![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article investigates the political agency of deportable people and the legacies of detention. It explores the hunger strike as a form of political action and revisits the politics of a high-profile strike organised by Zimbabwean detainees in British removal centres in 2005. The discussion emphasises the controversy surrounding this form of protest: how hunger strikes can create new connections between detainees and broader communities of citizens and non-citizens, while at the same time being contentious and divisive. The article also debates the opportunity structure, rhetorical devices and political linkages involved in the broader anti-deportation campaigns to which high-profile political actions by detainees are sometimes linked. It explores the advantages and disadvantages of protests (such as the Zimbabwean case discussed here) that depend on political space opened up by hostile inter-governmental relations between deporting and receiving states and the multitude of transnational connections produced through post-colonial ties that can give particular migrant groups an exceptional embeddedness. The article examines the hunger strike in the context of a broader discussion of the politicising effects of detention: the ways insecure legal status shapes detainees' capacity to rebuild their lives, attitudes towards the law, justice and notions of belonging. It draws on interviews with former hunger strikers and other ex-detainees, as well as the members of their family, friends, visitors and support groups.
Acknowledgements
This article draws on the findings of a broader project on immigration detention, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, entitled Narratives and Legacies of Detention. The research was conducted in collaboration with the Zimbabwe Association (a community-based asylum-seeker support organisation, of which the author is trustee). The interviews for the study were conducted by the author, by Stella Maravanyika and Rachel Palmer, with facilitation by Brighton Chireka, Sarah Harland, Patson Muzuwa, Luka Phiri and others. Grateful thanks to these individuals and organisations, and to those who spoke to us about their experiences.
Notes
1. In late 2010, the British Government announced its intention to resume removals. A judicial ruling on a new Zimbabwe Country Guidance Case was announced in March 2011, which allowed deportations to be resumed, with the exception of a range of risk categories.
2. For a full discussion of the findings of this study, see McGregor (Citation2009b).
3. The legal basis of deportation and removal under immigration powers is discussed in ILPA (Citation2008), BID (Citation2008) and LDSG (Citation2009).
4. Government justification for the decision can be found in http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansard/cm090423/text/90423w0015.htm
5. Available from: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/immigration-removal-centre-inspections.htm
6. The hunger strike was a strategy used particularly by white women, but did not occupy a central political role.
7. These included ‘Sithembile’ whose family told the press she had disappeared on return (McGrory and Ford Citation2005), six deportees ‘tortured and dumped’ (Carrell and Goodchild Citation2005), ‘Usher’ and one other punched on the head and neck and interrogated for 2 days for being British spies. Usher was taken to Harare central prison, beaten on the soles of his feet, subjected to electric shock treatment to his chest and testicles and was then sentenced (with other deportees) to a long prison sentence, but managed to escape, as one of the officials thought he had been given bail; see also the case of ‘Zuka Kalinga’/‘Vincent’ interrogated at the airport then Bulawayo who escaped to South Africa (McGrory and Beeston Citation2005, Doward Citation2005).
8. Cited by the Zimbabwe Association, http://www.zimbabweassociation.org.uk/docs/newsarticle.htm
9. Interview 1, ex-detainee.
10. http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/content/view//189/68/ [Accessed July 2009].
11. Interview 7, ex-detainee.
12. Interview 1, ex-detainee.
13. They belonged to a range of Christian churches – from Pentecostal to mainstream Anglican, Methodist or Catholic. Some belonged to syncretic religious movements, including various Apostolic groups.
14. Interview 7, ex-detainee.
15. Interview 1, ex-detainee.
16. Interview 6, ex-detainee.
17. Interview 11, ex-detainee.
18. Interview 4, ex-detainee; Interview 14, detainee visitor.
19. Interview 14, detainee visitor.
20. Interview 14, detainee visitor.
21. Interview 4, ex-detainee.
22. Interviews 12 and 13, Yarl's Wood ex-detainees.
23. Interview 14, detainee visitor.
24. Interviews 7 and 16, ex-detainees.
25. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cnhansard/vo050720/halltext/50720. 20 July 2005, column 444WH, question by Kate Hoey [Accessed July 2009].
26. Harris Nyatsanza, http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/content/view//189/68/ [Accessed July 2009].
27. Interview 7, case also appears in IRR (2006).
28. Where resistance was successful, deportees were returned to detention, recounting stories of verbal and other abuse from escorts. Visitors also recounted instances of deportations achieved with force and without dignity, such as when an individual was removed in a plastic suit having soiled themselves in fear (V14).
29. Interview 16, ex-detainee.
30. Interview 4, ex-detainee and 14 visitor.
31. Interview 3, ex-detainee.
32. ILPA information sheet, Zimbabwe judgement. Available from: http://www.ilpa.org/uk/
33. Information provided by Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA), January 2009.
34. Interview 1, ex-detainee.
35. Interview 5, ex-detainee.
36. Interview visitor 10.
37. Interview 11, ex-detainee.
38. Interview 6, ex-detainee.
