The Home Office Put up an Advertisement on the Side of Vans - Essay Example

ment of Facts The Home Office put up an advertisement on the side of vans that drove through major towns in Kent The message printed on the side of these vans spelt serious warning on illegal immigrants staying in the United Kingdom. The ad has three posters, one in red, another one in blue, and the third one in yellow. The yellow ad was at the top left and stated “ARE YOU IN THE UK ILLEGALLY? ARE YOU AN ATHEIST?” The second red ad was at the lower right and stated “NO PERSON HAS EVER BEEN GRANTED ASYLUM IN THE UK BASED ON ATHEIST BELIEFS1.” The third blue ad, which was at the lower right, stated “GO HOME OR FACE ARREST”. This also followed with free offers for assistance from the Home office for illegal immigrants who wanted to return to their home countries without facing the wrath of the law. It stated “TEXT HOME TO 12345 FOR FREE ADVICE, AND HELP WITH TRAVEL DOCUMENTS.” It also added that: except for one person; we can help you to return home voluntarily without fear of arrest or detention2.” Issues This ad was controversial and raised several issues through the ASA. ASA received complaints from several quarters in the society, which complained over the controversial nature of the advertisements made by the Home Office3. These groups included migrant representatives living in the United Kingdom, Labor peers, as well as, other legal academics. The complaints challenged these ads from various pints of approaches. The first poster, which lauded how an immigrant was in the UK illegally, or whether he or she was an atheist, raised religious and racial connotations. As such, the poster was distressing and offensive as it reflected on the anthems used to assault slaves and immigrants during the past. In addition, the poster rocked at the very foundation of UK’s stability as a multicultural society, hosting people from diverse backgrounds and cultures4. The phrase goes home or face arrest threatened the social cohesion of the society in such a way that illegal immigrants became tensed and anxious for fear of arrests. These fear also affected other parts of the economy whereby they went into hiding from immigration officer for fear of deportation. This ad was thus very misleading because most of these people in hiding believed they would face automatic arrests consequently for being in the United Kingdom without legal permission5. The disregard of atheism as a basis of getting asylum in the UK also spoilt the image of the country as an unwelcome host to people facing persecution in their home countries on such grounds. As such, the free offer for help was not substantial since the Home Office already threatened all those illegal immigrants with arrest for being illegally in the country. Some other complaints were over the small font used on the posters, thus making them illegible on a moving van, hence inappropriate to convey such important message. Discussion The main intention of the Home Office was to encourage those in the UK illegally to depart from the country without having to face the wrath of the law through deportation and arrests. The office also wanted to reduce the rate of persons seeking asylum in the UK on religious beliefs owing to the precedence set by granting an Afghan citizen asylum on grounds that if he returned to his home country he would face persecution. This was because the man was an atheist who did not have any religious beliefs. The Home Office believed this route would help in sensitizing the immigrants that the country was not a soft touch for those seeking asylum on religious beliefs. In addition, this would also create an emergency voluntary route for these immigrants to return to their home countries without having to go through the legal process of deportation6. The use of mobile billboards on vans traversing target areas, such as major towns in Kent city would encourage creation of awareness to most of the immigrants. This would sound to them the alarm of imminent arrest for being in the country illegally, and this was targeting particularly those immigrants who were unwilling to take up the offer of voluntary departure from the UK. As such, the choice of words by the Home Office was deliberate in fishing out the targeted immigrants in the country, and as such, did not apply to those who applied for asylum. However, it also forewarned those applying for asylum on religious grounds, especially for those who claimed they would face persecution if they returned to their home country because they held no religious beliefs, i.e. being atheists7. The Home Office violated a number of provisions of the CAP code by threatening the illegal immigrants with arrest for being in the United Kingdom illegally. This is because this statement aroused tension and anxiety within the society, and as such, stirred the peace and harmonious co-existence of all persons in the country. The statement that no one would get refuge in the UK based in religious beliefs breached the CAP code as being misleading because one Afghan citizen already had asylum in the country based on such claim8. This point breached the CAP code edition 12 rules 3.1 of the law as misleading advertising, as well as, 3.7, on grounds of substantiation. However, other parts of the ad were not upheld as misleading advertisement according to the ASA provisions and CAP codes because they were not proven to breach any part of their rules. For instance, the way the ad addressed people who were thought to be illegal immigrants in the UK especially those residing in Kent city. This was the intention of the Home office to fish out illegal immigrants hiding in these cities and towns, which was not a breach on its part9. In addition, the offer to take these illegal immigrants home without facing the law was also a welcome move as it encouraged voluntary departures from the country especially for the case of illegal immigrants. Conclusion and Recommendation In conclusion, it is advisable for the Home office put an immediate halt to the advertising campaign. This is because of the legal mayhem it would stir, as well as, the negative image it would create for the country. However, the Home Office can structure the advert to meet specific needs of the country, such as those applying to the case of an afghan citizen that got asylum in the country. Such specification would absolve the office from any legal claims or complaints considering it substantial and achieves the expected results, closing gates for those seeking asylum on grounds of being atheists10. Bibliography Advertising Standards Authority, ‘ASA Adjudication on Home Office’ available at: http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/10/Home-Office/SHP_ADJ_237331.aspx Casado Coca v. Spain (1994) 18 EHRR 1 Colin Scott and Julia Black, Cranston’s Consumers and the Law (Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, 2000) pp 51-60 Committee of Advertising Practice, ‘UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code)’ available at: http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML.aspx Debt Free Direct Ltd, R (on the Application of) v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd [2007] EWHC 1337 (Admin) (Administrative Court) Director General of Fair Trading v Tobyward Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 517 Iain Ramsay, Consumer Law and Policy: Text Cases and Materials on Regulating Consumer Markets (Oxford, 3rd edition, Hart Publishing, 2012) pp. 127-136 and pp. 276-288 Queen on application of Matthias Rath V the Advertising Standards Authority and the Independent Reviewer [2000] EWHC Admin 428 R v. Advertising Standards Authority ex parte The Insurance Service [1989] 2 Admin LR 77. Regina v. Advertising Standards Authority Ltd ex parte Vernons Organization [1992] 1 WLR 1289. Read More