12 Feb 2015
The new 'penology of risk management'
James Banks has identified the new 'penology of risk management' that is in place. It is 'tasked' with the imperative of 'herding' what is considered to be 'a specific population' – or populations (and here, 'Kurdish populations' immediately come to mind) - “that cannot be ... transformed but only maintained — [as] a kind of waste management function”:
More generally, the policy approach to asylum seekers is reflective of the shift in penal policy from rehabilitation to what Malcolm Feeley and Jonathan Simon (1992) have called the new penology of risk management. 'The new penology is neither about punishing nor about rehabilitating individuals. It is about identifying and managing [perceived] unruly groups' (Feeley and Simon 1992: 368). As such, techniques are employed in order to sort individuals into groups according to the degree of control warranted by their risk profiles.[i]
These 'risk profiles' are politically determined, often in a publicly unaccountable manner: “This approach ... has an 'imperative of herding a specific population that cannot be ... transformed but only maintained - a kind of waste management function'. This criminological/penal development of risk based categorisation and management is resonant in asylum policy that increasingly seeks to process large aggregates, such as groups of specific nationalities rather than assessing individual cases of asylum”.[ii]
Already, by the late 1980's, UK authorities were attempting to target and criminalise Kurdish asylum seekers and refugees in the following publicly unaccountable manner: “In 1989, (when) the Home Office … found itself faced with … Kurds from Eastern Turkey … fleeing renewed persecution, … the British government was talking of detaining or even imprisoning them all whilst decisions were made on their asylum claims … The Immigration Service seems to have decided that the best way of dealing with these new arrivals was to refuse to allow them to step off the planes.
“Once a person reached the immigration control points and asked for asylum, he or she was protected under the [UN Refugee] Convention and could not be removed until a decision was reached on the claim. Immigration officers were, therefore, sent on to the planes to question all the passengers before disembarkation began, and many were flown back to Turkey without being allowed off the plane. There were allegations that anyone who said they wished to apply for asylum was refused permission to land. [As] this would have been a breach of the 1951 [Refugee] Convention, … it was categorically denied by Home Office Minister Timothy Renton, who said that only those who had said they wished to find work in the UK were refused entry and returned”.
However, as Pirouet has revealed, “on 23rd June, the practice of sending immigration officials on to planes was stopped after a legal challenge had been mounted by a Kurd who had been returned to Turkey without being allowed to disembark. He succeeded in entering the UK to claim asylum on a second attempt. He had been detained and beaten up when he arrived back in Turkey after his first attempt to find asylum, and it was reported that he would give evidence in the High Court about what had happened on the plane when he first arrived.
“This was followed by other reports of asylum seekers being prevented from disembarking and returned to Turkey, and thirteen were eventually given leave to put their case in the High Court. Mr. Justice Popplewell, in granting leave, noted that ‘something had gone woefully wrong’. In October, the plight of Kurdish refugees from Turkey exploded into a crisis. Two men, Siho Iyiguven and Dogan Arslan, detained in Harmondsworth Detention Centre and awaiting removal after being refused asylum, piled bedding in the doorway and set it and themselves alight” to protest at their ill-treatment and immoral targeting.
“Siho … died in Mount Vernon Hospital on the afternoon of 8th October … The crisis over the Kurds worsened later in the week when only a last minute move by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva prevented the deportation of another Kurd, Selahattin Ozberk”. He had, like other Kurds, been targeted and “refused asylum ... No amount of pleading, ... not even the intervention of the UNHCR in London, who said they believed him to be a mandate refugee, moved the Home Office, and Mr. Justice McCullough supported the Home Office position at a hearing in the High Court”.
It was only after a concerned approach by a representative of the World Council of Churches in Geneva and a high-level intervention from UNHCR in Geneva that the Home Office was forced to make a partial climb-down over this shameful targeting policy. The Home Secretary, in response, rather than deporting Ozberk, merely “agreed to allow him five days grace to remain in the UK until another country ... was found to accept him”. The UNHCR, for its part, in seeking to rightfully confront the British government over its legal Convention obligations and questionable targeting/criminalising action over Ozberk, appears to have been threatened with funding cuts: “The UK, like other western countries, funds the UNHCR generously, and for some time the UNHCR seems to have felt it had to tread warily” after this incident.
