Debate on ZIMBABWE

Advance notice of an Adjournment Debate in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 07 February 2007. To watch this debate live you must enter via St Stephens Entrance and ask the policemen for the debate in Westminster Hall.

Motion for the Adjournment of the House in Westminster Hall

16:30-17:00 Mr Boris Johnson Deportations to Zimbabwe

Text of the debate to follow:

Deportations (Zimbabwe)
4.30 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley) (Con): I am pleased that this topic has been selected for debate so soon, because it is of outstanding importance. I had better hurry, because I believe that there will be a Division in the House at some stage. [Interruption.] In fact, here we go–
Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. Indeed, you spotted it before I did. A Division has been called, so I shall suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. If the Division is immediately followed by others, as I believe is likely, the suspension will continue for a further 15 minutes for each additional Division.
4.30 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.56 pm
On resuming–
Mr. Johnson: As I was saying, I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting this debate on a matter that is of fantastic importance. What seems to have happened is that a nightmare in Zimbabwe has produced administrative and moral chaos in the Home Office. Letters have been sent to people threatening them with deportation when they cannot possibly mean that. We have in this country hundreds of thousands of illegal people, about whom the Government seem to know nothing and can do nothing. People from Zimbabwe who should not be here are allowed to stay, and people who have 100 per cent. British ancestry are being denied any right to stay here. They are being sent back to a country that has descended into tyranny and lawlessness, and from which they have severed all links.
As I hope the Minister knows, this debate arises from a letter written to me by one of her colleagues, in which he confirms that the brother of one of my constituents, Natasha Samways, of Goring on Thames, must return to Zimbabwe. He is called Mark Coleman, he is 28 years old, able-bodied, law-abiding and willing to work, but he is prevented from doing so because he is a failed asylum seeker. The letter that the Minister’s colleague sent to me concludes:
“In all circumstances we prefer that those with no basis to stay leave voluntarily, but should Mr. Coleman refuse to do so then his removal may be enforced.”
That seems to be a threat. We gather from the letter that if Mr. Coleman fails to leave, the intention of the British state is that he may be arrested, taken to an airport and returned to Zimbabwe by force.
Mr. Coleman is not alone in receiving that message about what the British state intends to do to people in his position. The Home Office has placed advertisements in The Zimbabwean, a London newspaper much read by the expatriate community, saying exactly this: “If you don’t have the right to stay, then you will be deported.” Before we turn to what the Home Office might mean by that threat, let us consider, without being too histrionic or dramatic, the fate that awaits people such as Mr. Coleman, and hundreds of others who find themselves in positions like his or even worse.
There is nothing left for Mr. Coleman in Zimbabwe. It is not only a murderous tyranny where journalists and opponents of the regime are arrested, beaten and jailed, as the Home Office immigration guidelines amply attest, but an economic disaster area. Thanks to Mugabe’s catastrophic policies, the Zimbabweans have inflation running at 1,218 per cent., and shortages of bread, medicines and other essentials, not to speak of an AIDS rate at 25 per cent. of the population. It is no wonder that Mr. Coleman’s immediate family have been forced to abandon their furniture manufacturing business and flee to Costa Rica. He had some more distant relatives, cousins who were farmers, but they, too, have been forced to flee. Thanks to Mugabe’s insane and arguably racist policies, they have been deprived of their land, with appalling consequences not only for white farmers like them, but for many black farmers and their employees.
I remember seeing the devastation in 2004 when I went to Zimbabwe with the indomitable Peta Thornycroft of TheDaily Telegraph, one of the last foreign journalists still sending dispatches from Zimbabwe. I went to a farm outside Harare, and I remember interviewing an old couple as they were besieged by thugs from ZANU-PF. It was deeply moving talking to that elderly couple and seeing the old boy go to his cabinet where he kept treasured family heirlooms and things that connected his family with their roots in Essex. He brought out not just the medals that his father had won fighting for the British Crown, but his own British passport, which he held by virtue of being born in the British empire. He was very old by then; he died shortly afterwards and the farm was stolen. His children then died in tragic circumstances, too, and I remember his bewilderment at Her Majesty’s Government doing nothing to protect Her Majesty’s subjects, of whom he thought himself one.
