Migrant advice booklet explains what rape is
Asylum seekers handed official guidance explaining British laws and customs, including sexual consent
CHARLES HYMAS
Asylum seekers arriving in Britain are being handed official booklets explaining what rape is and that men and women in Britain are “equal”.
The nine-page document, published by the Home Office, tells migrants they must understand that “laws and customs here may be different from your home country”.
On one page headed “Gender Equality”, arrivals are told that women can work, study, and travel freely without needing permission from a man in the UK.
“In the UK, men and women have equal rights. This is an important part of UK culture and is protected by law,” says the booklet, which was produced for newly arrived asylum seekers.
In a section on sex and consent, they are told that if they have sex with someone without their consent, “this is called rape”.
“Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim,” it says.
[…]
The booklet also informs asylum seekers not to have sex with children. It says: “The legal age of consent in the UK is 16. This means that anyone under the age of 16 is considered a child and cannot legally agree to have sex.
“Sex with someone under the age of 16 is a serious crime in the UK. There are no exceptions to this rule. Even if they say yes, it is still illegal. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.”
Asylum seekers have also been told not to make sexual comments in public or follow people.
The Telegraph: continue reading
See Related Article Below
Sod that, Will.
GAWAIN TOWLER
Somebody in the Home Office drafted this cursed thing. That’s what I keep thinking about. A person sat down at a desk in Marsham Street, opened a document, and chose every word in it. Then a second person read it over and thought it about right, and it went up the chain past a third and a fourth until it reached whichever minister signs these things off, and not one of them stopped it and thought about what it actually suggests.
Here is what they settled on, about children. “Sex with someone under the age of 16 is a serious crime in the UK. There are no exceptions to this rule. Even if they say yes, it is still illegal. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.”
Could.
Not will. Could. And then observe the order of the shelf they put it on, prison first, then the housing, then the paperwork, three items in a row as though a man might weigh them against one another over a cup of tea and decide the accommodation was the clincher.
The same want of spine runs through the whole thing. “We understand that coming to a new country can be difficult, and that laws and customs here may be different from your home country.”
May be different.
There is no country on earth where it is lawful to rape a child. None. And were there one, the response of a serious government would not be to log the divergence in the voice of a hotel welcome pack, sympathetically, with a little pastoral throat-clearing about how hard it all is.
“It is important that you understand them, because not following UK law can have serious consequences.” Can have. “You could get in trouble with the police.” Could get in trouble. Unlike the ministerial comments about “far Right” activity. This is a note home about missing PE kit.
Then this, which is the one passage with any iron in it. “You must never stop a woman from working or studying, control what a woman wears or where she goes, stop a woman from seeing friends or family or make decisions for a woman without her agreement.”
Good. Categorical, and correct.
So here is my question, and I would like it answered by whoever was holding the pen when the music stopped. Why is the Home Office able to write “you must never“ about a woman’s evening class, and only “you could“ about a raped child?
Read those two sentences side by side and tell me what you think this country is signalling. I have read them a dozen times now and there seems to m e to be only one reading.
The mood of any sentence is a moral statement. They reached for the conditional because the conditional is where discretion lives, and discretion is the thing they mean to keep. Every “could“ in that document is a door propped open, and no back-street immigration solicitor in Britain needs it explained to him what a propped open door is for.
Write it properly, then. If you do these things you will be arrested. You will be prosecuted. You will be deported. Any claim you have made or might yet make is void from that moment, and there is no appeal on the ground that nobody explained it, because we are explaining it now, in the indicative, the purposeful. Once more with feeling.
And spare me that this is harsh. Name the benefit. Not the mechanism, not the treaty, not the case law. The benefit this country derives from keeping such men. I have put that question to officials for decades and never once had an answer that was not a shrug and a gesture towards Strasbourg.
We are not short of villains. We grow our own, in quantities more than sufficient sufficient for every domestic need.
Begone, and do not darken our shores.
••••
••••
••••
••••
(UKR)