Cross Post from Clare Sambrook: State-sponsored cruelty

Clare Sambrook the novelist and journalist, who is the pro-bono co-ordinator of End Child Detention Now wrote to be asking if I would cross post this article writen by here for open democracy. I am happy to cross post that article in full and unabridged here today as our party gathers in Liverpool for conference.

State-sponsored cruelty

The Liberal Democrats must fight to salvage their promise to end the detention of children for immigration purposes in the UK.

Ask Boy A what he is scared of and he says dogs, strangers and policemen. He is scared to go outside and play with friends. At night he wets his bed. He cannot sleep without his mother. He is nine years old.

At their autumn conference this weekend Liberal Democrats wanting to rescue their end child detention pledge from Home Office sabotage will find ammunition in a chilling new report from Medical Justice.

Boy A is one of 141 children in the report that takes its title — 'State Sponsored Cruelty' — from Nick Clegg's pre-election definition of the detention policy. Almost half the children were born in Britain, and 62 per cent of all of them were released from detention back into the UK, raising the question, why on earth were they locked up in the first place?

Boy S, aged 9, arrested with his mother in a dawn raid and locked up in Yarl's Wood detention centre, lost one tenth of his body weight in a single month. Another child, bounced in and out of Yarl's Wood time and time again, spent 166 days behind bars before she was three years old. And this, in Britain, a country where dawn raids and imprisonment of families who have committed no crime is unimaginable in any other context.

At their Spring conference six months ago Liberal Democrats voted to make ending child detention an Election promise. ('The Government must find its long lost moral compass and put an end to child detention immediately', said Chris Huhne, then shadow Home Secretary.) Clegg pushed successfully for its inclusion in the Coalition Agreement.

Then the Home Office went to work. Instead of stopping the dawn raids and closing the asylum prisons, immigration minister Damian Green invited selected NGOs to join a 'working party' helping the government; to review alternatives to detention.

Gre>en announced: 'All those who have the most knowledge of the asylum process should play a significant role in guiding us onto the right path.' Behind their backs, he sanctioned ill-thought out draconian 'pilots' of 'alternatives', bundling vulnerable families out of the country without recourse to legal advice.

In a parallel and chilling show of true intent, the Ministry of Justice, ignoring appeals from scores of leading lawyers and the Archbishop of Canterbury, let the biggest provider of legal representation to asylum seekers — Refugee & Migrant Justice — fail, for want of prompt payment of fees owed by the government. RMJ’s collapse robbed many thousands of vulnerable people of legal advice, and thrust the surviving not-for-profit legal aid providers and specialist solicitor firms under catastrophic strain.

As for Damian Green’s review process, its integrity is manifested in the person put in charge of it. Dave Wood, a former police officer with no experience in children’s services, is director of criminality and detention at the UK Border Agency, locking up more than 1000 children every year in conditions known to harm their health.

Such is Wood’s enthusiasm for detention that he told the Home Affairs Select Committee last year that families rarely abscond but should be locked up anyway to deter others from coming here.

He wrote to the committee falsely undermining peer-reviewed medical evidence that Yarl's Wood was damaging children’s physical health and messing up their minds. 'The study was undertaken without any reference to the UK Border Agency or its clinicians,' he told MPs. Not true. Home Office documents attest to the discussions that took place.

No maverick, Wood is a perfect product of his department's culture. As recently as June, an eye-popping safeguarding report criticised the Border Agency for 'fundamental' child protection failings. Dismissing a mother's desperate pleas for medical care for her five year old, sexually abused at Yarl's Wood, the Border Agency (catchphrase: 'treating children with care and compassion is a priority') swept mother and child out of the country.

The Minister for Children and Families, Sarah Teather — a Liberal Democrat — sent a friendly message to last week's parliamentary launch of the Medical Justice report, easserting the Coalition's commitment to ending child detention, but adding: 'We have to be careful not to rush into this as we are dealing with the safety and well-being of often vulnerable children and it is essential it is done properly.'

Quite how children’s safety might be served by not rushing to end a practice proven to wreck their lives is a mystery that suggests leading Liberal Democrats have been gulled by the detention enthusiasts at the Home Office.

Liberal Democrats may take pride in their end child detention pledge. But they must summon the political integrity to fight for it, or else the Home Office will swap one form of state sponsored cruelty for another. As Medical Justice concludes: 'Ending the immigration detention of children should be immediate, and not contingent on any reviews or pilot projects on alternatives to detention.'

