Women's Views on News |
- Immigration detention: time for a time limit
- Patronising Better Together ad parodied
- The power of sexist language
| Immigration detention: time for a time limit Posted: 10 Sep 2014 06:31 AM PDT
By Jessica Kennedy and Penny Keza. The countdown to the UK general election is on, and with a collective push we could yet make change for those still languishing in immigration detention centres on our shores. Over 30,000 people were locked up in the UK last year – but not because they had committed a crime. They were trying to apply for the right to stay in this country. They had the misfortune to enter a system that uses detention in prison-like conditions, sometimes for years, as an administrative tool. Immigration detention is meant to be a last resort, just before a person is removed from the UK. According to Home Office policy, detention can be used 'where there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period'. Detention 'must be used sparingly, and for the shortest possible period necessary'. But how can someone be 'about to be removed' for three, four or five years? There are many reasons why people cannot be deported, as this collection of twenty stories from across the EU illustrates. People who do not have travel documents. A disputed country of origin. Statelessness. Medical issues. The courts have found several times that the UK government has illegally detained people when there was no realistic prospect of removal – yet there seems to have been no change in policy. Not only is it wasteful, detention is expensive, estimated to cost around £47,000 per person. If you have never been to detention, or never had a phone call from someone you care about from detention, count yourself lucky. I first got a phone call from someone in detention on an afternoon in November. Hearing the desperation in my friend's voice – he had been taken to detention and told he would be deported, despite having an ongoing case with the Home Office – I realised that I was near powerless to help. That feeling will never leave me. I now work with the Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum (The Forum), which promotes the rights of refugees and migrants in the UK. We support a large number of people who have been in detention, often for months and years at a time. I invited Penny, one of our members who recently won the right to stay in this country and who had spent 14 weeks in Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre, to share her story. Life in detention: 'A huge void' For Penny, it was a sunny Thursday morning in 2007 when she first entered the detention system: 'I had been assisting a friend who owned an Internet café. I was doing my usual chores when I was approached by four gentlemen who informed me that they had a search warrant for the premises. 'The search lasted about 3.5 hours, and when it was over I was taken into custody and told I was assisting the police. 'I spent almost two nights in the cells. The following evening, I was picked up and taken to what would become to me a home for the next 98 days – the dreaded detention centre, via a few other police stations. 'I left the police station on Friday at around 9:00pm, and arrived at the detention place on Saturday around 6:00am. 'This is a journey that normally takes less than two hours but it took us almost eight hours. 'By the time we arrived I had no sense of direction. I felt lost in a wilderness. I managed to reach detention in one piece, having had episodes of hysterical laughter and tears. I wished for death so that I would escape my misery. Everything around me looked like a huge void. I had already tried to kill myself in prison but my therapist had talked me out of it on the phone'. As the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has emphasised, seeking asylum is not an unlawful act. Yet the UK routinely locks up those seeking asylum or immigration. Lord Ramsbotham, former chief inspector of prisons and member of the Independent Asylum Commission, in his foreword to a 2011 report for Detention Action remembered a speech made by Winston Churchill in which he said, "the way in which it treated crime and criminals was a true test of the civilisation of any country". Lord Ramsbotham explains: 'Most asylum and immigration seekers have committed no crime, which makes how they are treated an even starker test.' 'In all too many respects I fear that the way in which this country treats such people does not warrant an epithet which we were once proud to claim throughout the world.' This year marks 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta. Whatever that episode in history was really about – feudal barons making a pact with the king, with not an ordinary person in sight – it has become a popular rallying cry for democracy. The protection of ordinary people from the state and right to due process remain in our principles of law. Another member of The Forum that I spoke to recently, who has been in detention for several years, was furious: 'how dare the UK', he said, 'claim to be the home of democracy when even other countries have limits on how long they can lock someone up?'. Human costs of indefinite detention A 2009 article in the British Journal of Psychiatry, echoing research from around the world, emphasises the negative health impacts of detention, especially on those fleeing violence, persecution or other trauma. These impacts are long term, and increase dramatically after more than 28 days in detention. The stories we have gathered paint a picture of the psychological effects of being locked up. As Penny describes, 'The worst thing, apart from fear and humiliation, was uncertainty. I had no idea if and when I would be released or deported. 'I lost the sense of time because there was nothing to do apart from sit and wait. My first two weeks passed by in a blur; the program was made up of shower, eat, sleep. There was literally nothing to do – so you had to try and fill the void by either re-reading novels you had read a few times or making up an excuse to go to the healthcare services so that that you could meet up with other people for a quick chat. 'I went through a period of psychotic breakdown, I had to attend a number of therapy sessions to get to my senses. I went on a hunger strike, tried to commit suicide – all for the sake of trying to have my voice heard in the midst of the chaotic world. 'There are both short and long term effects of detention. You might experience one or the other. I have experienced both. 