The point of the UKBA is to mess people around. That’s what it’s for. The aim in setting it up was to make bigots happy.

Never mind that its actions are inhuman, or that its ridiculous petty behaviour is costing our economy billions, in lots of ways including for example the loss of income from foreign students, or that it means pointless delays for British people trying to get in and out of Britain.

It is a piece of pointless nasty stupidity, designed to appease pointless nasty stupid people.

But women who come here to seek sanctuary may also have had particular experiences because they are women; they are more likely to come here fleeing sexual violence as part of the political or religious or ethnic persecution they experience. And
they may have experienced persecution that isn’t obviously political or carried out by the state, such as forced marriage or forced prostitution. Over the years it has become clearer that the omission of sex or gender from the grounds for persecution that qualify
one to be a refugee under the Refugee Convention is a glaring one

I am in favour of unrestricted access to the UK for anyone who would like to come here and disagree that the state has a right or duty to police its borders and prevent the free movement of people.

However, if you disagree with my stance and want the state to restrict immigration (and/or emigration), you will presumably want it to apply its oppressive rules in an even handed fashion.

It seems to me that much of this document represents an attempt to argue for humanitarian exceptions to the rules to be applied to women, on the basis, as outlined above, of a pretty flimsy rationale.

@ 2 pagar

“It seems to me that much of this document represents an attempt to argue for humanitarian exceptions to the rules to be applied to women, on the basis, as outlined above, of a pretty flimsy rationale.”

Allowing people to escape sexual abuse is a “flimsy rationale”?

Allowing people to escape sexual abuse is a “flimsy rationale”?

In this instance, yes.

Sexual abuse happens everywhere and is quite unrelated to state borders.

If the UKBA were tasked to make their decisions on humanitarian grounds, rather than in relation to political asylum, then fine.

Of course we’d be knee deep in overworked donkeys………..

@ 4 pagar

“In this instance, yes.

Sexual abuse happens everywhere and is quite unrelated to state borders.”

No it isn’t. Rates of crime, including sexual ones, vary by country. In some places, acts we would consider to be rape or similar are legal, or can be paid off.

“If the UKBA were tasked to make their decisions on humanitarian grounds, rather than in relation to political asylum, then fine.”

There’s already a humanitarian angle to asylum policy, isn’t there? In fact, isn’t that the whole basis of asylum?

“Of course we’d be knee deep in overworked donkeys………..”

Oh, don’t be stupid. That’s a straw man and you know it.

@ Chaise

Right of asylum (or political asylum, from the Greek: ??????[1]) is an ancient juridical notion, under which a person persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs in his or her own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, a foreign country, or church sanctuaries (as in medieval times).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum

It’s a bit of a stretch to get from “persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs” to plain old “sexual abuse”.

But, like I say, I think they should be able to come here for the weather, if they want to.

That’s a straw man and you know it.

It was intended to be a straw donkey………..

@ 6 pagar

“It’s a bit of a stretch to get from “persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs” to plain old “sexual abuse”.”

Is that the complete rule there, though? Aren’t risk of torture and murder factors as well?

“But, like I say, I think they should be able to come here for the weather, if they want to.”

Agreed, pretty much.

“It was intended to be a straw donkey………..”

A donkey in a straw hat, perhaps.

Aren’t risk of torture and murder factors as well?

Well yes if, as is often the case, the torture and murder is threatened by the agencies of the state.

But this is an attempt to stretch the asylum rules to include those who are not included in the above category but who are, in some other way, unhappy with their home life.

In my view those people should be welcomed- if they were the status of asylum seekers and the accompanying rules would be redundant (along with the Border Agency) and we would have a level playing field.

pagar: So are you drawing a distinction here between:
“If I do not leave this country, the state will kill or torture me”
and
“If I do not leave this country, the state will allow a private individual to kill or torture me”
such that the first would in your view be a valid reason for asylum under the current system, but the second would not?

9. cim

“If I do not leave this country, the state will allow a private individual to kill or torture me”

Sorry but where in the world does the State formally allow people to kill and torture other people? Even where it is alleged – and I stress the word alleged – it is still against the law to torture and kill other people.

Asking asylum seekers to share stories that will tug at the heart strings of British people is just to ask them to lie. The solution is not to encourage them to come to the UK in the first. No asylum. For anyone. Not even for well founded political and religious reasons.

@ SMFS

No asylum. For anyone.

Agreed.

Instead we should allow unrestricted flows of people, goods and services over all state borders.

Why has the UN not been making a case for this?

