Aren't you lucky my dear faithfuls, you are actually getting two posts today! Yes, it is still today and after the serious stuff, here's some fun for the galleries.

On my recent shopping trip to a loathsome but unfortunately very conveniently located 24/7 mega supermarket which probably imports all their stuff from labour rights abusing countries and I feel very guilty about shopping there far too often, but hey, I'm only human and it's so close, cheap and all in one go, anyway,
On my way to this supermarket, I noticed an odd change to the Toryglen highrise buildings adjacent to it. The three tower blocks are partially due for demolition, and although they are ugly, brownish-grey and soulless as tower blocks go, the setting sun has often transformed them into magic colour.

This time however, the colour was on them. Literally. Like they've thrown buckets full of colour over them. Intrigued, my beloved investigated and here is the story:
Sony have made an advert. And although I do not necessarily want to advertise for any global bla bla bla, YOU MUST GO AND WATCH THIS. I'm disgusted noone told me it was happening, I would have loved to have been there! Stills are to be had as well...

Enjoy! Good night.

This piece of news has been lying on my desk for a shockingly long ten days now. The House of Lords, God bless them, have once again shown us where the rabbit hops along (apologies for a very bad literal idiom translation, I couldn't resist), i.e. what is right and wrong.

We live in strange times. It is illegal in the UK for female genital mutilation to be carried out, for a woman to have it carried out, for a woman to travel abroad to have it carried out. And rightly so. No cultural argument can justify this horrendous practice. However, if a woman who fled a country where FGM is so widespread that it cannot be avoided, she is refused asylum. So happened to Zainab Fornah who fled Sierra Leone aged 15. Her asylum application was refused upon appeal, as insufficient grounds of persecution.

Thankfully, the UK has the House of Lords. I usually snear at the wigs and all else they stand for. But at least they've got some more sense than the two appeal courts who happily refused Ms Fornah. A precedence has been set that the threat of FGM does indeed constitute persecution of a specific social group according to the UN refugee convention, namely that of women. I really like their wording or the Lords' judgement, that it's "Blindingly obvious" that asylum should be granted in such cases. Of course it is, why else would you have made FGM illegal in this country? Ever heard of consistency?

Unsurprisingly, reactions are ambiguous. The Home Office now fears multitudes of women coming to the UK to claim asylum on the grounds of FGM threat - even though Canada has long implemented a similar ruling and can confirm that there has not been an increase in applications. I find this argument quite rich. It is still much harder for a female applicant to get asylum than it is for a male applicant. That's because the UN convention was written with men in mind, not women. It effectively does not include the issue of gender and gender specific persecution; in fact, it doesn't even refer to women at all when talking of refugees, maintaining the male personal pronoun throughout the document.

As a consequence, there are in fact much fewer female applicants, and most female refugees are dependants of a male applicant. The Lords ruling is just a minor adjustment of the inherent injustice and inequality of international refugee legislation and British asylum legislation. A small but welcome step.

So Liam Byrne is in town. It was about time that the immigration minister made a visit to Scotland where the public outrage at the way refused asylum seeking families are treated is the greatest and has sparked vicious campaigns against the inhumanity of dawn raids and the deportation of families who've been resident in Glasgow for many years.

And hurray, he's brought the promise of a protocoll for dawn raids in his magic box. Not quite though, he's giving himself another month to actually uncover it. That'll make it a year later than promised, a year full of anxiety, rage and loss of faith for those directly or indirectly affected by dawn raids.

Interestingly, the BBC coverage gives the impression that dawn raids are particularly prevalent in Scotland and Glasgow. In fact, they are the normal procedure for removing failed asylum seekers north and south of the border. The difference is that in England, nobody raises an eyebrow, either because asylum seekers haven't become part of local communities or because there are simply too many dawn raids, too frequent, for any campaign or group to coordinate a meaningful protest. In fact the whole point about the reluctance for a Scottish protocoll for dawn raids, as well as reluctance to engage in discussions about alternatives to dawn raids have been nurtured by an understandable unwillingness of the Home Office to make special allowances for those asylum seekers dispersed to and resident in Scotland. I would indeed argue that one of the major weaknesses of the campaign against dawn raids was its Scottish nationalistic focus which particularly called for an end to dawn raids on Scottish soil. As if dawn raids did not constitute unnecessarily harsh treatment in England. Consequently, the campaign was hijacked by political parties and their representatives who used it as yet another indicator of why Scotland should be independent, thus blurring the issue, for the sake of raising the profile of their own party. Scottish politics can at times be painfully parochial.

