Reykjavík Grapevine - 09.09.2011, Blaðsíða 26

26
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 14 — 2011
Opinion | Snorri Páll Jónsson Úlfhildarson
On Friday September 2,
two men appeared in
court in downtown Reyk-
javík. It wasn’t their first
time—and it probably won’t be their
last. If found guilty, the defendants,
Haukur Hilmarsson and Jason Thom-
as Slade, face up to six years in pris-
on, due to a peculiar action on their
behalves that marks a turning point
in Icelandic asylum-seeker affairs.
On the morning of July 3, 2008, Haukur
and Jason darted onto the runway of
Leifur Eiríksson International Airport in
Keflavík, hoping to prevent a flight from
departing, and deporting. Inside the
plane, which was headed to Italy, sat one
Paul Ramses, a Kenyan refugee. The two
activists ran alongside the plane, and
placed themselves in front of it—halting
its takeoff.
It would be wrong to assume that any-
thing has changed since 2008. Iceland
may have seen an infamous economic
collapse followed by a popular uprising
and a new government, but for the two
activists it must feel like time is standing
still. Since their arrest at the airport, they
have been stuck in a seemingly endless
legal limbo, first charged for housebreak-
ing and reckless endangerment and later
thrown between all levels of the juridical
system. Last Friday, the case's principal
proceedings took place for the second
time in Reykjavík's District Court, after
the courts original sentences were ruled
null and void by Iceland's Supreme Court.
THE ICELANDIC STATE VS. PAUL
RAMSES
Paul Ramses and his wife Rosemary fled
Kenya in 2008, afraid for their lives due
to mass persecution against members
of a political party that Paul was involved
with. Shortly after their arrival in Iceland,
via Italy, Rosemary gave birth to a son
they named Fidel, thereby establishing
her right to stay along with the newborn.
Paul, on the other hand, needed to ap-
ply for asylum. The Directorate of Immi-
gration (UTL for short) refused to take
up his case, and in April ruled for him to
be deported to Italy. Paul wasn't notified
until three months later, the night before
he was to be deported, when he was ar-
rested by Icelandic police and separated
from his family—an act that violated both
his rights to appeal UTL's decision and
his son's internationally protected right to
stay with his parents.
WHAT IS THE DUBLIN REGULA-
TION?
UTL’s decision to refuse Paul asylum was
argued for by citing the Dublin Regula-
tion, an agreement on asylum affairs
implemented by the member-states of
the Schengen Area. The Dublin Regula-
tion permits authorities to deport asylum
seekers to the first Schengen state they
entered, but it does not oblige the state
to deport the asylum seeker in any way—
and, as a matter of fact, specially bids au-
thorities to apply it in harmony with hu-
man rights conventions. However, UTL’s
official policy has been to start every asy-
lum application process by checking if it
can be outsourced to another Schengen
state.
That sort of policy is certainly not to
lighten the burden of states—such as Ita-
ly, Spain and Greece—that are located at
Schengen's south and east borders and
whose refugee policies have been heavily
criticised by the likes of the UN Refugee
Agency, Amnesty International and Euro-
pean Parliament.
According to Jórunn Edda Helgadót-
tir, MA student of international and
comparative law, The Dublin Regulation
brings forward grossly defective rules
that have allowed the Icelandic state
to deport asylum seekers en masse by
stating that “because everybody does it,
we can too.” This was indeed how Björn
Bjarnason, then Minister of Justice, re-
plied upon being heavily criticised for the
deportation of Paul Ramses: “Of course
there is nothing unlawful or wrong with
employing this treaty, any more than oth-
er international treaties.”
Such a statement is wrong, accord-
ing to Jórunn as Iceland has validated
the European Convention of Human
Rights, in which it says that “no one shall
be subjected to torture or to inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment,”
and that “everyone has the right to re-
spect for his private and family life”—two
of many law paragraphs that were not
considered in the case of Paul Ramses.
The focal issue at stake is “will,” she says,
as the “problem would never grow to be
so huge if most governments weren't so
willing to pass their duties and commit-
ments on to other states.”
“WE INTENDED TO SAVE HIS LIFE”
Back at the airport, Haukur and Jason
were arrested and air traffic continued
after a short delay. Interviewed shortly
after his release, Haukur cut the crap
when asked about his and Jason's mo-
tives. “We intended to save Paul Ramses
life,” he said, expressing worries that they
had failed. Surprisingly, the next day,
hundreds of people assembled by the
Ministry of Justice and demanded Paul's
return to his family in Iceland.
The pressure increased with daily
demonstrations, petitions and parlia-
mentary debates, as well national and
international media attention—all of it
to be diagnosed as “sentimentality” by
Minister of Justice Björn Bjarnason. But
eventually Björn himself succumbed to
“sentimentality” and overturned UTL's
decision. Parallel to the aforementioned
pressure, Paul's lawyer Katrín Theodórs-
dóttir issued a complaint to the Ministry,
demanding material handling of Paul's
asylum application from a humanitarian
standpoint. Following the Ministry's rul-
ing, UTL finally granted Paul asylum.
