Archive | Januar 2014

NGOs concerned that EU – Turkey Readmission Agreement will undermine refugees‘ and migrants‘ rights

After two years of negotiations, the EU and Turkey have signed this week a Readmission agreement in exchange for opening talks on visa liberalisation for Turkish citizens travelling to Europe. The European Commission has published an accompanying ‚A roadmap towards a visa-free regime with Turkey’ which lists the requirements which should be fulfilled by Turkey, such as managing borders in a manner that effectively prevents irregular migration to Europe. The main objective of the agreement is to establish procedures which allow both parties to return foreign nationals who have irregularly entered and/or reside on their territories. Turkey will be required to take asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected in a Member State and had previously transited Turkey to enter EU territory.

The agreement also sets out an accelerated return procedure whereby third country nationals apprehended at the border region can be quickly returned to Turkey. In recent months, there have been various reports of asylum seekers and migrants being pushed back by Greek and Bulgarian authorities to Turkey. Oktay Durukan from Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly fears that many asylum seekers will be arbitrarily denied access to an asylum procedure in these countries and then quickly returned.

“Given the dismal state of the national asylum systems and border practices in Greece and Bulgaria, we are concerned that the Agreement may enable and even encourage violations of the right to asylum in the EU and in our region, which currently is the most important hot spot for irregular arrivals”, Durukan highlighted.

Earlier this year a policy brief by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network had also highlighted that such a readmission agreement risked failing to respect the rights of  asylum seekers, as its implementation is carried out by Member States which have very inconsistent approaches when examining protection claims.

Piril Erçoban, from Mülteci-Der, also a member of ECRE, is concerned that “no Turkish court will examine whether [the asylum procedures] were conducted unfairly in an EU country, or if they were conducted at all”, undermining asylum seekers access to international protection.

Both organisations stress that Turkey is overwhelmed by the increasing number of asylum seekers arriving in the country and Durukan fears that this might translate into more restrictive asylum policies in the country. “The worry is that unless the EU sets a much better example, we will struggle convincing Turkey’s political leadership to maintain a protection-sensitive approach to irregular migration and asylum”, he explains.

The agreement will be now sent to the Council of the EU, to the European Parliament, and to the Turkish Grand National Assembly for ratification, and its implementation with begin three years after the ratification. “In the meantime, we will also increase our border security and establish a civilian border protection body”, stated Turkish EU Minister Egemen Bağış.

Turkey has adopted this year a promising new Law on Foreigners and International Protection, however, it remains to be seen how it will be transposed and improve the conditions for migrants and asylum seekers, including the ones being returned to Turkey from the EU.

Source: ecre.org

Advertisements

UNHCR – Statement on boat incident off Greece coast

griechenland

Press Releases, 21 January 2014

UNHCR is dismayed to have learned of a boat cap-sizing off the coast of Greece in the early hours of this morning, which has left a woman and a child dead and 10 other people missing, among them infants and children.

According to accounts from some of the 16 survivors and Greek Coast Guard, the vessel was carrying 26 Afghans and two Syrians. It was intercepted in the southern Aegean Sea shortly after midnight following a mechanical breakdown and while apparently en route from Turkey to Greece. The boat, with all 28 passengers still aboard, was being towed by a Coast Guard vessel when it capsized. The survivors, now on the island of Leros, told UNHCR they were being towed in the direction of Turkey at the time of the accident.

„UNHCR is urging the authorities to investigate this incident and how lives were lost on a boat that was under tow,“ said Laurens Jolles, UNHCR’s Southern Europe Regional Representative. „In addition survivors need to be quickly moved to the mainland so that their needs can be better looked after.“

Tuesday’s incident is the first of its kind in 2014, and the latest in a string of recent boat disasters in the Mediterranean involving people fleeing by sea towards Europe. More than 360 people died on October 3rd 2013 in a capsizing off of Italy’s Lampedusa. Several other deadly incidents were reported over the following weeks.

Irregular boat crossings of the Mediterranean typically involve a mix of migrants and asylum seekers but conflict in Syria and the Horn of Africa region is being reflected in recent higher numbers of deaths of people fleeing refugee-producing countries.

In 2013, some 40,000 people arrived by irregularly by boat in Italy, Malta, and Greece. This compares to more than 60,000 in 2011 during the Libya crisis. Irregular boat crossings of the Mediterranean typically occur between March and October during the Spring and summer months, however this year they have been continuing throughout the winter, despite the extreme weather conditions. So far in Italy alone, over 1,700 people have arrived by sea.

