The Osterley Times: Zimbabwe refugee: 'I could not take the torture if I am forced back'

I've covered what's going on in Zimbabwe quite extensively over the past few days, which is why I find today's Independent front cover so disturbing. It tells the story of Tendayi Goneso, a Zimbabwean who fled to Britain fearing death at the hands of Mugabe.

His wife has already been murdered by the regime and he has spent four years estranged from his children. And yet, with events in Zimbabwe spiralling towards chaos, the British government have withdrawn his benefits and are talking about sending him back to Zimbabwe, where he feels sure that he will be tortured.

There is little doubt Mr Goneso would be a marked man if he was forced to return home. But the Home Office has already thrown out one asylum application, appears to have lost track of a second and has cut off all his financial support.

Today, Mr Goneso relies on handouts to survive and lives in constant fear of being evicted from his flat.

He said last night: "I don't know how I would cope if I lost my case - killing myself would be an option. I don't think I could stand the humiliation and torture if I was made to go back.

"It's humiliating and degrading to go to charity. It doesn't seem fair - Britain doesn't appear to be practising what it preaches. They speak of offering good hospitality and supporting democracy. But the system has been cruel to me."

An obscenity like this only becomes possible when a Labour government - I should stress that as Kinnock did when talking about Militant, "A Labour government" - sets out to please the readers of the right wing Daily Mail when it comes to the subject of immigration.

This case highlights what is wrong with triangulation, the political manoeuvring introduced by Clinton and eagerly emulated by Blair, where a political candidate presents their positions as being either "above" or "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum. This is what's also known as the "Third way". The logic behind this manoeuvring is that your natural supporters will vote for you anyway, allowing you to sweep up the mythical middle ground.

It is for this reason that Tony Blair can use the term "Guardian readers" as a form of insult. He knows that, come election day, no Guardian reader is going to vote Liberal or Tory, so he can insult them and win over a few Daily Mail readers, knowing that the subjects of his insult have nowhere else to go.

It is the crassest form of cynicism. And I notice that it's now being emulated by David Cameron, who is displaying his "green" credentials to a Tory Party who couldn't give a hoot whether he's green or not. But again, come election day, those old grannies are hardly going to change the habits of a lifetime and vote Labour, so he can afford to ignore his natural constituency and play - again - for the mythical Middle Ground.

I used to feel represented by the Labour Party just as Norman Tebbit used to feel represented by the Conservative Party, but nowadays neither party represents either of us. I would like to see a Labour Party that stood for principle, I would like to see a Labour Party that did things for no other reason than they were the right things to do.

However, even thinking in that manner marks me out as a relic, as a dangerous Leftist subversive, as someone who endangers the New Labour experiment.

And so, as a result of this need to embrace triangulation, Blair find himself condemning Mugabe's actions whilst simultaneously threatening to deport people back to that country. It's an obscenity. And it's what happens when you set out to please the mythical "Middle Ground" whilst apparently being devoid of any sincerely held political beliefs. You are left embracing a series of standards that - whilst pleasing the readers of the Daily Mail - are actually utterly contradictory.

Blair would argue that people like myself are the reason that Labour spent eighteen years in the wilderness, that we care more about principle than about getting elected, and I would have to concede that there is an element of truth to what he says. However, I would counter that there is no point in a Labour government being elected if it is only there to serve up a watered down version of Tory policies.

Indeed, I regard this triangulation as the main reason for turnout being so low at recent elections. If there is barely anything to differ between the two parties then it's hard to create a passionate interest in politics amongst the electorate. Just before the last election two million people marched in London opposing the Iraq war. That tells me that people have a passionate interest in politics but, when it came to the election, that they didn't like the choices they were being offered. Hence the historic low turnout.

And cases like that of Tendayi Goneso only emphasises my point. Where is the principle in any of this? What's the point of a Labour Party being elected if it's only going to send people to their deaths at the hands of tinpot dictators like Mugabe?

Mr Goneso built a successful career running several pubs, but became involved with the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), providing activists with shelter and transport.

Mugabe loyalists took brutal retribution, savagely beating him and threatening to close his businesses. In 2003 he fled, leaving his wife, Chiedza, and their children and ended up staying with a friend in the West Midlands.

Soon after he claimed asylum, he heard terrible news from home. Government militiamen looking for him directed their bloodlust on his wife, attacking her so ferociously that she died in hospital from head injuries.

"I felt distraught to have a loved one buried when I wasn't there. It was a nightmare - I couldn't believe it. I still miss her," he said.

Mr Goneso is now prominent in the MDC's British group, chairing its Walsall branch, and taking a leading role in fund-raising and demonstrations against the Zimbabwean regime.

"When my wife was killed I was so angry with the whole system in Zimbabwe. I feel Mugabe has got away with murder. He may not be killing people directly but indirectly, he is killing people by the way he has wrecked Zimbabwe's economy and health system.

Mr Goneso's first asylum application was rejected after three years, but he made a second immediately afterwards, arguing that his activism with the MDC made it impossible for him to return. He had heard nothing until a letter this month told him his financial support was being terminated. Now he relies on charity from the Red Cross and fears eviction. And if the Home Office wins a case going through the courts over the status of Zimbabwean asylum-seekers, he could be ordered to leave.

We are now talking about deporting a man who, because of his support for the MDC, faces certain retribution should he return to Zimbabwe. That's simply wrong. And I don't give a monkeys how annoyed the readers of the Daily Mail get over immigration, a Labour leader should have the courage to say it's wrong and act accordingly.

Click title for full article.