- guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 February 2000 01.37 GMT
Where firmness was needed, Jack Straw provided it. No concessions or undertakings had been granted to the hijackers. The surrender from the plane was "unconditional". Some 21 people were under arrest. The attorney general and director of public prosecutions would be deciding how many would be prosecuted, but hijacking was regarded as "a very serious terrorist offence in this country". Some 60 people with 14 dependants had applied for asylum. The rest of the passengers would be returned to Afghanistan, or nearby Pakistan if they wished, beginning today. The home secretary indicated that he would person ally take the decision on the asylum applications. While each would be examined individually, in accordance with international law, he signalled deep scepticism over their chances of being granted refugee status. They will, of course, be able to appeal to an adjudicator and the immigration appeal tribunal, but Mr Straw noted that the plane had been on an internal flight when it was hijacked: "in such circumstances, it seems inconceivable that persons on the flight intended to claim political asylum unless of course they were complicit in the hijacking." That is to prejudge the cases before they are heard.
The Afghan plane contained all the ingredients - hijackers, asylum seekers, Muslim fundamentalists - which the right needs to undermine the interests of refugees. The idea that the UK is a "soft touch" is absurd. We have some of the most rigorous rules in Europe. Similarly, the UK is not a hijackers' haven: of the 18 hijackings involving European states in the past decade, only two have involved the UK. Hijacking can never be an asylum option. Mr Straw's tough talk may have appeased the right, but it rode roughshod over civil rights. He should have resisted temptation.