Louise Pirouet additionally exposed the lies that were issued by the Home Office to conceal their unlawful ‘anti-Kurdish’, 'anti-asylum' targeting operations. In a letter to Charter 87 for Refugees (dated 21st July 1989), Jane Harrison, Private Secretary to Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, categorically stated that “the allegation that some Kurd asylum seekers have been ‘summarily deported’ is unfounded”. This lie was exposed when, “in January 1990, it had to be admitted, as a result of a court case, that some Kurds had, indeed, been” targeted and “returned to Turkey unlawfully and that the Immigration Service had acted in contravention of its own immigration rules. The admission came in the course of a judicial review in the case of four Kurds who had claimed asylum at Manchester airport … In January 1991, Home Secretary Kenneth Baker was forced to concede that nineteen more Kurds had been unlawfully prevented from entering the UK, and over the next few years, a number more were able to bring successful challenges against their unlawful treatment”, targeting and criminalisation.
Liz Fekete, from the Institute of Race Relations, has documented the way in which ‘Iranian’ Kurds were also unfairly processed and ‘targeted’. She cites, as an example, the case of an Iranian Kurdish political prisoner and asylum seeker who committed suicide on 18th January 2001, upon receiving his ‘refusal letter’ and targeted ‘removal order’ from the Home Office. Fekete has found it “highly ironic that, in response, in an attempt to exonerate itself” from its shabby and clearly unjust judgement over the matter, the Home Office subsequently “indicated he would have won the right to stay on appeal. The man”, according to Fekete, had clearly “suffered torture and detention in his own country only to be detained in Britain, which he thought would be a haven … What this tragic case indicated was the true motives behind asylum policy”.
For Banks, thematic threads concerning how successive governments, intelligence agencies, media outlets pursuing specific political and marketing agendas all serve to demonstrate how discourses presented to the British public “can produce, reproduce and maintain an image of asylum seekers and refugees as incarnations of a criminological other, ‘the threatening outcast, the fearsome stranger, the excluded and the embittered’ (Garland 1996: 461)”.[xiii]As he observes:
This negative representation of asylum seekers and refugees contrasts with the predominantly positive self-presentation of Britain and British citizens. Media reporting has frequently depicted ‘us’, the host nation, as kind, caring and innocent whose benevolence is abused, thus casting us as victims in a deviant act. Asylum seekers and refugees are depicted as maliciously exploiting Britain and British citizen’s benevolence and as routinely taking advantage of our generosity. Thus, by ‘focusing decisively on negativity and threat - namely the abuse of ‘us’ perpetrated by ‘them’, … asylum seeking is represented as something to which host nations are subjected, something that they are, in essence, victims of rather than signatories to (Haynes, Devereux and Breen 2004: 8).[xiv]
“This discourse”, Banks confirms:
has frequently drawn upon language used to depict criminals and deviants in order to position asylum seekers and refugees [and refugee/diasporic communities] as threatening outcasts. In this rhetoric, and its policy effects, offenders are treated as a different species of threatening, violent individuals for whom we can have no sympathy and for whom there is no effective help. The only practical and rational response to such types is to have them ‘taken out of circulation’ for the protection of the public(Garland 1996: 461).
This discourse that has served to construct a mythic image of a deviant and criminal asylum seeking population has enabled the justification of increasingly restrictive and draconian legislation and policy. Undoubtedly, this reification of asylum seekers and refugees as deviant or ‘criminological others’ serves to legitimise the re-conceptualisation of asylum as a security rather than a humanitarian issue.
This position on ‘the borderland of criminal justice’ (Ericson 1975: 122) and through which ‘[a]sylum-seekers are transformed from people in need of international protection to people who are a threat, people who cheat, and people who will disappearonce they gain access to the [UK]’ (Amnesty International 1999: 9) may serve to further justify asylum and immigration legislation and policy that is both repressive and restrictive. Thus, ‘by characterising asylum-seekers as criminal and borrowing from the language and logic of the criminal justice system, the result is a system that is punitive rather than protective’ (ibid.).[xv]
Kurds, like many diasporic 'Others', have been targeted under this punitive system in horrific ways. The North East Coalition for Asylum Rights and the Save Tayyip Oruc Campaign, for instance, documented the case of Tayyip Oruc, a 26 year-old Kurd from Turkey who claimed asylum upon his arrival in the UK (in 1998). Despite having suffered constant detention, beatings and torture in Turkey, his claim for political asylum in the UK – like many others - was refused. He lost the only appeal open to him and was facing the immediate threat of deportation.
