%20(2).png)
This month brings an important judgement regarding the Stansted 15, a case of resistance that took place almost two years ago on March 28, 2017. Where 15 individuals broke into the Stansted airport and chained themselves together to an airplane containing 60 ‘deportees’ destined for Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ghana. This act of protest resulted in the runway being closed for an hour and 23 flights being diverted to other airports. The group of protestors prevented the deportation of these individuals, striving to keep families and communities together. It is important to note that these human rights defenders were practicing peaceful protest.
They were originally convicted last December for endangering the safety of an aerodrome under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act, which was enacted after the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. The Stansted 15 argued that the 1990 Act was aimed at combatting terrorism and hijacking. On the other hand, their actions were motivated by the belief that if they didn’t stop the deportation flight criminal offences would likely occur once the plane landed at its destination. They alleged that the individuals on the plane were at risk of death or injury. The UN has also commented on the incident, stating that these charges were designed to deter protestors from taking similar actions to defend the human rights of asylum seekers. It called on the UK to refrain from applying such charges to prosecute peaceful political protestors.
The sentencing judgement was handed down this month. Three of the 15 initially were given nine-month jail sentences but subsequently, were suspended for 18 months, plus varying hours of unpaid work. 12 were given 12-month community service orders instead. The group state that they will be appealing these convictions on the basis of inhibiting their right to protest. The judge acknowledged this human right by stating that they put at risk the safe operations of the airport and the persons who were there that night. He added that he accepted that their intentions were to demonstrate, focusing on the absence of violent acts within the protest. This case highlights how human rights can be problematic when they have to balance state security and individual rights to protest, assembly, life, and expression. This case comprised individuals fleeing their home country to places like the UK, to seek safety from persecution and abuse. These issues are complex, and they have life-changing implications.
Unfortunately, we live in a time where certain people in power have particular ideals that are for instance of ‘national security’ over human rights, or ‘law and order’ over protecting people fleeing from persecution. This has the effect of influencing the standard in a state, which then, in turn, influences policy and legislation. In the end, it dictates individual rights and sets a precedent that can be troubling for future cases. Politics was heavily involved in this case, specifically immigration policies and deportation flights. The Home Office can detain and deport individuals who have no right to reside in the UK. More than 27,000 people were detained in 2017 and this detention can occur as soon as someone lands or several years later, when they are applying for work or visas. In the UK, there is no statutory time limit on detention. It has been disclosed that there have been cases of individuals being detained for 2 years instead of the parliamentary call for a 28-day limit.
Under certain circumstances, when the UK decides to ‘return’ detainees, they are in turn violating international law. Those that are deported often face life-threatening persecution when returning to their country, even though the principle of non-refoulment is supposed to protect them under international law. Individuals are also being deported against their will to their national country, after having spent several years or even decades in the UK. Lawyers and activists alike have been calling for the end of deportation of long-term UK residents. Individuals who are wrongfully deported have to deal with the Home Office, which can be a maze of constant refusals and appeals, leading individuals to be deported before they can appeal. One individual who was on the very same flight the Stansted 15 canceled was able to win an appeal from the Home Office because of the group’s actions. With one family wrongly deemed a security threat over a tax error, having their right to work, rent property and access the NHS removed. The analogy ‘one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter’ is quite literal in this case. The Stansted 15 incident highlights the complexity of migration policy in the UK, entangled with national security, right to protest, non-refoulment and immigration/asylum seeker issues. Human rights are a messy business, but that does not mean we should give up the good fight, as the Stansted 15 have proved.
Amnesty International is sending messages to the Stansted 15 in solidarity of their efforts, under their Write for Rights campaign, and you can take part here.