UK rejects asylum plea from Afghan human rights defender

Pedestrian walk along the Southbank of the River Thames, with the Elizabeth Tower, commonly known by the name of the clock's bell "Big Ben", at the Palace of Westminster, home to the Houses of Parliament,in the background, in central London, on September 2, 2024. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 05 April 2025
Follow

UK rejects asylum plea from Afghan human rights defender

  • Woman worked with Western-backed rights projects before 2021 Taliban takeover
  • 2,000 Afghan asylum-seekers had claims rejected in last quarter of 2024, up from 48 in same period of 2023

LONDON: An Afghan woman who risked her life defending human rights in her country has had her UK asylum claim rejected, The Guardian reported on Saturday.

Mina, whose name has been changed for anonymity reasons, supported Western-backed projects across Afghanistan before the Taliban takeover in 2021.

She traveled to Britain following the withdrawal of the Western coalition, but has now been told by the Home Office that it is safe for her to return.

“I assumed my asylum claim would be granted — I am from Afghanistan, I’m a woman, I worked with Western governments,” she said.

“The refusal was an absolute shock. Now every day I fear being sent back to my home country. Having a normal life here looks like a dream for me. I’m really suffering mentally.”

Previously, the Home Office had generally accepted asylum claims from women like Mina, yet 26 Afghan women were rejected in the last three months of 2024, statistics show.

Mina’s solicitor Jamie Bell said: “It is shocking that 26 Afghan women were refused asylum in the last quarter. However this is a particularly upsetting case where the Home Office states that a woman who risked her life defending women’s rights in Afghanistan would not be at risk on return.

“The UK should be proud to offer protection to an individual like her. This refusal letter is offensive to all those who defended Western values in Afghanistan and who ought to be offered protection when they cannot safely return.”

In total, 2,000 Afghan asylum-seekers had their claims rejected in the last three months of 2024 — a surge from 48 in the same period of 2023.

Mina said: “When I was working with Western government projects, I received security training about how to respond if I was caught up in a bombing or a kidnapping. Every day I was a few minutes or a few seconds away from bomb blasts.

“My heart beat so fast when I had to pass the checkpoints. Every morning when I said goodbye to my family to go to work I thought it might be the last time I saw them.

“Some of my colleagues just disappeared. The Taliban changed the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to the Ministry of Vice and Virtue — proper, systematic elimination of women.”

Women and girls face serious risks to their safety in Afghanistan, a Human Rights Watch report published this year found.

Mina had personally told Home Office interviewers of the dangers she faced in Afghanistan as a result of her work.

But the official who rejected her claim said: “It is considered that you do not face a real risk of persecution or harm on your return to Afghanistan on the basis of your claimed adverse attention by the Taliban.”

The letter Mina received detailing her rejection added that she “likely has a great support network” due to her occupation.

The Home Office found that “there are no compassionate factors” in her case that would “warrant a grant of leave to remain outside the immigration rules.”

Mina said:  “When I arrived here, I felt safe. I thought I would have a chance to live. In Afghanistan I had not been considered a human. I learned to ride a bicycle here, something I was not allowed to do in my country.

“I was really full of hope that my life would change. But someone pressed pause on my life. I hope someone will press play again.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “It is our longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases.”


Activist Peter Tatchell arrested over ‘globalize the intifada’ placard

Updated 31 January 2026
Follow

Activist Peter Tatchell arrested over ‘globalize the intifada’ placard

  • Arrest in London during Saturday protest an ‘attack on free speech,’ his foundation says
  • Intifada ‘does not mean violence and is not antisemitic,’ veteran campaigner claims

LONDON: Prominent activist Peter Tatchell was arrested at a pro-Palestine march in central London, The Independent reported.

According to his foundation, the 74-year-old was arrested for holding a placard that said: “Globalize the intifada: Nonviolent resistance. End Israel’s occupation of Gaza & West Bank.”

The Peter Tatchell Foundation said in a statement that the activist labeled his Saturday arrest as an “attack on free speech.”

It added: “The police claimed the word intifada is unlawful. The word intifada is not a crime in law. The police are engaged in overreach by making it an arrestable offense.

“This is part of a dangerous trend to increasingly restrict and criminalize peaceful protests.”

Tatchell described the word “intifada,” an Arab term, as meaning “uprising, rebellion or resistance against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

“It does not mean violence and is not antisemitic. It is against the Israeli regime and its war crimes, not against Jewish people.”

According to his foundation, Tatchell was transported to Sutton police station to be detained following his arrest.

In December last year, London’s Metropolitan Police said that pro-Palestine protesters chanting “globalize the intifada” would face arrest, attributing the new rules to a “changing context” in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack in Australia.

“Officers policing the Palestine Coalition protest have arrested a 74-year-old man on suspicion of a public order offense. He was seen carrying a sign including the words ‘globalize the intifada’,” the Metropolitan Police said on X.

According to a witness, Tatchell had been marching near police officers with the placard for about a mile when the group came across a counterprotest.

He was then stopped and “manhandled by 10 officers,” said Jacky Summerfield, who accompanied Tatchell at the protest.

“I was shoved back behind a cordon of officers and unable to speak to him after that,” she said.

“I couldn’t get any closer to hear anything more than that; it was for Section 5 (of the Public Order Act).

“There had been no issue until that. He was walking near the police officers. Nobody had said or done anything.”