In another case, Daniel Lee has documented the way in which, “after facing repeated beatings by police in Turkey, a[n] ... asylum seeker was told by the Home Office that his suffering was not serious enough to support an application to stay in Britain. In a standard letter, officials went only far enough to accept that the treatment at the hands of the police was unpleasant”. In the case of Hanim Ozbay, a Kurdish Alevi asylum seeker, a Home Office ‘refusal’ was also made on the following grounds: “We believe that your application is simply a deviceby you to try and secure your stay in the UK”.
Similar 'grounds' for 'refusal' were cited in many other cases, even for asylum seekers (and not only from Turkey) who had clearly been tortured and subjected to genocidal 'mental harm'. Hanim’s situation, notes the NCADC, is hardly a ‘bogus’ one: “Hanim’s sister’s son was shot in January 1995 and two years before, her brother’s son was shot dead by gendarmes and the police in Turkey”. Other relatives had been tortured and killed.
“Hanim stated, during her application for asylum interview with the immigration service: ‘The police and gendarmerie in Turkey were persecuting us. They would take my husband away for 15-20 days and then bring him back and throw him on our doorstep. His face and feet would be swollen from beatings.I’ve been tortured too. The same torture went on in (Turkish occupied) Cyprus (where we had then fled to).The police would come and take my husband away all the time. I would rather kill myself than go back to those two places’”. Hanim, as a consequence of her ill-treatment in the UK due to the nature of the system in place, the NCADC confirmed - like so many asylum seeking “Others” before and after her – became even more “unwell, her physical and mental state of health ha[d] deteriorated because of the continual threat of deportation” and criminalization by the British state.
The Medical Foundation for the Care of Torture Victims' concern (expressed in 2001) over thirty-one refusal letters that had been sent to a sample of its Kurdish clients is illustrative of the concern that many had – and still have, even now - for many asylum seekers (and not Kurds) who continue to be 'judged' and 'processed' in a scandalous and publicly unaccountable manner: “Twenty-three of those were known to have told the Home Office, either in written statements or in interviews, that they had been tortured, but only three refusal letters even mentioned the claims of torture. In only one letter was the issue of torture substantively addressed, yet the Asylum Directorate instructions, Chapter 11, Section 1, say that refusal letters must be comprehensive and address all relevant matters. The Medical Foundation point[ed] out that there is a huge volume of evidence on human rights abuse in Turkey from governments, from the UN Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and from human rights organisations … However, no attention was paid to claims of torture in these people’s statements”.
Pirouet further revealed the manner in which refusal letters had been sent out to ‘targeted’ Kurdish asylum seekers whose experience of torture was not even disputed. In one case of a Kurdish asylum seeker from Turkey, a Tribunal had chosen to reject his asylum application despite recognising that he had clearly “suffered prolonged and consistent persecution” because of his suspected association with the PKK. “It was not in dispute that he had suffered … He had been arrested several times, been subjected to prolonged beating on the soles of the feet (falaka), and on one occasion had his back sliced by a bayonet resulting in thirty-five two-inch long vertical scars. He had also been pushed out of a third floor window and then hung upside down and threatened with death. [Yet], the Tribunal refused his asylum application”.
This type of targeting and shameful decision-making, Lee concluded as early as 2001, was “likely to become” ever “more frequent”. Indeed, it has. David McDowall observed the following, again in 2001, even prior to '9/11' and the subsequent 'War on Terror' that has continued to 'justify' the criminalisation of Kurdish diasporas worldwide: “In the last couple of years, I must have seen at least 200 refusal letters in respect of individuals seeking asylum from Turkey. I cannot think of one which did not significantly misrepresent or understate the extent and nature of human rights violations in that country … This inaccuracy brings almost everything the two major parties say about ‘bogus’ or ‘abusive’ asylum seekers into question … It would be nice if, instead of knocking” and targeting/criminalising “asylum seekers, our political leaders ensured that the Home Office made more serious and responsible assessments in place of the half-baked nonsense with which it currently so often insults those genuinely fleeing persecution”. These types of unjust “scenarios are already too common. The UK asylum system is barbaric. Decisions often confuse fundamental details”, noted Jane Cocker, an immigration specialist.
