If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Peace Musabi and her children
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/21/judge-decides-children-asylum
Peace Musabi was imprisoned and raped in 2003 in Burundi. Later that year she escaped prison, fled the country and applied for asylum in the UK (but this was rejected). She has sent all of her own money finding her children in Burundi, and in 2007 found that they were now living in Uganda.
Since 2007 she has been fighting the home office to have the right for her children to come live with her in the UK (ages 18, 16 and 13). I was listening to her give an interview on BBC radio 2 and though at first I felt the situation was completely unjust (she should without doubt be allowed to have her kids live with her), callers kept asking the same question to her:
Why apply for asylum in the UK, and why try to bring your children to the UK, when you could just go to Uganda and could have in fact spent the last three years with your children in Uganda?
So I found the above article and read her appeal and still don't know how to make my mind up. There are some interesting questions that maybe we shouldn't be privy to the answers - but then again it is Peace who is pushing this into the public domain to get public support so some public scrutiny is inevitable I guess.
The first is simply: why the UK? I mean it's not the question that first comes to mind because nobody really cares then, but once it is asked the absence of an answer is deafening. Look at the attached map - how did she escape prison and somehow manage to get into the UK without stopping by a safe country where she could apply for asylum first?
The second is why has she not gone to Uganda even though her children are there? What is the determination to stay in the UK rather than go to her children? Uganda is not Burundi, and its not that her children are not safe there - otherwise they could apply for asylum - it is just they are not with her.
What do you guys think?
A commenter to the guardian article:
Peace Musabi was imprisoned and raped in 2003 in Burundi. Later that year she escaped prison, fled the country and applied for asylum in the UK (but this was rejected). She has sent all of her own money finding her children in Burundi, and in 2007 found that they were now living in Uganda.
Since 2007 she has been fighting the home office to have the right for her children to come live with her in the UK (ages 18, 16 and 13). I was listening to her give an interview on BBC radio 2 and though at first I felt the situation was completely unjust (she should without doubt be allowed to have her kids live with her), callers kept asking the same question to her:
Why apply for asylum in the UK, and why try to bring your children to the UK, when you could just go to Uganda and could have in fact spent the last three years with your children in Uganda?
So I found the above article and read her appeal and still don't know how to make my mind up. There are some interesting questions that maybe we shouldn't be privy to the answers - but then again it is Peace who is pushing this into the public domain to get public support so some public scrutiny is inevitable I guess.
The first is simply: why the UK? I mean it's not the question that first comes to mind because nobody really cares then, but once it is asked the absence of an answer is deafening. Look at the attached map - how did she escape prison and somehow manage to get into the UK without stopping by a safe country where she could apply for asylum first?
The second is why has she not gone to Uganda even though her children are there? What is the determination to stay in the UK rather than go to her children? Uganda is not Burundi, and its not that her children are not safe there - otherwise they could apply for asylum - it is just they are not with her.
What do you guys think?
A commenter to the guardian article:
Peace, your life sound quite literally horrific. No one should have suffered what you have. But your experiences aren't unique. There are thousands of women who have gone through similar experiences.
You say you managed to escape and leave the country, but you don't say how. I cannot see how you travelled from Burundi. Looking at a map the first place of safety would have been Tanzania, DR Congo or even Zambia. But you managed to come to Britain thousands of miles away.
Did you look at a map and think. I know I'll go to England. It's easy to claim asylum here and get benefits? Why not France, Italy or Germany? Why not one of the African countries?
Why are we such a magnet for Asylum Seekers?
Now your experiences here didn't go according to plan and you remain separated from your children for the past seven years. But the war between the Tutsis and Hutus is long over and a relative normality has returned to the region. Your life is no longer threatened. So why don't you do what anyone else would do and return home to your children? There's no need for them to come here or for you to remain any longer.
The same test should be applied to all who could have potentially applied for asylum nearer their home but instead chose to come here, especially if the conflict that brought them here is now over.
0
Comments
Sorry, but I think the Man has called this one correctly.
There is a case for asylum seekers to go to their nearest safe country, but in this case she didn't. She came here. Now she has a life here and has settled, consequently she should be able to stay.
The downside is that she has to continue her choice - here alone or there with her children. If the children are her priority, and it's safe for her to return, then sorry love but that's where she needs to be...
No on the radio interview she didn't really respond to it, she had a woman against rape spokesman with her just said 'what about compassion'.
The one sticking point actually is that she has a young child who has grown up in the UK (she was pregnant when she came here).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t388d
About 1 hr in it doesn't last too long, and you can skip the music bits.