UNHCR has urged European and other governments to work together to reduce losses of life among people making dangerous sea journeys across the Mediterranean and the world’s other major sea frontiers, including by continuing to strengthen search and rescue operations, as well as the creation of legal migration alternatives to dangerous irregular movements.

Media Contacts

  • Ketty Kehayioylou (Athens) +30 694 02 77 485
  • Adrian Edwards (Geneva) +41 79 557 9120
  • Dan McNorton (Geneva) +41 79 217 3011

Further articles:

The Coast Guard „drowned“ the migrants in Farmakonisi

„The Coast Guard was beating us in order to throw us back into the sea“

Pro Asyl: Tod im Schlepptau der griechischen Küstenwache

Frontex: Neue Zahlen zu Abschiebungen auf dem Luftweg

Von Januar bis November 2013 haben 31 Abschiebungen auf dem Luftweg stattgefunden, die über Frontex organisiert wurden. Die Zahlen stammen von der Frontex-Webseite. Uli Sextro vom Diakonischen Werk Hessen, der eine Übersicht zusammengestellt hat, weist darauf hin, dass einige Zahlen von Angaben abweichen, die die EU-Mitgliedstaaten, die sich an diesen Abschiebungen beteiligt haben, selbst gemacht haben. Insbesondere osteuropäische Länder beteiligen sich verstärkt an diesen Charterflügen. Besonders auffällig ist die häufige Beteiligung von Bulgarien.

FRONTEX_Abschiebungen_2013

Watch the Med: „Es muss in Echtzeit gerettet werden“

Bericht und Video: Arte Journal

watch the medImmer wieder werden im Mittelmeer Leichen gefunden. Hunderte Flüchtlinge, auf dem Weg in eine bessere Zukunft, verenden qualvoll auf hoher See. Europa schaut zu. Das Netzwerk „Watch the Med“ (WTM) – Beobachte das Mittelmeer – will mit seinem Internetprojekt Druck auf die Politik Europas ausüben.

Seit Anfang der 90er Jahre gab es laut Angaben von WTM mehr als 13 000 Tote an den Seegrenzen der Europäischen Union. Die Flüchtlinge wagen die gefährliche Überfahrt, doch nur für wenige kommen am europäischen Festland an. Die oftmals seeuntauglichen Boote kentern. Die Flüchtlinge rufen um Hilfe, schreiben Kurznachrichten, telefonieren, doch Rettung ist selten in Sicht. Nicht zuletzt, weil kein Staat sich um die illegalen Einwanderer kümmern möchte.

Wer ist verantwortlich für diese Tragödien? Wie können weitere Unglücke dieser Art verhindert werden? Mit diesen Fragen beschäftigt sich das Netzwerk „Watch the Med“. Die Idee für WTM entstand im Frühjahr 2011, als die Nato-Blockade, die Schiffsblockade vor Libyen und ein „Frontex“ – Einsatz im Meer vor Tunesien liefen. Während dieser Überwachungsmaßnahmen auf dem Meer sind so viele Menschen zwischen Nordafrika und Süditalien gestorben, wie nie zuvor in den vergangenen 20 Jahren. Das war das ausschlaggebende Ereignis für die Gründung von WTM.

Auf der Suche nach dem „Warum?“ gründeten NGOs aus ganz Europa ein internationales Netzwerk. Menschen mit verschiedenen Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen kämpfen seitdem gegen das Sterben im Mittelmeer. Mit ihrem Internet-Projekt wollen sie dokumentieren, was die Menschen in Europa nicht mitbekommen.

Auf der Homepage von WTM befindet sich eine Mittelmeerkarte mit unterschiedlichsten Daten, wie Routen von Flüchtlingsbooten, Mobilfunknetze und Rettungszonen der Küstenwache. Die Informationen erhält WTM über Telefonanrufe oder E-Mails von in Seenot geratenen Migranten, deren Familien, Seefahrern oder anderen eventuellen Zeugen. „Watch the Med“ kann auf diese Weise Unglücke rekonstruieren. Die Organisation hofft, die Verantwortlichen zu finden und die Vorfälle juristisch aufzuarbeiten. Helmut Dietrich beschäftigte sich seit über 20 Jahren mit der Situation der Flüchtlinge und Migranten, vor allem an den Außengrenzen der EU und mit den Auswirkungen auf Europa. In Deutschland ist er einer der Köpfe von „Watch the Med“. Im Interview mit Stefanie Hintzmann vom ARTE Journal spricht er über seine Arbeit.