I think that the Minister would agree that, when all is said and done, we stood by when Mugabe launched those pogroms. We did nothing. We allowed him to take away the livelihoods of thousands of farmers, including many British subjects and their descendants. Having stood by in such a way, I think it is extraordinary that we are telling the descendants of people who were driven out of their farms that they must now go back to Zimbabwe, when those farms have been ruined and stolen. It is a complete disgrace, and to use a phrase that the Prime Minister has used about our relations with Africa, it is a scar on the conscience of the Government. It is an act of apathy and betrayal that stands in ghastly contrast to our deluded intervention in Iraq–a country richly endowed with oil, although not, of course, with British farmers and their descendants.
I do not want the Minister or anybody to run away with the impression that this is purely about white farmers. Although they face persecution, all opponents of the Mugabe regime have faced persecution. Indeed, it is possible to argue–I am sure that the Home Office would make this case– that a returning white Zimbabwean might well be in huge danger, but he might be in less danger than other opponents of the Mugabe regime returning to Harare. There is clear evidence, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, that when Zimbabweans return to Harare airport, they face intimidation, abuse and even torture and jail. Of the 200 failed asylum seekers who were forcibly returned between November 2004 and July 2005, we know the identity and fates of about 20.
In several cases, there is evidence, which I think the Government accept, that there was torture. At least four individuals left Gatwick never to be heard of again and several ended up in the notorious and disease-infested Chikurubi jail. It is a measure of the seriousness with which the Government take human rights problems in Zimbabwe that of the 18,000 people from Zimbabwe who have applied for asylum in this country since 2000, between a third and a quarter have been accepted. Those who have been rejected have mainly vanished into the undergrowth and started to work illegally, but in pursuance of their targets and their desire to return failed asylum seekers, the Government have tried to repatriate some by force.
I should stress at this point that that is not always the wrong thing to do. I do not want the Minister to think that I am against repatriating anybody to Zimbabwe, because it is right that we should keep out, for instance, people from the ZANU-PF elite. It is crazy and disgusting that Mugabe can still go around the world, have his hand shaken by the now Leader of the House and go on shopping trips in western capitals.
Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the only people who can afford to come to this country legally from Zimbabwe tend to be people who are linked to the corrupt regime that runs that country? Because of the state of the economy, they tend to be the only people who can afford, through the strict rules we apply through our high commission, to apply for their student visa, work visa or whatever. The legitimate people who we want to come here simply cannot afford to.
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who are likely to come here will have access to considerable funds and are far more likely, therefore, to be linked to the regime. We have to do more to keep them out and discriminate against them. However, there will be people who face a real risk of persecution when they get back and it is quite rightly against British law to send them back in such circumstances. The difficulty with forced deportations to Zimbabwe–it is a very difficult problem–is that too often there have been reports of abuse.
On 18 October 2005, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal found that the procedures in place for enforced returnees at Harare airport exposed them to a real risk of ill-treatment at the hands of the CIO–the Central Intelligence Organisation–which is a secret police far more brutal and corrupt that the Securitate or the Stasi. The Government stopped forcible repatriation after that ruling, but they then contested the ruling and appealed against it. We are now awaiting the outcome of the Government’s appeal against the Asylum and Immigration and Tribunal ruling that asylum seekers cannot be forcibly sent back to Zimbabwe.
The AIT ruling still stands, and the Government have not yet come up with a better way back into Zimbabwe than via Harare airport, which is a problem.

