|
Grassroots women win political precedent for women’s rights: RAPE BY SOLDIERS CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS ‘SIMPLE LUST’ In a landmark victory, Ms Rose Najjemba, a rape victim from Uganda, has won the right to stay in the UK. A mother of five, Ms Najjemba was violently raped during interrogation by Ugandan soldiers while her son was beaten almost to death in front of her – he was then taken away by soldiers, and has never been heard of since. In fear for her life, Ms Najjemba managed to flee to Britain where she applied for asylum – she was detained and her claim rejected. According to the authorities, her rape did not amount to political persecution by soldiers but was “sexual gratification”! Winning her right to stay came only after a determined and sustained campaign which publicised the facts of the case in many ways, including on national BBC radio. Women Against Rape’s (WAR) open letter in December 2002 called on women MPs, feminists and other prominent women not to turn their backs on Ms Najjemba and women like her who face the sexism, racism and inhumanity of asylum legislation. “Unless the decision [on Ms Najjemba’s case] is overturned, the government will have succeeded in using the ‘feminism’ of having 101 New Labour women MPs as a cover for brutally sexist and inhumane policies.” As a result there was an immediate outpouring of concern. The UNHCR response expressed “grave doubts as to whether Ms Najjemba’s request for international protection in the UK was given the full, fair and balanced consideration required by the letter – and the humanitarian spirit – of the 1951 Refugee Convention.” In the light of this public outcry, the government – which claims to be concerned with rape but has little regard for rape victims, especially those of us who are asylum seekers – was forced to back down. Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes conceded that “it is clear that what [she] suffered amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.” This is a major political precedent for women’s rights. Ms Najjemba's asylum claim had been repeatedly rejected by the Home Office, the Immigration Adjudicator, the High Court and Appeal Court, all of which refused to recognise her suffering as persecution or torture. Although the authorities accepted everything Ms Najjemba had told them, they claimed it was safe for her to return because the soldiers had just wanted "sexual gratification," driven by “simple dreadful lust”. Even the likely murder of her son was dismissed as having no bearing on her safety if she had to return. She has lived with the threat of imminent deportation for three years, tortured as every mother would be by the near certainty that her oldest son must be dead and by lack of contact with her four remaining children. She was so desperate at being detained in Oakington Detention Centre that she attempted to take her own life. On hearing that she had won, Ms Najjemba said: “When I received the wonderful news I was over the moon. This is a problem which has been eating me up every day. I have to thank God for the ‘special ladies’ at WAR who have been helping me and I want to thank my lawyer who has been working with them, and everyone who has supported me, so much. It was a long journey but I was not alone. There are many other women suffering like me. I would say to them that you must never give up. I hope this victory for justice helps others who deserve recognition and protection.” Ian Macdonald QC, the leading UK immigration barrister, who provided representation free of charge to Ms Najjemba in the High Court, said: “Without the commitment, the experience and the attention to detail of WAR, Rose Najjemba would not have won her case. Of this I am quite sure. The Minister has righted a terrible miscarriage of justice by a decision, which, I hope, will scotch for ever the outdated notion that rape by on-duty security forces can properly be classified as mere acts of 'dreadful lust', rather than persecutory conduct. An Early Day Motion presented by Vera Baird MP addressed this sexism: “That this House calls on the Home Office to ensure that women seeking asylum . . . after fleeing rape or other sexual violence perpetrated by agents of the state, should be treated in the same way as men who suffer from other forms of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment . . .” It is estimated that over 50% of women asylum seekers in the UK are fleeing rape, mostly by soldiers, police or others agents of the state. Ms Najjemba’s case is one of many where the Home Office has refused to recognise the torture of rape. While the use of rape as a weapon of war has been increasingly acknowledged, and we have helped a number of women from Kosovo win their cases at appeal, it has been much harder for women from Africa to get justice. Racism is compounded by sexism at every stage of the legal process. For example, the UNHCR cites lack of psychiatric services in Kosovo as grounds for granting the right to stay to those in need of such specialist services. No such consideration is, to our knowledge, given to protect those who flee from war-torn Africa. Is it only Europeans who are entitled to specialist support to recover from their ordeal? Are African women expected to endure rape and other torture as just a fact of life? In the case of Ms X, a refugee from Zaire, the Home Office accepted that she was raped, but refused to believe that it happened during her three weeks in detention in Zaire because rape was commonplace in Kinshasa, where she lived. When women’s cases are put fully before the courts, the Home Office’s refusal to allow them to stay has been repeatedly overruled, exposing the government’s “bogus asylum seekers” rhetoric for the lie that it is. As the recent High Court ruling rejecting legislation which imposed destitution on thousands of asylum seekers showed, the Home Office crusade against asylum seekers is so brutal that it constantly skirts legality, often going over the edge if allowed to. In October 2002, WAR saw its grant cut by 100% as Labour councillors on the Association of Local Government block voted, overriding concerns by all opposition councillors and by over 60 letters from victims, lawyers and others stating that if WAR was cut, there was nowhere else for rape victims like Ms Najjemba and/or wheelchair users to go. Mayor and Camden representative Cllr Judith Pattison, justified the cut saying there were “hundreds” of groups which do this work. But no one is ready to provide the name of even one such group, and those who work in this field know that the services provided by WAR and BWRAP are unique. Such services include: providing reports for Appeal and other hearings; finding accountable lawyers; detailed legal advocacy including preparing for court applications and hearings; attending psychiatric and other health appointments; preventing dispersal away from support networks; stopping last-minute removals and securing women’s release from detention; repeatedly challenging inappropriate and insecure housing and living conditions, including the racism of accommodation providers; making sure women have money for food and other essentials, as well as ongoing counselling and other support, sometimes on a daily basis. Without intensive personal and public support, Ms Najjemba would have been deported long ago and may by now have been dead. If this is how Ms Najjemba, who speaks English and has the support of two committed organisations, has been treated, what are women suffering who are not in touch with us, and who don’t speak English? Ms Najjemba’s victory comes at a time when increasing numbers of people worldwide are being displaced by wars, and when thousands of women and children are fleeing the devastation in Iraq, even as Iraqi refugees continue to be deported from the UK. In fighting for rape survivors, we have had to confront UK government assertions that countries such as Uganda, which spends 75% of its budget on the military and whose government has excellent relations with the UK, are “safe” from human rights violations. David Blunkett’s plan for detention camps away from public scrutiny possibly in Russia or Eastern Europe, is a recipe for rape, suicide and even murder. It is increasingly known that women and children are particularly vulnerable to rape and other violence by so-called “peacekeepers”, aid agencies and NGOs. Recent investigations into the treatment of women and girls in West African camps forced into sex with officials to get food and other basic provisions, have conceded that such violations took place. But the researcher who exposed the truth was effectively sacked for “whistleblowing,” and no action has been taken against any of the perpetrators. Ms Najjemba’s fight for recognition of the full horrors of what she suffered continues. An application challenging the dismissal of the rape she suffered has been lodged in the European Court of Human Rights. Despite New Labour’s opposition, we will not be silenced in our efforts to ensure that women raped in other countries who claim asylum get the same standard of treatment that women raped in the UK are entitled to expect. We refuse to allow the witch-hunting of asylum seekers as "bogus" to divide us as women. A selection of cases where women won asylum from rape with our helpThe Adjudicator at Ms K’s appeal accepted the case put by the Home Office, which did not dispute her account of a brutal gang rape but claimed that since her brother’s political involvement, not her own, had provoked the soldiers’ attacks on her, she was not their intended victim claiming that even though “she happened to be present at the time of the soldiers’ arrival at the house I do not consider that the authorities even then had any interest in her”. Her claim was rejected even though she was detained, raped and tortured by Ugandan soldiers after her brother’s death. Ms K was refused a Tribunal appeal but we helped her overturn this decision at judicial review, and her case was heard again with detailed account of her experiences recorded in BWRAP’s report, and she was awarded full refugee status. The Home Office disputed Ms M’s claim for asylum all the way to the High Court, arguing that the two years of imprisonment and rape she suffered was insufficiently different to the slaps around the face she had originally reported to overturn their decision to refuse her. NINE years after Ms M fled Uganda, Mr Justice Sullivan accepted WAR’s evidence that the trauma she suffered meant that she had been “unable” not “unwilling” to speak about the rape she suffered, and therefore the new information must be considered. This established a case law precedent which is widely used. .At her Appeal Hearing, the HO conceded that MS B from Cote D’Ivoire had been raped but suggested it had been carried out by “rogue elements of the military”. The Special Adjudicator accepted BWRAP’s evidence that Ms B had been raped as a result of her political activities and ruled that because of what had happened, “she would be at risk were she to be returned” and that “if she were rounded up again that in itself may amount to persecution”. She was given full refugee status. Terrified of her husband’s response, Ms B had never spoken about the rape she suffered whilst in detention in Turkey. It was only at her Appeal hearing under cross-examination by her own legal representative that she was pressed to reveal more of what had happened. In his ruling refusing her appeal, Special Adjudicator Mr IMS Donnell stated “It was only in her evidence that she said that she had been sexually assaulted . . . The latter allegation in my view was introduced belatedly in order to support her claim.” His ruling was sent to her home, so that Ms B’s husband learnt about the sexual violence she suffered. Just as Ms B feared, her husband beat her and then left. When WAR documented the terrible carelessness and brutality with which Ms B had been treated, the HO withdrew their refusal and granted Ms B ELR in full. Her solicitor was unequivocal that this decision resulted from the strength of our report. Ms K was raped by two pimps trying to force her into prostitution in Lithuania. She fled to the UK when the rapists went to her home with a copy of her police statement. She provided press clippings detailing local police corruption and involvement in the sex industry, but no mention of this was made in the Home Office letter refusing her claim, nor of the rapists having obtained a copy of her police statement. Instead it simply asserted that she could have sought protection in Lithuania. With our help, Ms K won full refugee status when the Adjudicator accepted the argument that young women in Lithuania constitute a “social group”, vulnerable to rape and other violence to force them into the sex industry. Lithuania is now on the so-called “White List” of safe countries, and all asylum applications from there are assumed to be “bogus”; there is no right of appeal in the UK – applicants are deported to Lithuania and told to appeal from there. How
we won: Urgent appeal to women in prominent positions & women's
organisations
as rape
survivor faces deportation as her rape by soldiers is judged not torture
but “sexual gratification” and “simple lust”.
Rape by soldiers is much more than 'simple lust': Court of Appeal rules on asylum
case
|