In any case, I am pleased to hear that Mr Byrne forsees a lesser need for dawn raids in the future. This has to be applauded, and he's the first Immigration Minister in a long line of regurlarly sacked and reshuffled ministerial posts within the Home Office to actually make a hopeful and positive statement. It's a first step, and let's acknowledge this for starters.

More worrying is the insistence that those who have been refused asylum are therefore imposters and that faster decisions are necessarily fairer decisions. While it is necessary to decide asylum cases as quickly as possible, there has to be sufficient time to fully and fairly consider each case on its individual merits. This is not happening at present as the high percentage of asylum cases with a negative outcome at the first stage, and a positive outcome upon appeal indicate. The system already is not fair. Moreover, many asylum seekers who are even refused at the appeal stage have incredibly strong cases, which are well documented and evidenced - yet judges are still able to undermine the credibility of the applicant. If this is possible in high profile cases, it does happen even more so with cases where the applicant is vulnerable and not as able to make proper representations. It is certainly not fair to let people wait for 5 years or more for a final decision and then rip them out of their homes and communities, but this is due to lack of capacity and expertise, as well as a focus on reaching targets to refuse applicants and remove them from the country for the sake of immigration control.

The New Asylum Model, about to be introduced in Glasgow very soon indeed, has the ambition to break every record of speek in the processing of asylum applications. In its trial run, which admittedly focused on applicants who seemed "easy" for reaching a quick decision, refusal rates have come close to the 95% mark. Considering that only 5 years ago, 80% of applicants were actually granted asylum, and that the origin and circumstances of applicants in general has not changed much (applicants still originate in war torn and politically unstable countries), the question has to be raised why the system is so keen on refusals. And for anyone arguing that the system is now fairer because it is more critical, I can only recommend that you have a look at the wording of the sections that applicants will be filed under. They imply refusal, removal and how to achieve it. There is yet no section of "clearly founded case" to match the section of "clearly unfounded". The wording is negative, presumptious and flawed from the word go.

The flaw of the UK asylum system is that its targets are those of refusal and removal, not of protection and refuge. Any promise of protocols, specialist teams and support packages for voluntary return can only be a fickle mask of the real issue at stake: Do we live up to our responsibility to give refuge to those persecuted or would we rather ignore the suffering at our doorsteps and keep it beyond our four coasts?

Finally, one last question - are Robina Qureshi and Patrick Harvie the same person, or do they parrot each other, or have the BBC simply mixed up their quotes? The two soundbites are frightingly similar, almost to the letter.

Oh it's lovely. I've just come across a great site, www.readitswapit.co.uk. It's really very straight forward, a simple idea which is pure dead brilliant:

Register books you've read which you would like to swap, then look what's been registered by other users and swap. All for free, only for the cost of posting the book. Let's hope it'll stay like that and that google & co won't buy this one up as well.

Of course there's one problem: I signed up, really keen to get one particular book. Instead, I've swapped two other books just because I was so excited and wanted to get started. Now my library of swappable books is a bit poor (I'm quite precious about most of my books) and I stand no chance. Ah well, look forward to the other two books though! I can just see how I'll end up reading books I would otherwise never have read, while still maintaining my usual Amazon wishlist (see right, just in case anyone wants to get me something nice for my birthday next weekend ).

Another great new discovery is the freecycle movement - local free exchange egroups where you can get rid of your stuff and get stuff for free that others no longer need. Unfortunately there's been some trademarking scuffle internationally and also for the local Glasgow egroup, so that they now call themselves freeshare to keep things going as unburocratically as possible. Let's hope that the original freecycle doesn't go down the drain of commercialism and corporate sell out. Instead, it should continue to use the internet to make life easier and people happier. So far, I haven't actually received anything, but it's the greatest pleasure to do someone a favour by giving something that otherwise would have been swallowed by another black bin bag.

