You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
NewLiving Diary Index
|
item0081D 1116, 1117 1116 17 October 2005 Turkey
Praise the Lord! In a manner of speaking. Political disaster was averted by the EU decision to launch accession negotiations with Turkey. We now have ten years to make the case for a culturally neutral political order in our part of the world, one which will progressively match the political requirements of the global community.
If we seek to define Europe in "monocultural" terms - or indeed in cultural terms at all - that will be a grave setback to the emergence of a truly successful social and political order. This view was upheld brilliantly by Nick Cohen in a piece about the human rights campaigner Maryam Namazie. For me, the only relevant "religion" is that of universal human rights. Or as George Fox put it, in the simple language of his time, our response to "that of God in every man".
Where do you stand, on Turkish membership of the EU? Drop me a line
1117 17 October 2005 Roger
I am sensitive to this criticism. The present system respects the traditional separation of powers: there is an "administrative" or executive phase of the proceedings, within the Home Office, and a second "judicial" phase, organised by the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal. Lawyers have been removed altogether from the first phase, and are intended to inhabit the the second phase. In text-book terms, the theory is sound.
The better course would be to give every applicant a lawyer from the outset, and to use more senior adjudicators to take the primary executive decision (perhaps indeed one could use the present "Immigration Judges", who are not really judges anyway, but super-administrators whose re-labelling has been "spun"). The real judicial phase would then consist only of challenges on points of law. Such Adjudicators would be like Planning Inspectors, appointed to take an executive decision, sometimes with full executive powers, sometimes with power only to recommend a course of action to the Home Secretary. Such a system would be much more transparent and satisfactory to all parties, cheaper and quicker.
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|
The strength of the
European Union lies precisely in its potential to regulate the governance of a
extended culturally-diverse continental space. Politics is
about the governance of territory, and should be culture-blind. There should be no cultural gateway at the
entrance to "Europe", capable of excluding any race, religion or nation.
We are currently ascribing far too great a primacy to "religious" views of
the world: however convincing some of them may seem, they are as a matter of
politics all to be subordinated to the sovereignty of the human spirit, the
dignity of each individual person.
I have taken some stick from
you, in correspondence, about my proposed reform of asylum procedure. My suggested
"Executive Challenge"
procedure would assure to each asylum-seeker to one
major "day in Court", with professional legal assistance to present his
case to a Home Office "Inspector" or "Adjudicator". After that,
appeals would be limited to errors of law, as is at present the case, after the initial
"judicial" Tribunal judgment. I am accused of being too
authoritarian, assigning too much power to the Executive.
But it is not working. First, the
asylum-seeker, as a total newcomer, often shocked and confused, without
English language skills, has to navigate the entire executive phase alone:
legal aid for representation was withdrawn from this whole phase in April
2004. Yet he needs an advocate/friend
from the very beginning, if justice is to be done.
Once the fully-argued "executive decision" has been taken - effectively,
in camera, without legal intervention - it is very difficult for the asylum-seeker to claw back his
position in the second "judicial" phase. And it is particularly
difficult for those applicants (perhaps as many as 50%) who are
also denied
Legal Aid at the second stage. Their case is simply
adjudged too weak for the UK Government to waste legal aid on its
formulation.