Targeting actions, noted solicitors at Winstanley-Burgess in London in 1995, were widespread and even extended to these types of 'initiatives': “It is not usual Home Office practice to arrest illegal entrants in the middle of the night” - or, at least, it wasn't at that time - “who have already made asylum claims at the Home Office and neither is it normal Home Office practice to require asylum seekers to complete a proforma asylum interview record when they have already submitted a self completion political asylum questionnaire. Finally, it is not usual Home Office practice to detain asylum seekers who are illegal entrants if they have already surrendered themselves at the Home Office and applied for asylum. Nonetheless”, in the case of Mr. Ucar, a Kurdish asylum seeker, he “was detained” and ill-treated in these irregular ways in 1994.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) also appealed against the way in which “a group of 23 Kurds who applied for asylum in 1989 … were illegally returned to Turkey without their applications being considered”. It was only after High Court proceedings had started against the Home Office that the latter settled out of court. JCWI further detailed the way in which Kurds who had been targeted in this manner, even after the settlement payout, continued to be questionably treated and targeted over their asylum claims, to a point where several of them were forced to go on a 19 day hunger strike outside the Home Office before they could be assured that they would all be re-interviewed appropriately. Even during this hunger strike, one notes that their targeting by the police continued: “Unsympathetic police were reported to be trying to make the strikers stand up all night instead of letting them sit on the pavement”.
Other Kurds, driven into trauma and desperation over the way in which they had been harshly targeted and ill treated/criminalised by insensitive Home Office caseworkers and assessment systems, like 'Othered' asylum seekers before and after them, have committed suicide. On 16th March 1993, Turin Pekoz “set himself on fire in the Public Enquiry Office … at Quest House, … stating that his protest was to show that there were no human rights in the UK” for many asylum seekers. 'Refusal’ letters were also being questionably issued to several Kurds upon the basis of ‘non-compliance’ – i.e. not filling in asylum forms correctly within a 14 day period. Kawani noted in 2001, however, that it is a fact that several Kurdish and other asylum seekers had clearly been targeted with these ‘refusals’, despite having complied in an appropriate manner with all necessary requirements.
Jack Straw, as Home Secretary, also succeeded in imposing a conscious ‘hard-line’ policy that institutionally targeted and swiftly deported ‘Turkish’ Kurdish (as with other) asylum seekers who had arrived in Britain, having fled from military conscription in their ‘home’ countries. In Turkey, one must remember, several Kurds had been forced to flee rather than be jailed/tortured for conscientiously objecting, or forced to join an army or paramilitary Kurdish 'village guards' that had been involved in the genocidal destruction of over 3,000 Kurdish villages in the south-east, the deaths and disappearances of thousands and the forcible displacement of over three million Kurds since the early 1990’s alone. Mike Ingram, writing as early as 2000, confirmed that British government policy was geared towards targeting and deporting/criminalising up to 6,000 ‘bogus’ Kurdish asylum seekers in this way, after an appeal in Britain’s High Court failed to reverse this policy.
In addition to all of this, targeting and criminalisation was also achieved through the management of detention centres that forcibly held Kurdish – as with other - asylum seekers (The government, in typically ‘Orwellian’ terms, referred to many of these detention centres as ‘reception centres’). A 2001 High Court ruling over a case that had been brought before it – concerning the forced confinement of four Iraqi Kurdish asylum seekers in one such ‘reception centre’ at Oakington – had concluded that such criminalised treatment and ‘targeting’ was actually incompatible with the law (the Human Rights Act): “It is illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights to detain asylum seekers behind locked gates simply to determine their claims”.
We should not forget that under these targeting and criminalising systems, Kurdish children were also being targeted (like so many 'Other' children applying for asylum from conflict zones elsewhere) in truly shameful and shocking ways:
At 7 o'clock in the morning in August , at our home in Doncaster, I woke up to hear banging on the door. As soon as my mum opened the door, these men rushed in. They told us to be quick: they were shouting in our ears. They took us to the police station and then a car came and it was awful. It had a cage. For a minute, I thought to myself: Am I an animal? The journey took a long time and we ended up in Yarl's Wood. It's a detention centre, but it is no different from a jail.
In Yarl's Wood, my mum was sad and crying all the time. It was really hard, seeing her like that, and not knowing what to do to help. I did everything I could - I spoke to the befrienders who came to visit us and I spoke to journalists, too. I wrote letters for my mother to the European Court of Human Rights, telling about the persecution she suffered in Turkey and why we came to the UK ... We applied for bail five times. Every time, they said no. Then on 15th November, at 3.25am, some officers came into the small room I share with my mother.
