Recent Updates Amin Buratee Must Stay Campaign
Stop the Forced Removal of Amin Buratee planned for Saturday November 20th 2004.
Amin Buratee is an eighteen year old Afghan who was snatched from his home in Whitstable, Kent in a dawn raid by immigration officials. He is now detained at Dover Immigration Removal Centre, facing deportation to Afghanistan, this coming Saturday.
Amin fled Afghanistan aged sixteen as an unaccompanied minor when the Taliban targeted his family because of their involvement in the Communist party. In 2001 Amin's uncle and brother were tortured and killed by the Taliban. Amin's father arranged for an agent to take him to Pakistan. In April 2002 after six months of traumatic travelling through unknown countries he arrived in Dover UK, where he claimed asylum.
Amin has settled in the Whitstable, Kent which he regards as home. He has excelled as a pupil at Canterbury High School where he has gained five GSES. He wants to take A Levels, go on to university and study Information Technology. Staff and pupils at the school were devastated on hearing the news that Amin had been detained and was facing imminent deportation.
Sadly in May 2004 Amin was refused his asylum appeal and in September 2004 refused permission to go to a tribunal. The Home Office claim that Amin's father is dead and actually died in 1998 which directly contradicts Amin's evidence. They refute that he was a member of the Communist party.
However Amin's uncle in the Netherlands has provided fresh evidence that his father - Hashem Burati - was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force and well known in the Communist Party. Amin hopes this will provide a legal challenge.
Such is Amin's popularity that the students of Canterbury High School have mounted a campaign for him supported by local churches, refugee groups and a cross party alliance of councillors and MPs. A two hundred strong demonstration was held in Amin's defence on Sunday November 14th outside Dover Removal Centre. Five other schools are supporting the campaign because they have pupils who will also be vulnerable to deportation when they reach seventeen/ eighteen and are no longer classified as minors. Amin's housemates are also at risk, indeed his friend Abrahim has been detained as a result of the raid.
Local MP Julian Brazier, Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable, is supporting Amin and said, "He is just six months from completing his A-Levels and all the male members of his family have been killed." that the government had picked on a "soft target". He has written the Immigration and Nationality Department asking them to review the case of Amin.
Canterbury's Lord Mayor Councillor Martin Vye has joined the growing number of supporters of Amin and has written to Home Secretary David Blunkett pleading with him not to send Amin Buratee back to Afghanistan. Cllr Vye is positive that Amin would be an asset to the UK if he was allowed to remain and it would be 'sheer humanity' to allow him to finish school.
Please help Amin fight to stay
What You Can Do To Help Amin Buratee
Please Write or Fax Today to: Des Browne, Immigration Minister, requesting that Amin Buratee be allowed to stay using the model letter 'Attached' , which you can copy/amend/write your own - if you use your own text, please include Amin Buratee's Home Office Ref B1104703
Fax : 020 7273 2043, or from outside the UK : +44 207 273 2043
Send copies of any thing sent to:
Amin Buratee Must Stay Campaign
c/o Kent Campaign to Defend Asylum Seekers
Send messages of support to Councillor Wes Mclachlan on 01227 261 501
Tel 01227 463 971 up until 3pm
Blair intervened in deportation process
Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian Tuesday November 16, 2004
Tony Blair repeatedly intervened in a bid to deport asylum seekers to Egypt despite being told that they might be tortured and sentenced to death, the Guardian can reveal.
Court documents show how he tried to get Egypt to give assurances that the men would be humanely treated. He persisted even though the home secretary and senior Foreign Office officials made it plain such assurances were unlikely to be given and even if they were, could not be guaranteed.
The case raises serious questions about political interference in deportation and how Britain's human rights obligations can be undermined.
When Mr Blair was warned by the home secretary in a private letter that there was "ample evidence from a range of sources of serious human rights abuses in Egypt", and that there was "little scope for pushing deportations any further", he replied: "This is crazy. Why can't we press on?"
The case concerns four Egyptians held under anti-terrorist laws, including Hany Youssef, an Egyptian defence lawyer who fled to Britain in 1994.
Though MI5 said he was involved in terrorism "at the highest level", he was never classified as a high risk.
Mr Blair's extraordinary intervention is revealed in a hitherto unreported high court judgment made in July.
It is referred to in the latest issue of Statewatch, the London-based bulletin which monitors threats to civil and human rights in Europe. A link to the judgment was placed on the bulletin's website last night.