ARTE Journal: Können Sie anhand der im Internet veröffentlichten Karte direkt Hilfe leisten, wenn ein Boot gekentert ist?

Helmut Dietrich: Unser Ziel ist, eine Art alternatives Notrufsystem einzurichten. Dafür brauchen wir aber eine größere, sozialere Mobilisierung rund um das Mittelmeer. Damit würde auch politischer Druck auf die Rettungsleute und die Regierung ausgeübt, die gezwungen wären, Menschenleben zu retten. Im Moment ist das noch nicht zu schaffen.

Sie können mit Ihrer Technik gekenterte Flüchtlinge vor dem Tod im Mittelmeer bewahren?

Die Technik kann sowieso nicht groß helfen. Das ist eine Frage von Rettungsschiffen und politischen Entscheidungen. Man müsste zuerst fairen und freien Schiffsverkehr auf dem Mittelmeer zulassen. Erst dann könnten die Menschen sicher über das Mittelmeer fahren. „Watch the Med“ ist der Meinung, dass in Echtzeit gerettet werden muss.Unser Internetprojekt ist dazu da, bei den Behörden Druck aufzubauen. Das geschieht, indem wir Unglücke rekonstruieren, um so die Verantwortlichen zu finden.

Im Moment geht es Ihnen also hauptsächlich darum, die Hauptverantwortlichen zu finden und vor Gericht zu bringen?
Helmut Dietrich: Das ist ein Ziel. Wir haben zum Beispiel Kenntnisse von einem verantwortlichen Admiral aus Rom. Er sagte, dass Notrufe von über 400 gekenterten Flüchtlinge am 11. Oktober 2013 schon ab Mittag eingetroffen waren. Doch er hat nichts weiter veranlasst, lediglich das Kommando an Malta abgegeben. Auch von dort kam keine Reaktion. Erst als das Schiff mit mindestens 200 Toten am Abend untergegangen war, trafen die ersten Rettungsboote ein. Direkt neben dem Schiff, 40 Kilometer weiter, lag ein italienisches Kriegsschiff. Da ist es natürlich wesentlich schwieriger Namen herauszubekommen. Aber diese Verantwortlichkeiten kenntlich zu machen, das ist unser Ziel.

Warum helfen die anderen Schiffe nicht? Ist es die Angst sich selber strafbar zu machen, wenn sie den illegalen Migranten bei der Überfahrt helfen?

Helmut Dietrich: Fischer und Seeleute auf Handelsschiffen haben Angst, dass ihnen eine Strafe droht, wenn sie helfen. Das gehört sofort abgeschafft. Die Menschen sterben unter Beobachtung. Ihr Tod wird vom Radar aufgenommen und durch Satellitenprogramme dokumentiert. Die Menschen sterben vor unseren Augen. Das soll anscheinend der Abschreckung dienen.

Frontex und Eurosur sind beides Projekte, die sie kritisieren, weil die das Sterben erlaube, weil sie die Situation für die Migranten noch gefährlicher machen. Was genau ist der Unterschied zwischen Watch the med, Eurosur und Frontex?

Helmut Dietrich: Frontex und Eurosur dienen erklärtermaßen dazu, die Flüchtlinge und Immigranten davon abzuhalten nach Europa zu kommen. Es gibt dort furchtbare Aktionen. Sogenannte „Push-backs“. Flüchtlingsboote werden noch auf dem Meer zurückgestoßen. Es gibt unterlassene Hilfeleistung und eine Reihe unmenschlicher Abschreckungsmaßnahmen. „Watch the Med“ ist für eine freie Schiffahrt in Solidarität mit den Flüchtlingen und Migranten. Unser Ziel ist es, dass Menschen frei über das Mittelmeer kommen können und deswegen nicht sterben müssen. Bewegungsfreiheit, Reisefreiheit und die Flucht über das Mittelmeer sollen anerkannt werden.

Stimmt es, dass das Mittelmeer in bestimmte Zonen aufgeteilt ist?

