Post by Paddy by Grace on Nov 18, 2009 13:50:42 GMT -7
Christian convert who came in on hijacked plane given asylum
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6589837/Christian-convert-who-came-in-on-hijacked-plane-given-asylum.html
An Afghan asylum seeker who converted to Christianity after arriving in the UK on-board a hijacked jet has won the right to stay in the country because of fears he could be executed if returned home.
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, used human rights rules to overturn a previous Home Office decision to refuse him asylum.
Lawyers said there were fears that, as an apostate – one who rejects the Muslim religion – the man, originally from Mazar-i-Sharif, but now living in Hounslow, west London, would face persecution, or even death, if returned.
The former Kabul hotel worker had arrived in the UK as a Muslim, but converted to Christianity, was baptised and now regularly attends a west London church and bible classes.
But his conversion had met with hostility from other Afghans and Muslims, who spat at him in the street when rumours spread, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Tribunal was told.
He was even threatened with death by two Afghans with whom he had shared a house in London and warned by others that he would be killed if he went back to Afghanistan.
Although the Afghan Constitution allows non-Muslims to practise their faith, the small Christian community practises exclusively underground and it is forbidden for Afghans to abandon Islam.
To avoid detection if sent back to war-torn Afghanistan, he would have to find an underground network of other Christians to worship with and keep his beliefs from everyone else.
He would spend his life "looking over his shoulder" in case he was recognised and could expect no protection from the Afghan government, his lawyers told immigration judges.
Contesting the man's appeal, the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and "kept his head down".
But, giving the tribunal decision, Senior Immigration Judge Nichols said it was not reasonable to expect someone to live and worship in such circumstances.
Although the Afghan Constitution made no mention of what should happen to apostates, Sharia Law demanded the death penalty, he said.
To put him at risk of persecution would be a violation of his right – under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – to be protected from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
"The plain fact on the evidence before us is that a genuine apostate, and here we are dealing specifically with conversion from Islam to Christianity, simply would not be able to openly express his change of faith without running a real risk of persecution," he continued.
"The individual would have to keep his faith completely secret; he would have to live a lie; he may be forced to forego contact with others of his faith because of the danger and, significantly, would be constantly looking over his shoulder to avoid discovery in fear of the consequences.
"In the event, it would matter little whether such an individual had family support or not; if discovered, the evidence does show that there would be inadequate level of protection from the Afghan authorities against those who would seek to punish for that conversion.
He continued: "We do not think it is reasonable to expect the appellant to pretend that he is something that he is not and, if it were discovered that he is a convert, the evidence demonstrates that his conversion will not be tolerated.
"He faces a real risk of, at the very least, detention because of his religion and, at worst, trial before a Sharia Court and harsh punishment unless the appellant recanted his conversion.
"The appellant could not rely on any intervention by the Afghan authority in that process and would not in any event be safe in Afghanistan, even if the government were able to intervene.
"We have concluded therefore that the appellant's return to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of persecution and would subject him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6589837/Christian-convert-who-came-in-on-hijacked-plane-given-asylum.html
An Afghan asylum seeker who converted to Christianity after arriving in the UK on-board a hijacked jet has won the right to stay in the country because of fears he could be executed if returned home.
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, used human rights rules to overturn a previous Home Office decision to refuse him asylum.
Lawyers said there were fears that, as an apostate – one who rejects the Muslim religion – the man, originally from Mazar-i-Sharif, but now living in Hounslow, west London, would face persecution, or even death, if returned.
The former Kabul hotel worker had arrived in the UK as a Muslim, but converted to Christianity, was baptised and now regularly attends a west London church and bible classes.
But his conversion had met with hostility from other Afghans and Muslims, who spat at him in the street when rumours spread, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Tribunal was told.
He was even threatened with death by two Afghans with whom he had shared a house in London and warned by others that he would be killed if he went back to Afghanistan.
Although the Afghan Constitution allows non-Muslims to practise their faith, the small Christian community practises exclusively underground and it is forbidden for Afghans to abandon Islam.
To avoid detection if sent back to war-torn Afghanistan, he would have to find an underground network of other Christians to worship with and keep his beliefs from everyone else.
He would spend his life "looking over his shoulder" in case he was recognised and could expect no protection from the Afghan government, his lawyers told immigration judges.
Contesting the man's appeal, the Home Office said he would be able to practise his faith if he found like-minded Christians in Kabul and "kept his head down".
But, giving the tribunal decision, Senior Immigration Judge Nichols said it was not reasonable to expect someone to live and worship in such circumstances.
Although the Afghan Constitution made no mention of what should happen to apostates, Sharia Law demanded the death penalty, he said.
To put him at risk of persecution would be a violation of his right – under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – to be protected from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
"The plain fact on the evidence before us is that a genuine apostate, and here we are dealing specifically with conversion from Islam to Christianity, simply would not be able to openly express his change of faith without running a real risk of persecution," he continued.
"The individual would have to keep his faith completely secret; he would have to live a lie; he may be forced to forego contact with others of his faith because of the danger and, significantly, would be constantly looking over his shoulder to avoid discovery in fear of the consequences.
"In the event, it would matter little whether such an individual had family support or not; if discovered, the evidence does show that there would be inadequate level of protection from the Afghan authorities against those who would seek to punish for that conversion.
He continued: "We do not think it is reasonable to expect the appellant to pretend that he is something that he is not and, if it were discovered that he is a convert, the evidence demonstrates that his conversion will not be tolerated.
"He faces a real risk of, at the very least, detention because of his religion and, at worst, trial before a Sharia Court and harsh punishment unless the appellant recanted his conversion.
"The appellant could not rely on any intervention by the Afghan authority in that process and would not in any event be safe in Afghanistan, even if the government were able to intervene.
"We have concluded therefore that the appellant's return to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of persecution and would subject him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights."