The Parish Church of St John-at-Hampstead

1/6/2008

Refugee Week 16th – 20th June John Willmer

The treatment of asylum seekers by the UK “falls seriously below the standards to be expected of a humane and civilised society”. This was the finding of the Independent Asylum Commission in its interim report, published at the end of March this year. This body, co-chaired by Sir John Waite, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal, and Ifath Nawaz, had conducted an independent review of the UK asylum system, taking evidence over a period of many months in a thorough independent examination. It found that a culture of disbelief persists among decision-makers, which along with lack of access to legal advice for applicants leads to perverse and unjust decisions.

Three elements of the system were particularly criticised: the use of detention centres to lock up children, pregnant women and torture victims; the often brutal handling of removals; and the use of destitution as a tool to drive people out of the country. Sir John Waite said: “The overuse of detention, the scale of destitution and the severity of removals are all areas which need attention before the system can be described as fit for purpose.”

Bishops too have spoken out against this country’s treatment of asylum seekers. For example, the Bishop of Durham criticised “the careless and shabby treatment our supposedly civilised country now metes out….to those who have come here validly seeking asylum”. The Archbishop of York warned against “the politics of fear which inform our immigration policy” . The Archbishop of Wales said that the death of Ama Sunami, a Ghanaian cancer sufferer who was deported, was “on the conscience of this nation because we deported her when it was against every humanitarian instinct to do so”.

All this and more should give us food for thought as we approach Refugee Week. Is this a system which, as Christians, we wish to see continue? Numerous passages in the Bible illustrate how we should treat the destitute, the imprisoned, the stranger, not least Matthew 25, vv 31 to 46.

For some years this church has supported the Refugee Council, but for this triennium the PCC, following the recommendation of its Outreach and Giving Group, has decided instead to support two other charities working in this field.

One of these is the Medical Foundation for the care of victims of torture. This provides survivors of torture in this country with medical assistance and care. This often requires months or even years of psychotherapeutic treatment and support. Victims of torture are often so traumatised that they find it impossible to recount or come to terms with what has happened without long and skilled treatment. This trauma may be made worse by the unbelieving treatment they may receive on arrival in this country, and also by detention without proper access to treatment. An article on child victims in the Medical Foundation’s annual review for 2006-2007 began: “Each year several hundred children are treated at the MF’s London centre. Survivors of torture, their emotional turmoil is often compounded by the suspicion with which they are treated by sceptical British immigration officials.” Another aspect of the MF’s work is to provide expert legal advice to challenge negative asylum decisions and to educate the public and decision-makers about torture and its consequences and to seek to ensure that the UK honours its international obligations to survivors of torture, asylum seekers and refugees.

The second charity which this church will be supporting is the London Churches Refugee Fund. This was launched in 2007 by the ecumenical London Churches Refugee Network, composed of about 150 church related organisations across London, to help them respond to the needs of destitute asylum seekers and refugees, particularly in relation to travel, food and accommodation. The Church of England patron of the Fund is the Bishop of Edmonton. One of the causes of such destitution is the Government’s policy of removing all support from asylum seekers when their claim has been rejected in an attempt to force them to return to their country of origin, even in cases where this, to the knowledge of the authorities, is impossible owing to the conditions in that country, or when the decision is under appeal.

John Willmer