Sunny Hundal website

  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • The government doesn’t care

    by Al-Hack
    20th October, 2005 at 4:35 am    

    Our lives are very difficult now. For twelve weeks we have had all benefits taken away and, as we aren’t allowed to work, we have to survive on the charity of others. It’s inhuman and degrading. The government, they’re not treating us like people, like human beings. We’re just targets or statistics to them: but we’re not statistics, we’re real people. There aren’t really words to express how we’re feeling.

    The government say their policy is fair. How can it be fair for my mum to be so depressed she’s had to go on medication, she’s crying all the time, for us to be spending sleepless nights? Is it fair for me to have missed another day of college to come here to plead for our lives when I should be studying so I can become a midwife and help British women? Is it fair to say to a mother, “How would you feel if we took your children off you?” which was said to my mum back in August? I was there but you can imagine. What kind of question is that? Is it fair? Or is it degrading?

    This was part of a speech made by 19-year-old Flores Sukula to a meeting in parliament this week. She is an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), whose family was one of the first to be made destitute under new asylum laws.

    It comes only days after a Zimbabwean won his test case against deportation back to Mugabe’s regime. Not that the government cares, its still trying to send people back to Iraq.

                  Post to

    Filed in: Current affairs,Party politics,The World

    6 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. SajiniW — on 20th October, 2005 at 1:30 pm  

      Anyone heard about how Makosi from Big brother is getting on?

    2. Nyrone — on 20th October, 2005 at 5:28 pm  

      I hope parliment were listening to this and not masturbating to the bullshit making ‘news’ these days regarding the Tory party election race.
      Why can’t the Goverment understand it’s not safe for this family to return to DRC?

    3. j0nz — on 20th October, 2005 at 7:46 pm  

      Makosi still in UK but apparently the decision is made today.

    4. j0nz — on 20th October, 2005 at 7:51 pm  

      This country is a right state. We got these cases of genuine innocents being sent to dangerous regimes - this just shouldnt be happening.

      Yet we have numerous people, many homegrown, that are inciting pure hatred to the West & Britain, and they get their benefits etc. Do they do deserve to stay here? Certainly not ungrateful bastards.

      The genuine cases as highlighted by Al-Hack are heart wrenching. And makes me angry that there’s so much injustice here in this civilised lands.

    5. Fe'reeha — on 21st October, 2005 at 5:01 pm  

      I am not sure about hate preachers getting asylum, but, I am aware of “bogus” cases winning asylum cases quite frequently.
      Switch on to any Asian cable channel, and one will find many immigration and law programmes. The people who call amaze me. It appears claiming asylum is a systematic procedure, which is being exploited by not only the bogus claimants, but sadly, even the lawyers.
      Sadly, in ethnic minorities, and in particular Asian community, a large number of people make false claims of asylum, and even win.
      I know a certain Pakistani journalist who got his indefinite stay by telling lies, right, left and centre. He claimed of being wanted in a blasphemy case in Pakistan, and paid money from his pocket to get false news printed in newspapers.
      Another one that I heard through someone was of is a happily married couple where wife claimed asylum on “domestic violence” basis.
      The day she got her visa stamped, they went on a mini-holiday, “together”.

      Just because we are Asians ourselves, does not mean we cannot highlight such issues. I realise the above examples are only a handful, yet it is indeed due to people like these, that genuine claimants suffer discrimination and abuse.
      They also give bad names to their country of origin by making baseless cases.
      The system does need to be sorted out!
      A lawyer once told me: “English legal system is not systematic. Indeed, it is a lottery where your luck plays a very important role.”
      Does it mean, now, our immigration officers s will also be quoting Shakespeare while sentencing a criminal with the following lines?
      “The fault dear Brutus (Claimant?) is with your stars, and not you (your application!)

    6. Shail — on 22nd October, 2005 at 1:51 am  

      There are both moral and practical elements to asylum. As much as a moral society may believe it has to maintain some form of social conscience, however said conscience must be applied practically.
      The question of why someone fleeing from desperate situation end up in a country thousands of miles from their home is curious. The above mentioned countries are surrounded by safe countries such as South Africa, Botswana, and Zambia etc. These are the natural places for them to apply for asylum and under the Geneva Convention they would have to be accorded such status. Why the UK?
      Further to this in most cases it can be assumed that large sums of money were paid for passage to the UK. These same sums of money could buy a life in a new country, perhaps not to a First World living standard, but a potential safe life!
      It is the duty of the Government to protect the wealth of this country for its citizens, as is the duty of governments of other countries for their citizens.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.