is not fair to the families they are trying to be reunited with, and it is not fair to the businesses that are trying to hire the skills and talents that these people have. We are going to get the job done in spite of the NDP.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
Vaudree, are you kidding? Read "While Six Million Died" by Arthur Morse, which details how FDR obstructed Jewish refugees trying to enter the US. A major problem Jews in Germany had was that they had nowhere to go. Even if they had money to get out, they had nowhere to get in. And the US was part of that brick wall.
'We are pleased that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has agreed with our view and found that conditions in Iraq are such that an ordinary individual Iraqi civilian is not at serious risk from indiscriminate violence,'. This has to be one of the more insane statements I've read. The perpetrators of the crime of the century (which is admittedly still young) are so eager to justify themselves that not only will they bomb civilians but send them back to their deaths.
I suspect that future crimes of the century will eclipse this one when the water wars start.
kathyodat