To not be sure what I think about the Stansted 15

[Softleftpowerstance]

Guardian coverage today. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/02/stansted-15-emma-hughes-jail-fear-separation-baby-son?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Obviously it must be horrific for the woman to be contemplating being separated from her baby and I think custodial sentences for women with small children should be avoided.

But beyond that, I’m not sure how much sympathy I have but am open to being persuaded. The group seem surprised that a serious law was used against them, which strikes me as naive. The government is going to want to make sure it’s discouraging people from doing similar action in future. Locking on to an aircraft is in itself a serious business.

I’m also not sure what I think about people stopping deportations. I have complete sympathy for the argument that the Home Office is inept and some people are unfairly deported. But I don’t think that’s true of all cases and moreover I’m not sure I’m comfortable with citizens overriding due process to stop planes etc. If collectively we have, like it or not, made a decision that we don’t have open borders and do have immigration rules then the system needs to be able to enforce them.

The stansted 15 have been found guilty of terrorism. For what they done this charge is unprecedented and illegal.

No, they shouldn’t be facing jail for a peaceful protest. What does that say about our law system and our human rights?

I hope she is spared prison. The child has a right to be with his mother. We should send mothers with children to prison as an absolute last resort. This case doesn’t strike me as suitable for imprisonment.

But the examples of Rosa Parks, suffragettes and others are very wrong. Deportations are not pleasant and the detention system should be improved. But that’s a matter of political process, lawful campaigning and use of the courts.

All countries deport and always will.

There is no sensible comparison with establishing the domestic civil rights of women or people of colour through civil disobedience.

It says they are well aligned with the views of women on MN

Including the idea that the woman should have her baby removed at birth and adopted away
Or that she should face extra time because of an assumption she got pregnant on purpose to avoid prison
Or that she should have had an abortion and so gets what she deserves

Oh and assertions that the lawyers as reported in national press are lying, becasue what they have said doesnt' agree with the assumptions a poster prefers to make (v trump-style!)

"establishing the domestic civil rights of women or people of colour"

Many of the deportees are "people of colour" who are having their human rights violated in detention centres (beign refused medication they need, being assaulted etc) adn with illegal deportations happening. etc.

What evidence do you have that any person on the flight as a deportee was treated unlawfully?

There is an indepent article that I can't read fully as not signed up.

The headline says the woman who tells her story was locked up in yarls wood from age 13.

I am sure i have read about sexual assault, women who are pregnant not getting the care they need etc

It is a national scandal

Oooh another one who believes that a lawyer who is quoted in a national newspaper is a liar.

They're out in force today.

And if you’re arguing that deportation is itself wrong - as denying women the vote or treating black people as lesser citizens are obviously in themselves wrong - just come out and say it.

I see what you mean. And I am not doubting the lawyer’s statement. But why did the lawyers not challenge the deportations?

Kissing

I am arguing that illegal deportation is wrong. And that the UK has plenty of form in this area.

Please provide your evidence that the lawyer quoted in the article is lying.

Oh I see you are no longer saying teh lawyer is lying.

The deportations often happen too fast for lawyers.

Poeple are taken from their homes put in a van to airport put on plane gone.

poeple who fight have been seriosuly injured or killed.

The people who are taken often have families here who don't knwo whats happened until too late.

here's one story

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/11/woman-accused-of-faking-illness-to-avoid-uk-deportation-died-five-days-later

note it says they arrived to sign teh thing and were told they would be removed that day

they do it quick precisely to stop legal process that can be drawn out and costly

"“An immigration official at the airport accused Nancy of faking her collapse to avoid being put on a plane,” her husband said. “He told Nancy that he would handcuff her hands and feet and make her walk to the plane like a penguin, and that he would put her onto the plane even if he had to carry her.”

Officials then decided to put the couple into detention instead.

“We were detained separately, but after we were released Nancy told me that a nurse at the detention centre told her she was too ill to be detained, but the nurse was overruled by a superior and she was held overnight,” said Fusi Motsamai.

The next morning both of them were released, but she collapsed and died of a pulmonary embolism five days later."

Stories of treatment of this nature are common (although the extreme outcome of death is less common).

Read my post. I am not saying that the lawyer is lying.

But what is the relevance of this to someone like me who doesn’t think she should be jailed and doesn’t think she should have been convicted of a terrorist offence?

"Former NHS nurse born in UK with no criminal record deported to Ghana"

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-nurse-deport-ghana-home-office-windrush-dean-ablakwa-a8711251.html

and on and on and on

our deportation process / treatment of people is well know to be appalling it's in the news all the time

google yarls wood for eg

or illegally deported uk

kissing

"What evidence do you have that any person on the flight as a deportee was treated unlawfully?"

But i see now that you accept teh lawyer in the article is not lying.

Yes, that’s all important to say and deserves wider public attention.

But what has it got to do with doubts about comparisons between deportation as a measure and civil disobedience by suffragettes and American (and other) civil rights figures?

Nothing in between the keyboard-bashing, I think you might be becoming a little confused - it's not even clear which posters you're replying to any more

Just to clarify my own position, though, I asked FigandVanilla to back up an assertion she made with relevant details of these particular deportees, and that assertion was "She’s a hero who stood up for something good and important"

Personally I don't pretend to know details of each case - even the one who's reported to be a child rapist - so I couldn't begin to say whether the lawyer's lying or if the woman convicted is in reality "a hero"

I was hoping to learn more, though, so perhaps it's a shame that no back-up for the assertion's been forthcoming

Ah, so you DO believe that the lawyer in the paper is lying.

And that random posters on the net without access to the case should have to prove that a lawyer quoted in a national newspaper is telling the truth.

You're being silly.

I think that YOU should have to PROVE that the lawyer is lying.

The reason I accept your point is that I hadn’t read the article fully, went back and saw that you were right.

I’m also prepared to assume that rhe campaigners knew of the people on the flight that the lawyer was referring to (which is more than you’ve done).

I still don’t see how that’s relevant to what I said though.

"Yes, that’s all important to say and deserves wider public attention."

Perhaps via a peaceful but high profile protest?

The issues have been known about for years, reported on regularly etc and nothing has changed.

"The reason I accept your point is that I hadn’t read the article fully, went back and saw that you were right."

Who's the keyboard basher here?
You were willing to make assertions, decide you knew the story, demand other poeple prove themselves, and you hadn't even bothered to read the article?

Well OK

Saucy jack 👏 exactly!!

I didn’t call you a keyboard basher. And I didn’t say the lawyer lied.

Please go back, read who the posters are and then come back and explain what you’re actually saying.

Should people in Emma H’s case be above the law?

Apologies kissing the keyboard statement was indeed someone else.

You said
"What evidence do you have that any person on the flight as a deportee was treated unlawfully?"

I said >
The statement from the layer reported in the national paper that some on the flight were being illegally deported.

You said
Oh yes I hadn't bothered reading the article.

HTH.