In the judgment, Mr Justice Field ruled that Mr Youssef had been unlawfully detained in late June and early July 1999 - after Mr Blair made his ultimately unsuccessful interventions in the case.
Court documents make it clear that judges were irritated by the delays in coming to what appears to have been a foregone conclusion.
The issue was whether the men would be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment - prohibited by the European human rights convention - if they were deported to Egypt.
As early as February 1999, the Home Office advised that "abuse and torture" in Egypt was "widespread despite the prohibition by the constitution of infliction of physical harm upon those arrested or detained".
In March 1999, the British embassy in Cairo asked for assurances that if the men were deported they would get a fair trial, and that if found guilty of links to Egyptian Islamic Jihad they would not be executed.
The Egyptian interior minister immediately rejected the request. When he was told about the failure to get the assurances, Mr Blair wrote: "This is a bit much. Why do we need all these things?"
Mr Blair's private office sent a letter to the then home secretary, Jack Straw. "The prime minister thinks we are in danger of being excessive in our demands of the Egyptians in return for agreeing to the deportation of the four Islamic Jihad members," it said.
Mr Straw replied that there was "ample evidence" of human rights abuses in Egypt. "Realistically ... there is probably very little scope of pursuing the deportation any further", he warned Mr Blair.
A month later, in May, Sherard Cowper-Coles, principal private secretary of the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, told No 10 that nothing more could be done to make the Egyptians provide assurances.
Mr Blair wrote in the margin of the letter: "This isn't good enough. I don't believe we shld (sic) be doing this." The prime minister's private secretary told the Foreign Office that Mr Blair "remained very keen for the UK government to be able to deport the four Egyptians to Egypt".
Mr Blair, the judgment shows, was even prepared to take up the case directly with President Hosni Mubarak.
With Mr Straw repeatedly saying it was impossible to get guarantees, Mr Blair adopted what the judge calls an "entirely new strategy" by seeking just one assurance - that there would be "no torture".
A letter from his private office said Mr Blair "believes we should use whatever assurances the Egyptians are willing to offer, to build a case to initiate the deportation procedure and to take our chances in the courts".
That, said the judge, "must have come as a considerable shock to both the Home Office and the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office]". The judge's ruling makes clear the UK courts would have quickly dismissed Mr Blair's strategy.
Lawyers familiar with the case said yesterday it showed the value of full disclosure in deportation and asylum cases, especially where government invokes the "war on terror".
"This is crazy. Why can't we press on?" - when told there was "little scope for pushing deportations further".
"This is a bit much. Why do we need all these things?" - when told about the failure to get assurances from Egypt.
"This isn't good enough. I don't believe we should (sic) be doing this" - when told nothing more could be done to make the Egyptians provide assurances about the treatment of the men if they were deported.
"[Mr Blair] remained very keen for the UK government to be able to deport the four Egyptians to Egypt" - prime minister's private secretary to the Foreign Office.
[The prime minister] "believes we should use whatever assurances the Egyptians are willing to offer, to build a case to initiate the deportation procedure and to take our chances in the courts" - letter from Mr Blair's private office.
The Guardian Tuesday November 16, 2004
Dispersal of Asylum Seekers to eight areas of the UK stopped at request of police
For some unknown reason Swansea where asylum seekers were diverted from in October of this year, has been omitted from Lord Greaves written statement and 'The Telegraphs' article.
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which asylum seeker dispersal centres or clusters have been suspended; for what period; for what reasons in each case; and which of them remain suspended
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Dispersal to individual cluster areas may be suspended for a variety of reasons but generally speaking dispersal will be resumed within a short period. As at 21 October 2004 dispersal was suspended in the following areas:
Dispersal of single middle eastern males suspended at the request of the police
Nottingham: Part (Two properties only)
Dispersal suspended at the request of the police
Dispersal suspended at the request of the police
Dispersal suspended at the request of the police
Dispersal suspended at the request of the police
Dispersal suspended at the request of the police
Dispersal suspended at the request of the local authority/police
The National Asylum Support Service maintains close dialogue with the police and local authorities in suspended dispersal areas with a view to resuming dispersal as soon as practicable.
House of Lords written statements Thursday 11th November
Racial tensions halt dispersal of asylum seekers around UK
The Government has been forced to stop sending asylum seekers to cities and towns across Britain after being warned by the police that its policy is creating racial tension and violence.
