|THE GIPSY WEDDING IS AS LEGAL AS ANY OTHER ONE|
|RWe refuse legalists which know the law but do not
know how to interpret nor apply it
We have already heard the new and read it in the newspaper that the Catalonian High Court of Justice has denied The widow's pension to a Gypsy woman, because according to the Magistrates which make it up, the Gypsy wedding has not legal validity. With regards to this formal aggression to the culture, history, customs and traditions of 600.000 Spanish Gypsies - and twelve millions and a half that are living in Europe and get married exactly in the same way as we the Spanish Gypsies do - the Romani Union announces the intention to appeal against the sentence until all Spanish jurisdictional petitions deplete, without refusing the possibility of it being the same International Court, who passes judgement about this sentence, which we consider to be completely absurd and unjustified.
In this urgent valuation we want to remind that the president of the Romani Union, Juan de Dios Ramírez-Heredia, while being Deputy in the Spanish Court, presented at The House of Commons a parliamentarian initiative directed to achieve the formal recognition, on the part of public authorities, of the Gypsy Wedding. That initiative was accepted by the House of Commons.
Equally, The Romani Union expresses that even just with the same text of that parliamentarian initiative, the Spanish Military Court absolved from joining the military service, young Gipsies who were in charge of children and proved to be married through the Gypsy ritual.
The Romani Union deeply regrets the Catalonian High Court of Justice resolution which is far away from the social reality and nowadays life. Once again, unfortunately, these magistrates have behaved as those legists who know the law but are not capable to interpret and apply it. They remain firm to the norm and apply it falling to recognise the true sense of its meaning. They are not concerned about the real aim of it because they only follow the procedural law. They prefer the legal security rather than any other moral and certitude or material justice.
We, the spanish Gipsies think that being equal in front of the law, as it states the 14th article of our Constitution, means that in the practice of justice should be considered normal, what is normal in real life and daily good fellowship of thousands of people who are at the same time Gipsies and full right spanish citizens.
|The war in Kosovo in not over||Prejudice Rules Against Asylum Seekers|
|The war in Kosovo in not over|
|The war in Kosovo
is not over. Since June 18th the KLA and their Albanian supporters have
been terrorizing the Kosovar Roma/Hashkalija in an ethnic cleansing operation
that has destroyed more than 20,000 Roma/Hashkalija homes.
In many villages and towns, all Roma homes have been destroyed. Families whose Roma ancestors arrived here as early as 1320, or Hashkalija whose oral traditions recount an even older history, have not only been made homeless, but over 150,000 have had to flee to other countries.
In order to justify these attacks, the KLA and their supports have labeled
all Roma and Hashkalija as having collaborated with the Serbs. Yet the
evidence on the ground does not support this allegation. Although KFOR
and the UN police have received many requests to detain Serbs suspected
of atrocities during the war, no Roma or Hashkalija have been mentioned
|Prejudice Rules Against Asylum Seekers|
|Britain's system of
dealing with asylum claims has been described as "institutionally racist"
after an adjudicator hearing the case of a Czech Gypsy said that black
people use their skin colour as an "excuse" for claiming they suffer from
The adjudicator, who was handling an appeal against a Home Office decision to reject the man's claim for asylum, also likened police prejudice towards Gypsies to "the kind of pet hates we all have". The comments were found in a "determination", or report, compiled by the Immigration Appellate Authority, part of an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department which deals with all claims turned down by the Home Office.
Human rights and asylum groups have seized on the report as evidence of "endemic racism" in the asylum system and have drawn parallels with the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which described the Metropolitan Police as "institutionally racist". They claim that many adjudicators sitting on asylum appeals panels are "politically unreconstructed".
Nick Hardwick, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said he was "appalled" by the language. "This illustrates perfectly why many of us have so little confidence in the asylum decision-making process. It is part of the phenomenon of institutionalised racism which needs to be tackled with vigour," he said.
Like many Gypsies, or Roma, as they prefer to be called, Petr Hub cited three reasons for claiming asylum: that he had suffered persecution and violence because of his ethnic origin, that the Czech police did nothing to help him, and he had been excluded from jobs and education of his choice.
The report, which has been revealed as the Immigration and Asylum Bill makes its way through Parliament, suggests that many people use claims of persecution as an excuse. "Sometimes discrimination is real, sometimes of course it is imaginary and used as an excuse by the disadvantaged person, as one often hears it said, 'it's because I am black' in the United Kingdom," wrote the adjudicator, listed only as "L J Smith".
Mr Smith adds that it is natural for policemen to hold prejudices, such as anti-Gypsy views. "Although they should try and put them on one side, they are human like everybody else, and we all have our pet hates or dislikes, no matter how we try and disguise them," he writes.
Mr Hub admitted that he often did not bother to report attacks because he felt the police would take no action. Mr Smith observes that "if people do not report anything to the police then they cannot complain that the police do not give them the protection to which they claim they are entitled".
Mr Smith says that he "generally accepts" Mr Hub's evidence, but does not feel it qualifies him for asylum. He likens Mr Hub's claim that he was unfairly denied access to college to British students being rejected from Oxford University. "It is so easy for people to use as an excuse when they cannot go to the place they want to, that they are being discriminated against", he said.
Asylum Aid recently published a report detailing 90 cases in which asylum seekers claim to have had unfair hearings and has called for wholesale reform of the appeals procedure. It says many of the UK's 160 adjudicators, the vast majority of who are qualified lawyers, are unfit to hear cases, often pre-judging claims rather than dealing with them on their merits.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also voiced concerns, saying many adjudicators are out of date with political developments. "The language can be patronising and seem to come from another age", he said.!