Sir, - I am writing in reference to Minister John O'Donoghue's appearance on Prime Time on June 2nd. My trouble is that of squaring some of his remarks with other things which I know to be the case. I know, for example, that one of the Romanians found secreted inside a lorry outside Kildare town on June 1st, told Gardai that he had paid 11 years of savings to be smuggled into Ireland. I know that individuals and families prefer to endure torturous journeys to unfamiliar and potentially hostile countries, in similar lorries, with little food and no sanitation facilities, to remaining in what are (let's not forget) their homelands. I know that throughout the world there are indescribable amounts of discrimination, brutal repression, torture, extra-judicial killing and economic catastrophe.
I have made the acquaintance of a Kurdish gentleman whose village was razed by Turkish security forces, whose father and brothers were tortured, and who took flight on being compelled after completing military service, to train a rifle in the direction of his village people. This gentleman, it must be pointed out, was denied asylum in Ireland. I know that those attempting to deport individuals from Europe have encountered much resistance, and that private security firms and specialist travel agencies are now being used. The resistance of a Romanian named Constantin Rudaru, on being deported from Holland, was such that he needed to be taped for so long that he has suffered brain damage as a result of oxygen deprivation. I have seen documented accounts of asylum seekers committing suicide rather than face deportation. Further, I know that Amnesty is aware of more than 800 asylum seekers who have been sent, from Europe, home to their deaths.
In view of all of this, does it seem to you a reasonable proposition, that 90 per cent of asylum seekers are "bogus"? John O'Donoghue has been reported in this paper as making precisely that claim. Further, he claimed on Prime Time, that the mechanisms which have led him to make that determination are utterly impartial. Now, there are a number of remarks which could be made here. One could for example point out that there is as yet no body in place which is permitted to conduct an independent inquiry into judgements made on asylum seekers. One could question the impartiality and discernment of someone who admits to being afraid of being "overrun" by "30,000" immigrants.
But because, I think, of my perhaps unreasonably incredulous nature, I'd prefer to focus on this, or rather these, conundrums: does it not require a leap of faith, to accept that only a tiny minority of asylum seekers are imperiled and sincere? Does it not require a similar leap in order to grant that the rest are telling great big fibs? And is it not more than somewhat puzzled that our knee-jerk response to any hint of human suffering, is the imputing of the most conniving motives to the alleged sufferer? I would be grateful to anyone who is willing to rise to the theological challenge of penetrating these mysteries. - Yours, etc., Damien French,
Farranlea Road, Cork.