What will happen if the CIO spots people coming in, intercepts them there and subjects them to abuse? Can the Minister explain, in the name of all that is holy, why her colleague is sending out letters to people saying that they may be forcibly repatriated in circumstances in which the AIT has said that that must not happen? I would like to know how that is legally possible. When the Government say that
“his removal may be enforced”
in the letter I have here, dated October 2005, do they mean, “It may be enforced if we in the Home Office get our way in the courts”? Is that what the Minister’s colleague means? If so, why does he not say so in the letter? Why does he not say to the person who is the subject of this deportation order–it seems to be an order–that it may be enforced subject to the winning of the case?
Mr. Benyon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems, perversely, that the Government have it in for people from Zimbabwe? Last year, we had the bizarre experience of people legitimately coming to this country through the ancestral visa route and having their papers held up, sometimes for a period of well over a year. They were not able to travel back to Harare to bury dead relatives. Many of us in the House came across this unbelievably cruel situation when people came to our surgeries saying, “What have we done? We are being persecuted in this country. We have come here under an established ancestral visa route and the Government are holding us on the basis of some fraud that was never proved.”
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right again, and I congratulate him on the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents in securing their right to ancestral visas. I shall come to that point in a moment, but while the Minister consults her civil servants–quite rightly, in order that she may avail herself of the answer–I want to ram home this question: what did her colleague mean by his letter?
If I understand the position–and surely it must be true–the Government could well lose the case in the Court of Appeal, in which case, unless I miss my guess, a removal from this country might not be enforced. Or was the Minister involved saying that a removal could be enforced even if the Government lose the case? Is that what the Government are saying? Are they going to ride roughshod over the Court of Appeal? I would be very interested to know. Would it not be more honest to say that Mr. Coleman’s removal may or may not be enforced, depending on the outcome of the AA case before the Court of Appeal, and to add, “If we lose, we do not have a clue what we are going to do”? That would be a more honest approach.
I cannot remember when I started, Mr. Cook. Did we start at 5 pm?
Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Member who brings the topic to the Chamber may take as long as is necessary to elucidate it, but the termination time for this debate–if that is the hon. Gentleman’s query–is 5.26 pm.
Mr. Johnson: I am grateful for that, Mr. Cook. I shall rattle through my final point in order to give the Minister plenty of time to reply.
Even if it were right to send Mr. Coleman back–this is the point on which I hope to concentrate the Minister’s mind–against the clear finding of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that forcible returnees can face torture, abuse and persecution, and to say that no account whatever should be taken of his legitimate fears about what would happen to him upon his return, there is another reason why we should look with favour on his case. That reason is the saddest and most difficult part of his case, but it could be easily rectified, because it affects such a tiny number of people. I know that hard cases make bad law, but I cannot believe that there are many people in exactly the same position as the brother of my constituent–that is to say, Mr. Coleman.
I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to read some of the media coverage of the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan Ryan)indicated assent.
Mr. Johnson: It is clear that the Minister will know what I am about to say. As has been widely documented, Mr. Coleman is of British ancestry. He has four British grandparents, yet he cannot claim an ancestral visa because all four grandparents were born in what was the British empire–three in India and one in South Africa. To give a flavour of their contribution to Britain and the British empire, I shall read out what Mr. Coleman’s sister wrote to me about her family history:
“Our father was born in the British Colony of Southern Rhodesia, while our paternal grandfather, a British citizen, holding a British passport, served the Crown in Southern Rhodesia during the Second World War. Our paternal great grandfather was commissioned by Queen Victoria as a surgeon and retired as a Lt. Colonel in India….our mother who was an Innes Pocock can trace her British ancestry back to 1160. Our mother was born in India in 1942, after our maternal grandmother was evacuated from Singapore when the Japanese landed. Our mother’s birth was registered with the British Consul in Bangalore. Her father, and our maternal grandfather, Eric Innes Pocock was born in British India, and his birth registered with the British Consul. His birth certificate clearly states that he was born of British parents, in British India and therefore a British subject by birth.”
They were people who served the British empire and the Crown. The truly extraordinary feature of Mr. Coleman’s antecedents is that all eight of his great grandparents were British, yet strangely, he does not qualify for British nationality or British citizenship.
As we look at the sweep of history and what has happened regarding Britain’s relations with Africa and the people whom we sent out to colonise Africa over the past 100 years, it should be possible to reflect the extraordinary circumstances that have left Mr. Coleman washed up on the beach, as it were, as the tide of empire has withdrawn. As the tide of Britain’s involvement with Africa has gone out, we have ceased to look after such people. We quite rightly supported majority rule, but then we did absolutely nothing to protect British interests and British farmers and their livelihoods when they were taken away by Mugabe. It seems extraordinary and very hard hearted that we can do nothing at this stage to protect someone who must be in a tiny minority. Mr. Coleman has a much more organic claim to British citizenship than many people who are here legally or illegally. I wonder whether the Minister can find it in her to discover some means of granting Mr. Coleman–through some compassionate device, which is surely available to her–the ancestral visa that he surely deserves, so that he can settle in this country, work and be a part of the economy, which is all that he desires to be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan Ryan): I am grateful for this opportunity to explain the Government’s position in relation to both the case to which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) referred and the situation on returns to Zimbabwe more generally. I congratulate him on securing this debate. It is clear from his presentation of his case that he feels genuinely and deeply about the matter. I assure him on behalf of the Government that we feel strongly about the situation in Zimbabwe, too, as I hope will become clear from my remarks.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the case to which he referred in this debate, but the position was set out in a letter that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality sent to him on 15 November 2006. The hon. Gentleman’s comments on that letter will be a matter for the record. I realise that he may be disappointed that I cannot comment on the individual case that he has put forward so strongly, but I am sure that he was aware that that would be the situation.