'Most of the common effects ones include physical effects and mental ones like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD), depression, suicidal idealisations… 'The consequences of detention can be long-term, impacting profoundly on all areas of life; mind, body and soul, regardless of whether one is allowed to stay or required to leave at the end of the whole process'. Detention also has an impact on physical health: we've met people who developed heart problems, blood pressure or diabetes in detention, pregnant women who were refused treatments, people who were given paracetamol for serious tooth infections and high fever, the elderly and the sick who were handcuffed to their hospital beds – and worse, stories of sexual assault, suicide and death. A chance to end indefinite detention? A core problem with detention is that this fear, humiliation and suffering is not even effective. Of the 30,000 or so people detained this year, detention was demonstrably futile in the cases of over 13,000 people: the proportion of those who were removed was only 56 per cent. Moreover, recent years have seen a slew of scandals involving detention centres in the UK, in part because of the bravery of whistleblowers and those who have suffered in immigration detention. This includes the women of Yarls Wood who won the chance to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee about allegations of sexual harassment, those who spoke out after the death of a woman at Yarl's Wood and those who probed the deaths of Bruno Dos Santos and Brian Dalrymple. For those who know about detention, Penny and I am saying nothing new. But this year, we also have an opportunity. There is a parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention. More importantly, there is an election. That's why The Forum is supporting Citizens UK's Sanctuary Pledge 2015, which calls for a time limit on detention. Alternatives to detention do exist. Reporting and monitoring are already used, whilst evidence from around the world suggests that building more trust in the system through effective casework and welfare approaches lessens the risk of people absconding before they are due to be deported. If public opinion turned strongly enough against the current practice of locking up innocent people for years at a time, the government would have to move in this direction. I know this because I've seen it happen. Five years ago, I was part of a coalition of organisations that fought for a commitment to end the detention of immigrant children and families. People up and down the country used the election as a chance to lobby MPs and political parties. The numbers of children being held in immigration removal centres dropped from over 1,000 in 2009 to 8 in 2013. New pre-departure accommodation for families was introduced, with a leading children's charity on site to ensure children's welfare. The policy became law and there is now independent oversight of the family removals process. The countdown to the general election is on, and with a collective push we could yet make change for those still languishing in immigration detention. For as Penny says, 'Detention is a shameful world to live in. Detention is a place I would not want my worst enemy to ever go through.' Jessica Kennedy is Development Co-ordinator at The Forum, which supports refugee and migrant communities and individuals in the UK. Penny Keza is a former detainee. A version of this article appeared in OpenDemocracy on 7 September 2014.  |
| Patronising Better Together ad parodied Posted: 10 Sep 2014 04:15 AM PDT
Scots have until 18 September to decide their country's future, but the creators of this Better Together promotional video have clearly already made their minds up about women. 'The woman who made up her mind' follows a Scottish woman weighing up the pros and cons of Scottish independence from her kitchen, cup of tea in hand. After complaining about her husband talking about the referendum in the morning – 'It's too early to discuss politics. Eat your cereal!' – the woman sighs that she doesn't trust 'that man off the telly'. Bemoaning that 'there's only so many hours in the day', she eventually decides to vote ‘No’. ‘Better Together’ is the principal organisation representing the parties, organisations, and individuals campaigning for a No vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The ad's director claims to have used words 'taken verbatim from conversations on doorstops with undecided women voters' and from the 'opinion of women in dozens of focus groups around the country'. However, the clip has prompted many rightfully offended people to lambast its sexism on Twitter under the hashtag #PatronisingBTLady. Patronising Better Together Lady has now reached meme status, with social media users parodying the ad's portrayal of women as politically disinterested and incapable of engaging in the referendum debate.
To tell Better Together how you feel about their ad, contact them here.  |
| Posted: 10 Sep 2014 01:09 AM PDT
The 'Ban Bossy' campaign has taken off. Launched by Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg, 'Ban Bossy' is a campaign to stop negative language influencing how young girls perceive themselves. 'When a little boy asserts himself,' the website says, 'he's called a "leader". ‘Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded "bossy". ‘Words like ‘bossy’ send a message: don't raise your hand or speak up. ‘By middle school [secondary school], girls are less interested in leading than boys – a trend that continues into adulthood.' But it's not just young girls who are affected by sexist language. Writing in the Guardian recently, Jess Zimmerman highlighted the results of an informal survey conducted by technology CEO Kieran Snyder of 278 employee performance reviews from a range of technology companies. It revealed that women who work in technology fields are getting pulled up on the very same actions and characteristics which allow men to succeed. Even in the positive reviews of women, criticism of the woman's personality was highly likely. Words such as 'abrasive', 'judgemental', 'strident', 'bossy', and 'irrational' came up again and again in reviews of women – and they were instructed to step back and 'let others shine'. For the men, however, suggestions for further development took pride of place. This, Zimmerman argued, is what Sheryl Sandberg has missed with her 'ban bossy' campaign: the inclusion of women in masculine-dominated industries who are still hearing that their leadership qualities are not valued. “We tend to talk about the "pipeline problem" of women in science and technology as if the only difficulty is funnelling girls into the pipe, at which point they can just waterslide into the pool of gainful employment,” Zimmerman said. “But the problem is that the pipeline is plugged. “Anyone who slides all the way to the end will fetch up against a blockage of lazy, retrogressive attitudes about how women should behave.” It's easier to focus on 'banning bossy' for young girls, Zimmerman pointed out, because they are unthreatening and not going to take anyone's jobs. However if women who make it into 'boys' club' industries such as science and technology are still being treated with the same language, we've got it wrong. Also writing for the Guardian recently, Emily Saner pointed out the broader terms which are reserved only for women, including 'feisty', 'fierce', 'bossy', 'flounce', 'nag', 'whine' and 'hysterical'. Perhaps worst of all, however, is the media's insistence on focusing on a professional woman's position in relation to her family as her defining feature. This was showcased most recently when a newspaper reported on the appointment of Rona Fairhead to the position of BBC Trust chair. Fairhaid has a long list of prior achievements to her name – including being the former chair and CEO of the Financial Times group and a non-executive director of HSBC and PepsiCo. But the newspaper in question decided to ignore these and instead plump for the title: 'Mother of three poised to lead the BBC.' It doesn't take a degree in linguistics to see how easily language can be used to downgrade the characteristics and achievements of women, and what a powerful tool it can be – is – in subtly propagating sexism.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |