radiofree.asia

Category: Dominic Raab

  • Another prisoner on an indeterminate sentence has taken his own life, with no release date in sight

    Content warnings: suicide, self-harm, violence in prison

    On Friday 10 March, people protested outside the gates of HMP Bristol in memory of prisoner Keith Gadd. Keith had taken his own life there the previous day. Keith was an IPP prisoner – he was serving an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP). His fellow prisoners said that he had recently been turned down for release by the Parole Board.

    Demonstrators chanted “HMP, blood on your hands” and “Until all are free, Smash IPP!”. Amongst them were several family members and loved ones of other IPP prisoners.

    The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) told the Canary that Keith’s death will be investigated, “as with all deaths in custody”. However, it is unlikely that the investigation will make any difference to the brutality of IPP sentences. The MOJ and the government know how harmful it is, but they are carrying on the sentence anyway.

    Last July, another IPP prisoner called Taylor took his own life at Bristol’s HMP Eastwood Park. He had served over 14 years of an IPP sentence, and been repeatedly turned down for release.

    A life sentence for minor crimes

    At least 81 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives since Tony Blair’s government created the sentence in 2003. IPP prisoners are given a ‘tariff’ for the crime they’re being sentenced for, but they are not automatically released once that tariff is served. Their freedom is in the hands of the parole board. This makes IPP sentences equivalent to a life sentence, but they have largely been handed out for minor crimes.

    The sentence has been described as psychological torture, with IPP prisoners commonly serving in excess of a decade or more in prison. The IPP sentence was discontinued in 2012, with the MOJ admitting that the sentence had been used more widely than initially intended. The government had only intended for 900 IPPs to be given out, but the courts doled out over 8,000.

    IPP was not abolished retrospectively in 2012, and thousands of people remain imprisoned with no release date in sight.

    The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) wrote last year:

    as of 30 June 2022, nearly ten years after ‘abolition’, there remain 2,926 IPP prisoners in England and Wales. Of these, 1,492 have never been released. A further 1,434 have been released but later recalled to custody. Of the never-released population of 1,492, nearly half – 608 prisoners – are at least 10 years over their original tariff.

    One of the prisoners interviewed for the CCJS report said:

    So long as I’m under IPP I have no life, no freedom, no future. I fear IPP will force me to commit suicide. I have lost all trust and hope in this justice system.

    Government refuses to scrap existing IPP prisoner’s sentences

    IPP prisoners have had their hopes dashed once again by a recent government decision not to review the sentence. Just weeks before Keith’s suicide, justice secretary Dominic Raab announced that the MOJ would not resentence existing IPP prisoners. He said:

    Retrospective resentencing of IPP offenders could lead to the immediate release of many offenders who have been assessed as unsafe for release by the Parole Board

    But the Parole Board is putting impossible conditions on IPP prisoners. Bristol Anarchist Black Cross (ABC) wrote last year:

    At each [parole] board hearing, new ‘hoops’ can be created that the prisoner will need to then jump through. For example, a prisoner might do everything the Parole Board directs and then two years later at the next hearing, the Parole Board might say “you still need to address X behaviour and therefore do X course.” This leads to a continual process of imprisonment where goal posts are repeatedly moved. The uncertainty, frustration and lack of power leads to prisoner behaviour deteriorating, whether that is increased drug use, self-harm or kicking off in protest.

    This behaviour then becomes the justification for their continuing imprisonment, because that person is not ‘safe’ for the community or has not ‘addressed their offending behaviour’. The cycle continues.

    Taylor – for example – was told that he had to stop self-harming before he was released, even though being locked up is often a factor in self-harm. In fact, official documents have reported a raised risk of self-harming behaviour for those serving IPP sentences.

    Campaign group United Group for Reform of IPP (UNGRIPP) has vowed to keep up the pressure, and the IPP Committee in Action is holding a lobby of Parliament on 15 March.

    Keith’s death is just the latest death in Bristol’s prisons

    Bristol ABC published a statement about Keith’s death. They wrote:

    We are writing this statement to remember Keith, and express anger and rage at HMP and the Ministry of Justice over his death.

    Bristol ABC pointed out that Keith’s death is just the latest in a long line of deaths in custody in Bristol’s prisons. The group wrote:

    Keith’s death is just the latest death in Bristol’s prisons

    Some of us knew Taylor, who took his own life at Bristol’s HMP Eastwood Park on 9th July 2022 – after serving over 14 years of an IPP sentence. Shortly before he killed himself, Taylor was beaten savagely by prison officers.

    Clare Dupree died after a fire in her cell at Eastwood Park after a fire on December 26th, other prisoners heard her scream for the screws to help her, but they say the door was not opened.