With regard to the question of UK ancestry, one of the aims of the British Nationality Act 1981 and related legislation is to restrict eligibility for British citizenship–and thus for the right of abode in the United Kingdom–to persons born in, or otherwise closely connected with, the United Kingdom or one of the current British overseas territories. The legislation therefore makes a basic distinction between citizens by descent, who cannot normally transmit their citizenship to a further generation born outside British territory, and other citizens, who can.
We of course recognise that some families have a tradition of service overseas that spans several generations. British citizens who work abroad in that way make a valued contribution to the United Kingdom’s economy and international standing. It would be unfair if the children of one family member who happened to be born abroad when his or her parents were temporarily overseas were permanently excluded from British citizenship. The legislation accordingly makes a number of exceptions to the general rule that citizenship cannot be transmitted to a second generation born abroad. One such exception relates to British citizens who are in Crown or similar service that has been designated as such by the Home Secretary at the time of their child’s birth. Another exception concerns those in the service of a European Community institution at the relevant time.
Where neither of those statutory exceptions applies, the second generation born abroad will be entitled to registration as British citizens if either the British citizen parent has previously resided in the United Kingdom for any continuous period of three years, or the family returns to the United Kingdom and remains here for at least three years after the child’s birth. Registration is subject to an application being made within certain time limits. Further provision is made by the 1981 Act for such issues as the avoidance of statelessness.
The immigration rules provide for Zimbabweans with a UK-born grandparent to be granted entry clearance under the UK ancestry route of entry, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That allows them to live and to work in the UK for five years, after which they can apply for settlement. However, we do not allow switching into that category; if someone wished to make an application for entry clearance in that category, he or she would need to return to Zimbabwe and apply for entry clearance from there.
On the more general question of enforced removals to Zimbabwe at present, on 15 and 16 January this year, as hon. Members may be aware, the Court of Appeal heard the case of a Zimbabwean failed asylum seeker known as AA. It was the latest stage in protracted litigation, at the heart of which is the question of whether a Zimbabwean who has claimed asylum in the UK and whose claim is refused would, if forcefully returned to Zimbabwe, be singled out as a failed asylum seeker and be at real risk of mistreatment by the Zimbabwean authorities on those grounds.
In a moment, time allowing, I will set out some background on the issues in that particular case, but first I should like to explain that the Government’s position on the question of enforcing the return of failed asylum seekers and other immigration offenders to Zimbabwe is that it is solely about operating a robust and fair immigration system for the UK. It is a domestic issue. Our deep concern about the political crisis in Zimbabwe, and the economic crisis that it has generated, remains undiminished.
Mr. Boris Johnson: Will the Minister give way?
Joan Ryan: I shall in just a second.
The Zimbabwean economy continues to be grossly mismanaged, leading to substantial outflows of people seeking opportunities in Britain and elsewhere. In particular, we categorically condemn the appalling human rights abuses perpetrated on those who actively oppose the regime. We continue to work with international partners to press for an end to such abuses, for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law, and for a full set of economic and fiscal reforms. We work closely with our European Union and other international partners to address the issues. It is not correct to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that we stand by and do nothing. I absolutely refute that assertion. We have taken action through European Union sanctions, the travel ban and isolating the Mugabe regime. However, we want to be careful about sanctions because we do not want ordinary Zimbabwean people to suffer any more under the regime than they are already.
Mr. Johnson: I ask the Minister two quick questions. Is she in favour of having a look at the rules, so that if someone had eight great-grandparents who were born in this country, they might be entitled to an ancestral visa? A tiny number of people would be caught in that category, and doing that would be one way to help people such as Mr. Coleman.
Secondly, can the Minister explain why, given that the Court of Appeal has yet to rule on the question, her Department is sending out letters saying that people may be ordered back to Zimbabwe?
Joan Ryan: No, I am not willing to look at those rules. I looked at them before I came to answer this debate; that is why I referred to the 1981 Act. I am satisfied that the rules are appropriate and should stand.
On the background, about which I think the hon. Gentleman is asking, on 18 October 2005 the independent Asylum and Immigration Tribunal held that the particular way in which we were enforcing returns of unsuccessful Zimbabwean asylum seekers from the United Kingdom to Harare airport put them at risk of mistreatment. On 16 November 2005, the AIT issued a further determination in which it concluded that the effect of the 18 October determination was that any Zimbabwean citizen who would not return to the country willingly was a refugee.
We appealed those findings, and the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on our appeal on 12 April 2006. It found that, in the earlier case, the AIT had erred in its approach to the evidence before it in finding that the particular way we were enforcing returns of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers to Harare airport put them at risk of mistreatment. The Court of Appeal also found that a person who can safely return to their country of origin voluntarily is not a refugee. The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the original determination and asked the AIT to look at the matter anew.
A panel consisting of the AIT president and two senior immigration judges reconsidered the case on 3 to 7 July 2006 and issued a fresh determination on 2 August. The AIT found that the evidence did not establish that failed asylum seekers would be at real risk of mistreatment on return simply by virtue of an unsuccessful asylum application. That applies to enforced returnees, as well as to those who return voluntarily.
AA, in turn, appealed the AIT’s August 2006 determination on a number of grounds, the essence of which was that it has again misunderstood or misinterpreted the evidence. The Court of Appeal heard that appeal on 15 to 16 January, and we await its judgment. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details at issue in advance of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, but that does not prevent me from reiterating the Government’s commitment to providing protection to those who genuinely need it. We know that the Zimbabwean authorities are capable of persecuting those who oppose them or those whom they perceive to be a threat–

