What is Section 4?

Firstly, what is it not? It is not the newest Gears of War release. Neither is it a mythical area of land, as yet unacknowledged by the government, from which strange lights and stories of suspect autopsies are emitted.

It is more sinister than that.

Section 4 is a little bit of legislation under the Asylum ruling of 1999 which came to prominence in 2004 as it sought primarily to deal with the glut of Iraqi asylum seekers coming to the UK to seek protection. It was based upon the assumption that, 'we got rid of Saddam, what's there to be scared of anymore' and suggests that those whose asylum claim has been refused ought return to Iraq, regardless of whether their original decision was fair. Unfortunately, it didn't really take into account that the political situation was not necessarily as 'stable' as they would have hoped (ha!). This was the message also given to those Sudanese asylum seekers who had the cheek to remain here after the news channels stopped coverage of the Sudanese wars. It seems that if the government aren't hearing about it on Sky News, it's simply not happening.

Section 4 didn't target all Iraqi asylum seekers. Just what appears to be an arbitrarily selected bunch.** These unlucky sods were put in the position of choosing between two evils: "Go home, we'll pay, and hey, it's safe now" *big, insincere grin*! or "Stay here, but if you do, you get nothing. Well, we'll give you £35 Asda vouchers each week to buy your food and you will live under the constant threat of the police bursting in and evicting you, because, let's face it, you gots no rights!" Strangely, they all seemed to sign up willingly for the latter option. Could their fear of persecution really be that powerful? It would seem so.

At the same time, colleges were told that Section 4 asylum seekers were definitely not eligible for funding for free English classes, as they had been in the past. This essentially left these people, who, if we remember, had come to the UK for protection, in a situation where they had a place to sleep and some money for food and nothing else. Not allowed to study, not allowed to work. Only able to buy clothes if their local Asda had a clothing section and they didn't want to eat for a couple of days.

Lucky them! At least they have food and shelter, you might blithely say. But let's think about this. Can you imagine not doing anything, at all, not being allowed or being able to afford to do anything, travel anywhere, meet people, read, watch TV, see a film for 6 years? Because that's what it's been. 6 years. Longer for some. Had they been imprisoned instead they would have had education, sport, TV, food cooked for them.

'But at least they have their freedom', you might add. What is their freedom then? They have to report to the Home Office or Police Station every week and sign to say they are still patiently waiting for ... something. Theirs is a house arrest without any of the benefits of imprisonment. At least if you are imprisoned you know your sentence. You know when you are due to get out.

Since 2004, these people have lived in a limbo with no updates and no hope of appeal. Very little communication from the Home Office and what they have had has been less than enlightening.

They are lucky that they have some support from the community of ESOL teachers who were forced for a year to turn down their requests for classes. In 2007, a group of college lecturers gathered to protest about the denial of English classes, making the pertinent point that without English, how could they integrate and wouldn't we be creating a climate of alienation wherein anger and aggression to the jailor state could develop! It seemed that this rang true and thankfully Section 4 Asylum seekers were once more allowed to attend English classes. Lucky them. Something to get out of the house for!

Ok, so this is a pretty one-sided view of Section 4 legislation. I thought it was only fair to include a link to the real thing here

**I'm sure the Home Office would disagree with me here. They would insist that those claims they have refused had no reasonable fear of persecution whereas those they granted had a legitimate claim. I would reassert that it certainly seems arbitrary as I have met hundreds of asylum seekers, and many of those who have been refused often have far more harrowing stories than those who were lucky enough to get refugee status. Personal stories from asylum seekers hopefully will appear in a later post. But if you still think the Home Office are totally objective please follow this link to an article that would suggest not...