Asylum Seeker
This is an extract from the judgment of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in a recent case. The circumstances of this woman’s situation highlight both the importance of asylum, and the grim reality of life for women under the authoritarian rule of Hamas:
After graduating, she worked as a freelance journalist. She managed to obtain commissions because of her experience. This was a paid job. She continued this work until she left Gaza in 2004. She thus worked as a freelance journalist for about 5 years. She mainly worked for Al-Ayyam but also for other newspapers.
Whilst writing at university, she developed an interest in “gender understanding”. This was a social and general problem. Only 11% of journalists were female. There were aspects of Gazan society that posed questions but offered no answers other than gender discrimination.
She became deeply concerned and aware of gender issues. She in fact became recognised as a “woman’s rights advocate”. Her focus was always on how women were being affected. She was concerned with improving the situation for Palestinian women.
She was thus regarded as a feminist journalist although she covered other subjects from time to time. She wrote for magazines as well as newspapers.
…
[further details of the applicant's history of education and work]
…The Appellant became much exercised about the influence of Hamas, especially when they took power in Gaza in June 2007 and this continues to affect her. She did not claim asylum in 2007 when Hamas took power because she did not believe Hamas would retain power in the region. She thought that they would be ousted quickly. She did not believe they would survive a war with Israel.
She also explained that she was heavily influenced in her claim by the war that commenced on 27th December 2008 and the subsequent problems that arose for her from that date. That war clarified many things for her. She realised that Hamas had ruled Gazan society which has dramatically changed under their rule. The recent war and the manner in which Hamas stood up to Israel made her realise they would never concede power. From June 2007 until the present, she gradually came to realise that Hamas was not only a political institution or party, but much more than that. Gaza has slowly become an Islamic republic and is transforming into an extremist environment.
It is shocking for her that even her brothers still support Hamas despite over 1500 people losing their lives in 3 weeks. Even her brothers cannot accept that other people can hold different opinions or not follow the beliefs cultivated in Hamas. Having an opinion contrary to Hamas is tantamount to supporting Israel. During the course of her evidence, she explained that she was, for example, strongly opposed to the use of suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians. She is strongly opposed to the politics of Hamas. She characterises them as self-destructive, violent and counter productive.
She sets out in details her fear of a return to Gaza. She cannot return to Gaza and at the same time write or express anti-Hamas views without being accused of being a betrayer by not supporting Hamas. Nor can she return and remain quiet about what she believes in and write what she wishes to write. She cannot support Hamas and write positively about them. She wishes to continue to express her views and would not be able to do this without fear of persecution were she to be returned to Gaza. All human and political issues are related to Hamas. Everything in Gaza is political. It is not possible to write about one topic without discussing Hamas in relation to that matter.
She was writing about women’s issues and social topics before she left. A woman with her views would be seen as strongly anti-Hamas. She has studied for a long time in the West and has appreciated life there, especially as far as equality between men and women are concerned. Gazan women are told that they are to be killed if they refuse to follow the Islamic expectation that women cover up. Foreign journalists bow to this expectation for the limited period they are there. However, the Appellant would be there permanently and would not have a choice. Originally she intended to return to Gaza at the end of her studies and also intended not to wear a hijab. However, given the resurgence of Hamas in the region which take a hard and uncompromising line, she would be required to wear a hijab or face severe punishment resulting in serious harm to her.
Presently, she does not believe there will be peace while Hamas are in power. She cannot return and live a safe life. Whilst living there, her father was still alive and supported her. Such support is no longer available. Her refusal to requests to wear the hijab would ultimately result in punishment which would be wholly disproportionate to the “crime” committed.
