It fills me with absolute horror that Florence Mhango, and her 10 year old daughter Precious, might be deported imminently. Precious has been in this country since she was 3 years old and came in with her mother and father who was studying here. Because of violence from her husband, Florence fled with her daughter for her own safety.
They sought asylum in this country on the grounds that if they were forced to return to Malawi, Precious would be taken away from her mother and handed over to her father's family and, basically, could never her mother again. I don't know how we as a country can possibly allow such a cruel and awful thing to happen. It's basically handing people over to be tortured. As a mother of a little girl who's close to Precious' age, I can't imagine anything worse than being separated from my daughter - and I'm fairly certain she feels the same way.
I am really annoyed that pressure is being put on Florence and Precious to leave the country before their final appeal is heard.
However, the Government does have another option - the Home Secretary has discretion to allow people to stay in this country outside the immigration rules and I think she should do so in this instance. Florence and Precious have the support of Scottish Government and Church leaders as well as their local community. It's within Theresa May's power to end their ordeal and ensure they have a safe future in this country. I hope that she takes it.
I've written to her to ask her to use her discretionary powers to let them stay. Any even rudimentary assessment of Precious' welfare would show that her future life chances would be severely compromised if she was sent back to Malawi.
This is the second time in as many months that a woman and child who have been victims of domestic violence have hit the headlines in Scotland. In May, Sehar Shahbaz and her young daughter were sent back to Pakistan to an uncertain future.
No compassionate and fair country should treat vulnerable women and children like this. However, putting pressure on the Government can help - it did with Rene Mukarbiwa and Janipher Maseko. So please write to Theresa May to stay. You can find more information on Anne McLaughlin MSP's blog. She's fought hard for Florence and Precious and I can only imagine how stressed and worried she must be feeling at the moment.
1 comment:
It's not a final appeal! This is mega important. To lodge a faulting of the reasoning of a corruptly incomplete decision, is their absolute automatic right. "The court change" establishes this.
Court change is a common sense name for a massive democratic advance in the nature of law, that nobody has ever tried to refute is real, but is under a wilful media silence. It urgently helps every asylum seeker. It abolishes finality for any legal decision, so it prevents bent decisions being taken that ignore parts of a case's evidence or reasoning.
Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party".Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence. Nevertheless, it's on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments.
This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.
Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.
This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.
The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.
Post a Comment