It being twenty-six minutes past Five o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

34 thoughts on “Debate on ZIMBABWE”

  1. Rather than pitching in with dubya’s oil war, and getting shot by his crackhead airforce for our trouble, don’t we have more responsibility to responsible government in our former colonies?

  2. I think you’ll like this Boris!
    the legacy: a comedy of terrors.
    It’s very amusing and will provide plenty of quotables.
    [Not a valid url Ed]

  3. Unfortunately Captain Badger, Robert Mugabe is a black African, and therefore according to the accepted standards of today, is incapable of any sort of sin or bad behaviour whatsoever.

    Although the vicious, mentally unstable thug has totally ruined the lives of most of the people in his country, there’s not one other nation in the world that dare do anything about it.

  4. Poor Zimbabweans, if only Mugabe got some proper treatment for that syphallis 20 years ago, things could be so different.

  5. <‘Although the vicious, mentally unstable thug has totally ruined the lives of most of the people in his country’ (Chris Morriss)<

    Most of the black Zimbabweans I’ve asked about this reckon he’s just a senile old git who is surrounded by hundreds of thugs. They reckon it’s the thugs running the show now and Mugabe couldn’t stop them even if he wanted to. Smacks of what that judge in the Saddam case said ‘It was the people that surrounded you made you into a dictator, it happens all over the world’.

    Hardly an appropriate comment in the circumstances but I’m sure there’s some truth in it. Judging the legislation parliament are passing these days, the mess the civil service is in, and Blair’s ‘I know all but care very little’ (which I’m sure being PM for nearly 10 years he probably does know a few things you’d cut your right hand off to know) attitude, I’d say it’s the incompetent sycophants he’s filled the cabinet with that are running things here.

    Bravo Boris for bringing it up though, your constituents are lucky to have you.

  6. I think you should leave them there Melissa so the world can see what a Smart Alec IRJM was trying to be.
    [good sense of humour StevenL Ed]

  7. I think it is about time that some serious points were made about Britain’s relationship with Zimbabwe and indeed all her other former colonies.
    They were all granted independence and are now sovereign states. This means that they are responsible for their own government and their own mistakes and successes. This in turn means that we should not be expected (or expect ourselves) to intervene when they have a crisis. It also means that we should not be expected to accept an inordinate number of asylum seekers, since one of the principles of self-determination is surely that the inhabitants of a country seek to sort out their own problems in the first instance. Ultimately these countries will only prosper if they are able to retain their best people in politics, business and the professions. We should be seeking to help them to do this.
    Any other form of intervention sounds like colonialism to me, and I doubt that we should go down that route again.
    On the other hand, it may be appropriate to intervene to safeguard our own interests, but if that is the case, then the fact that Zimbabwe was once a British colony should have no bearing on the matter.

  8. The point is that the guy has three entirely British grandparents; and it is somewhat harsh to hold him personally culpable for Smith’s actions in 1970.

    We shouldn’t be expected to accept an inordinate number of asylum seekers because there aren’t an inordinate number of Zimbabwean asylum seekers.

    Are you in favour of abolishing the Commonwealth meanwhile? Because if we aren’t going to help them or intervene in any matters to do with their countries under any circumstances…

    Also, you refer to helping them keep talented people for their country – but here, Mugabe doesn’t want this guy in his country.

  9. ‘Although the vicious, mentally unstable thug has totally ruined the lives of most of the people in his country’ (Chris Morriss)

    Sound familiar, I thought you were talking about Iran -as I am faced with consistance vicious control and restriction to access internet, my weblog and any meaningful activity apart from becoming opium addict or other degenerated activities.

  10. In as much as I agree with the Honourable Boris Johnson’s sentiments regarding the state of affairs in Zimbabwe. I personally feel that Mr. Johnson is not any different to the old git Mugabe he seems to be of the view that it is the white asylum seekers that deserve refuge in Britain as far as his concerned the blacks deserve no place in Britain. The citizenship laws are explicit what is so unique about Coleman’s predicament the only apparent reason is because he is white. One is inclined to infer that by suggesting that Coleman is a law abidding person that is willing to work he implies that his black fellow countryman are criminals that should not be afforded any protection from Mugabe’s regime.

  11. for someone who has been to Zimbabwe in the past Boris is not saying the whole truth.White Zimbabweans have allways been the masters of their black counnterparts and i am not surprised the britsh are giving them 5 tar

  12. it is very unpleasing to realise that Mr Coleman is being denied and yet other people whom has no historisity connection receive citizenship on a silva plate.Well done Hon MP we hope your effort will bear fruit

  13. thank you Honourable Boris please hear our cries please if there is somebody who can help me please do likewise lm mentally damaged l cant go out l just go to buy food and come back and sleep dont have any relative in this country life is hard because lm an asylum seeker cant even go back to my country l was a qualifed designer back home but here lm useless please if some body can help me please help me lve lost all my being me lm not disabled lm a hard worker l need people to appriciate me if l can be at work and l just hear that praise from my boss thats all l want to be usefull in the world please help me please take my email adress and contact me please

  14. First of all I would like to say credit to Boris for raising this subject(Zim Asylum). Regrettably this seem to be the only smart thing out of all the half an hour Boris presented this during the debate. I find it a bit shallow for the Hon. MP to try and argue that a Mr. coleman should be given asylum because of his ties to Britain. For all I know the only peolpe who have committed the most unforgivable sin in Zimbabwe are those people who choose to stand and oppose Mugabe, black or white! worse still if are the former, so all I say to those who want to help zimbabweans, (black or white) is Do Not descriminate who you choose to help. If you choose to go this road, arent you creating more trouble for the zimbabwe after Zanu PF and Mugabe? I sure will ask anyone with british ties why there would want anything to do with (Black)Zimbabwe when they can be given sanctuary in Britain. All you Gracious men and women, ask yourselves this question….
    Why are these Zimbabweans(black/white) coming to our shores to Claim asylum….? I, for one, wanted Zimbabwe to be for all races, we all tried, but felt let down by the international community. We through caution to the wing and risked our lives. We wanted change, so did Britain, so did the USA. Now that things went the other way, Britain, like it always does…… says…. you are On Your Own! Please stop this dangerous game of hypocrisy and help all those who want temporary protection. After all we are hardworking, and care less about our Hosts social benefits, unlike some… No prizes for guessing who!

    Help us get our country back, and, surely, you will be missing us soon.

  15. thank you honourable sir lam happy someone realises zimbabweans are alo human beings. went to zimbabwe to see my family as lam on a work permit and had anew born baby and that child was refused a visa to be my dependant this was a comment from one of your immigration officers ‘that baby has no right to be in britainand lf l felt she was young why would l not stay in my country and believe me l was forced to leave a 5months old baby how can people preach peace and yet they cant be ambassaders of peace.believe me its not only illegals who suffer all zimbabweans are suffering so please help us!!!

  16. Thank you Honourable gentleman for raising such a sensetive and sad issue about our situation.We did not know that looking fo sanctuary in the UK would mean being looked at as the scum of the earth.The thing is that most of us are tired of the lives we lead where we are always in constant fear of what the home Office say next.The constant threats leave us unsure and insecure about our future and most of us now have medical conditions we never had because of the stresses we go through each day,some of our folks die in their rooms because of the fear of the Home office.If only someone out there could hear our prayers and give us our lives back,all we need is a life not to be looked at as Benefit hungry people after all we are a nation of honest and hard working people.Please Ladies and Gentlemen may the spirit of the Lord speak to your Hearts and may we find favour in your eyes.

  17. <‘Help us get our country back, and, surely, you will be missing us soon’ (Michael M)<

    Mugabe is supposedly going to be taking delivery of 12 JF-17 fighters in the next few years.

    A good time to test the air-to-air capabilites of the Typhoon?

  18. am a black zimbabwean ,thanks Boris for highlighting this case shows how there is complete disregard for Empire this gentleman’s ancestors built Britain and most importantly built Zimbabwe.In these debates it is often trivialized how people leave everything they have ever known for BLIGHTY

  19. There is nothing democratic whatsoever in Zimbabwe. The excesses of the mad Mugabe can only be compared with Stalin’s. All he lacks is the money and scope to propagate his lunacy to wider shores.

    Britain has a responsibility and an obligation to Rhodesia. They created the situation in the country originally where majority rule came as an explosive decompression rather than a smooth transition. It’s hardly surprising that fruits of Britain’s lamentable Lancaster house talks are poverty, misery and despair.

    The present government of the United Kingdom must stand out as one of the most despicable and reprehensible in British history. As for Mz. Joan Ryan my only observation is that I would be happier were she to contract some form of terminal cancer or Ebola virus.

  20. The British government does not deny the fact that Zimbabweans may face torture on return. They just dont want to give Zimbabweans the peace of mind as they are protecting their interests, they know that if they allow the AA case more countries will do the same. So they will keep on appealing. They had peace of mind in our country and now they treat us like this. They are enjoying the abuse and torture they are inflicting to the asylum seekers. Good for you Home office

  21. Well done Boris. But there are several flaws in your approach. It is too specific and fails to deal with the widespread problem that every White person is in danger in Zimbabwe, simply because of the colour of their skin.

    The case has to be made most strongly that what is happening in Zimbabwe is a campaign of racist ethnic cleansing.

    If we invaded Kosovo for that reason then we have the same duty to invade Zimbabwe, especially as these are people of British stock rather than Albanian immigrants who had colonized a former Serbian territory.

    We should depose Mugabe or use the threat of such action to extract all the Whites from that country and the terrible fate that awaits them, and then depose him. Such strong-minded action will also have the effect of reminding the future ‘Mugabes’ in South Africa that we will not sit by and let the same atrocities take place in South Africa where many millions of people of British descent currently live.

  22. Steven_L said:

    Mugabe is supposedly going to be taking delivery of 12 JF-17 fighters in the next few years.

    A good time to test the air-to-air capabilites of the Typhoon?