…With regard to the recent conflict, she asserts that Hamas has managed to strengthen its grasp over Gaza. She recalled the early years of the establishment of Hamas and how acid was used to terrorise women and force them to wear the hijab. Many were beaten and abused because they refused to conform. She believes that the war could have been avoided had Hamas considered the lethal impact of conflict with Israel. However, Hamas was determined to defend its control, regardless of the price. Hamas is now viewed as a strong force against Israel. It is now characterised on a par with Hezbollah and Iran. She is not only against the political nature of Hamas but also the patriarchal component of its ideology. Even before it took power, Hamas used its presence in mosques to provoke people against changes in the criminal law in 2003. At that time, the Appellant wrote about this topic and sought to explain the moderate effect of the bill.
She stated in evidence that it was one thing to oppose their stance when they were in opposition. However, it would not be possible for her to express her views in such a manner today without drawing attention and a risk of serious harm to herself. She believes that Islam can be understood and interpreted in different ways. Muslim women have usually been the victims of patriarchal understanding and interpretation of Islam. To promote women’s rights against this understanding is dangerous.
She previously wrote about wearing the veil. This occurred when female supporters of Hamas and their members’ wives and relatives contributed to the phenomenon of wearing the veil. She criticised this phenomenon. She was even then blamed and taunted for doing so. She campaigned and wrote about a fairer, modern family law in Gaza. She took her campaign a step further in a case involving a woman demanding the right to divorce her husband. The conventional understanding in Islam was that divorce is the absolute right for men. Hamas still adopts the traditional interpretation of Islam.
She accordingly wrote an article in 2003 about the woman wanting to divorce her husband, who was unwilling. Several years later the court in fact issued a judgment that she should be entitled to divorce her husband. The Appellant claimed that the husband was annoyed and came to her family’s house asking for her. He was violent at the time and her family reported that he wanted to harm her.
The Appellant asserts that during the last few years, Hamas has been more rigid and fundamentalist than ever. Wearing the hijab is universally implemented in secondary schools. It is even widely spread in elementary schools. Girls as young as seven wear it. She believes that imposing a law compelling the wearing of a hijab degrades those women who do not want to conform to the code. She asserts that she stands for what she believes in and does not want to have to compromise her views. Her refusal to wear a hijab is a further “core issue” on her return as she would be spotted as a non-conformist Palestinian woman. She will be confronted by men and asked to cover up. She will be bound to be questioned about her family. Her family would be disgraced and would face pressure. She faces the intolerable choice therefore of conforming, which is unacceptable to her, or an endless cycle of violence which has no limit or end.
The focal point in Palestinian society is the family. Individuals are identified by their families, members of whom would be disgraced or praised depending upon the attitude taken by the other members. Women are not in the decision or policy making process. It is a patriarchal society. This is exacerbated by Hamas holding the reins of power. She states that her brothers have no intention of supporting her against Gazan society. She has previously had difficult experiences with her brothers but her father was a source of protection and support for her. Her mother is even more “patriarchal” than her brothers.
The issue of the hijab is only one aspect of her ‘feminist’ stances. She would continue working for human rights and women’s rights, which contradicts Hamas’s ideology. The effect of returning her would be to oblige her to change from an independent, motivated and ambitious role model to a subordinated wife whose only dream is to produce as many children as possible. She would be seriously harmed or killed for standing up for her own beliefs.
The Appellant has provided summaries of some of her articles in various publications, including Al-Ayyam from 2001 to 2004. She has written articles on women being the weakest link in the criminal law. She wrote on occasion about women being unable to win elections because of the patriarchal society within Gaza. She has written articles on the following topics: a necessary quota to help female candidates win in an election in 2003; the unmixed university; she has been critical of sex segregation in Gaza’s universities; a Norwegian project transforming women’s lives in Gaza in 2004; a critical report for Sout Al-Nissa over the Islamic rule of polygamy; highlighting so-called honour killings in Gaza City involving women; campaigning against forced marriage; complaining about marginalisation of women to corners of mosques with poor health and safety conditions while men enjoy the main part with good conditions and campaigning against the 1954 family law for its incompatibility with current women’s needs. She has written articles complaining about the inheritance law of Sharia insofar as women are discriminated against. In 2003 she wrote an article dealing with the right of a woman to divorce so as to avoid the risk of being trapped in a marriage for years. The giving to men an exclusive right to divorce was discriminatory and another interpretation of Islamic law in this regard should be considered. She has also written about discrimination in other social contexts such as smoking shisha in cafes limited to men only.
