Demonstrators across Britain today will demand that all deportations to the Democratic Republic of Congo are suspended because of reports that people forced to return face persecution and brutality.Thousands of asylum-seekers fear they will face torture or even murder if they are deported to the DRC, the unstable west African state plagued by human rights abuses. Their fight for the new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, to take a more compassionate approach to the issue is being backed by 40 MPs of all parties and refugee groups.
Amnesty International warns that executions, murders, arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, torture and life-threatening prison conditions are routine in the DRC. This year, more than 600 people died in clashes in Kinshasa, its capital; another 300 died in the Bas-Congo coastal region and much of the east of the vast country is extremely volatile.
Campaigners say failed asylum-seekers sent back to the DRC become prime targets because they are seen as traitors and warn that people sent back have disappeared without trace.
But plane-loads of rejected asylum-seekers have been returned and the British embassy in Kinshasa says it has no evidence that they face mistreatment upon their return. Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the former home office minister, has said there is “no objective evidence that those returning to the DRC are being specifically targeted for abuse simply because they have sought asylum”.
Now take the bold last sentence, no one takes the govt seriously,
The Bishop of Winchester protested recently that the Home Office “always makes Kinshasa sound like Dorking” and that everyone with experience of the DRC – including himself – found the “mantra-like assurances of the department simply incredible”.
that’s why the protests but look what the baroness (a barrister) said, full of wiggle room and get outs, purposefully to seem like a denial and leave no grounds on which to call her a liar or hold her or the govt. responsible.
no objective evidence– there is evidence but this wiggle room gives them the chance to argue any evidence is subjective and therefore not good enough to affect a policy change.
specifically targeted– so unless when someone is attacked it is by a person declaiming loudly ‘I am attacking you now because you sought asylum in the UK, here is a signed affidavit stating this which you may pass onto Baroness Scotland as proof of my motivation in beating the ever living shit out of you’.
simply because– If there are any other factors relating to the attacks (ie, it was Tuesday or it was raining) they can be considered outside of our remit or responsibility.
Utter lawyer scum word parsing lying moral cowards. Just be honest ‘fuck off, we don’t care’, at least then you get some respect along with the revulsion, this way it’s just pure revulsion.