    Unfortunately, Steven, matching Mugabe s diabolical ways can only turn Britain into a Banana republic. I would suggest sending the highly trained and the people I respect, this country s SAS soldiers and the American Special forces to go in there (Zimbabwe), grab this lunatic, and his family, straight to Hauge, and because its Mugabe involved, apply the death penalty, only this once! Mugabe deserves his place next to Saddam. This way we can avoid any unnecessary collateral damage.Its a pity that western governments play chicken politics with sensitive issues where foreign policy is concerned.
    How many days does it take for America or Britain to get rid of Mugabe? Well, because there is no oil in Zimbabwe it may as well be a lifetime!
    And to John Reid… Does he even know what we, Zimbabweans are going through? Only if he coild answer this question “How many more times can you fool the British Public by preying on defenseless, demonised, loathed,but peaceful, hardworking and grateful people of Zimbabwe to enhance your own polical mileage and image? Knowing the British majority, how tolerant they are, and how able to see through such disgraceful political pandering and opportunism, its only a matter of time before they start asking for your head! In a supposedly advanced western democracy like this, one wonders whether Democracy itself is self destructive to an extent that it has to go through another scary and dangerous process to get back to what the older generation Brits used to treasure, and what was the envy of the whole world.
    With current events in mind, i am afraid this might not hurt just the “foreigner” but even those standing by the sidelines. I belong to the younger generation. During political campaigns for my party back home, my employer was white, but we campaigned together as colleagues. Even though we lost because the elections were rigged, I cannot exchange that experience for anything in the whole wide world. That feeling of change, that feeling of real democracy.Equality.
    Forget about spoon feeding us, or dishing us the so much talked about benefits. All we want is sanctuary. nurse our wounds, regroup, learn from our hosts, (if there is anything left worth learning) and effect change back home. I know some of you would be asking, “what change when i am far away from home”. You will never know because you have never been in this position!
    I do not deny the fact that some of us, who come from overseas commit crimes, but guess what?? I got mobbed, and had car vandalised. The culprit? Brit. It goes to show that, at the best of times, political survival is more important than workable polices.It is more important than building more jails, and appealing to the immigration courts against the proposed stopping of deportations to Zimbabwe is more important than reviewing the more than 3000 or so new laws that have created more crimes and criminals than David Cameroon ever committed at Eaton. Please…… Even now,for while you are reading this, for some of you I dont even have rights to sit hear and contribute on Boris site. What a pity, British politicians have changed the British public s view and perception towards politics. Even if a policy was going to work, the public are always bound to disagree, and you ask why.
    Please give us a chance, the much needed help and Zimbabwe will be free again, for all races to live in harmony, welcoming all visitors and playing the role of proud hosts. Hopefully, all this having rubbed onto us from the long envied GREAT BRITAIN. I know it existed at one point.

    Boris, you could be the missing link.

  23. A white person in Zimbabwe ‘is’ in danger just because of the colour of their skin.

    Having read Peter Godwin’s article in the Observer this weekend it is very clear that a white people are being subjected to ethnic cleansing and abuse in Zimbabwe.

    It is intellectually and ethically faulty reasoning to make no discrimination between the rights of black Zimbabweans who have sought self determination and are reaping the rewards and the descendents of white nation builders who have been involved in spreading the positive social mores of an Anglo Celt community.

    There is no where in the entire world where Anglo Celt people are a majority that laws, freedoms, institutions and a functioning civil society do no prevail.

    However there are few countries with a black majority that are not violent and lawless.

    Coleman temperamentally, ethnically and visually is an outsider in Zimbabwe. If he is an Anglo Celt and the descendent of nation builders this man has the right to live in a way that determined by his background ethnicity and culture. Coleman is an Anglo Celt and should be able to live like an Anglo Celt.

    What has happened to Coleman in Zimbabwe isn’t his fault. Mugabe destroyed the white engine of his country and it has crashed suddenly as a consequence. With no capacity to determine his future due to discrimination Coleman should not suffer from the decisions made by a black society that has actively tried to destroy a white population and with it the country itself.

  24. Dear Charlotte,

    Yes, you are right to say that white people are being targeted in Zimbabwe. Yes, it is also true that the Zimbabwean government is championing violence against white people in this once gracious, great country. Especially farmers. But, I think some of your facts are wrong.
    Needless to say, there are still some white people who support the totalitarian government in Zimbabwe. I may not know names but, trust me, this has been the case since Zanu PF came to power, though I may have been too young to know the powers that be during the early days of Zanu PF. The only people who might be suffering as much to match your description are the farmers, no question about that. But, a BIG but, the problems in Zimbabwe are more political, than anything. Like I pointed out in my last contribution, anybody who opposes the ruling Zanu PF is an enemy of the state. If I remember well, land redistribution in Zimbabwe was started in good faith and many farmers I knew were for it. Things were good then, this far. But, because Mugabe does not accommodate any views outside his own, he felt threatened by those farmers, who, by law and with good reason, had every reason to challenge the process by which the programme was being implemented. Even then, things were low key.