In 2001 she wrote an article dealing with what she calls the reality for women journalists in Gaza. She wrote about a conference held in Gaza by Hamas’ women’s office. She referred to the lack of creativity and mere repetition of the common interpretation of Islamic rules regarding women.
In 2004, she wrote about the increasingly visible phenomenon in Gaza of more women wearing the veil as a sign of the popularity of Islamic extremism which appeared to be spreading all over Gaza.
The Appellant supplemented her written evidence by her oral evidence in which she set out her fears and the alleged basis for them. She stated that she decided not to wear the hijab after she left Gaza in October 2004, when she went to the USA. She used to wear it prior to that. She stated that it was the first time she saw how women operated in other societies, including New York. She met and saw different women on her New York course.
I hope that you will share my relief that this was the conclusion of the judge:
Having considered all the material that is before me, I conclude that returning the Appellant would also breach her Article 3 rights under the Human Rights Convention. She would be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment for the same reasons that she would be at risk of persecution.
Comments
| 22 July 2009, 9:55 pm |
Well she seems like a good candidate for asylum, yes.
However –
1. Asylum should be completely different from immigration. There should be no right to become a UK citizen following on granting of asylum.
2. I do not think the refugee treaties are suitable for the 20th century. For every one genuine story like this there are 20 BS stories.
3. We should have a UN approach to asylum. Various islands and territories around the world should be established where applicants can be assessed. Any person making an application would be sent to the nearest UN designated island or territory. Successful applicants can either live in these territories and earn a living or apply for citizenship to the UN. Applications would be dealt with fairly by population size and economic wealth.
This approach would I believe cause the number of bogus asylum applications.
| 22 July 2009, 9:55 pm |
Next time some numpty starts rattling on about how good women are treated in Islam point them in the direction of that judgement.
If half a billion women decide to cast off the the dehumanizing shroud, the cloak of death, the mantle of misery [(c) the excellent Pat Condell) other superstitious nonsense and apply for asylum in the UK, I’d welcome every single one of them.
| 22 July 2009, 10:08 pm |
She writes mostly for Al-Ayyam, which is not what one would call an anti-fascist board sheet. It is in fact a mouthpiece for Fatah; or “Conquest”.
| 22 July 2009, 10:21 pm |
From a technical point of view the judge appears to have made a clear distinction between Hamas-ruled Gaza and the PA-ruled West Bank. This of course is interesting; the court could have in theory returned the applicant to the WB where, for the time being at least, she would not be forced to wear the hijab or limit her sphere of writing. Of course there are those amongst the Palestinians who are pushing for two separate Palestinian states -an Islamic one in Gaza and a less religiously ruled one (again, for now) in the WB. Has the judge in this case inadvertantly given creedence to this school of thought?
| 22 July 2009, 10:27 pm |
It all depends on how she got here.
The law requires asylum seekers to apply in the first safe country. If that is the UK, this is where she should be.
I also reckon asylum should not automatically confer citizenship, or a British passport. But they should get permission to earn a living, and become taxpayers. After ten years of steady work and no convictions, citizenship should be granted.
| 22 July 2009, 10:40 pm |
Agree with the judge, share David T’s relief, reiterate Morgoths comment and can understand why some people are skeptical about bogus asylum seekers.
Let’s hope she doesn’t start writing articles and missives about how she only wants the West to “understand” the plight of “her” people and how nasty those Israeli Jews are and don’t we understand that if we in the West would just get rid of Israel then all would be well in the world.
Presuming she doesn’t already pen such “forward thinking” ideas, that is.
| 22 July 2009, 10:51 pm |
I’m pleased that this person has been granted asylum. A just judgement. The statement in the judgement should be forcefully made known to the idiot left and the increasingly demented anti zionists.
| 22 July 2009, 10:51 pm |
I just wonder where the apologists for Hamas are? Where’s TheIrie?
