The move by ten more is following the story yesterday about a Saudi princess who sought asylum on the basis of facing death by stoning if she returned. (Her baby also would have faced the death penalty as well since the child was born to a man other than her husband.) It would be interesting to see how the US would react to a wave of Saudi nationals seeking asylum. Would the US do the right thing or would they not want to offend the Saudi family?
Immigration and asylum experts said last night that asylum cases from women fleeing the kingdom were very rare. But Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said of the case: "This is the kind of person that our asylum laws are designed to protect. A woman and her unborn child should under no circumstances be sent back to a country where it is likely that they will be harmed. I welcome the decision made in this case."Is "death by stoning" really any less embarrassing?
New figures released by the Home Office also showed that a further 15 Saudis were refused asylum by the Government last year. There are no details about the sex of each of the applicants nor for the number of asylum applications received this year.
Mr Vaz called for more information to be made public about claims from Saudi Arabia. He said: "This is a country with a questionable human rights record. It is important to make clear the number of people who are fleeing similar treatment."
The princess's case is one of a small number of claims for asylum brought by citizens of Saudi Arabia which are not openly acknowledged by either government. British diplomats believe that to do so would in effect highlight the persecution of women in Saudi Arabia, which would be viewed as open criticism of the House of Saud and lead to embarrassing publicity for both governments.
