The imminent deportation of a Ugandan refugee and her two sons provoked a protest outside the Home Office Immigration centre in Glasgow today. Zahra Byansi was arrested on Monday after living in the city for four years. Angry campaigners braved the wind and rain to call for her release.
Campaigners in Glasgow say that Zarah Byansi was an upstanding member of the Kingsway community and that she should be allowed to stay in Scotland.
On Monday Zarah and her two boys went to the immigration offices in Govan to sign on. They were detained, moved to Dungavel Detention Centre in Lanarkshire and today have been taken down south to Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre.
Noreen Real, from Kingsway Amnesty Group, said: “I went on Tuesday to visit her in Dungavel and her five year old son said to me “You know, I don’t understand because we didn’t do anything wrong. We only went with my mum to sign on and they detained us.” How can you explain to a five year old child that our government can treat human beings this way.”
Ugandan born Zarah and her children aged five and twelve have lived in the Drumchapel area of Glasgow for four years; she was well known for her campaigning for other asylum seekers.
Jamie O’Neill, from Positive Action in Housing, said: “There’s been a lot in the press about ‘The Last King of Scotland’ movie which is out this week and the Ugandan connections. Really the only connection is that we’re sending people back to the terror that they’ve escaped.”
In a statement the Home Office has said that: “The government has made it clear that it will take a robust approach to removing people from the country where they have no legal right to be here and will only return those who the asylum decision making and independent appeals processes have found do not need international protection and who can therefore return safely. 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.”
The campaign against the deportation of Zahra and her family has once again brought protestors out in force but it’s hard to say if it’ll make any difference as her flights back to Uganda are booked for 17 January.
STV. Scotland Today 13/01/07
http://www.stv.tv/content/news/main/display.html?id=opencms:/news/Angry_demonstrators_call_for_the_release
3 responses so far ↓
Michael Woods // January 22, 2007 at 5:58 pm |
Correct me if I am wrong but does the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibit such actions by the immigration office in that :
Article 2 states;
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all
forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or
beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Article 3 states;
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child
shall be a primary consideration.
Article 16 states;
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home
or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 19 states;
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures
to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent
treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal
guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
There is more. Pardon the length of this comment but it strikes me that our authorities are acting in blatant contravention of these childrens’ rights.
Robert McKenzie // January 26, 2007 at 10:49 pm |
Reply to Mr. Michael Woods:-
In your efforts to use children as a blackmailing tool against our ‘authorities’ you have resorted to copying passages from ‘The Rule Book.’ The children you are referring to are those of asylum seekers. We should ask why their parents force their children to accompany them on the long hazardous journey (hidden in transport etc.) of crossing many countries to seek asylum in the UK whilst ignoring the fact that any person fleeing persecution can seek sanctuary in the nearest safe country. In some cases foreigners offload their children unaccompanied to the UK for the British ‘authorities’ to care for. Surely these parents are guilty of subjecting their children to ‘forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment’ (from your wee rule book, article 19, part section 1.) Pardon me, but it strikes me that the asylum seeking parents are acting in blatant contravention of their childrens’ rights.
Michael Woods // January 29, 2007 at 7:54 pm |
Thank you for pointing that out mr McKenzie.
Yes it is The Rule Book and as such it is incumbent on us as a signatory nation to abide by those rules. It is understandable that an individual might bend the rules in order to acheive a better life. It is reprehensible for an authority to bend some of it’s own rules whilst strictly enforcing others. Read European history 1933 – 1945 perhaps.