PS: and please can we leave the xenophobia at the door?
| 22 July 2009, 11:15 pm |
What xenophobia?
| 22 July 2009, 11:18 pm |
There should be no right to become a UK citizen following on granting of asylum.
Nor is there. One has to have had Permanent Leave to Remain for at least ten years before one is allowed to naturalize.
Various islands and territories around the world should be established where applicants can be assessed. Any person making an application would be sent to the nearest UN designated island or territory. Successful applicants can either live in these territories and earn a living or apply for citizenship to the UN. Applications would be dealt with fairly by population size and economic wealth.
Chad is a very poor country, most of which is desert. It currently hosts over 250,000 refugees from Sudan and another 40,000 from the Central African Republic. This is the equivalent of the UK sheltering about 1.75 million, instead of the 300,000 refugees and asylum seekers it currently houses. Your scheme would certainly seem very favourable to countries like Chad who could then rehouse their refugees in territories with more room and less demand on their very scant resources, such as Canada or the US or much of Europe.
I fully support this lady’s right to asylum. But then I don’t believe that because, she appears still to be a Muslim, and therefore “indistinguishable from a Nazi,” she constitutes an existential threat to the West or to humanity in general as many posters here seem to think. On the contrary, she is a very brave woman whose presence in the UK does it nothing but credit.
| 22 July 2009, 11:19 pm |
Sorry. Preview, preview, preview…
There should be no right to become a UK citizen following on granting of asylum.
Nor is there. One has to have had Permanent Leave to Remain for at least ten years before one is allowed to naturalize.
Various islands and territories around the world should be established where applicants can be assessed. Any person making an application would be sent to the nearest UN designated island or territory. Successful applicants can either live in these territories and earn a living or apply for citizenship to the UN. Applications would be dealt with fairly by population size and economic wealth.
Chad is a very poor country, most of which is desert. It currently hosts over 250,000 refugees from Sudan and another 40,000 from the Central African Republic. This is the equivalent of the UK sheltering about 1.75 million, instead of the 300,000 refugees and asylum seekers it currently houses. Your scheme would certainly seem very favourable to countries like Chad who could then rehouse their refugees in territories with more room and less demand on their very scant resources, such as Canada or the US or much of Europe.
I fully support this lady’s right to asylum. But then I don’t believe that because, she appears still to be a Muslim, and therefore “indistinguishable from a Nazi,” she constitutes an existential threat to the West or to humanity in general as many posters here seem to think. On the contrary, she is a very brave woman whose presence in the UK does it nothing but credit.
| 22 July 2009, 11:34 pm |
Anaximanders other sandal: your fears about what she may write about Israel may be reassured. The judgment found that:
One of the main political differences between herself and Hamas arose out of the indiscriminate killing by Hamas of Israeli citizens. She did write about such topics when a suicide bomber killed civilians. An article that she wrote for Al-Ayyam in 2004 concerned the recruitment of a mother of two children by Hamas to be the first female suicide bomber in Gaza. The Appellant was critical of such activity, particularly as regards the unfortunate children who lost their mother.
She also wrote an article in Al Ayam entitled: the Politicisation of Children – an Unforgivable Crime?”.
| 22 July 2009, 11:42 pm |
Monty: “…It all depends on how she got here.
The law requires asylum seekers to apply in the first safe country. If that is the UK, this is where she should be.”
Since there are no direct flights between the UK and Gaza, she must have passed through either Israel or Egypt (perhaps both) before arriving here. Are these not considered safe countries for asylum purposes?
| 22 July 2009, 11:42 pm |
“I hope that you will share my relief that this was the conclusion of the judge:”
I would hope so! Any other outcome would have made a mockery of justice.
| 22 July 2009, 11:45 pm |
Does anyone know where to get the statistics for all the asylum applications submitted to, and granted by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference? I’d really like to know.