Helmut Dietrich: Im Meer überlappen sich die Bereiche. Die Rettungszonen stimmen nicht mit anderen geografischen und politischen Zonen auf dem Meer überein. Dieses Gewirr, diese Widersprüchlichkeit der sich überlappenden Zonen wird gerne genutzt, um im Nachhinein unterlassene Hilfeleistung zu rechtfertigen, um die Zuständigkeiten zu verschleiern. Seitdem es die Schiffahrt gibt, ist die Rettung der in Seenot geratenen Menschen das Wichtigste. Dabei geht es weder um Zuständigkeiten noch um Zonen. Dieses Prinzip wird im Moment sträflichst missachtet.

Gibt es in ihrer bisherigen Laufbahn eine Geschichte, die sie besonders berührt hat?

Helmut Dietrich: Da fällt mir sofort die Geschichte „Left to die“. Am 27. März 2011 verließen 72 Flüchtlinge, hauptsächlich aus Eritrea, die Küste von Tripolis. In Libyen herrschte damals Natokrieg. Das Flüchtlingsboot ist auf halber Strecke nach Lampedusa wegen eines Motorschadens liegengeblieben und ist dann zwei Wochen auf dem Mittelmeer umhergetrieben. Zuerst sind die Kinder verdurstet, dann die Älteren und Schwächeren. Neun Menschen haben, schwer traumatisiert, überlebt.Sie berichteten dann Journalisten und Menschenrechtsgruppen, welche Schiffe an ihnen vorbei gefahren sind. Sogar ein Hubschrauber flog über sie hinweg. Er warf zwar Wasser ab, aber Hilfe gab es nicht. Das ist die berührendste Geschichte, die später auch vom Europarat von einem Menschenrechtsbericht aufgenommen wurde. Mit Hilfe von WTM konnten die Ereignisse genau dokumentiert werden.

Link zur Homepage: watchthemed.crowdmap.com

Watch the Med auf Facebook

Abgeschobener berichtet: Gefangenenprotest in Ungarn

Abgeschobener berichtet: Gefangenenprotest in Békéscsaba (Ungarn) – illegale Zurückweisung, Behandlung und Bestrafung von Asylwerbern

Testimony: Refugee riot in Békéscsaba (Hungary) – asylum seekers face illegal rejections, measures and treatment

„Refugee riot in Békéscsaba“ (By H.1 & activists from NO BORDER Serbia network)
In Hungary, most asylum seekers are kept imprisoned in closed camps under constant
threat of deportation and without the chance of a fair asylum procedure. In one of these
camps, Békéscsaba, in November 2013, around 200 asylum seekers rose up in protest
against their unjust detention, the inhuman conditions of the camps, and all deportations.
This article offers a brief introduction to the situation in Hungary followed by an
eyewitness account from the riot.

Most of the asylum seekers in Hungary are kept in closed camps, forced to wait in detention
for the result of their asylum claim. Some are placed in so-called “open camps”, or “nonsecure
facilities”, which they are allowed to leave for up to 24 hours. The decision of whether
a refugee will be brought to an open or a closed camp depends on her or his country of
origin. Generalizing the cases of persons from same countries, refugees from states that
have better chances to get asylum in Hungary (like Eritrea, Afghanistan and other countries)
are ‘accommodated’ in open camps for asylum seekers, whereas others are kept in detention for
a uncertain period of time. This is a permanent violation of human rights by the Hungarian state
and the European Union. After the detention of asylum seekers as general common standard in
Hungary had been temporarily interrupted, it was re-established again in 2013. There are two
ways how people usually get into a detention center in Hungary: On the one hand, there are
people who were arrested in Hungary after crossing the border so that they are forced to apply
for asylum in Hungary. On the other hand, there are those who were deported to Hungary from
other EU-countries based on Dublin II-convention because they have finger prints in Hungary.
In most cases is assumed that the refugees entered Hungary hence the EU through Serbia, that
is not part of the EU, and where the largely dysfunctional asylum system leaves little hope they
will get any “protection”. In this sense, the detention system in Hungary is an integral part of the
restriction of freedom of movement in Europe through Dublin II/III. After a hunger strike among
refugees in October 2013 and a new wave of deportations, the refugees started a riot inside the
closed camp of Békéscsaba in November 2013. They were showing their frustration about being
detained without reason, the inhuman conditions in the detention camp, and the daily danger of
sudden push back to Serbia2. Their struggle for the freedom of movement, without being kept
like prisoners, for the possibility to live without the threat to be deported from the EU, is a strong
form of resistance of refugees against the European border system.