    Another prisoner called Kayleigh took her own life last year, after she too was brutally beaten by officers at Eastwood Park

    Call to action

    Bristol ABC called on people to take action to “avenge” those who have died in custody. The group says that – in their view – Keith, Taylor, Clare and Kayleigh were “murdered by the state”. The group wrote:

    We will not accept the continued deaths in custody in our community. Keith – like Taylor, Clare and Kayleigh – was murdered by the state. We call on our comrades to take action wherever they are, and in whatever way they see fit, to remember those who have died in prison, and to avenge their deaths. It is up to us to show our rage against this murderous system.

    We know that what’s happening in Bristol, is a microcosm of the suffering caused by the carceral system globally. We would like to send a message of solidarity to all those struggling for the abolition of this system.

    Bristol ABC offered solidarity and support to the family of Keith Gadd, and invited the family to contact them.

    IPP prisoners need our support

    The IPP sentence has caused untold pain and suffering to so many people. The government is ignoring public pressure to draw a line under this cruel punishment. Now more than ever, IPP prisoners – and their families and loved ones – need our support. And as with many of the struggles against the prison system, this is a life or death struggle.

    To learn how to join the campaign in support of IPP prisoners, check out the United Group for Reform of IPP and the IPP Committee in Action.

    Featured image via Unsplash (cropped to 770×403)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Trans women prisoners policy update bars nearly all from the female estate – but that was already the case

    Content warning: This article contains discussion of genitals and sexual assault.

    On 25 January, the government announced an update to its transgender prisoners policy. Under the new rules, trans women who have “male genitalia” or who have been convicted of a sexual offence will no longer be held in women’s prisons. This follows plans announced on 4 October of last year by former justice secretary Brandon Lewis.

    So what, exactly, is going to change? Currently, there are 230 trans prisoners being held in England and Wales. Of these, 168 are trans women, 42 are trans men, 13 are non-binary, and a further seven did not specify. This is from a total population of 79,800 prisoners.

    Before January’s update, however, it was by no means the case that trans women were sent to the female estate as a matter of course. Individual trans prisoners were assessed for risk – both to and from other prisoners.

    As things currently stand, there are six trans women housed in the women’s estate. It’s regarding these six women, and the potential for others like them, that the government has felt the need to update its policy wholesale.

    The implicit assumption is that a trans woman in possession of a penis is a danger to cis women. However, this does not line up with current statistics. Of the six trans women in the women’s estate, precisely none had committed sexual assaults in prison. According to prisons minister Damian Hinds:

    Since the 2019 strengthening of our policy there have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in women’s prisons and last year we further strengthened that policy.

    Typical reporting

    The Guardian saw fit to report the policy changes with the headline:

    Trans violent offenders banned from women’s prisons in England and Wales

    But there’s a conflation going on here, both in the reporting and in the policy itself. The other group of trans women the announcement affects squeaks in on the subheader:

    New rules also cover transgender women ‘with their male genitalia intact’, says Dominic Raab

    The choice in this framing is indicative of the level of the discussion here. “Trans violent offenders are banned” is the headline, while ‘and nearly all the rest, too’ slips in in smaller print.

    For trans people living in the UK, this will be quite familiar. The fact of having a penis is treated as synonymous with the threat of sexual assault. The very worst that trans people can be is routinely placed at the front of peoples’ minds. This makes it acceptable to do whatever the public pleases to all trans people.

    Falling figures

    According to 2022 polling by research group More in Common, 46% of Britons believe that trans women are women. This is compared to 32% who disagree, with the rest being unsure. However, this belief is conditional – but any trans person could tell you that.

    That 46% who deign to recognise this basic fact of who trans women are, drops as soon as they are asked whether trans people should be granted rights according to their gender. For example, 39% of people believe that trans women should be able to access women’s domestic violence services when they are raped.

    38% of the public think trans women should be able to socially and legally change their genders. The difference between those two figures is 8%. The 8% believe trans women are women until they wish to marry, or die – then they become men, or something else. A similar 38% believe trans women should be able to use women’s toilets. So, another 8% believe trans women are women up until they need to piss outside their homes. Then they become men again.

    The number falls again when considering where the public believes trans women should be imprisoned. Just 24% of Britons believe that a trans woman convicted of a non-violent, non-sexual crime should be sent to the women’s estate. To clarify, that means that 22% of people believe that trans women are women, but they should be locked up in prisons with men anyway. They are women provided that they do not steal, take no illicit drugs, and pay their taxes.

    Well-behaved women

    All of this is to say that, in the public imagining, the trans woman is a special kind of woman. She is a conditional woman. She is a woman provided she remains unnoticed and unobtrusive. Trans women are women until they’re a bit too loud. They’re women until they take up space. Provided that they shrink themselves, that they behave, they are permitted their gender.

    For a cis person, gender is inalienable; it can’t be taken away. For trans people, however, this fundamental aspect of humanity is treated as a reward for compliance.

    The new prisons policy changes little in reality; there are vanishingly few trans women in the female estate already. What it does do, however, is deepen the conflation of trans women’s genitals with the threat of sexual assault in the public consciousness. It exacerbates a manufactured culture war against trans people during a time of increasing violence against LGBTQ+ people.

    Most of all, it confirms a fundamental truth of Britain’s tolerance of transness. Trans people can have their gender, provided that doesn’t have to mean anything at all.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Jonny Gios

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Guardian view on Brexit’s unsound legal thinking: turning back the clock | Editorial

    Ministers want Britain’s judges to interpret human rights not in the light of present day conditions, but those of the 1950s

    The government “should not proceed” with its bill of rights. That was the withering judgment delivered last week on Dominic Raab’s proposals by parliament’s joint committee on human rights. MPs and peers assessed the bill and correctly decided that the ideal outcome for the country was to drop the deeply flawed legislation. It’s not a bill of rights so much as a bill of wrongs. The cross-party committee said the justice secretary’s proposals would reduce the protections currently provided, make it harder to enforce human rights, and show contempt for international obligations.

    The Conservative party in its present guise is determined to free the executive from accountability, and Mr Raab’s ideas are part of a power grab that includes attempts to restrict judicial review, the right of protest and freedom of expression. Making his bill law would see Britain turn its back on the gains made by human rights legislation. Major advances made by disabled people, same‐sex couples and Windrush victims would never have occurred under these proposals.

    Continue reading…

  • Dominic Raab ‘deceptively and deliberately’ undermined me as victims’ tsar, says Vera Baird

    Outgoing commissioner says justice secretary expected her to be his ‘puppet on a string’

    The role of a victims’ champion in England and Wales has been “deceptively and deliberately” undermined, leaving people affected by crime voiceless in the corridors of power, the outgoing victims’ commissioner has said.

    In her first major interview since stepping down from the role in September, Dame Vera Baird accused the justice secretary, Dominic Raab, of seeking a “puppet on a string” while he undermined the rights of victims with his proposed bill of rights.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Civil society calls on Rishi Sunak to commit to keeping Human Rights Act

    More than 150 groups urge PM to rule out once and for all its replacement with Dominic Raab’s bill of rights

    More than 150 civil society groups have written to Rishi Sunak urging him to commit to retaining the Human Rights Act and rule out its replacement by a British bill of rights.

    The prime minister’s position in regards the proposed legislation is in doubt but Dominic Raab, having been reappointed justice secretary, remains determined to push through his pet project, which was shelved under Liz Truss’s premiership.

    Fundamentally weaken the right to respect for private and family life.

    Remove the legal duty on courts and public bodies to interpret other laws compatibly with human rights, exposing people to the arbitrary use of laws with no checks.

    Limit access to justice by adding barriers to bringing a human rights case to court.

    Destroy the positive obligation on public bodies to take proactive steps to protect people from harm, including protecting domestic and child abuse survivors.

    Continue reading…

  • Why Dominic Raab’s plan to bring back his bill of rights is all wrong | Letters

    There is no case for reinstating the bill, says Geoffrey Bindman. And John Eekelaar points out some of its contradictions

    Marina Hyde recounts several past lapses ascribed to Dominic Raab (Dominic Raab may have the most terrible record in government, but at least it’s perfectly formatted, 6 December), but his legislative plans for the near future in his role as justice secretary are of even more immediate concern.

    He has announced that he is reintroducing his bill of rights, which seeks to repeal the Human Rights Act and dilute our commitment to the European human rights convention. He is doing this in defiance of almost universal opposition. When the government correctly sought the advice of an independent commission led by the former court of appeal judge Sir Peter Gross, it was told plainly that no such measure was justified. The government’s own public consultation received a similar rejection from the great majority of those who responded. Though Raab stubbornly persisted with his bill in his previous spell as justice secretary, Liz Truss dropped it as almost her first act on becoming prime minister.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Watchdog criticises UK ministers’ ‘antagonism’ towards human rights

    Council of Europe report finds government’s attitude is weakening protections for the public

    The UK government has “an increasingly antagonistic attitude” towards human rights that is weakening instead of strengthening protections for the public, a European inquiry has found.

    Inflammatory language used by MPs and officials to describe lawyers could put their safety at risk, according to the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatović.

    Provisions in the PCSC Act that de facto criminalise Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities leading a nomadic lifestyle must be rescinded.

    There is “a high level of anxiety among stakeholders” about human rights protection in the UK, in view of the significant impact of recent and proposed legislation.

    The UK’s policies towards refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are eroding their rights. Proposals criticised in the report include newly introduced inadmissibility rules for asylum claims, the possibility of removing persons to Rwanda, and the criminalisation of asylum seekers arriving irregularly.

    The emergence of a harsh political and public discourse against trans people in the UK has a negative impact on their rights.

    The UK government should consider withdrawing the legacy bill, which offers a conditional amnesty to people accused of killings and other Troubles-related crimes.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • It’s Anti-Bullying Week and Dominic Raab shows the Tories don’t give a sh*t about it

    2022’s Anti-Bullying Week is running from 14 to 18 November. In 2020, the then-Tory government had a minister make a speech to mark the occasion. However, this year the silence has been notable. Fitting really, given the Tories are embroiled in an ever-worsening bullying scandal themselves – with Dominic Raab now at the centre of it. Raab has asked for an inquiry into the complaints and as the Guardian report:

    It follows a series of allegations, reported by the Guardian and other publications, that a civil servant and others found Raab’s manner could be demeaning and overly abrupt, and that this did at time feel like bullying.

    Anti-Bullying Week

    The Anti-Bullying Alliance (ALA) runs Anti-Bullying Week. It says on its website that:

    Bullying affects millions of lives and can leave us feeling hopeless. But it doesn’t have to be this way. If we challenge it, we can change it. And it starts by reaching out.

    ‘Reach out‘ is the focus of this year’s events. The ALA said that this:

    came about following consultation with teachers and pupils by the Anti-Bullying Alliance which coordinates Anti-Bullying Week every year in England and Wales. Teachers and children wanted a theme that empowered them to do something positive to counter the harm and hurt that bullying causes.

    However, the Tory government has clearly not been listening to Anti-Bullying Week sentiment – it’s up to its neck in accusations of horrible, appalling behaviour.

    Successive Tory governments: riddled with bullies like Raab

    The previous Liz Truss-led administration was no stranger to bullying – with senior Tory MPs physically manhandling others to try and get them to vote in a crucial debate. And, under Rishi Sunak the allegations of bullying have come thick and fast. Gavin Williamson has been accused of disgraceful behaviour towards other MPs and civil servants. This included telling a civil servant to “slit your throat” and “jump out of the window”.

    Of course, this is nothing new. Under David Cameron, the Tory Party had to conduct an internal investigation into one of its members over bullying. In a report, Mark Clarke was accused of bullying 13 people. In 2018, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request revealed there had been over 500 complaints in three years by civil servants in government about bullying or sexual harassment towards them.

    However, it now appears that the rot in heart of government is still entrenched. Civil servants and others in government have accused justice secretary Raab of bullying. Now that he’s asked for an investigation into himself it would appear that he’s set to deny the allegations.

    Civil servants: had enough

    As Sky News reported, the union for civil servants, the FDA, is saying that the government has a bullying problem. Sky News reported that:

    Dave Penman, chair of the FDA union, said concerns have been raised about the conduct of other ministers…

    He said civil servants do not raise official complaints because they do not feel they will be taken seriously because of the way the complaints system works.

    Asked by Sky News’ Kay Burley to confirm if civil servants have told the union that several ministers in Rishi Sunak’s government have behaved inappropriately towards them, Mr Penman said: “Yes.”

    And asked if that behaviour was bullying, he said it was.

    Penman gave Priti Patel as an example. As Sky News noted, Patel:

    was found to have bullied staff but Boris Johnson, the prime minister at the time, did not respond for six months and then dismissed the findings.

    It’s of little wonder that other civil servants have recently voted to take strike action, given the toxic work culture they have to tolerate.

    No responsibility whatsoever

    The ALA says that anti-bullying work:

    doesn’t stop with young people. From teachers to parents and influencers to politicians, we all have a responsibility to help each other reach out. Together, let’s be the change we want to see. Reflect on our own behaviour, set positive examples and create kinder communities.

    The Tories have done none of this. They should be ashamed to be in government during Anti-Bullying Week – especially with a senior minister currently facing such accusations.

    Featured image via the Anti-Bullying Alliance – screengrab, Richard Townshend – Wikimedia, cropped under licence CC BY 3.0, and Chris McAndrew – Wikimedia, cropped under licence CC BY 3.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Liz Truss halts Dominic Raab’s bill of rights plan

    New PM tells cabinet she will rethink how to deliver agenda, as source describes bill as ‘complete mess’

    Liz Truss has pulled plans to enact a new bill of rights in one of her first acts as prime minister, the Guardian understands, telling the cabinet her government would reassess ways to deliver its agenda.

    The bill was the flagship policy of the outgoing justice secretary, Dominic Raab, who was dismissed by Truss on Tuesday after backing her rival Rishi Sunak in the Conservative leadership election.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Why does the government want to reform judicial review?

    Tory ministers have long been unhappy with wide-ranging court powers to challenge the legality of their actions

    The justice secretary, Dominic Raab, is planning to make it harder to succeed in judicial reviews against the government, a leaked document suggests. But what is judicial review and why is the government determined to reform it?

    Continue reading…

  • New bill of ‘rights’ is the Tories’ latest attempt to criminalise dissent

    As The Canary previously reported, justice minister Dominic Raab has introduced a British Bill of Rights (BBR) to replace the Human Rights Act (HRA). The wide-ranging bill will affect deportations, protests, access to justice regarding human rights breaches from overseas military/peacekeeping operations, and much more.

    But the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has identified a number of procedural and other flaws in the bill. The committee has also made it clear that Raab neglected to fulfil the requirement to seek the early consent for the bill by the devolved nations’ legislative bodies.

    Ignoring concerns

    The JCHR has written a letter to Raab accusing him of not addressing a number of concerns about the bill raised by parliamentary committees. The letter says:

    The Government’s Bill of Rights does not reflect what the Government has heard from Parliament’s committees, from its own independent review, nor from its consultation exercise.

    Those committees include the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Justice Select Committee, and the House of Lords Constitution Committee. According to the JCHR, this “calls into question the integrity of the whole consultation process”.

    Provisions affect us all

    The JCHR adds: “Our view is that the Bill would lead to an unfortunate regression in rights protection”. Indeed, the bill affects us all.

    In regard to the European Convention on Human Rights [the Convention], the JCHR says:

    The Bill [of Rights] will repeal section 3 HRA, which requires legislation to be read compatibly with Convention rights so far as it is possible to do so.

    Basically, that would mean the role of the Convention and its articles is weakened in the UK context.

    The JCHR further claims that the repealing of section 3 of the HRA has:

    the potential to affect millions of people in the UK: those in hospitals, in care settings, those dealing with local authorities, in education, in  detention settings or in social matters. Indeed, it will impact upon anyone who deals with public bodies and will likely disproportionately impact those who are the most vulnerable in society.

    UK chief executive of Amnesty International Sacha Deshmukh puts it bluntly:

    Ignore the name of this new legislation. It is a rights removal bill, and it will leave us all the poorer.

    Deportations made easier

    The BBR also makes deportations easier. Specifically, the JCHR says that:

    Clause 20 changes the test for compliance with Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial) in a deportation case from “flagrant denial of justice” to “nullification” of the right.

    In other words, the argument that someone should not be deported (or extradited) because they may not receive a fair trial elsewhere would no longer be valid.

    To take one example, currently WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is seeking to appeal extradition to the US. It’s possible his appeal would argue that he should not be extradited to the US because he wouldn’t get a fair trial there. If that appeal is heard after the BBR is enacted, it could affect his rights under the Convention’s Article 6.

    UK armed forces above the law

    Furthermore, the JCHR comments on how:

    Clause 14 introduces a total ban on access to justice in respect of human rights breaches arising from overseas military/peacekeeping operations. This would impact on the ability of members of the Armed Forces, their family members, and innocent civilians to seek justice and accountability for human rights violations.

    The Overseas Operations Act also intends to stop investigations into alleged crimes by UK troops. When combined with the BBR, it indicates a downward spiral.

    Back in August 2020, The Canary reported on claims that UK authorities had covered up hundreds of war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. A BBC article revealed evidence of what two former officers described as a “deliberate policy” to kill unarmed civilians.

    But the Overseas Operations Act and the provisions in the BBR will make it difficult, if not impossible, to seek justice for human rights breaches committed elsewhere by UK armed forces.

    More curbs on protests

    Further, the BBR wants to replace “freedom of expression” with “freedom of speech”. The JCHR argues that:

    the commitment to a more restrictive “freedom of speech” rather than to “freedom of expression” appears to be an attempt to deliberately minimise elements of the right protected under Article 10 ECHR – most obviously the right to protest.

    This change in emphasis is important, as it equates to a restriction on protests. That restriction is complemented by more restrictions on protests via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Bill.

    Yet Raab has criticised restrictions on protests elsewhere in the world, such as Belarus and Myanmar, without any regard for the abject hypocrisy of his position.

    Consent of devolved nations required

    Moreover, on procedural matters, the JCHR refers to the Sewel convention and points out that:

    there are two limbs to the Sewel convention which provides that the UK parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Senedd.

    In this respect, and based on advice from legal experts, the JCHR adds:

    The Government should not proceed [with the bill] without the consent of the devolved legislatures.

    While the Sewel convention is not legally binding, the UK government is expected:

    to consult with the devolved administrations early in the process, to ensure that devolved views are taken into account.

    So once the BBR had been introduced in parliament, the legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast would need to publish a memorandum of consent. Prior to the final amendment stage, the devolved legislatures would then grant or withhold their consent of the bill in part or whole.

    But by ignoring that convention, Raab has signalled his contempt for the devolved nations.

    Criminalising dissent

    It’s apparent from the letter that the Westminster government has not followed the Sewel convention, despite the likely fallout. There are also many other concerns that appear to render the bill unworkable.

    The JCHR makes it clear that, in its view, the BBR is not fit for purpose, saying:

    we believe the Government has failed to make the case for repealing and replacing the HRA with a Bill of Rights in the form proposed.

    However, the government has a tendency to ignore such criticisms, even if they might be as damning as they are in this case.

    Moreover, the bombardment of recent legislation aimed at massively restricting our rights appears relentless, with the overall aim of criminalising dissent.

    Featured image via YouTube

    By Tom Coburg

  • Dominic Raab says right to abortion does not need to be in bill of rights

    Deputy PM says matter is ‘settled in UK law’ and he would not want Britain to be in same situation as US

    Dominic Raab has expressed doubts about including the right to an abortion in the forthcoming bill of rights, saying the matter was already “settled in UK law”.

    A cross-party amendment intends to enshrine the right in the bill, though abortion in England and Wales was decriminalised in the 1967 Abortion Act, which exempts women from prosecution for the procedure if it is signed off by two doctors.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Tory bill of rights is a gift to the world’s tyrants | Letters

    Leaders of repressive regimes will have licence to ignore international human rights standards, warns Mike Cushman. Plus letters from Prof Julian Petley and Margaret Owen

    Your editorial on the Tories’ new bill of rights (22 June) makes many important points. It is, however, like almost all of the discussion of this threat to human rights, depressingly narrow and inward-looking. The great danger here is the licence that putting national prejudices above international overviews will give to regimes more directly repressive that our own.

    International human rights law is designed to put constraints on the most authoritarian governments. It does this in part by more liberal countries accepting restrictions on their actions and setting a platform of minimum acceptable standards. The British drafters of the European convention on human rights understood this.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Dramatic fall in successful high court challenges to government policy

    Exclusive: Drop prompts warnings ministers’ attacks on lawyers could be having chilling effect on judges

    Successful high court challenges to government policy and decisions by public bodies have fallen dramatically, prompting warnings that ministers’ attacks on lawyers could be having a chilling effect on judges.

    The proportion of civil judicial reviews in England and Wales, excluding immigration cases, which claimants won out of total claims lodged fell by 50% on 2020, according to analysis seen by the Guardian. The figure is 26% if the success rate is measured out of cases that went to a final hearing.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • ‘False narrative’: campaigners say British bill of rights could undermine free speech

    Organisations including Index on Censorship condemn government’s claim a bill would boost freedom of expression

    Free speech campaigners have condemned the UK government’s boast that the planned British bill of rights will boost freedom of expression, claiming that it will actually undermine it.

    The bill, published on Wednesday, says in clause 4 that on matters of free speech “a court must give great weight to the importance of protecting the right”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Guardian view on Raab’s bill of rights: liberty bent to prejudice | Editorial

    Plans to make universal rights subordinate to ministerial opinion and political whim mark a backwards step for British democracy

    There are two ways ministers can avoid falling foul of human rights law. One is to govern with respect for universal human rights, as codified after the second world war in response to unspeakable atrocities. The other way is to redefine those rights, making their interpretation subordinate to political expediency. Boris Johnson’s government has chosen the second path.

    The method is a new bill of rights, replacing the 1998 Human Rights Act, which incorporated the 1953 European convention on human rights into UK law. The change is not a withdrawal from the European court of human rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, which adjudicates on the convention, but it is a dilution of the protections it represents.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Shapps says RMT claim he wrecked talks ‘a total lie’ as Thursday’s rail strikes set to go ahead – UK politics live

    Transport secretary accuses rail union of ‘wasting time and making false claims’

    Moderna has announced that it will open a vaccine research and manufacturing centre in the UK. In a visit to mark the announcement, Sajid Javid, the health secretary, said:

    We all saw during the pandemic the differences that cutting edge vaccines and treatments can make and we all particularly saw that the mRNA technology has been very transformational. It has literally saved millions of lives over the last couple of years.

    And that’s why I’m thrilled to announce this new partnership between the UK government and Moderna, where Moderna will established here in the UK, a global R&D facility with over £1bn for investment in this cutting edge technology, and also a huge manufacturing centre, their largest outside of the US, and so this is a great investment in the UK, and gives huge confidence to our life sciences sector already leading in Europe.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Wednesday briefing: The government is planning to replace the Human Rights Act. What does that mean?

    In today’s newsletter: plans to abolish the Human Rights Act are picking up steam. Archie Bland explains the rights that will be gained – and lost

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • What would a British bill of rights look like?

    Plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a UK-focused alternative will be presented this week

    The government will introduce plans for a British bill of rights to parliament on Wednesday. We examine what it will mean in practice.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Raab urged to let parliament scrutinise Human Rights Act replacement

    Letter from 150 organisations adds to MPs’ concern about the bill of rights bypassing pre-legislative process

    Dominic Raab is facing demands today from 150 organisations to allow detailed parliamentary scrutiny of legislation that is expected to replace the Human Rights Act.

    The justice secretary has been sent a letter coordinated by the campaign group Liberty calling for the bill of rights to be subjected to “robust consideration” amid fears that it will put the government beyond the reach of the law.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Downing Street must withdraw its threat to replace the Human Rights Act | Letter

    The government’s bill of rights proposal will weaken the public’s right to challenge abuse, says Geoffrey Bindman

    Rafael Behr correctly identifies the government’s threat to replace the Human Rights Act with a bill of rights as “government by gesture and culture war provocation” (Inane and Orwellian: a Queen’s speech to improve the life of Boris Johnson, 10 May). The Human Rights Act incorporates the rights set out in the European convention on human rights. Jack Straw MP, home secretary when it was introduced in 1998, referred to it as “bringing rights home”. No new rights were created, but thereafter British citizens could pursue them in our own courts instead of making the journey to Strasbourg. That route remains available because the government has committed itself to our remaining party to the convention.

    The government’s independent Human Rights Act review, chaired by the retired lord justice of appeal Sir Peter Gross, reported on 14 December 2021. It found that the act was working well and there was no case for its repeal. Ignoring this advice, Dominic Raab issued a consultation paper on his bill of rights proposal, which met almost total rejection from those who responded.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Replacing Human Rights Act will weaken protections, say peers and MPs

    Joint committee on human rights says plans contravene principle that human rights are universal

    Dominic Raab’s proposal to replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights is not evidence-based and will diminish protections for individuals, MPs and peers have said.

    The criticisms by the joint committee on human rights (JCHR) are the latest directed at the planned changes, which the justice secretary has said will counter “wokery and political correctness” and expedite the deportation of foreign criminals.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Amnesty hits out at Tory plans to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights

    Justice secretary Dominic Raab’s proposals will ‘slash away’ at rights of ordinary people to challenge government, group says

    Amnesty International has criticised plans by the justice secretary Dominic Raab to replace Labour’s Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights.

    Raab has argued that the proposal will better protect the press in exposing wrongdoing and said he feared free speech was being “whittled away” by “wokery and political correctness”.

    The deputy prime minister told the Daily Mail that under plans being drawn up, there would be only limited restrictions placed on the protections on free speech with checks to stop people abusing it to promote terrorism.

    Laura Trevelyan, Amnesty’s human rights in the UK campaign manager, hit out at his plan on Saturday.

    “Scrapping the Human Rights Act has long been the intention of Mr Raab and others not because they want to extend any protections, but because they want to slash away at the powers ordinary people have got to challenge the government and its decisions,” she said.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Raab says UK bill of rights will stop free speech being ‘whittled away by wokery’

    Deputy PM says proposals to replace the Human Rights Act will enable principle of free speech to be a legal ‘trump card’

    Dominic Raab has disclosed proposals to replace Labour’s Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights which he believes will enable the principle of free speech to become a legal “trump card”.

    Raab, the deputy prime minister and justice secretary, has argued that the plan will better protect the press in exposing wrongdoing and said he feared free speech was being “whittled away” by “wokery and political correctness”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • No inquiry into Nusrat Ghani’s ‘Muslimness’ sacking claim

    Deputy prime minister Dominic Raab has said there will be no “specific investigation” into a Tory MP’s claim that she was told she’d been fired as a minister due to concerns about her “Muslimness”.

    Nusrat Ghani said a government whip told her that her faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”. This was when she lost her job as a transport minister in 2020.

    No investigation

    Raab said while Ghani’s allegation was “incredibly serious”, there would be no investigation by the Conservative Party unless she submitted a formal complaint.

    However, in her interview, Ghani said she had not pursued the matter at the time. This was after warnings that she’d be “ostracised by colleagues” and her “career and reputation would be destroyed”.

    Her explosive claim brought immediate condemnation from Conservative MPs and opposition parties alike. And Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi led demands for an inquiry.

     

    Nusrat Ghani
    Nusrat Ghani said she was warned her career would be destroyed if she pursued the matter (Christopher McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA)

    In her interview, Ghani, the MP for Wealden, said she was shocked when the issue of her background and faith was raised. It came up during a meeting in the whips’ office after the mini-reshuffle in February 2020. She told the paper:

    It was like being punched in the stomach. I felt humiliated and powerless…

    I was told that at the reshuffle meeting in Downing Street that ‘Muslimness’ was raised as an ‘issue’, that my ‘Muslim women minister’ status was making colleagues uncomfortable and that there were concerns ‘that I wasn’t loyal to the party as I didn’t do enough to defend the party against Islamophobia allegations’.

    It was very clear to me that the whips and No 10 were holding me to a higher threshold of loyalty than others because of my background and faith.

    In the following weeks, I was informed that if I persisted in raising this that I would be ostracised by colleagues and my career and reputation would be destroyed.

    Party whips leading by example

    In a dramatic move, chief whip Mark Spencer outed himself as the individual who spoke to Ghani. But he strongly denied using the words Ghani claimed:

    The row erupted at the start of a crucial week for Johnson. Sue Gray, the senior civil servant investigating lockdown parties in Downing Street, is expected to deliver her report this week.

    The conduct of the whips’ office has come under intense scrutiny recently. It’s following claims that tactics amounting to blackmail were used to pressurise Tory MPs seeking to oust Johnson.