I’m not saying this applicant should have been directed to any of them, because my position is that she would be at risk. But I’m mightily teed off that we aren’t ever supposed to mention this aspect of our brave new multicultural world.
| 22 July 2009, 11:48 pm |
I hope that Prof Beverley Milton-Edwards, late of Conflicts Forum reads this post.
Shortly after Hamas was voted into power in Gaza, she went on BBC Radio 4 ‘Sunday’ to speculate about what life would be like under Hamas. And a very rosy picture she painted as well. There would be a push against state corruption, attempts to improve Gazan infrastructure. Hamas would be responsive to the concerns of its electorate.
All tosh of course. Anyone with half a brain could have foreseen the corruption, violence and terror that Hamas would impose, and did impose on its Fatah opponents within days of Milton-Edwards’ fawning commentary.
May this woman find peace in the UK. And may she swiftly begin to challenge the silence over the vile Hamas which sullies UK journalism.
| 22 July 2009, 11:53 pm |
“It all depends on how she got here.” The judgment states she was already in the UK on a genuine student visa, when she claimed asylum in Jan 2009, after continuing support for Hamas after the Jan conflict led her to believe that Hamas was not only entrenched, but that its policies were being accepted by the majority of the inhabitants. She had previously believed that Hamas would be overthrown by the time her course came to an end.
| 23 July 2009, 12:00 am |
Hasan –
Yes it would be fairer to these very poor countries carrying the burden of large numbers of refugees. Of course some poor countries might volunteer to provide territory for the UN in return for a large annual grant.
I think you misunderstand one point though – I do not mean that UN countries would sign up to receive an unlimited number of asylum seekers. I would say that a reasonable number should be set. Probably 1 per 2000 population would be about right – say 30,000 per annum for the UK or 500,000 for India.
Of course such a scheme would never ever be adopted. I think we should abrogate the refugee treaties and announce a reasonable limit – 30,000 in my view – and then invite applications from people around the world. We would take those who are clearly committed to democracy and wish to assimilate in our country.
| 23 July 2009, 12:17 am |
Has the judge in this case inadvertantly given creedence to this school of thought? Israelinurse: I think it is up to the lawyers for the Home Office(Respondent) to raise the issue and argue for internal relocation if it is thought an appropriate course of action.
Thus it was accepted in a Darfur case that although the applicants would be in danger if returned to Darfur, they would be safe if returned to Khartoum. (Tragically, this proved not to be the case and one person forcibly returned was killed) In this case, either it did not occur to the Respondent to argue this, or they did and considered it inappropriate, perhaps because they do regard West Bank as a separate entity.
| 23 July 2009, 12:24 am |
field @ 22 July 2009, 9:55 pm
” do not think the refugee treaties are suitable for the 20th century. ”
That’s exactly when they were written and adopted.
| 23 July 2009, 1:40 am |
Alan Ji –
Yes, my apologies. Typo. I do know they came in around 1950. Prior to jet travel, speed boats and all the rest.
I meant to say they were not suitable for the 21st century.
| 23 July 2009, 10:18 am |
We have South Georgia and the Falklands!
| 23 July 2009, 10:28 am |
It is in fact a mouthpiece for Fatah
So?
I also think, Anaximander, that even if this woman were to write articles that criticised Israel, she still has the right to remain here rather than be shipped back to that shithole. She wasn’t permitted to stay in the UK because the judge thought she’d write nice cuddly tales about how lovely Israel is.
| 23 July 2009, 1:03 pm |
She deserves asylum. However, granting it would set a precendent for the millions of women who find themselves in similar situations all across the Islamic world. How many Iranian women, for instance, run risks just like this gal?
