Home Secretary Sacked!
from NCADC news service | 05.05.2006 12:42 | Anti-racism | Migration
There should be dancing in the streets!
Charles Clarke - NCADC are not sorry to see you go
However not for your failure to deport foreign nationals as NCADC have always opposed the Double punishment of sentence followed by deportation. We are glad to see you go because of your
Crass and Cumulative abuse of Asylum Seekers
Charles Clarke - NCADC are not sorry to see you go
However not for your failure to deport foreign nationals as NCADC have always opposed the Double punishment of sentence followed by deportation. We are glad to see you go because of your
Crass and Cumulative abuse of Asylum Seekers
Since your appointment as Home Secretary in December 2004 you have been responsible for:
The abuse of tens of thousands of asylum seekers who came to the UK seeking refuge. Upon arrival in the UK you dispersed them to remote corners of the UK far from their established community/ethnic groups (that is the ones you didn't immediately put into detention). Put them in to poor accommodation and gave them a miserable pittance to try and feed and clothe themselves. When and if you refused their claims for asylum you kicked them out of their accommodation and onto the streets with out a penny to their names.
Your utter disbelief of asylum seekers stories of torture and detention even when they broke down in front of your immigration officers or the courts.
Imposition of restrictions on the amount of legal aid they could obtain to plead their asylum claims. This resulted in many asylum seekers who appealed against a negative decision having to represent themselves, which is a recipe for failure. The Legal Services Commission is proposing to end the contracts of practitioners who fail to reach a 40 per cent success rate in immigration and asylum appeals - the Law Society predicts this move could deter advisers from taking on immigration work and exacerbate advice deserts.
Bringing in Section 9 of the Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 that gave you the power to withdraw support from families whose asylum application has been refused and who are not co-operating with efforts to remove them. Further, that you could separate the children of these families from their parents and take them into care. OK you never did it - you failed because local authority professionals refused to support you - but the intent was there.
Since September 2005, 5,148 Iraqi's were kicked off Section 4 support into complete and utter destitution, just because they did not volunteer to go back to an extremely unstable situation in Iraq.
Bereket Yohannes, Manuel Bravo, Ramazan Kumluca killed themselves, driven to despair by your 'Inhumane and Unjust' immigration policies. You good-as branded them "bogus" yet how could that be when rather than be deported back to where they sought refuge from, and they took their own lives in detention centres.
Nusrat Raza and Babak Ahadi both died after setting themselves alight. Edmore Ngwenya drowned himself in a canal. Limbaya Ndinga hung herself. All were deeply depressed by your refusal to let them settle in the UK.
In October 2005, your "Fast-Track" asylum determination process in Harmondsworth Removal Centre refused 99.6% of cases, including those from Myanmar (Burma), Iran and DR Congo. Probably at the time the 3 worst countries in the world for human rights abuses.
In the detention centres you manage, you have failed to provide good medical care. A number of detainees lost their minds and ended up in psychiatric care after long detention, rough and unresponsive management and racist abuse.
Detention of refugees and asylum seekers rose by 24% under your tenure as Home Secretary. There were many, many hunger strikes across the detention estate all of which you ignored and, often as not, when asked if people were on hunger strike, you said they weren't.
Anne Owers, Chief Inspector of your Immigration removal/holding centres, whilst you were in office, issued a number of damning reports on conditions in these places of arbitrary confinement.
Numerous detainees have been assaulted by escorts/staff. Not one arrest has been made that we know of, even though some of the victims of these assaults have received compensation for injuries by escorts/staff. The police did however charge a number of detainees with assaults on guards and escorts.
Recent British Medical Association criticism of asylum detention's effect on mental health by doctors, dismissed with platitudes by you and your officials.
You brought in legislation that allows the Home Office to employ detainees in detention centres to work for less than the minimum wage.
Professor Al Aynsley-Green, The Children's Commissioner, condemned your practice of rounding up and detaining children. Did you stop the practice? No, you did not.
You terrified hundreds of families with your "dawn raids".