I pondered when I saw the Hothouse Flowers play live for the first time. It must have been 18 years ago, when I was half my current age. It seemed like just the other day as I watched, listened and enjoyed the music that has been with me and met so much for me for such a long time.

The Hothouse Flowers played the ABC in Glasgow last night, and I suddenly realised if there's any reason I should put up reviews on my blog, it's for live concerts. I go to the cinema far too often to keep up with reviews, I'm not bothered about album reviews, and book reviews, well, it could be considered. Live gigs, however, have always been the specialest thing for me, and they remain to play that role.

Last night was a strange experience, as I remembered vividly the gig 18 years ago, as well as sessions in Dublin, moments of my life that I connect with the music, while I watched for what had changed. The band line up for starters. I had to be told who the "new" bass player was before the penny dropped. I still miss the saxophone, but other than that, it was impressive how little had in fact changed. The audience was visibly older, and for once, I felt rather young. It was obvious that there were no newly converted fans, and the band honored that in the best of ways, playing everyone's favourite, letting people sing along, dance, and have a brilliant time.

Compared to 1988, it wasn't as wild and mad, but then again, that is to be expected, after all, both band and fans are now middle aged. The spark was still there, the art of losing oneself in the music and bringing it right into the heart of everyone present.

It no longer felt odd to hear the band sing of the soul, the earth, the spirit of life and death. After all these years, they've remained true to what they believe in, and the formerly embarrassing tree huggery imagery, dress and facial hair have become a sign of maturity and personality. There was no pretence, no falseness. Just the joy of sharing music with one another, no words spoken. In spite of not playing to a full house, and audience too old to go all mad on you, in the end, we were all dancing and singing with big smiles on our faces.

Some things won't change and there's actually some comfort in that. And I couldn't help but think what a great treat cubling was getting inside my tummy.

Ever tried getting a handyman to fix something in your house? You see, I may have many talents (cough), but I can't exchange a window, fit locks that are 3 metres above my head, hang doors or watertighten leaks. I'm sure I could learn, but there are other things that demand my time, and what are joiners for anyway. I mean, is it unreasonable to expect that there are people out there who know how to do such jobs and are happy to get paid enormous sums for it, which are at least triple my hourly wage?

For goodness sake, I live in a city, a big one at that, and it really shouldn't be a problem.

After ringing, let me count, 12 joiners, all local to where I stay, and representing the entirety of local joiners who advertise in the yellow pages and on the internet, I have the following rate of success:
- left 6 messages (out of which two phoned back),
- had an intense and enlightening conversation with one fax machine,
- spoke to a nice elderly lady who was charming but not a joiner, 
- spoke to four people, two of which were secretaries or spouses,
- got three appointments (bit cheer)
- two maybe appointments,
- out of the appointments, one guy came around and never got back with a quote
- one simply didn't turn up.

Above all, after two months, I still have a gaping whole in the front door, water coming through the bathroom and a flat which is not secure. No comprendo. Really. Either these guys are cowboys or clearly have so much work they don't need any more. Should anyone out there know a reliable joiner with time to do some work in the south of Glasgow, PLEASE get in touch (blog at cartside dot co dot uk).

 

There's a lot of video work going on here in Glasgow, a real surge in using video/shorts/dvds for campaigning and getting messages across. Here's the latest example: Ahlam's story. Ahlam is a refused asylum seeker from Algeria, and her story really brings it home to you that refused does not mean you don't have a right to be here. She's in danger of being deported any day now, and the video is of course part of a campaign to keep her here. It is much more than that though, because Ahlam is a very intelligent, articulate, educated and charming woman who is able to give voice to so many people like here who may not have the chance of being best pals with the Scottish Socialist Party (who produced this video).

The 30 minute video achieves to properly give voice to her story and is aptly named. Ahlam speaks for most of the duration, in a fascinating monologue. Interspersed are slightly irritating clips promoting the SSP as the only party that cares, and unnecessary sound bites of how great a person Rosie Kane is. I'm sorry, I'm allergic to such stuff, critical of any political party and I just don't like the mixing of a party political agenda with a cause I'm passionate about, I always think it weakens the appeal. And I know why any "proper" socialist would disagree with me there, feel free to fire away at me if you must.

Having said that, the video is really worth watching, worth distributing and showing. Nothing works better than hearing the absurdity of the UK asylum system from someone who's been through it.

You can download /watch the video here or order dvd copies from Neil Scott, and he's really quick getting them to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sr7jSWLjg8
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/352225.html.

Of course, our video will be even better ;)

I came across a shocking piece of information yesterday. The issue is that of legal aid available for lawyers who take on asylum cases.

In a political climate where public opinion is convinced that every asylum seeker is bogus, the government is tough on almost anything to do with asylum. One area is that of legal representation. To start with, you need a lawyer. The asylum process is complicated beyond my understanding and subject to changes on an almost daily basis. It's hard to keep on top of things, even for legal professionals I'm sure. Having worked for a lawyers office in Germany which took on asylum cases, I know what hard bread it is for the idealist lawyer. They depend on legal aid and their own belief in what is right and moral, and will give up standard of living and regular working hours to help those fleeing from persecution to obtain refugee status. In the legal office I worked for, the lawyers had to gain their living expenses by taking on car crashes - simply because there was some money in it which could pay for the time spent on asylum cases.

The lawyers were young, enthusiastic and believers. They weren't burnt out yet, and we worked many evenings. It was often boring work, putting forward the same arguments, the same reports, the same gruesome events which lost their horror the more often I cut and pasted them into the supporting materials for first cases and appeals. We worked tirelessly.

In the UK, I was aware that asylum cases were legal aid cases, of course, asylum seekers aren't exactly rich people who can afford to be represented out of their own pocket. What I hadn't realised is the amount paid for each case. For the inital application, legal aid covers exactly 8 hours of lawyer's time. 8 hours for a case which is going to decide the future of a human being and his/her dependents. This amount of time does not cover translation costs or time so that those applicant who require translations are at a disadvantage - after all, the same legal aid amount has to pay for both. Moreover, it cannot be sufficient to ensure a proper representation, which allows time and sensitivity when evidencing suffering that in most cases will have caused trauma. In particular, it discriminates against women who are victims of rape and cultures where rape equals complete social exile. Such applicants cannot and will not easily disclose details to a stranger in the little time given. They are thus the most likely to be refused - to be considered "bogus" buy the public.

The document also raised concerns that the rate had not been subject to inflationary increases for many years - the exact number escapes me, but it was significant. It is a slow but cerain undermining of protection and the right to asylum, and one which goes unnoticed.

It is less surprising then that I have come across cases where the lawyer has asked for a cash in hand payment to take an appeal case forward. My outrage is dampened if I have to consider that lawyers too need to live. And on legal aid, well, they can't. And there's only so many who will work on goodwill for only so long.

Was war das? Dachte ich gestern. Heute noch öfters. Cublin tritt und boxt. Mächtig und oft. Irgendjemand hat es mir als kitzeln beschrieben - ich kann nur sagen, kitzeln ist das nicht! Natürlich kommt der festeste Tritt immer im ungünstigsten Moment, wenn ich meine intuitive Sprungreaktion lieber verbergen will.

Diese Woche werde ich mich auch von meinen weitesten Kleidungsstücken verabschieden müssen. Die Auswahl an Umstandsmode macht mich depressiv. Mode würde ich das sowieso nicht nennen. Naja, dafür sind alle Schwangerschaftsnebenwirkungen nicht mehr so ganz arg vorhanden, neue kommen hinzu, eine absolute Panik dass es nur noch knapp 5 Monate sind, und noch sooooo viel vorbereitet werden muss, gekauft werden muss, und ich zu nix komme. Dazwischen spricht die Vernunft, die mich beruhigt, wenn auch nur damit Cubling nicht gestresst wird und zum Schreihals wird.

