See more on this blog: http://www.icar.org.uk/policyblog

Obviously it shouldn’t be the answer, in an ideal world, but the issue in reality is whether we send the individual back to a country which does not recognise that rape is a crime, often where there will people out looking for them to punish them for the crime of having been raped.

Like it or not, this is what the government is doing, encouraging the dismissal of cases on technicalities to keep the numbers down and appease the Daily Express. We don’t record what happens to people whose claims are dismissed on technicalities, because we don’t want to know. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that a very large proportion of those asylum seekers dismissed on such technicalities (not reporting early enough, not filling in the forms properly, alleged lack of co-operation with police in home country etc.) had been murdered or ‘disappeared’ within hours of arriving home.

i think male rape also needs to be talked about more openly, because there are a considerable amount of men who seek asylum from persecution who have suffered rape also.

And thanks to the jolly old ‘no recourse’ laws it is practically impossible to find housing for many women who come looking to escape abuse. It’s not great fun giving people the options of: abuse/destitution/prostitution/deportation. SBS and Imkhaan have a campaign about this.

‘[sic] ‘

I never do that. I hate people who do that. I just correct the typo. It was a fuckin’ typo.

Sic you.

Maybe it is so in certain unspecified countries. But why do rape victims automatically have the right to move to England? I don’t get it. Are we (the English/British people) the planet’s trauma counsellors?

Obviously it’s horrendous to have been raped, but why should moving to the U.K. be the answer? Is this the land of psychotherapy and healing?

Ah, but maybe it is.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. I recently read the papers of one of my clients who had given a very credible account of being raped and tortured and was appalled at the language used by the adjudicator. My client was all but accused of fantasizing because she hadn’t given her male relatives a full account of what had happened to her.

Sonia,
Excellent point.

The media scares, anti-immigration lobby groups and clash of civilisation commentators make political pressures on the Government which then promises to reduce numbers of asylum claims.

Wars, poverty, and limited economic opportunities create the need to escape and desires to escape to countries which have stronger institutions and powerful roles in the global economy.

Patriarchal values mean women can be more vulnerable to bullying, exploitation and suspicion, so that there are catch-22s of either being deemed to consent to their treatment if they are silent, or deemed to be conniving if they speak out – for example because they selfishly want to gain asylum by dishonouring their communities or by playing to the sympathies of woolly liberals.

Humanistic principles are partly institutionalised through social workers and churches of various kinds, and promoted by liberal ideologists and human interest media stories. These create pressure for the claims of vulnerable people to be taken seriously and acted upon regardless of the wider consequences.

So there is noise and pressure between people caught up in these different currents who probably think that people swept by different pressures are heartless, or irresponsible, or whatever else.

Although I am tempted to just take my place in pressing a humanistic line, I would prefer to also think about how to create a different dynamic, where the fears and hostility become redundant rather than just a part of a continual struggle to draw lines of exclusion – where every asylum claim becomes a battleground.

The BBC global survey of 15-17 year olds (Generation Next(!)) is hopeful for me, as perhaps migration will eventually be accepted as a normal part of a global society: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6205378.stm

But just as this would mean some people having to let go of their fears, it would mean humanistic people would have to rethink what institutions and entitlements are realistic to make this possible. I would like to think we can change this dynamic without creating more victims, but don’t know if this is possible.

This sort of thing makes me really angry. Playing with pure word definitiion rather than the effect on the human being. If someone could prove that torture was not malicious because it was simply to extract information could that be regarded as “not persecution.”

If someone is genuinely fleeing because of rape then it should be taken seriously.

That’s so heartless as well as stupid and short-sighted! How do they judge “contribution to society” anyway? What if the asylum seeker is disabled?

This begins to explain the women – those PP ran appeals for – deported in the last few months as well as the Pakistani family (I think I read about them at HP)under threat of deportation; their daughter is disabled or ill.

Any surprise though? The only useful women asylum seeker it seems are those that come here via vice. Its pretty sick stuff:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2836929.stm

But check this out. Apparently they’ve got a policy to be hardcore on all women asylum seekers in general at the moment because they have less to contribute to society. Regardless of the fact that they are far more vulnerable. Fucked up if that’s true

Is there any pattern to the origins of the claimants?
And of the assailants?