    Raab told Sky News’s Trevor Phillips On Sunday programme:

    [Spencer] has categorically denied it in what can only be described as the most forthright and robust terms indeed…

    If there are any claims like this they should result in a formal complaint which allows a formal investigation to take place.

    As the Chief Whip has pointed out Nus hasn’t made a formal complaint. She was asked to do so. In the absence of doing so there will be no specific investigation into this.

    Featured image via Wikimedia/Chris McAndrew

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Human rights are being attacked by the government, not fine-tuned | Letters

    Nick Moss says the struggle to defend and extend our rights has to be conducted on the streets, as well as in parliament and the courts. John Robinson fears that we are facing an existential attack on our democracy

    I agree with Martha Spurrier that this government is constructing for itself a legislative armoury that is intended to be a “rewriting of the rules so only the government can win” (Who will stop human rights abuses if the government puts itself above the law?, 14 December). There is, though, a flaw in the European convention on human rights. The right to liberty and security (article 5), the right to a fair trial (article 6), the right to respect for private and family life (article 8), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9), freedom of expression (article 10), and freedom of assembly and association (article 11) are all conditional rights.

    Variously, these are all – to a greater or lesser extent – subject to exceptions that are “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Guardian view on human rights: not foreign to British instincts | Editorial

    The justice secretary’s plans are cover for a coup by an executive that wishes to restrict the power of the judiciary

    Although the United Kingdom was the first signatory of the European convention on human rights in 1950, it was five decades before the rights set out in the convention became accessible in domestic law. The Human Rights Act was a recognition that the authorities don’t always get things right and that statute was needed to enable in-country challenges to the state, protecting the public. Before the HRA was brought in, there was a steady flow of people to the European court of human rights seeking justice. Rulings in Strasbourg led the British government to strengthen oversight of deportations on the grounds of national security and helped equalise the age of consent for gay sex.

    By bringing the convention home, Britons could vindicate their rights in courtrooms in their own country. Human rights are legal claims on the state; so the legality of state conduct became the business of this country’s courts. When Met detectives failed to carry out an effective investigation into the serial sex attacker John Worboys, the force found itself liable for mistakes. Parents used the law to stop benefit cuts for hospitalised children. Human rights law meant women were not routinely cross-examined in court by those they accused of rape. For the families of the 97 people killed in the Hillsborough disaster, the HRA was instrumental in helping reveal the truth about the circumstances leading to their loved ones’ deaths.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Who will stop human rights abuses if the government puts itself above the law? | Martha Spurrier

    Dominic Raab’s attempt to hollow out protections and stifle judges will make state abuse of power unpunishable

    Today Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, announced plans to “overhaul” the Human Rights Act, bring in a new British bill of rights and, as he put it, “restore common sense” to our laws. In reality, he is making real his long-held dream to weaken vital human rights protections, make justice conditional on good behaviour and insulate the state from accountability.

    Raab’s plans make for grim reading. They include stripping away the right to family and private life. This is being done under the guise of the deportation of “foreign criminals”, a proposal that goes hand in hand with the government’s determination to use the revoking of citizenship as a punishment, creating instead a tiered system of rights protection based on your immigration status. But human rights are universal – take them from one group and you take them from all of us. And of course the right to a private and family life goes a lot wider than immigration. If the government hollows out these protections, we won’t be able to protect our private data, fight evictions, demand LGBT equality or resist mass surveillance.

    Martha Spurrier, a British barrister and human rights campaigner, is the director of Liberty

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Who will stop human rights abuses if the government puts itself above the law? | Martha Spurrier

    Dominic Raab’s attempt to hollow out protections and stifle judges will make state abuse of power unpunishable

    Today Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, announced plans to “overhaul” the Human Rights Act, bring in a new British bill of rights and, as he put it, “restore common sense” to our laws. In reality, he is making real his long-held dream to weaken vital human rights protections, make justice conditional on good behaviour and insulate the state from accountability.

    Raab’s plans make for grim reading. They include stripping away the right to family and private life. This is being done under the guise of the deportation of “foreign criminals”, a proposal that goes hand in hand with the government’s determination to use the revoking of citizenship as a punishment, creating instead a tiered system of rights protection based on your immigration status. But human rights are universal – take them from one group and you take them from all of us. And of course the right to a private and family life goes a lot wider than immigration. If the government hollows out these protections, we won’t be able to protect our private data, fight evictions, demand LGBT equality or resist mass surveillance.

    Martha Spurrier, a British barrister and human rights campaigner, is the director of Liberty

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Raab’s human rights proposals condemned as ‘blatant power grab’

    Justice secretary is facing a number of calls to row back on plans to strengthen power of the state

    Plans to overhaul the Human Rights Act are a blatant power grab with the aim of putting the government above the reach of the law, pressure groups and opposition parties have said.

    Launching a three-month consultation on a new bill of rights in the Commons, Dominic Raab faced a number of calls to row back on plans to strengthen the power of the state against the rights of the individual.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.