Discretion Test Condemned

The Home Office's guidance to gay asylum seekers who seek refuge in the UK because of their sexuality has been condemned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The discretion test where they are sent back to their homeland with the advice to keep their sexuality secret was according to UNHCR turning international convention "on its head".

The UK Supreme Court is to give a ruling on the issue this Wednesday. Many of those seeking asylum in this country on the grounds of their sexuality. Alexandra McDowall, the UNHCR's legal officer in London, says the discretion test "introduces an element that shouldn't be there". However, people facing persecution for their sexuality are a protected group just like those facing religious or political persecution.

The current Home Office is seeking to overturn the previous advise, however there are no official records for how many were turned away under the 'discretion-rule'. Stonewall however estimate that as many as 98% are turned away on their first application.

PS Yes I did choose the picture because one of my friends is in it. Amazing what you find when you search goggle images (Courtesy of Amnesty International Northern Ireland)

Are We a Democracy in Disguise

The worrying news of the arrest and questioning of Damien Green, the Conservatives' Shadow Immigration Minister, over Home Office leaks yesterday raises serious questions about the execution of the anti-terror laws that Labour have brought forwards in recent years.

All through the process there has been concern raised that such draconian measures in the wrong hands could lead to major concerns over the democratic process. But who would ever have thought that those wrong hands would actually be those of the Labour party. A party that themselves were often under investigation for communist leanings, as any reader of Tony Benn's diaries will be aware. As Chris Huhne the Liberal Democrat Shadow for Home Affairs said:

"Receiving information from government departments in the public interest and
publicising it is a key part of any MP’s role. This is the most worrying
development for many years, with the potential to shift power even more
conclusively from Parliament to the Government. It is also extraordinary
considering Gordon Brown himself as Shadow Chancellor received and publicised
many leaked official documents."

When the civil rights of an opposition Member of Parliament to carry out his role of scrutinising are threatened because of information he may or may not have become privy to how can we effectively have a parliamentary democracy? Are we any better than that Zimbabwe? As David Davis put it on the Today programme:

"None of this put in any way national intelligence, national security, or international relations at risk - yet we end up with a situation that is in some way reminiscent of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, with an Opposition spokesman being arrested for nine hours. It is extraordinary, frankly."

Where is the government moving the line to? Are they deliberately trying to hinder scrutiny? If so, what do they have to hide?

There are a lot of questions about such legislation being used against a legislator and this latest incident means it is definitely time for the powers invested in these areas are properly addressed. This is just another step along the wrong path where too much alleged need to protect is impinging on civil liberties to go about as normally as possible.

Just How is He Meant to be Discreet?

Mehdi Kazemi the gay Iranian nineteen year has lost his asylum bid to remain in the Netherlands and will shortly been returned possibly breifly to the UK.

Sadly our Home Office fails to accept that the Iranian regime routinely execute homosexuals. Indeed they take the attitude that that gay people can return to Iran safely providing they are 'discreet'. How they expect Mehdi to remain discreet is beyond me. He was named under interrogation of his now executed boyfriend, he's been all over the press due to our government and that of the Netherlands intransigence so his chances of discretion are next to nil.

The Foreign and Commowealth Office have papers that Mohsen Yahyavi, a senior Iranian politician thinks that the 'crime' of homosexuality deserves execution, torture or possibly both. The Home Office refusing to comment on this individual case but lie in their statement that:

"The Government is committed to providing protection for those individuals found to be genuinely in need, in accordance with our commitments under international law.We examine with great care each individual case before removal and we will not remove anyone who we believe is at risk on their return."

Clearly that wasn't the case last year when Mr. Kazemi appealed for asylum with them and was turned down. Jacqui Smith is clearly maintaining the Home Office mantra of not being fit for purpose if this man is sent to certain death.

Asylum Laws Gone Mad

The laws governing who could claim asylum in the UK used ot be pretty straight forward. If you life was in danger from systematic persecution if you returned to you home country it was likely that asylum would be granted and you would have the right to abide in this country.