“...AND WE DID”
Today Haukur believes that although the
impact of a single act of direct action is
hard to measure, he and Jason actu-
ally saved Paul's life. And their action, he
says, paved the way for what followed, as
standing in front of a ministry or signing
a petition requires much less effort than
running in front of an aeroplane. In the
aftermath, they claim, people were less
afraid to protest.
At the same time he believes that The
State's response to such actions, for in-
stance by instigating serious court cases,
is likely to keep newcomers from getting
involved. “It is sad that people have to
make such enormous sacrifices for such
tiny changes,” says Haukur and mentions
Þorgeir Þorgeirsson, who spent ten years
fighting—eventually at the European
Council of Human Rights—against court
sentences he received for his newspaper
articles that decryed and depicted police
brutality in Reykjavík
THE ICELANDIC STATE VS. HAUKUR
AND JASON
Haukur and Jason were originally
charged with housebreaking and reck-
less endangerment. But once in court,
the prosecutor brought forward two ad-
ditional penalty clauses not included in
the original charges, which he encour-
aged the judge to take into consideration.
Such a move is not only illegal, but also
in breach of the European Convention
on Human Rights, which states that ev-
eryone charged with a criminal offence
should be given adequate time and facili-
ties in preparing their defence.
Despite protest from their defence
lawyer, Ragnar Aðalsteinsson, who had
to defend his clients unprepared for these
new clauses, the District Court found the
two guilty. Haukur was sentenced to
two months in prison while Jason was
given a 45 days probationary prison
term, a ruling that the two appealed to
Iceland’s Supreme Court. And while the
Supreme Court judges did agree with
Ragnar regarding the illegitimacy of the
District Court's ruling, they did uphold
it. Instead of acquitting the two, the Su-
preme Court's judges made the unusual
decision to send the case back to District
Court, to start from scratch again.
According to Hrefna Dögg Gunnars-
dóttir, law student and employee at law
firm Réttur, the Supreme Court's ruling
surely manifests that Iceland's uppermost
court of law recognised the prosecution's
illegal move. Yet the decision to grant
the prosecution another chance crystal-
lises the fundamentally different position
of the prosecutor and the defence. And
when viewed in context with the fact
that by granting Paul asylum, UTL—and
thus the Icelandic state—recognised the
threat he faced if deported to Kenya, one
has to wonder why the courts still ques-
tions Haukur and Jason's actions.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?
“The purpose of the charge is obviously
to suppress resistance,” says Haukur. “I
stopped hoping for an acquittal. Instead
I use this case to learn how to analyse
State Power, and to educate myself about
this system and how it operates.”
During the procedure last Friday, one
could witness the findings of Haukur's
studies as he delivered his disputation.
One of the more interesting points he
made regards the humiliation entailed
in having to discuss important issues on
The State's terms. While having ideologi-
cally argued for his actions he claims he
was met with idiotic and irrelevant ques-
tions; while wanting to discuss an impor-
tant topic as refugee policies surely is, he
has been met with a debate about fences
and police regulations.
Indeed, the prosecutor showed little
or no interest in discussing the motives
behind their actions, which usually is
considered an important factor in crimi-
nal cases. Instead of entering an ideo-
logical dialogue with the defendants, his
obvious aim was to get them jailed for a
mindless and dangerous criminal act.
Haukur has given up hope for an
acquittal, but will admit that a victory
in court would serve as an exemplary
beacon for future cases against political
dissidents, not to mention the legal and
bureaucratic amendments it could lead
to. But these are not these fundamen-
tal changes he hopes for. “The impact
of these kind of cases on the behaviour
of State Power can certainly lead to mi-
nor reforms, but the knowledge we can
gleam from it can give rise to revolution-
aries.”
TIME STANDS STILL
In your mind, what constitutes a 'sensible asylum seeker policy'? We sorta feel like we should
let everyone in.... but would that lead to CHAOS AND CULTURAL DISINTEGRATION?
MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPTS – Eddas and Sagas
The ancient vellums on display.
MILLENNIUM – Icelandic art through the ages.
Phase one. Starts 23 June.
CHILD OF HOPE – Youth and Jón Sigurðsson
Tribute to the leader of the independence movement.
EXHIBITIONS - GUIDED TOURS
CAFETERIA - CULTURE SHOP
The Culture House – Þjóðmenningarhúsið
National Centre for Cultural Heritage
Hverfisgata 15 · 101 Reykjavík (City Centre)
Tel: 545 1400 · thjodmenning.is · kultur.is
Open daily between 11 am and 5 pm
Free guided tour of THE MEDIEVAL
MANUSCRIPTS weekdays at 3 pm,
except Wednesdays.
Activists stuck in seemingly endless legal limbo
SNORRI PÁLL JÓNSSON ÚLFHILDARSON
NATSHA NANDABHIWAT