Among the places where the dispersal of refugees has been halted are Derby, Burnley and Nelson in Lancashire, Bootle on Merseyside, and large parts of Manchester, Nottingham and Doncaster.
By Daniel Foggo and Tony Freinberg Sunday Telegraph 14th November 2004
Asylum seekers diverted from city
Asylum seekers are being diverted away from Swansea in a bid to reassure local communities after the recent alleged murder of an Iraqi Kurd.
BBC News Wednesday 20th October 2004
UNHCR blasts Blunkett over Iraqi refugees
The UNHCR has been critical of David Blunkett over his use of coercion in
returning asylum seekers to Iraq.
g u a r d i a n
Criticisms of detention without trial of terrorist suspects
The Council of Europe Commission for Human Rights has said that the
detention without trial of foreign suspects is not necessary and alternative
legal methods should be found.
o b s e r v e r
Gypsies - new target s
Gypsies have become the 'new' race -hate targets according to police chiefs
and the Commission for Racial Equality.
o b s e r v e r
The murder of Zahid Mubarek
An investigation into Zahid's murder at Feltham YOI found that Zahid had
requested he be transferred from the cell he shared with his murderer, a
Brick Court QC heads up immigration intervention
The Lawyer dot com Tuesday 16th November 2004
A team of lawyers led by Richard Gordon QC of Brick Court Chambers is planning to make a third-party intervention on a pro bono basis into a Court of Appeal case concerning immigration detainees. Gordon will be appearing on behalf of refugee groups that have concerns over the rights of children detained in holding camps in the UK before their asylum applications are considered.
The intervention in ID v The Home Office relates to a case that has its origins in a fire on 14 February 2002 at Yarlswood, the asylum-seeker holding centre in Bedford. A number of families were trapped in locked rooms during the fire and several consequently made claims for forced imprisonment and negligence. One has subsequently become a test case.
Nadine Finch, a junior at 2 Garden Court who is also part of the legal team, explained that two months ago the Refugee Children's Consortium expressed an interest in making an intervention because it was concerned about the detention of children among asylum seekers. "As it turned out, the consortium as a whole couldn't make the intervention, which is basically a comment that could add value to a case, because it wouldn't have had the time. But parts of the group, which are smaller, could," says Finch. "We're acting for the two groups that are making the intervention, Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, jointly."
The family in the original case was advised by Bhatt Murphy partner Mark Scott at the Central London County Court earlier this year. On the intervention into the appeal, Harriet Wistrich of London firm Birnberg Peirce & Partners has instructed Gordon. The Brick Court silk will claim that part of the Home Office's case against the family was unlawful, partly on the grounds of forced imprisonment and partly on the grounds of negligence in relation to the fire.
According to Wistrich, the judgment is likely to have wide ramifications. "This case and others like it aren't specifically about children, but children can be and are involved," she said. "They can be detained as well, often in the more extreme cases. The cases also raise issues of torture and mental health problems, which can be exacerbated by detention."
The Brick Court team also includes Richard Herner, junior counsel from Doughty Street. The appeal hearing is sheduled for 22 November.
Asylum policy blamed for Yarl's Wood riot
Push to double deportations led to 'flimsy' detention centre
The government's "ambitious and unachievable" policy of doubling the deportations of failed asylum seekers was behind the riot and fire that half destroyed the £100m Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre, according to the inquiry report published yesterday.
Alan Travis, home affairs editor The Guardian Wednesday November 17, 2004
'Unachievable' asylum policy led to detention centre riot
An ambitious and unachievable government policy to deport thousands of failed asylum-seekers led to the riot at the Yarl's Wood detention centre that caused £38 million in damage, an official inquiry concluded yesterday.
By Stewart Tendler The times Wednesday 17th November 2004
Asylum riot blamed on rush to build £74m centre
A devastating riot and fire at an asylum removal centre was blamed yesterday on the Government cutting corners as it tried to deport thousands of rejected asylum-seekers.
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent The Independent 17 November 2004
Zimbabwean refugees to be forcibly removed as ban is lifted
Zimbabwean asylum-seekers face forcible repatriation after the Government ended a two-year ban on enforced removals yesterday.
By Stewart Tendler and Jemma Chapman The times Wednesday 17th November 2004
An Egyptian asylum seeker was awarded substantial damages yesterday after the high court ruled he had been unlawfully detained in a dispute involving Tony Blair. Richard