However, the case of Mehdi Kazemi from Iran shows just how stupid the Home Office has become over what are genuine asylum cases and what are immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

Mr Kazemi is 19 years old and in 2004 came to this country to study English. In 2006 his boyfriend had been arrested in Iran charged with sodomy and hanged, but not before under interrogation the police had got him to name Mehdi as his sexual partner. Fearing that the same fate would await him should he return he sought asylum where he was. Admittedly he did not enter the country seeking asylum, but other situations had changed while he was here on a valid visa. When he was turned down he fled to the Netherlands hoping to avoid exportation to almost certainly the gallows.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Columbia University last September that there were no homosexuals in his country, in reponse to a question about two gay men who had been executed there. Almost boastful he was met then by jeers and laughter. However, there may be some essence to his story if every time a homosexual is found they is executed, according to human rights organisations about 4,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed in Iran since 1979. So there will clearly be not many openly gay people left in his country, however, it does not mean they do not exist as the executions keep going on.

The Home Office admits that Iran executes homosexual men, but fails to see this as systematic persecution which would enable Mehdi Kazemi the right to claim asylum. Is this yet another case of them not being fit for purpose, even on the Brown watch.

There is a petition to sign to make you feelings known. Please feel free to sign it and do it fast as time is of an essence in this case.

Ten Reasons My DNA Won't Become Government Property

So senior Police Officers have called for a national DNA Database. Here are 10 reasons why I won't be found on it.

10. I'm a law abiding citizen and have had no reason to give a sample to police.

9. Should the database contain every citizen, wouldn't that just slow up the process of using it rather than just known criminals. Thus contradicting its usefulness.

8. Our bobbies would merely be looking for and collecting DNA for every crime from shoplifting to murder. How is that going to make anyone feel more secure?

7. I'm not going to voluntarily carry an ID card, which contains my biometric data. So I'm less likely to volunteer by DNA code.

6. On at least 3 occasions in the last 12 months Government data sources have spewed out mine and close family members data. So I'm not trusting anything they hold of mine.

5. Even the Home Office are not calling to make it compulsory. But then maybe they just know they're not fit for the purpose of holding it, see above.

4. I am who I am, and that DAN is part of that equation and has no right being held and filed by someone else.

3. I am a name not a number. Much as I would love to live at Port Merrion I'm no prisoner.

2. We live in the real world not a George Orwell fiction written in 1948. Big Brother has no need or right to watch us that closely.

1. I do not, nor do I have any intention of working for Torchwood. Therefore the storing of my DNA to regenerate, correct or resurrect me as a result of issues in the line of duty is negligible. Should the role of data analysis become more dangerous I may reconsider.

Charlie Says No to 42

Lord Falconer the former Lord Chancellor, who originally backed Tony Blair's plans to extend the period of detention without charge limit for terror suspects, has said there is no need to extend it from the current 28 day limit to the 42 which now appears to be latest Labour ultimate answer.

He now joins the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and the Parliamentary committees on Home Affairs and Human Rights to criticise such plans.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secrtary say she will be looking for a compromise but if even some of the former 90 day supporters are not sure of advancing further it looks hard pressed that this will be forthcoming.

Is this the Ultimate Answer? If So Panic!!!

For many years as a Douglas Adams fan I have long known that the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything should be 42. However, I’m quite sure that as a sci-fan fan who was also brought up with Star Trek that the question was not 'How long should the British police be able to detain a suspect without charge?'.

For this sadly is the new number that has been arbitrarily picked by someone at the home office, following the failure of 90 and 56 to be the figure that people might love to up the ante from the original 14 days a few years ago, which itself had been an increase from 7 which itself was 3 more than the police had at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Newsnight last night did a pastiche of the Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy to explain the whole story leading to 42 days. However, it looks like the graphics have got worse over almost 30 years, so much for CGI at the Beeb, or at least in the news department.

42 to me has always been a nice friendly number just like the words ‘Don’t Panic’ were on the guide. To have it associated, and I hope only briefly, with another attempt by Labour to extend the time frame in which humans can be held without charge is another backward step.

Now I don’t always agree with the former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke but last night on Question Time I did, he said that the Government had yet to prove a need to extend, let alone double, the period that was so recently reached only as a compromise. All they point out is that one or two cases have reached the end of he period but to me this is not a valid reason to extend. This is merely an example of Parkinson’s law, where work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. It doesn’t mean that any more time is needed for the task, it may even mean that the task could be completed sooner to the same standards if less time was available and more concentration exercised on it earlier.

