They reported that there are eight Zimbabwean women currently being held in Yarl's Wood IRC.
Faina read to me the petition which the women who are on hunger strike had sent to the Home Office on Sept. 9.
The petition was dated Aug. 9 2007 and it read:
"We are failed asylum seekers and given the very desperate situation in Zimbabwe which has been commented upon by the United Nations plus all major countries including South Africa, we cannot condone the return of us at this time. Please can you release us or hunger strike on 10 September 2007."
Maud, Zandile and Rose, in separate telephone conversations, all confirmed that this is what the letter said and that they, together with Pauline Chitekeshe, signed the petition. They also confined that they started the hunger strike on Monday, Sept. 10 and are going to stay on hunger strike until they are released from detention.
They all complained that they did not receive adequate legal representation during the fast track process under which their applications for political asylum were considered.
Faina, Rose and Maud are Zimbabwean nationals who used Malawian passports to travel to the U.K. They have no family, friends, relatives or support networks in Malawi where the Home Office is planning to send them. They fear that the Malawian government will pass them on into the hands of the Zimbabwean authorities.
The three women reported that on Monday evening they were called, separately, to meetings with Home Office representatives and were given removal directions and a letter which read:
"I refer to your letter of 9 August 2007 in which you request temporary admission/bail for yourself.
"You are all detained because your asylum applications have been considered under fast track procedures at Yarl's Wood. You have all, already had your asylum applications refused and can be in no doubt that the Secretary of State does not accept your claims. These decisions to refuse you asylum have all been upheld by the AIT at every stage of the appeal process. You therefore have little incentive to respond to any terms of bail/temporary admission.
"With regard to your specific fears of the country situation in Zimbabwe, your concerns are noted and supported by objective evidence. The Home Office published policy means that removals of failed asylum seekers are not enforced to Zimbabwe and so I would like to allay your fears of being forcibly returned. However, as the Home Office plans to return you to Malawi (as your IS82's or 151A/B's) show, the country situation has no bearing in your situation."
The letter was signed by a D. Smith with the designation "CIO/HEO".
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Rose Phekani taken to airport
12.09.2007 17:35
Ambrose Musiyiwa
e-mail:
amusiyiwa@yahoo.com
Homepage:
http://ambrosemusiyiwa.blogspot.com/
Africa does not support the MDC: only the white neocolonials do that
13.09.2007 06:38
'Why Africa finds it hard to support MDC
By Reason Wafawarova
September 04, 2007
The March 31 2007 Sadc Dar-es Salaam communiqué on Zimbabwe; the July 2007 Accra AU Conference's position on the same; and the reaffirmation of the African stance at the 27th Sadc Summit in Lusaka, Zambia; have all but sent one clear message to the MDC:
Africa stands by Zimbabwe.
These three gatherings unanimously expressed solidarity with the position of the Government, officially (and maybe rightly) stated as the "people of Zimbabwe". Africa has, three times in a row; in a period of five months, unequivocally and solidly stood by Zimbabwe in relation to the illegal sanctions regime, the land reform programme as well as the validity of the last three national elections in which the MDC participated and lost.
That solidarity has expressed condemnation of the Western-administered economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, supported the land reform policy and validated the election results for 2000, 2002 and 2005 as free and fair.
The solidarity has gone further and proposed packages to rescue Zimbabwe from its current problems.
All this has been against expectations of a heavy-handed approach and hard-line stance on Zimbabwe from the Western ruling elite and members of their MDC political project.'
etc
===================
Zimbabwe: The US Government Exposed
By K. Elford
April 06, 2007
The ongoing attempts at demonizing Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe by the U.S. and U.K. mainstream media were getting more and more ridiculous, and suddenly, most likely inadvertently, the U.S. makes the admission of what some, including President Mugabe, have been saying all along: the U.S. is funding opposition activities in Zimbabwe in their quest for regime change.
During the U.S. press briefing announcing the release of its annual report, "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record - 2006" is the exchange between a reporter and the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Barry Lowenkron:
QUESTION: Yeah, can I go to -- I just want to go to Zimbabwe for a second. In this it says that the United States sponsored public events in Zimbabwe that presented economic and social analyses, discrediting the government's excuses for its failed policies. It also says that the United States continued to support the efforts of political opposition, the media, civil society, to create and defend democratic space and to support -- the last bit -- to support persons who criticize the government.
Now, granted, I've just given a cursory reading to the Zimbabwe and other -- the reports on other countries with which the United States has full diplomatic relations. The ones I looked at were Belarus, Syria, Vietnam and Eritrea. There may be more. Cuba, obviously, without full diplomatic relations, doesn't count.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Sure.
QUESTION: My question is this: It doesn't appear that this kind of -- that these kind of things, i.e., discrediting the government's excuses for failed policies and support -- overt support for people who are critical of the government, happened, at least is being reported for these other countries. And my question is this: President Mugabe has often talked about how he thinks the West, the United States and Britain in particular, are trying to -- are trying for regime change in Zimbabwe, and this is exactly what this appears to look like, what you've acknowledged doing through your programs in Zimbabwe. And I'm just wondering, is it the United States -- does the United States believe that it's its responsibility to discredit the government's excuses -- the government and to openly support people who criticize the government? And if it is, which is what you're saying, why is Mugabe wrong when he says that you're trying for regime change?
And that is the question that begs for an honest answer along with how can the U.S. possibly deny their intentions of provoking a regime change in Zimbabwe?
With the release of this important information those who still believe the U.S. version of having any good intentions towards the Zimbabwe people would have to be very dishonest about their own intentions. The U.S. has only one goal for Zimbabwe: regime change in order to install a government that would serve the interests of Western governments.
The human rights angle just doesn't make sense. During times of turbulence in the U.S., the U.S. government has responded very similarly to how the Zimbabwe government is responding to the current opposition attempts to destabilize Zimbabwe and the African-declared fairly elected Zimbabwe government.
There have been curfews, National Guard deployments and bans of public demonstrations many times in the U.S. Police response to perceptions of threats have resulted in many people in the U.S. taking a beating, being jailed, maimed and killed by police and military forces.
Can anyone in the U.S. threaten violence against the President and not be jailed? No! An opposition leader in Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai who the U.S. supports, publicly threatened violence against President Mugabe (Opposition warning to Mugabe BBC 2000) and he is still around working with the U.S. and U.K. attempting to undemocratically change the government in Zimbabwe.
brian