November 16, 2005

Hussein Nasseri, now a little comment

It is regrettable that any individual should ever feel to take his/her own life.
No shit.
We recognize that many asylum claimants will be very disappointed if their applications are unsuccessful. Where the Home Office knows a particular asylum claimant is at risk of suicide or self-harm, it will of course take steps to minimise that risk. This includes at the time when the claimant is informed of a final removal and on arrival in the country of return. Unfortunately, it would be imposible for any government to monitor the state of mind of all claimants who are unsuccessful and we were unable to prevent the suicide of Mr Nasseri.
OK government are not mind readers, it is nice to hear them admit it. Yet they are perfectly happy to claim that they can know the state of peoples minds when it suits them. Such as when they feel that they might have breached one of the new 'thought crimes' that New Labour hopes to bring in.
It would be wrong, however to conclude from the death of Mr Nasseri that the decision to reject his claim was incorrect.
Personally I think blowing your brains out is rather a good demonstration that you are deeply afraid of something. Persecution maybe?
Both the home Office and independent judiciary have a duty to the public to administer an effective and fair immigration control. All decisions are subject via the Human Rights Act to the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision to refuse the application of Mr Nasseri was made in good faith after he had failed to demonstrate he would be persecuted on return to Iran.
What more could Mr Nasseri have done? It was not as if he needed to prove that he was gay, or that he was going to be persecuted for it. He had already spent three months in prison in Iran for being gay and was most likely going to be executed on his return. Iran's idea of human rights is well known. As is their treatment of gays, with 16 year old boys like Mahmoud Asgari hanged in public squares.
The Government is committed to providing a safe haven for those who genuinely need it and will not seek to return anybody to a country where their life is considered to be at risk.
Good, it is our duty to aid people fleeing persecution. So why did they try to send him back? And why is Jamaica on a 'White List' of countries where asylum will not even be considered yet is a country where we know Gay people face persecution, are imprisoned, are routinely beaten up, and murdered in significant numbers. Doesn't exactly sound safe to me.
However there is also need to preserve the integrity of our asylum system by returning to their home countries those who have not been able to demonstrate that they are in need of international protection.
Small problem the government has not preserved the integrity of our asylum system, with people like Bakri living here as an asylum claimant on with vast state handouts while publicly preaching that britain should be destroyed, and faced no threat in his home country. Yet he was given unnecessary asylum while the truly persecuted are sent back to their deaths.


Post a Comment

<< Home