    This whole thing turned on its head when the political opposition party brought to the table a seemingly attractive and harmonizing alternative to the Zanu PF mismanaged and corrupt process. That’s when the real battle against the public begun. This had nothing to do with color, unless you want to mention why and how there was this need to address the land ownership ineqaulity itself, bearing in mind that most wealth in Zimbabwe was directly linked to land ownership. It is intellectually and ethically faulty reasoning to make no discrimination between the rights of black Zimbabweans who have sought self determination and are reaping the rewards and the descendents of white nation builders who have been involved in spreading the positive social mores of an Anglo Celt community. Don’t be surprised. I quoted this from your last posting. Here, are you trying to suggest that black Zimbabweans were wrong to confront the long forgotten demons of pre-independence Zimbabwe? I thought the world had moved millions of miles from such thinking and we are all equal now. No rights based on color or creed. If this is intellectually and ethically good reason, then I am sorry, I am on the wrong planet. And what exactly do you mean by : positive social mores of an Anglo Celt community.? Have you ever come across the words supremacy and imperialism, systematically or by chance? Your posting smells of it! I am a black Zimbabwean who would like to live in a Zimbabwe for all, not one that matches your description and so called social mores. Your views are not dissimilar to the status quo in Zimbabwe. You, obviously are for discrimination, and all the bad stuff that drives and accommodates it.
    And you went on to say: If he is an Anglo Celt and the descendent of nation builders this man has the right to live in a way that is determined by his background ethnicity and culture. So, Mr. Colman and myself are different Zimbabweans because of color? I suppose, so are you and Rio Ferdinand and anyone who claim to be British but has an overseas background?
    Charlotte, darling, Zimbabwean issues are far more complicated than meets the eye, and they are not addressed by attempting to spread values that only a few of you are left in the whole world.
    The British government is only trying to protect its interests by mistreating immigrants from Zimbabwe, demonizing them, and people like you are not helping.

  25. It is possible to make a comparison between different cultures and values to determine which are more successful in promoting life and progress.

    Mr. Coleman hails from an ethnicity that has developed and promoted a culture and value system that is immensely positive and it is objectively superior to most others.

    Yet, currently Anglo Celts are so cowed by political correctness they dare not even stare this reality in the face for fear of being described as imperialist, white supremacist or racist.

    People like you force people like me to dissemble, obfuscate and deny reality.

    The reality is there is a very strong link between Anglo Celt populations and positive societies which promote life and progress.

    There is an equally strong link between African populations and violent lawlessness.

    It sounds nasty and it would be great if it wasn’t true but it just is.

    Calling me an ‘imperialist’ or a ‘white supremacist’ denies me the intellectual freedom that is desperately needed speak the truth and protect a culture, ethnicity and way of life that is under threat. I hope you prosper Michael but hope Colman is able to return to his cultural and ethnic roots. That is the difference.

  26. That is the difference. Yes, that “There is an equally strong link between African populations and violent lawlessness’. And Africa has just spread its wings to the Arab world too! If you haven’t got it yet, that would be Iraq and Afghanistan. And guess what? Anglo-Celts had a part to play! ‘It sounds nasty and it would be great if it wasn’t true but it just is’. I can hear you about to disown your own in Mr. Blair. If it’s great, its got to be ‘YOU’, if wrong, its someone else. There is a word that normally describes that. I don’t know how much you understand the world today, but there is a desperate need to shift how we all view the world 30years ago to the present.
    Yes, you are right that the British population ‘promote life and progress’, with the exception of a few who think they can only get stronger by perpetuating barbaric views, creating classes based on color and creed in the name of ‘intellectual freedom’ which you, unfortunately, appear to misinterpret.
    This discussion wasn’t about class struggles/differences. It was about fighting for Zimbabweans who feel threatened to go back home to be given a chance to live, at least, like human beings, and not to gate-crush your sumpremacy party. We are hardworking people, willing to provide for our upkeep only until things improve. I hope Mr Coleman wouldn’t want to throw away that privelege away yet. Our country still has potential.

    Ok, it’s a fact that Africa produces more totalitarian governments than anywhere else in the world. But who spreads corruption to the third world? Democracy started from the worst, is there a clear framework for democracy these ‘young’ countries can follow? How about the west foreign policies? To this day, I still feel Mugabe was/ is worse than Saddam as far as human rights were/ are concerned. But, again, no OIL means Zimbabweans are alone in this. And Mugabe is even knightly here!
    I was young when the so-called Gukurahundi took place, and to my surprise, the world was watching by while such atrocities were taking place. Charlotte, if you don’t know, Gukurahundi was ethnic cleansing of those who live in the Matebeleland provinces. What’s happening now is so much different from what happened then, though, there are slight similarities.

    And judging by the way you wrote the two postings and your reasoning, I have no doubt that, should this spread to more areas and minds, you stand a slim chance to protect your ‘Anglo-Celts Values’, if there are any left to admire. And if I am right, Britain is for the British, not just Anglo-Celts. Just imagine how much of an outcry if you were one day to become leader of this country, or anyone of like thinking. The PC brigade exists because, with people like you around, there is a need for it. I would prefer a world where it does not exist at all.
    And I hope you return to your rightful country of origin, which by the look of it, is over sixty years gone, somewhere in mainland Europe.
    Don’t stop writing, though.

Comments are closed.