Two people, including a MULE editor, were detained by anti-terror police at Heathrow Airport on January 6 after they raised objections to a deportation taking place on their flight.
The pair, Matthew Taylor and Andrew Bowman, chose to leave the Virgin Atlantic flight for Nairobi in protest, shortly before takeoff. They claim the deportee, whose name is unknown, was being forcibly restrained by several plain clothes immigration officers, and was crying out for help from passengers. Having disembarked, they were held under the Terrorism Act by armed police before being questioned by Special Branch.
“The guy was shouting that he would commit suicide if he was sent back to Kenya”, said Bowman, “we took a stand in a peaceful manner, but were treated as if we were trying to blow up the plane.”
With the government seeking to increase removals of ‘illegal’ immigrants and failed asylum seekers, commercial airlines are being contracted to carry deportees and their guards with economy class passengers. Virgin Airlines are heavily involved in the practice, and according to human rights organisations have a history of aiding deportations to unsafe countries. After a campaign by antideportation activists to stop the removal of Kemi Ayinde to Nigeria, Home Office plans were scuppered when Virgin Nigeria bowed to pressure and refused to take part in the deportation.
“We do not tolerate the inhumane treatment of any person onboard any of our flights,” a Virgin Nigeria spokesperson said at the time. However, Virgin Airlines continue to help the Home Office with their deportations. Bowman told MULE: “Both of us are opposed to deportations as a political principle. We know that many of the thousands of people deported from the UK each year face immediate peril at their destinations. And we also know that Kenya has a very sketchy human rights record.”
They first noticed the man hidden at the back of the plane, and say he was handcuffed, pinned down by guards, and showing signs of distress. Cabin crew attempted to assure them that “they normally stop screaming once we take off”, implying this was a normal occurrence on Virgin flights. The immigration officers claimed Taylor and Bowman were “threatening them” and attempting to “disrupt a government operation”. They told the men that if they did not “shut up and sit down” they would “get the police on them”.
“I expected people to join us, but everyone seemed stunned. If most people saw a man being roughed up like that on the street, they’d do something”, said Bowman.
On several occasions passenger revolts have led to the cancellation of the deportation attempts, with the pilot bowing to pressure and demanding the immigrant be taken off the plane. This time the deportee was taken to Kenya and the uncertain fate that awaits him there.
http://manchestermule.com/article/detained-for-speaking-out
“The guy was shouting that he would commit suicide if he was sent back to Kenya”, said Bowman, “we took a stand in a peaceful manner, but were treated as if we were trying to blow up the plane.”
With the government seeking to increase removals of ‘illegal’ immigrants and failed asylum seekers, commercial airlines are being contracted to carry deportees and their guards with economy class passengers. Virgin Airlines are heavily involved in the practice, and according to human rights organisations have a history of aiding deportations to unsafe countries. After a campaign by antideportation activists to stop the removal of Kemi Ayinde to Nigeria, Home Office plans were scuppered when Virgin Nigeria bowed to pressure and refused to take part in the deportation.
“We do not tolerate the inhumane treatment of any person onboard any of our flights,” a Virgin Nigeria spokesperson said at the time. However, Virgin Airlines continue to help the Home Office with their deportations. Bowman told MULE: “Both of us are opposed to deportations as a political principle. We know that many of the thousands of people deported from the UK each year face immediate peril at their destinations. And we also know that Kenya has a very sketchy human rights record.”
They first noticed the man hidden at the back of the plane, and say he was handcuffed, pinned down by guards, and showing signs of distress. Cabin crew attempted to assure them that “they normally stop screaming once we take off”, implying this was a normal occurrence on Virgin flights. The immigration officers claimed Taylor and Bowman were “threatening them” and attempting to “disrupt a government operation”. They told the men that if they did not “shut up and sit down” they would “get the police on them”.
“I expected people to join us, but everyone seemed stunned. If most people saw a man being roughed up like that on the street, they’d do something”, said Bowman.
On several occasions passenger revolts have led to the cancellation of the deportation attempts, with the pilot bowing to pressure and demanding the immigrant be taken off the plane. This time the deportee was taken to Kenya and the uncertain fate that awaits him there.
http://manchestermule.com/article/detained-for-speaking-out
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
respect to the guys
26.02.2010 10:40
@
Grim but...
26.02.2010 17:34
Anon
Ah the UK
26.02.2010 17:51
T
It should and must be repealed.
26.02.2010 23:49
1Terrorism: interpretation
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
It is an offence to commit, prepare or instigate a terrorist act.
How were Andy and Matthew capable of being reasonably suspected of that? How is it possible to construe even physically intervening as terrorism under the above already broad definition?
Does anyone stop to wonder why the Terrorism Act, a permanent legal instrument brought in in 2000 to replace the temporary Prevention of Terrorism Act, was being used here?
When our representatives assembled in the legislature drafted this bill was it their intention that it should be used in this way? If not, is the executive acting in good faith as the deputy of the people's will? And do we really need the Terrorism Act 2000. Was it a well drafted law? You do realize that it empowers the police to hold someone for 28 days WITHOUT charging them. That is to say, "without formulating any charge known to the law".
Anyone who blindly obeys and unctiously demands that others blindly obey an executive branch when it acts like this, especially if their motive is fear, deserves no law, no freedom and no life. You people are more to be feared than the government. It is you who, through your blind obedience and inaction, provide the greatest threat to the liberty of all of us.
What exactly to you suppose the police are for: handing down god-ordained judgements from above or applying our laws? Whose law were they applying in this case when they use the Terrorism Act? Was it yours? Was it really what the people willed in 2000, before 9/11 even happened, that people like Andy and Matthew engaged in peaceful protest should be arrested as terrorists?
The misapplication of this law in this case usurps the sovereignty of the people. This alone is a great crime which robs them of any legitimacy. In a trice, everything dissolves into chaos and disorder. There is nothing left but to take up arms to protect ourselves and those who blindly obey the usurpers are then the enemy of the people and of their liberty. It is just that same liberty which the law is proposed to protect.
It therefore makes no sense to say that the police are just doing their job in this case. We gave them no such job. And it is we alone, if we are anything other than children being looked after by Daddy, who determine our will, our laws, and who deputize the police to apply them.
The Terrorism Act 2000 is being routinely abused in this way. It should and must be repealed.
Jim