That said, I think this appellant would do much more good for Palestianians were she to remain in the UK rather than being returned to Gaza.
| 23 July 2009, 1:09 pm |
Field, I’m slightly confused by your plans. You say a reasonable figure accepted for asylum per year would be 30,000 for the UK, but for example there were only 23,430 total asylum applications in 2007 to the UK. I’m not sure why then you would seek to increase the number of asylum seekers but then ship them off to a desert island somewhere. Also, the total number of worldwide asylum seekers according to the UN is quite considerably lower than the number you suggest India should take. For example, in the first 6 months of 2006, there were 134,900 total asylum seekers worldwide.
I think your plans would be cruel and a waste of money.
| 23 July 2009, 5:08 pm |
“She wrote on occasion about women being unable to win elections because of the patriarchal society within Gaza.”
Except of course for Miryam Farhat AKA Umm Nidal, mother of three suicide terrorists, who used her blood money to fund her electoral campaign and was elected under the Hamas banner.
Israelinurse — interesting that you say some Palestinians want to see separate political entities set up in the WB and Gaza. Where does that leave the usual suspects who decry Israel for creating “bantustans”?
| 23 July 2009, 5:13 pm |
Dan Dare
22 July 2009, 11:42 pm
Since there are no direct flights between the UK and Gaza, she must have passed through either Israel or Egypt (perhaps both) before arriving here. Are these not considered safe countries for asylum purposes?
Egypt certainly wasn’t very safe for Darfurians and Eritreans trying to escape the Islamists in their benighted homelands. A number have been killed in the last year or so by Egyptian police for trying to enter Israel.
I guess the poor souls didn’t realize that Israel is a heinous apartheid state. / sarcasm
Hard to say how unsafe this woman would be in Israel though.
| 23 July 2009, 7:19 pm |
David T. Thank you for this. It seems the system can work from time to time.
| 23 July 2009, 7:47 pm |
I am glad the judge found in her favour.
I hope she will be able to make a good life for herself here, away from the extremism which threatened her in Gaza.
I hope that she will use her safety to speak out and tell Islamist apologists here the truth about Hamas.
| 23 July 2009, 7:57 pm |
This is the case I mentioned before, Lynne T.
The lawyer from the Home Office, in opposing this appeal against the Home Office refusal, argued ingeniously that because some of the newspapers had been closed down or banned, she would no longer be subject to the possibility of violent or degrading treatment as a journalist. That is because there would be no opportunity for her to publish in the first place.
The judge declared :
I find that an unattractive and unappealing submission.
| 23 July 2009, 8:37 pm |
This woman is not alone, see:
| 23 July 2009, 10:27 pm |
Thanks for that link Serendipity. The judgment in fact includes a reference to a briefer earlier news report about the persecution on the beach of this other woman journalist interviewed here by Chessler.
| 23 July 2009, 10:39 pm |
Amie:
I assume you mean the British Home Office and not the equivalent in Israel.
All I was getting at is that Khalid Abu Toameh requires a certain degree of protection for writing unflattering things about Fatah and Hamas in the JPost and other places. If this woman was to move to Israel and publish anti-Hamas, anti-hejab, anti-fundamentalist articles, I’m not sure she wouldn’t run afoul of certain Arab factions in Israel.
| 24 July 2009, 8:56 am |
Lynnr T: I am indeed referring to the British Home Office. It was they who refused her application for Asylum in the UK, against which she appealed. Israel was not in any way involved in the application.
My comment was unrelated to your suggestion about her safety in Israel. I was not making any comment on your contentions, I was just mentioning as a matter of passing interest one of the more specious arguments of the lawyer representing the Home Office in the appeal.
| 24 July 2009, 3:13 pm |
MITNAGED – ‘I hope that she will use her safety to speak out and tell Islamist apologists here the truth about Hamas.’
I feel sure that she will.
Problem is that the apologists for Hamas know the truth but the destruction of the one true western liberal democracy in the Middle East is far more important to them than the well being of Palestinians.
We are all greatly relieved that this brave woman has been spared the danger she will face in Gaza.
I believe we can use this judgement to characterise Gaza and Hamas to whoever feels like supporting them.
Terrorists killers and deniers of human rights.