They took us down to the reception. Five escorts arrived, one woman and four men, and the woman searched our bodies in front of the waiting men. They took us to a black van - two escorts sat next to me, one next to my mum, the other two in the front ... I felt angry with everyone. When we arrived at Heathrow, an officer said to me: "You know if you refuse to go on the plane, we'll put handcuffs on you and tie your feet. Tell your mum what I said". They drove us right next to the plane. They took my mum out, and my mum started crying more and tried not to go up the steps. The officer went on top of her, pushed her on to the floor, and hit her with the handcuffs. She was bruised and cut. He handcuffed her, and dragged her off the tarmac and up the steps to the very back of the plane.
I started crying, as I was scared. Two escorts held me by the hands. I kept saying: "Let me go". But one pinched my hands to make me go. On the plane, the officer sat next to my mother. She kept crying - he kept telling her: "Shut up, shut up". They sat me between two escorts who kept twisting my hands very hard. I kept saying: "I want to speak to the pilot". A teenage passenger started taking mobile-phone pictures. The plane moved a bit, then the pilot said over the intercom: "We are sorry for the disturbance. The deportees should be offloaded [as a consequence of the disturbance]". So they took us back to Yarl's Wood.
Scotland Against Criminalising Communities confirmed that 'Othered' Kurdish asylum seekers were being targeted and criminalised in the following manner:
NN is a young Kurd who came to the UK seeking asylum at the age of 17. On 9.10.05, he was arrested and held in a special unit in HMP Full Sutton and then released under control orders in a town he was unfamiliar with. This is NN's life under control orders in his own words:
I am living at the bottom of the earth or I am living on top of the mountains because I am sleeping on the ground. I feel as if I am in a special prison. I cannot contact my friends. Nobody comes to visit me and I am not allowed to go out after 6pm and I can't do what I wish. If you in the world hear about freedom in this country and think it is one of the 'justice and freedom countries', I ask you - "Is it for everybody because I don’t know this justice and freedom?"
I never believed I would not have freedom even inside my house. Because, at any time, they want to enter my house, they do. They don't care what I am doing – praying or in a shower - and they read whatever I have. I feel just like I am a dead body. I don’t know what will happen to me the next day. This is just a few words of how I feel. If you look at my house and my life, you would never believe it. I have been released from a prison but I didn't know my house would be like a prison to me, too. And all this time, I am scared they could take me somewhere if they could. So I feel I don't know what is a life. That is what I am saying to you.
Another 14 year old Kurdish girl was only saved from deportation after the timely intervention of the Children’s Commissioner:
The planned removal from the UK of a suicidal Kurdish teenager whose traumatic experience of the British deportation process drove her to self-harm appeared to have been scrapped ... A German border police source confirmed that a private jet carrying Meltem Avcil and her mother had been expected to arrive in Dusseldorf ... but officials from Britain had [suddenly] called to cancel the flight earlier in the morning. The Independent reported [and had exposed her targeting and ill-treatment after] ... 14-year-old Meltem was left depressed and traumatised by an extended stay at Yarl’s Wood detention centre.
Further details of the extent of her depression, though, can now be revealed. Meltem had cut her wrists and entered into a suicide pact with a fellow detainee. The removal flight [in November 2007] was [only, it seems], cancelled shortly after a private visit by the Children’s Commissioner, Sir Albert Aynsley-Green, was scheduled. The Children’s Commissioner spent half an hour with Meltem in a private room at Bedford hospital”.
It was only through his intervention that she was saved, but how many 'Others' (Kurds and non-Kurds) were and are still not saved because he was/is not there physically and politically to intervene on their behalf?
Desmond Fernandes is a member of the Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC) and the Peace in Kurdistan Campaign. He was a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography and Genocide Studies at De Montfort University (UK) and is the author of 'The Kurdish and Armenian Genocides: From Censorship and Denial to Recognition?' (Apec: Stockholm, 2007; Peri, Istanbul, 2013), 'The Struggle for Kurdish Language Rights in Turkey' (Peace in Kurdistan, London, 2011), 'Zana's Wait for Me, Diyarbakir, the Kurdish Genocide, Turkish State Terror and US-NATO inspired Torture' (Apec: Stockholm, 2015, forthcoming) and co-author of 'The Targeting of “Minority Others” in Pakistan' (BPCA: London, 2013) and 'The Education System in Pakistan: Discrimination and the Targeting of the Other’ (BPCA, London, 2014). His articles have appeared in a number of journals and magazines, including 'Genocide Studies and Prevention' (the official journal of the International Association of Genocide Scholars); 'Kurdistan Aktuell', 'L’Appel du Kurdistan', 'Armenian Forum', the 'Thailand Environment Institute Journal', the 'International Journal of the Sociology of Language'; 'Peace News'; 'Law, Social Justice and Global Development' and 'Variant: Cross Currents in Culture'.