Langsam wird deutlich, dass schwanger sein in Schottland teuer ist. Mit nur einer Ultraschalluntersuchung (ok, ich hab 2 bekommen, aber nur eine "richtige") ist man doch arg versucht, locker £200 zu blechen, um noch eine privat machen zu lassen. Dann die Vorbereitungskurse - der NHS Kurs ist so knapp vor der Geburt, dass es durchaus sein kann, dass ich die Info zur Geburt leider nicht mehr rechtzeitig bekomme, also zahlen wir für einen NCT (National Childbirth Trust) Kurs. Das ist übrigens ein Privileg, denn die Kurse waren schon ausgebucht, als ich erst 10 Wochen schwanger war. Dank der Warteliste geht's jetzt doch noch. Und, da ich total panisch bin was das Werfen angeht, muss auch noch ein Hypnobirthingkurs ran. Mag ein wenig nach treehugging und new age klingen, ist mir aber schnurz piep egal,  Hauptsache ich bilde mir ein, dass ich alles tue, um möglichst wenig zu leiden. Gesamtkosten: £340. Und natürlich haben wir weder Buggy, noch Wickeltisch, noch... Will aber nicht klagen, denn meine Freunde sind alle super spendabel, so dass ich meine Geldverschwendung an anderer Seite ein wenig wettmache.

Getreten werde ich ja eh.

I don't envy Home Office Officials who have the job to remove refused asylum seekers. It can't exactly bring them much job satisfaction. Particularly if they see themselves faced with protesting residents, neighbours, and communities who are doing anything to get in the way of their work - but we're doing it for you guys, don't you see? No.

Anyway. They are talking. That's a good start. They have explained some removal procedures, and this is clearly a dialogue to be encouraged and which may lead us forward from the blame game between loudmouthed campaigners and inflexible politicians.

Much of the protest has focused on the inappropriate number of immigration officers and their appearance in body armour for the removal of families. The explanation the Home Office staff gives for this is that there has to be one officer per individual to be removed, plus corrborators for ech, a video operator, a minder and a police officer, bringing the total number of people needed to remove a family of two parents and two children to 11. They wear body armour on the behest of police guidelines. However, the colour of the outfit (currently black) may be reconsidered.

The issue of alternatives to this hard core removal procedure at the dawning of a day is a tricky one. I previously asked boldly to give it a go, and actually, they did. Refused asylum seekers were sent a letter with information on when their plane was due to leave, but it appears that this created fear but little compliance to actually board this plane. Similarly, Home Office staff report that if they tell those due to be removed face-to-face and explain the situation in a more humane form, 50% of families abscond. This, of course, is not a solution. We do not want absconded families, children kept out of education, in hiding and in fear. There is no hard data available on the statistic quoted, but I choose to believe that they are relatively accurate.

The big push is for voluntary return and there is a package available to assist those who opt for it. It's a pretty good package actually, aiding re-establishment in their home countries. The problem though is that the vast majority of people are absolutely scared to return, scared for their lives. They would rather live in poverty in the UK, in hiding and without any sense of future or ownership of their destiny in the UK, rather than return. This alone to me indicates that they are genuine refugees, not economic migrants, bogus or abusers of the system. Who would choose to live the life of a refused asylum seeker, in destitution, in hiding?

Which brings us to the issue of a renewed amnesty for families, refused or not. The regional director of the Home Office in Glasgow is against this, for fear of an increase of asylum applications. Certainly, there is always a pull factor - if you have refugees in a city, there is a likelihood of more people from the same countries of origin settling or trying to settle, but I honestly doubt that applications would go up. He confirmed though that there seems to be a policy which allows some flexibility in allowing people to stay who have been here for 7-14 years. But this policy is not a right, or general practice, so it's hardly worth the paper it's written on. If it is.

So what solution does the Home Office see? It's to employ a PR person, to build up levels of trust. Sorry, just choking for laughter, I think it's rather amusing. Independent inspections. Well, good try, a bit late though, and what good are there if the only complaints possible have to be filed by an MP (and I can just see how happy my MP would be to do this).

Solutions won't come easy, but how about thinking a little bit harder everyone?