The Napier Barracks have become a Symbol of Segregation
Kaya Purchase / Feb 28 / Asylum Seekers
Protests outside of the Napier Detention Center. Photo courtesy of Andy Aitchison
On January 19th I learnt about Victor Fonseca, an inmate of the Northwest Detention Centre in Washington. He had been on hunger strike for 62 days and was intending to make it to 100, calling for the shutdown of the centre after some of the inmates had contracted COVID-19. The conditions in the centre are cramped and unhygienic and insufficient measures have been taken to prevent the spread of the virus. Victor, and up to 100 other inmates who also went on strike, were calling for the immediate release of those who were sick, followed by freedom for all. I knew America was notorious for its treatment of asylum seekers, but the fact that conditions have grown to such severity that people had been driven to these desperate measures appalled me. A week later I read about a hunger strike that had started in the UK, in the Napier barracks in Kent. The presence of such an upsetting concept in my home country unsettled me. I believe in a globalised attitude when it comes to human rights – an issue in America, in Africa, in Asia should be of concern to the UK also. Geographical distance does not alleviate our responsibility to respond to injustice. I also wasn’t naive about our own hostility towards asylum seekers. However, this particular incident seemed to be a sign that the UK was following America’s example.
The Napier barracks have only been used as temporary accommodation since 22nd September 2020. Daniel Trilling, writing for the Guardian shared his belief that the decision to use ex-army barracks as accommodation for asylum seekers is 'as much symbolic as it is practical' and an attempt by the government to normalise ‘segregation’. It certainly seems that way. Ever since the introduction of the hostile environment by Theresa May, the government has been pretty open about their intention to make the UK as difficult a place for asylum seekers to live as possible, under the guise of this being a deterrent to those seeking safety here. Placing people who have potentially fled civil unrest, war or torture in a military environment with barbed wire fences seems too calculating to be merely an instance of short-sighted insensitivity. Many inmates have claimed that living there feels worse than being in prison and there is a shooting range nearby meaning that gunfire is audible from the site. Considering there is a high number of inmates who are showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, the effects of this environment must be devastating. Priti Patel’s response to those complaining of the inhumane conditions they are being forced to endure only cements my conviction that the mistreatment of the Napier inmates is intentional. In response to the hunger strikes she has claimed that if the barracks were good enough to accommodate ‘our brave soldiers’ then it is ‘an insult to say they’re not good enough’ for asylum seekers, yet another perfect example from Patel of nationalist rhetoric sentimental enough to ignite indignation in our patriotic British tax-payers.
The reality is that inmates are subject to overcrowding, poor hygiene, broken sinks and toilets, lack of privacy and social-distancing, constant surveillance and poor access to healthcare and legal advice. The latter means that they have no idea when their asylum claims will be processed. The uncertainty of lockdown has understandably reduced many people, myself included, to feelings of anxiety and depression. Imagine having no concept of how long you have to stay imprisoned in an institution that has no regard for you as a human being. One inmate has compared such insecurity to a prison sentence, highlighting that at least when given a prison sentence you know how long you will be detained. Dr Jill O’Leary of the Helen Bamber Foundation has raised concerns over how inmates are required to seek permission from staff before they are able to leave the site to access medical appointments. The staff decide whether or not based on their health issue they are permitted to leave. The spread of COVID in the barracks has not only sparked hunger strikes but resulted in some inmates refusing to sleep indoors, choosing instead to place their sleeping bags outside in freezing January weather. There are accounts of insomnia, severe depression and anxiety. There have been two incidents of attempted suicide.
It is integral that these barracks are closed and asylum seekers are offered accommodation that will enable them to safely and with dignity integrate into the community. The protests that have been taking place in and directly outside the Napier barracks in the previous months are a cry to be heard by the general public. But those in charge of the barracks appear to be doing everything possible to try to cover up what is really going on. Bella Sankey, head of charity Detention Action has expressed concern over the confidentiality agreement that volunteers who visit the centre are asked to sign. It includes details of penalties for any breaches of contract. The Official Secrets Act should only apply to issues of National Security and yet it is being employed here to prevent accounts of the interior conditions of the barracks from being reported.
Freelance photographer Andy Aitchison was arrested after taking a photograph of a short protest staged outside the barracks on Thursday 28th January. Protestors threw fake blood at the gates, while others held signs blazoning, ‘Priti Patel, there will be blood on your hands.’ According to Andy, the whole protest was peaceful and lasted approximately ten minutes and yet he and one of the participants were accused of criminal damage. Andy is a photographer who specialises in social justice and throughout his 26 year career has captured many protests, but has never before been arrested. He had his phone confiscated, as well as his camera’s memory card and he was banned from the barracks site while on bail. The charges have since been dropped, but the lasting effect of a criminal record may significantly affect his career. His arrest appears to indicate a desire to thwart any attempts at disclosing the distress of the Napier inmates. In a chat with Andy, he expressed a firm belief that the ‘government is trying to hide things.’
I feel like I was arrested as a way of keeping me quiet. They knew I went up there often. It’s as though they’re saying “don’t shine a light on this issue.” It does feel quite symbolic. In these times of COVID and lockdown, journalists are the only people out and about telling stories. If they aren’t doing this, then things aren’t known about. The Napier barracks is a very controversial place to put people. It’s really important to tell people what’s going on in there.
Andy felt that it was so important that as soon as his charges were dropped he immediately returned to the Napier site.
‘I went straight back up there. I was the only one wandering around there. I was nervous, but nothing happened. There were four or five police cars, but no one did anything. I just really wanted to make a point that I wasn’t scared.’
The charges against Andy were only dropped after the issue of his arrest was raised in Parliament. Andy is clearly grateful for this but stressed the fact that his arrest is not an isolated case. He informed me that journalists are arrested all the time for trying to document issues that the government doesn't want to be exposed. ‘I just want to talk about it as much as possible to stop other journalists being hassled as well.’
Andy Aitchison’s dedication to documenting the reality of what people are suffering at the hands of the Home Office should be applauded. We need to keep the spotlight on the Napier barracks, as well as immigration detention centres, to ensure that these places don’t slip under the radar. If there was nothing to hide why would the authorities be so keen to prevent publicity?
When challenged about the conditions of Napier Barracks, Chris Philip, the immigration compliance minister responded by questioning why migrants had made the journey to the UK in the first place. He was quoted as saying ‘those at Napier have generally come from France by small boat. This journey is not only dangerous but unnecessary – France is a safe country with a well-functioning asylum system.”
Considering their deplorable recent history of the Calais refugee camp and the recent acid attack on a young man who was awaiting a long-delayed asylum claim, the idea that France is ‘safe’ is debatable. Regardless of this, such deflection is clearly an attempt to evade addressing why the UK treats human beings as though their basic needs are not important.
The fact of a hunger strike is in itself proof that the issues inside Napier are intolerable. People do not put themselves through a hunger strike until they are pushed to the brink. The fact that hunger strikes are happening means that the sincerity of the claims against Napier do not need to be debated, they simply need to be addressed. Terrible treatment of asylum seekers will never deter other asylum seekers from arriving in the UK. They come here because they have no other choice. They cannot remain in their home country. The government knows this. They have the statistics that prove the concept of a ‘pull factor’ to be a myth but they continue to use it to conceal their deliberate racist attack on the most vulnerable citizens of our world. The harsh living conditions of the Napier barracks are tactical, cruel and an example of dangerous and selfish leadership. We need to listen to the concerns of those taking a stand and refuse to listen to the manipulative justifications of the government if we wish not to take a part in such severe moral indecency.