[iii] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 40-41.
[iv] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 41.
[v] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 41-42.
[vi] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 42.
[vii] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 42.
[viii] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 42.
[ix] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 42.
[x] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 43.
[xi] See Morgan, D. (2001) ‘KSC/Peace in Kurdistan Campaign Report (dated 15 April) on a seminar called to discuss the threat to Iraqi Kurdish asylum seekers’, KSC/Peace in Kurdistan Campaign press release, p. 3.
[xii] See Morgan, D. (2001) ‘KSC/Peace in Kurdistan Campaign Report (dated 15 April) on a seminar called to discuss the threat to Iraqi Kurdish asylum seekers’, KSC/Peace in Kurdistan Campaign press release, p. 3.
[xvi] Save Tayyip Oruc Campaign (undated) Campaign to Save Tayyip Oruc (http://www.ncadc.org.uk/).
[xvii] Lee, D. (2001) ‘The Government Seems to Have Learnt Nothing’, The Times, Law Section, 11 September 2001, p. 8.
[xviii] As quoted by NCADC (1997) ‘Ozbay Family Must Stay’, NCADC Newsletter, No. 6, April-June 1997, p. 4.
[xix] NCADC (1997) ‘Ozbay Family Must Stay’, NCADC Newsletter, No. 6, April-June 1997, p. 4.
[xx] NCADC (1997) ‘Ozbay Family Must Stay’, NCADC Newsletter, No. 6, April-June 1997, p. 4.
[xxi] NCADC (1997) ‘Ozbay Family Must Stay’, NCADC Newsletter, No. 6, April-June 1997, p. 4.
[xxii] NCADC (1997) ‘Ozbay Family Must Stay’, NCADC Newsletter, No. 6, April-June 1997, p. 4.
[xxiii] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 60.
[xxiv] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 78.
[xxv] This decision was only overturned by the Court of Appeal in June 1999, when the Kurdish asylum seeker contested this decision. Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 78-79.
[xxvi] Lee, D. (2001) ‘The Government Seems to Have Learnt Nothing’, The Times, Law Section, 11 September 2001, p. 8.
[xxvii] McDowall, D. (2001) ‘Asylum Refused’, The Independent, 6 June 2001.
[xxviii] As quoted by Lee, D. (2001) ‘The Government Seems to Have Learnt Nothing’, The Times, Law Section, 11September, 2001, p. 8.
[xxix] See Winstanley Burgess (1994) ‘Legal Note on Sezai Ucar’, dated 1 February 1995, p. 1.
[xxx] Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (1995) ‘Kurdish Hunger Strike’, JCWI Bulletin, Vol. 5, Spring 1993, p. 16.
[xxxi] Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (1995) ‘Kurdish Hunger Strike’, JCWI Bulletin, Vol. 5, Spring 1993, p. 16.
[xxxii] Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (1995) ‘Kurdish Hunger Strike’, JCWI Bulletin, Vol. 5, Spring 1993, p. 16.
[xxxiii] Pirouet, L. (2001) Whatever Happened to Asylum in Britain? A Tale of Two Walls. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, p. 44.
[xxxiv] Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (1993) ‘Death of an Asylum Seeker’, JCWI Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 3, Summer 1993, p. 16.
[xxxv] As cited by Morgan, D. (2001) ‘KSC/Peace in Kurdistan Campaign Report (dated 15th April) on a seminar called to discuss the threat to Iraqi Kurdish asylum seekers’, p. 7.
[xxxvi] For details of these genocidal atrocities, see Fernandes, D. (1998) ‘The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey, 1924-98’, Armenian Forum, Vol. 1(4), Winter, p. 57-108.
[xxxvii] Ingram, M. (2000) ‘British High Court ruling opens way for deportation of over 6,000 Kurdish asylum-seekers’, World Socialist Web Site, 9 February 2000 (accessed at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/kurd-f09.shtml).
[xxxviii] Travis, A. (2001) ‘Asylum Detainees in Hunger Protest’, The Guardian, 11 September 2001, p. 11.
[xli] Birnberg Peirce & Partners, Medical Justice and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (2008) Outsourcing abuse - The use and misuse of state-sanctioned force during the detention and removal of asylum seekers. Birnberg Peirce & Partners, Medical Justice and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns: London (downloadable at: http://www.mighealth.net/uk/images/c/c2/Abuse.pdf).