So are you drawing a distinction here between:
“If I do not leave this country, the state will kill or torture me”
and
“If I do not leave this country, the state will allow a private individual to kill or torture me”

As SMFS points out above, there is no state which has laws allowing murder and torture. If the asylum seeker can show that he legitimately fears the above from the state or its agencies ha has a case for asylum.

That is a long way from listening to, and acting on, the uncorroborated testimony of a woman who alleges she arrived in the UK following violence from her alleged former husband.

12/pagar: Given that rape would definitely be a form of torture when carried out by agents of the state, where the state refuses to prevent rape of its citizens I think they have a fair case for asylum in a country that at least tries to do so.

Yes, I know there’s no state that claims to allows murder in that context. If there were, would you refuse asylum from it? Also, I think you underestimate the number of states where the state will intentionally fail to properly investigate a murder if the victim was unpopular with the state, which is de facto if not de jure approval of the murder. And furthermore, it seems unreasonable in a case where the state refuses to provide a person sufficient protection to prevent them against a credible threat of murder, and they do not personally have the resources to protect themselves, to deny asylum on the grounds that they have not yet actually been murdered, and to come back when they have. Similarly therefore for other violent crimes.

@ Cim

Given that rape would definitely be a form of torture when carried out by agents of the state, where the state refuses to prevent rape of its citizens I think they have a fair case for asylum in a country that at least tries to do so.

Where were you thinking of here? I am not aware of any state with laws that approve of rape unless you refer to the rapes that occur within forced marriages in Islamic countries?

it seems unreasonable in a case where the state refuses to provide a person sufficient protection to prevent them against a credible threat of murder, and they do not personally have the resources to protect themselves, to deny asylum on the grounds that they have not yet actually been murdered

It could be argued that everyone faces a credible threat of murder and that no state can ever provide sufficient protection from such a threat. The definition of asylum as mentioned above is where “a person is persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs in his or her own country may be protected by another sovereign authority”.

There is no mention whatever of a right conferred by having suffered sexual or domestic abuse which, as I’ve already pointed out, is a universal problem.

14/pagar: It could be argued that everyone faces a credible threat of murder

One could argue that, but it would require stretching the definitions of at least “credible”, “threat” and “everyone” well beyond conventional usage. So let’s assume that it won’t be argued.

I am not aware of any state with laws that approve of rape unless you refer to the rapes that occur within forced marriages in Islamic countries?

Well, it was only in 1991 that the UK finally declared that rape within marriage was a) possible and b) criminal. There are still about 40 countries where it is legal, with a wide variety of religious backgrounds.

What I’m asking you is if there’s a practical difference between (where X is any general cause for claiming asylum):
– the state has a law that says X is illegal, and enforces it
– the state has a law that says X is illegal, and does not enforce it
– the state has a law that says X is legal
You seem to believe there is a distinction, such that asylum should be denied in the second case but not the other two.

Don’t follow your last para at all but let’s see if I can get my head around this one.

Well, it was only in 1991 that the UK finally declared that rape within marriage was a) possible and b) criminal. There are still about 40 countries where it is legal, with a wide variety of religious backgrounds.

You are arguing that because rape within marriage is not recognised as a crime in some countries, all married women living in those countries have a case to claim political asylum on the basis that they are “a person is persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs.”

OK. I’ll go with that.

What is you argument?

16/pagar: No, just those married women (and men) who are being raped. The ones who did not marry someone who later turned out to be a rapist have no particular need for asylum.

More generally, anyone – married or otherwise – who is:
– being raped by UK standards
– their government will not intervene in a useful fashion (whether because the act is locally legal or because it doesn’t bother to enforce the law or whatever)
– unlikely to be able to escape their rapist while remaining in that country
should be entitled to claim asylum on those grounds here.

I would go for the “humanitarian reasons” approach under the European Convention which requires “a real risk that they will be exposed to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” – the “inhuman or degrading treatment” bit seems clearest in this case. (Yes, technically it’s not asylum/refugee status being granted for that; I think the UK is wrong to make that distinction).

@ cim

No, just those married women (and men) who are being raped.

Do you mean those who claim to have been raped?

Because rape is a very difficult crime to prove, often relying on the word of one person over another, and marital rape even more so. Particularly marital rape in countries, where there is no crime and no court case.

Are you saying that the authorities should grant asylum to any woman who comes to them claiming to have been raped or abused in her own country?

(This brings us back to the OP).

If that is your view, please be honest and articulate it in those terms.