H. is one of the 192 refugees who participated in the protest. This is his testimony:
“Many times we made some small protests inside the camp in order to improve our conditions
inside. For example we organized to reject food collectively.
It all started when they took us to the closed camp. After our asylum application we were
brought there. A court extends the cases for at least two months. Afterwards they keep us
waiting. The closed camp is like a prison. In Békéscsaba there were about 200 people,
distributed among two buildings. The conditions were quite bad. We couldn’t decide for
ourselves when to eat, or how much. It was also often bad food, or cold.
Then we heard that if we stay in the camp for 6 months, they will deport us back [to outside of
the EU or to Serbia]. We didn’t know exactly what would happen after these two months with
which our cases had been extended. During this period I had seen that they deported people who
had been there for four months (from Pakistan, Algeria, and other countries). They [the wardens,
the police] would just come, without informing them before and deporting them the same night
or the early morning of the next day. The people were angry that they just deport us back. We
came to seek asylum and they would just push us back to Serbia. Some of the people who were
deported had not even received a negative verdict in their asylum cases.
We talked about it and discussed what to do. When some refugees from Mali came new to the
camp, they asked around what was going on. Why we are kept in detention; we are not criminals,
we are refugees. Then they started a hunger strike for freedom. It started the 10th of October
2013 and lasted for 8 days. On the 14th of October, about 55 people from different countries
joined the hunger strike. The camp authorities came and said they should stop the hunger strike
immediately. The director promised that if they stop their hunger strike, he will accelerate their
asylum procedure. But they didn’t trust these empty promises. After the 8th day of the hunger
strike, one on the guys fainted. He was brought to a hospital. I also saw that there were people
from the media, trying to get access to the camp for interviews.
After that they stopped the hunger strike.
Surprisingly, after one week, 7 of the 8 Malians, who had first started the hunger strike, received
a negative asylum verdict. To one of them they gave a positive answer. It was a direct reaction
to their protest. If you receive a negative verdict in your asylum case, you have 3 days to make
an appeal against it, in order to let your case be checked by a higher court. This means that you
have to wait another month in the closed camp. But many of us don’t know that. Only one of the
7 people from Mali made an appeal, the other 6 guys got deported to Serbia four days later.
The situation was then the same as before. I only saw two people who got the possibility of
moving from the prison camp to an open refugee camp. In their case it was because of health
problems. Women and girls are generally sent to open camps.
After about two weeks we organized a protest against our deportation and for freedom. It was
after an incident, where they deported three Pakistanis that had been there for four months. The
same happened to a group of Senegalese. It was without reason. A while after we heard that one
of them had died in Serbia where they had no place to stay. He froze to death, sleeping outside
in the Serbian forests. Almost everyone participated in the protest. We stood outside in the yard,
holding up signs with the text “no deportations” and other slogans. It was a tense atmosphere,
people were annoyed, standing up, protesting, shouting, but everything remained peaceful. Our
action was invisible to the ‘outer world’– it was directed to the authorities of the detention camp.
The managers and staff of the camp came out, and they told us that they couldn’t do anything.
They said that they are like prison keepers. The orders come from Budapest, and our protest
wouldn’t change anything. They even suggested that we give up our asylum claims and leave
Hungary. They told us that our fingerprints would then only be registered in Hungary, and we
could apply for asylum in another EU country. Even though we were peaceful, many cops came
with dogs and stayed inside the camp until three a.m. on the next day. I remember the police
commissioner of Békéscsaba city saying that if he were in our position, he would do the same.
We refused to give our names to the camp authorities and the police, when they required a list of
the refugees who participated in the protest. The eight hunger strikers had done this before, and
we knew what had happened to them. During this protest there were no media present. So how
could we address the public with our demands?
On the 11thof November, another three people were informed that they would be deported. I
know it was a Monday. They reacted very angrily. The majority of refugees in Békéscsaba were
standing behind them. It was too much this time. Everything happened quickly. There was a
meeting, and after lunch the riot started: Things inside the prison were destroyed, glass broke,
people were breaking the surveillance cameras and one of the buildings was set on fire. All the
time everybody was saying ‘we need freedom’. I don’t know exactly, I guess around 100 people
from many different countries participated in the uprising. Two people escaped at that time.
All the staff from the camp ran away, even the security guards. The reason why the asylum
seekers did not run was that the detentions center authorities kept all our belongings and our
money. Also, the camp is far from the city. Some of us tried to break the gate to get out, so people
outside could see them and hear their demands, simply make their feelings heard, but after one
hour the police came. They kept people from going out. I saw many, many cops, completely
armed, entering, with the dogs shouting that everybody should stop.
The same day, the police transferred all of us to other closed camps all over Hungary, saying
that the camp was not secure anymore. Some of us were not allowed to pack our personal
belongings. After one week, we were brought back to Békéscsaba. In the meantime, one of the
buildings had been renovated. When we came back, the security guards were behaving much
stricter than before. The conditions had not improved, they had gotten worse. Now they don’t tell people in advance anymore that they are facing deportation. Before the riot, a person would be

