Home Log In or Register Forums

Who cares anyway?

Home > Who cares anyway?
Asylum
Who cares anyway?
Who cares anyway? According to Yahoo! News, the friendly and well-intentioned Home Secretary David Blunkett has "tightened" asylum rules.

Now, not only will the Home Office prosecute people who go back to visit their families in the country they fed from (God forbid you'd be willing to risk your life to see your wife and children...), but they will also stop treating asylum applications by post!

Who would apply for asylum by post, anyway? Why would you try to know if the country you're fleeing to will accept you? No! Much better to risk getting a trip to the UK and being publicly and officially turned down, whereby your country (who, remember, is looking for you to rip your nails off) will be informed to "collect" you! Hurray!

I'm glad to see that this Labour government, so supportive of humanitarian causes, is not bending to the xenophobic winds of the British tabloids... Good to see that there's still political vision and courage to say "let's try to help people, not kick them out or treat them like animals".

That entire paragraph was a tiny bit sarcastic, by the way.

Anyway, who cares? About the refugees, I mean. Or maybe I should call them "asylum-seekers"; after all, the word "refugee" has some strange connotations with things like "running away", whilst "asylum" apparently only has connotations with what the tabloids want it to. But who cares about them? We're all too concerned about us, and all the evil things asylum-seekers will do to our ordered and civil society.

Take that bastion of intellectual spark and humanitarian feelings, the Daily Express: the other day its front page headline, in 10cm-high letters, read: "ASYLUM: THE FINAL DISASTER". It then discussed in a very enlightened way how the "huge influx" of asylum-seekers was "destroying" our educational system, because of all these foreign kids who can't speak English properly!

And I thought it was under funding that was "destroying" the educational system... never mind. Who cares about the asylums-seekers' kids anyway? The Daily Express thinks of them as much as you'd think of the next generation of a rat plague, apparently. They could have a special promotion where you buy the newspaper and get a free British National Party membership card...

And why should anyone care about David Blunkett's latest punch in the face of those in need of refu-- oh, sorry, I meant "asylum", of course. Still, the most interesting bit of his new policy is that he's excluding a heap of countries that would otherwise classify as asylum "donors". This way, it will be almost impossible for people coming from those countries to apply for asylum, since they are now considered "safe countries".

What countries are these, that offer such a clean human rights record that they serve as an example for the international community by being "safe" countries (and therefore, implicitly, should be receiving asylum-seekers themselves)?

That would be:

Albania
(Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners and minors)

Bulgaria
(Torture, prosecution of the Roma people, cruel treatment of people with mental disabilities, no freedom of expression)

Jamaica
(Cruel and inhuman detentions without trial, death penalty, civil unrest)

Macedonia
(Just out of a state of war, still suffering from the ex-Yugoslavian/Albanian troubles, 170,000 refugees, Albanian/Macedonian ethical conflict)

Moldova
(Cruel arbitrary detentions, political prisoners, poorest country in Europe, 80% of population under poverty line)

Romania
(Ill-treatment and torture, objectors of the military conscription threatened with imprisonment)

But who cares anyway? It's all far away, and they don't speak English...


Images
contact us © 2003, 2004 BurningHorizons.net