Personally if 42 does somehow become the Government’s answer to this question I’d remove the word don’t and say PANIC!!! Because while the US has to charge within 48 hours not 42 days, they do have an interment camp at Guantanamo Bay so the Isle of Man may be partially returned to its WWII status if we not careful and Brown tries to imitate Bush too much.

Home Office Not Fit to Deliver Passports

Oh dear another bad new s day for the Home Office and their computerisation. This time is is the online application of passports that they are unable to deliver. 5000 people are still awaiting for their passports which are still being processed out of a mere 18,000 applications.

The system was only begun on 18 May and was withdrawn on 20 June with the promise that all applications would be delivered within three week. So we have 5,000 still waiting 5 weeks after the system was shut down which suggests that a sizeable number of the other 13,000 also fell outside the anticipated turnaround times for processing.

This system is being run by the same organisation that will have control of the government's ID card scheme. If they are having problems processing a mere 18,000 how on earth are they going to cope with the government's big brotheresque dream of compulsory ID cards? The answer is simple they can't and they won't.

But at least the Home Office are continuing to live up to the Home Secretary's appraisal of them shortly after he took office that they are no fit for purpose.

Home Office Not Fit to Deliver ID Cards

Well as Charles Clarke has already told us his department is not fit for purpose it appears from leaks that they are messing up Ton'y Blair's ID card agenda very well.

As many people pointed out before implimentation not a single large scale government computer system has been fully operation by the time scheduled. IN the leaked e-mails David Foord, the ID card project director at the Office of Government Commerce said it was "a project continuing to be driven by an arbitrary end-date rather than reality". The government's timetable and the structure of the massive IT project means "we are setting ourselves up to fail."

And Peter Smith, the acting commercial director of the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) at the Home Office, which is responsible for the ID card scheme, said he had no argument with those conclusions but also in an even more damaging email to Labour revealed his staff were planning for the possibility ministers will scrap the ID card plan altogether. Because of that, he told Mr Foord that the Home Office was making sure contracts for projects linked to the ID card scheme were being designed to survive if the bigger scheme is dropped.

So with Tony Blair being the big advocate for ID cards is the heir apparent Gordon Brown less in favour? Therefore as a result is he liable to scrap the costly and irrelevant project once he takes over at a date, largely expected to be, before the implimentation date of the government's 'voluntary' ID card scheme?

Authoritarian Method Too Far

What do you get if you rush through sensitive legislation? What do you get if don't allow sufficient time for Parliament to scrutinise and debate such legislation?

Well obviously for starters parts of it get overlooked and the repercussions are not fully realised until something that should normally happen without a glitch goes wrong.

Step forward fourteen probationer Methodist Ministers from the USA. Hardly a part of the axis of evil, well at least not as defined by Bush and Blair. Now suddenly under the tightening of observation of anti-terror laws they have been denied work visa to work in some of the UK's Methodist circuits. The law that restricts unordained religious leaders was passed twelve years ago in 1994, it looks like the religious Shadow Home Secretary at the time, ACL Blair MP for Sedgefield, didn't realise the full extent of what Ken Clarke was proposing.

The Superintendent Methodist Minister for Wakefield, Dr Paul Glass sums up the situation very succinctly and astutely:

"This rule is meant to be for unqualified Islamic students. You could not imagine somebody less like a terrorist than a young American Methodist minister.

"It seems to be ludicrous and a direct attack on religious freedom. The Government is in danger of looking ridiculous.

"Faced with a Government that is acting in increasingly authoritarian ways, I would hope that we could bring as much pressure to bear as possible to change this restrictive action."

Personally I think the time that the Government is in danger of looking ridiculous has long passed. However, I do think that legislation of the most sensitive nature, especially in relation to law and order or terrorism is too often rushed through Parliament as a knee jerk reaction to recent events. The amount of scrutiny that people would expect on such sensitive issues is not carried out. There is an over abundance of lawyers in both Houses of Parliament surely these minds, some of whom spent their professional career looking for loopholes in the law. Should these people not be given time on these issues to scrutinise the minutiae of these things to get the letter right not just the spirit.

Clarke has Gone

After the calls for his resignation appeared to fall on Tony's deaf ear the big news today is that Charles Clarke has gone. John 'Bulldog' Reid has taken over at the Home Office, I'm waiting for the outcry for a Scot having a say over so many matters that are devolved.

John Prescott has retained his title as Deputy Prime Minster but lost his departmental duties, no word yet as to how this will be filled or split.