informed the same day about the upcoming forceful deportation, but now they just come, pick the
asylum seekers up, and deport them.
For some time, it seemed as if they would treat us better, maybe to prevent another protest.
The milk in the morning was now served warm, not cold anymore. But the situation inside the
detention camp is still very bad. They even forbid you to take a second helping of food if you are
still hungry.”
Everything happened without public attention. The riot and its revolutionary potential did’t leave
the walls of the asylum-prison. The few reports focused on ‚the good work of the hungarian
firefighters‘, reproducing racist views on the migration issue and not contextualizing the
refugee-riot as a as a collective and self-organized step to fight the border system. The border
can be anywhere for illegalized people. It is a cruel system that divides people into those that
have papers and those who have not, leaving the last group completely marginalized. But a
dehumanisied society is a society that harms everyone. The fact that asylum seekeers are kept in
closed detention-centres needs more critical attention. To scandalize the bad conditions can’t be
enough.
H. decided to stay in the detention center, but he – like many other refugees arriving in Hungary
– didn’t get the chance of a fair asylum procedure. He was expulsed illegally from the country by
the Hungarian police without having received a final, negative asylum verdict.“

———————————-

1 Initials had been changed to preserve anonymity.
2 The most of the migrants are caught at the border between Serbia and Hungary.

3 This information is not verified, but most of the migrants involved assume that this is a lie.

Petition: Bundestheater und Abschiebegefängnis Vordernberg: Stopp G4S!

Petition: Bundestheater und Abschiebegefängnis Vordernberg: Stopp G4S!

„Wir fordern die Bundesregierung, Länder und Gemeinden auf, keine Verträge mit Unternehmen abzuschließen, die bekanntermaßen Arbeits-, Sozial- oder Menschenrechte verletzen.

Der unter zweifelhaften Ausschreibungsbedingungen zustande gekommene Vertrag mit G4S über das Abschiebegefängnis Vordernberg ist sofort zu kündigen! (…) G4S gehört weltweit zu den größten „Sicherheitsunternehmen“ und wird international gehäuft mit Menschenrechts- und Arbeitsrechtsverletzungen sowie Korruptionsvorwürfen in Zusammenhang gebracht. In Österreich profitiert das Unternehmen derzeit von einem 68-Millionen-Euro-Vertrag mit mindestens 15 Jahren Laufzeit für umstrittene Dienstleistungen im steirischen Schubhaftzentrum Vordernberg, das am 15. Jänner 2014 in Betrieb ging. Mit diesem Vertrag wird erstmals in Österreich der Vollzug von Schubhaft, der laut Bundesverfassung hoheitlich zu vollziehen ist, zumindest teilweise an ein Privatunternehmen ausgelagert.

Schubhaft und Abschiebung sind also Geschäftsfelder, an denen G4S ebenso verdient wie durch die Bereitstellung von BilleteurInnen an Theatern. Einsparungsnotwendigkeiten sind die oft zitierten Begründungen für solche Auslagerungen. Billiger wird es – wenn überhaupt – nur zulasten der Beschäftigten. Gehaltseinbußen und andere Benachteiligungen in den Arbeitsverträgen sowie mangelnde Kontrolle und Rechtssicherheit, insbesondere im Bereich der öffentlichen Sicherheit, sind die Folgen. 