A deportation law too far, your last speech as Home Secretary was to propose new legislation that would mean the automatic deportation of any foreign national convicted of a criminal offence, was offensive in it self. You intended to punish foreign nationals for your own perceived shortcomings in not deporting 1,000 of them.
All in all, there is nothing good that can be said about your 16 months as Home Secretary, your departure from office should be good cause for dancing in the streets.
NCADC really are glad to see you go!
from NCADC news service
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Good riddance...but...
05.05.2006 15:35
Groucho
Ah yes, Reid is going to be so much better than Clarke
05.05.2006 17:01
Reid, however, is the full blown New Reich psycho.
QUOTE
(In the early 1990s, Dr. Reid was one of the most vocal advocates of the Bosnian Serb cause and a drinking partner of the indicted war criminal, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, before a volte-face - typical of his career - when he became one of the most vocal New Labour advocates of bombing Yugoslavia in 1999.)
UNQUOTE
Now Blair has an unvarnished New Reich thug leading the Commons, an unvarnished New Reich thug leading his foreign affairs, and an unvarnished New Reich thug leading his home affairs. You will now perhaps understand the REAL significance of Blair having Straw bring the monster Rice to the UK. Blair was making a final decision as to whether it was time to emulate the NeoCon political structure, and give a female face to the action to genocide Iran. The placing of the infinitely repulsive Margaret Beckett as Minister for Murdering Muslims.
It doesn't take a genius to comprehend that Beckett shows exactly the line that will be taken in the lead up to the genocide of Iran. Indeed, she, and the latest piece of Outrage propaganda posted to this site are in perfect simpatico- now ain't that a surprise.
Likewise, it should be obvious why Straw has been moved to Leader-of-ensuring-the House-of-Commons-stands-behind-Blair's-War-against-Iran.
Oh, and as for the specifics of the article to which I am replying, well Reid should be as well disposed to non-citizens in the UK as the Serbs were to the Bosnian muslims.
Blair now has his full-on war with Iran pose. This last stage is rapidly depreciating the "war for Israel" stance (see current political activity all over the globe), and instead pushing the "war against bad muslims on behalf of good muslims, women, etc" as was seen with the invasion of Afghanistan.
Will Beckett be the face to persuade enough people this way? Frankly no, but that really isn't the intent. Instead, just as with Rice, Beckett is intended to condition people to expect and accept a very specific female-friendly Mass Media propaganda campaign. While women still play a very small part in the power-structures of the West, the political position of women in general is seen as far more important with respect to the future plans of Blair and Bush than the political position of men.
Blair had a STUNNING election victory yesterday. If you do not understand this, you stand ZERO chance of defeating him. Power is like money. Regardless of how you feel about a person, or his circumstances or actions, there is just one question that counts about both- namely does the person have more today than yesterday. Elections are about allocating power, and as a leader, Blair has more power today than yesterday. If you lose an election, you lose power (a fact that most in the UK have long since been brainwashed into forgetting). Conversely, if after an election you gain power, you have WON that election.
Will Reid avoid self-destruction long enough to reach his full vile potential as Blair hopes? Well, if I were Blair, I'd be readying his replacement, since people tend to have a bad time in that position, out in front abusing the rest of us. While we have even the sham of democracy still in place, each time Reid thrashes out, his fist will be striking the population of the UK, and that isn't a good way to keep us passively unhappy. However, some Blair needs to test to destruction, for the jobs he is looking to fill in the very near future need depraved humans with an instinct for survival every bit as strong as their instinct for cruelty. If you don't fully get my meaning, please read about the history of Hitler and Stalin, and the people they found to frontline their most evil orders.
twilight
fuck him
05.05.2006 21:19
but
i'm alarmed that the reason he's out is not in fact what you've listed (his ongoing attack on civil liberties) but is in fact his failure to attack civil liberties enough! the reasons being spewed forth in most of the media for his sacking is that he allowed dangerous "foreigners" to roam our streets.
london activist
good way to get public compliance on a policy change
05.05.2006 21:51
promote a small number of clerical oversights as a national outrage in order to draft in a new figurehead to upgrade a few laws to send the buggers back... the small print of the law, don't worry about it, it'll all be fine, after all, you wanted it didn't you...
ollie-x