Hier stellt sich die Frage der gesellschaftspolitischen Verantwortung. Arbeits-, Sozial- und Menschenrechte dürfen nicht zugunsten vermeintlich wirtschaftlicher Rentabilität preisgegeben werden! Oder um es mit den Worten aus der Protestrede des Billeteurs auf den Punkt zu bringen: „Ich träume von einem Theater, das sich gegen die Politik stellt, welche Outsourcing, Privatisierung und damit wachsende Ungerechtigkeit in unserer Gesellschaft fördert. Ich träume von einem Theater, das sich gegen die Abschiebung von Menschen wendet, die in anderen Teilen der Welt unterbezahlt und in Elend die Produkte unseres Wohlstands herstellen.“ 

https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/bundestheater-und-vordernberg-stopp-g4s

Urgent Action – Letters to AIR FRANCE against deportation on monday, january 20th! Briefe an AIR FRANCE gegen Abschiebung am Montag, 20.Jan!

Urgent Action – Letters to AIR FRANCE against deportation on monday, january 20th!
Briefe an AIR FRANCE gegen Abschiebung am Montag, 20.Jan!
GB will Nadine K., eine Lesbe aus Kamerun abschieben, ihr Asylantrag – Verfolgung wegen ihrer Sexualität – wurde abgelehnt. Sie soll mit einer Air France Maschine ausgeflogen werden. Air France hat sich in der Vergangenheit geweigert, Menschen auszufliegen, deren Asylanträge dieser Art abgelehnt wurden.

Bittet Air France darum, Nadine K. nicht mitzunehmen!! Als Statement und als Möglichkeit, Zeit zu gewinnen. Hier unser Textbeispiel – wenn ihr weitere Gründe wisst, warum Nadine K. nicht abgeschoben werden soll, fügt sie hinzu:
Please write to the given adresses(below). As an example, here´s what I wrote in French and English – if you have additional info about Nadine´s age, how long she´s been in the UK, practical reasons (physical+mental health etc) why she should not fly etc, add it:
*** Don´t deport Nadine K. back to Kamerun, where she fled from persecution(see flight details below)!
Ne collaborez pas à l´expulsion de Nadine K. en Kamerun, ou elle est persecutée! Ni lundi, 20 janvier 2014, ni plus tard! Air France a déjà refusé des transports de refugiés persecutées pour leur orientation sexuelle qui n´avaient pas recu de l´asile. Nadine K. est en grand danger au Kamerun et n´y rentre pas par sa propre volonté, mais par la force – c´est dans la responsabilité de Air France de ne pas la transporter! Nous, vos clients, comptent sur vous de prendre une decision respectant la dignité humaine!

Details of the flight: Passenger Nadine I.K,

AF1081 – 20 Jan 7:10 from Heathrow to Paris, Charles de Gaulle airport

AF900 – 20 Jan 13:35 from Paris CdG airport to Yaounde, Nsimalen

International airport, Cameroon

Don´t deport Nadine K. to Kamerun via Paris on mon, jan.20th, or any other date! Air France has already decided against the deportation of refugees persecuted for their sexual orientation who had been denied the right of asylum. Don´t put Nadine K. in the big danger awaiting her in the country she had to flee. We as your passengers counht on you to show responsibility and respect of human dignity and not transport her. This would be by force, as against Nadine´s will. What will you do?***

—————————————————————
Hier Kontaktdaten von Air France:
Passenger : Nadine I.K

Details of the flight:

AF1081 – 20 Jan 7:10 from Heathrow to Paris, Charles de Gaulle airport

AF900 – 20 Jan 13:35 from Paris CdG airport to Yaounde, Nsimalen
International airport, Cameroon

AIR FRANCE CONTACTS

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/airfrance

Twitter: @AirFranceUK

Frederic Gagey, Chairman of Executive Committe: frgagey@airfrance.fr

Bruno Mathe, Chief Officer Long-Haul Passenger Activity:
bmatheu@airfrance.fr

Eric Schramm, Executive Vice President Flight Operations:
meschramm@airfrance.fr

Alain Bassil, Chief Operating Officer:
abassil@airfrance.fr

Customer Relations Dept.: 0871 66 33 777 (10p per minute from BT)

Elise Biensan, Press & PR: elbiensan@airfrance.fr

Customer Service: mlh@airfrance.fr

Air France
Nous parlons ici / We speak here: – Français / French – Anglais /
English – Espagnol / Spanish – Italien / Italian – Allemand / German
Reisen/Freizeit

%d Bloggern gefällt das: