radiofree.asia

Category: Home Office

  • As Priti Patel slams the UN over Shamima Begum, its worth remembering her ‘Unholy Trinity’ of hate, lies, and games

    Former home secretary Priti Patel this week slammed the UN for daring to try to defend Shamima Begum, amid the latter losing her appeal against the state stripping her citizenship.

    This Tory fundamentalist arch villain is surely not Boris Johnson, as lamentable as his politics is. In her tenure at the Home Office, Priti Patel was clearly and decisively heading for fascist status, triangulating policy to attack the most vulnerable.

    Priti Patel: from the throne of hell to the Home Office

    A political paradox: spontaneously but according to plan, as if to repudiate the idea and ideal of rational policy making, we Brits – a multicultural tapestry borne aloft by our blood, sweat, and dreams – seem to generate absolute hatred in the shrivelling heart of Priti Patel, hatred distilled in her cruel, reactionary policies targeted at vulnerable minorities.

    At an immigration raid, I remember her crowing glee as she watched the lives of a vulnerable group of people ruined; destined to land in a Serco run carceral unit that stands juxtaposed to the spirit of goodwill in human rights law.

    She spent her entire tenure repeatedly emerging from the throne of hell with a – frankly fascist – agenda, reconstituted into palatable form for people who still watch and trust the news. Fuhrer Patel’s hate mongering we have no time for, appealing to and unleashing and pandering to the worst aspects of humanity.

    A ‘creature incapable of pity’

    There is her persecutory, dehumanising mistreatment of refugees for a start. Then she presided over deeply oppressive policing and protest legislation, a veritable clusterfuck of attacks on peaceful assembly, essentially illegalising it; a counterstrategic manoeuvre to neutralise the threat of Extinction Rebellion to the carbon-wed establishment.

    A grueling flight to Rwanda to facilities whose safety has not been determined awaits those whose cultural heritage is not deemed compatible with the mythic, illusionary “British” identity, an insincere neo-Tory attempt to exhume one nation conservatism. Rich immigrants, however, are safe from extradition. The pattern seems to be: no poverty, no ostracism. Persecution for persecutions sake.

    An authentic testimony to the cruelty of Priti Patel is the data on her on Wikileaks, a repository of information which has a reputation for 100% accuracy.

    The Wikileaks data confirms she is a creature incapable of pity but capable of vast terror. Tragically for the reputation of Britain on human rights, she welcomed sponsorship for the 2012 Olympics from Dow Chemical, the inventors of agent orange and white phosphorus, she tacitly endorsing the human rights atrocities they provide ammunition for.

    The ‘will of the people’ she surely isn’t

    It must be this that accounts for our basis of appraising Priti Patel, the dirty deals done through exposure to, sympathy for, and allyship with corrupt corporate lobbyists.

    There used to be, at one point, meaningful influence for UK voters over parliamentary representatives and public policy. Lobbyists, while sometimes ethical, are largely corrosive to democracy and dominate the public policy process. The register of political discourse is banal rhetoric, inscribed with duplicity.

    There used to be, if you remember, government and legislation with a popular mandate, parliament as an embodiment of “the will of the people” based on the electorate’s choices at the ballot box, a time before politics as high drama, a perpetual trainwreck driven by carousing mega-egos into dystopia.

    The force of the UK press recently has been largely focused on scrutinising the malfeasance of Boris Johnson in his blatant, nauseating contempt for parliament and the British public. In this atmosphere, the arguably more dangerous – if that’s possible- Priti Patel has largely evaded scrutiny.

    Priti Patel: a closer scrutiny is needed

    A perfunctory glimpse at the data Wikileaks have on her suggests we henceforth scrutinise her more closely. The data revealed that some Labour grandees did act with due diligence and focus on the Dow deal in their quest for accountability and transparency at the time, but this signal was mistaken for mere noise and so the dodgy deal was not widely acknowledged.

    As a citizen journalist it is my responsibility to document the hidden realities of power that are purposefully kept secret, to honour first amendment ethics and staunch the foundations of the fourth estate, the future of which is thwart with peril in the wake of the prosecution of Julian Assange for basic journalism.

    Priti Patel is only the beginning of my campaign. Until I am silenced I will continue to shine a light on corruption wherever it breeds. It starts here.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube and Good Morning Britain – YouTube

    By Megan Sherman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A civilised country would not have made Shamima Begum stateless | Letters

    Readers respond to the recent court of appeal ruling that upheld the UK government’s decision to strip the 24-year-old of British citizenship

    The case of Shamima Begum is less significant in that her appeals have failed under UK law, but rather in that UK law has been written to breach our obligations to follow the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15.2, which states “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality” (Shamima Begum ruling shows UK wants to wash its hands of such prisoners, 23 February).

    I have a strong belief in human rights being universal and the UK adhering to these principles. When Ms Begum was stripped of her birthright British nationality she was not a citizen of Bangladesh, which stated that it would not accept her request for citizenship, ergo she was made arbitrarily stateless, contrary to international law. The progress of her case through the UK courts will surely end at the human rights courts, where the UK will lose.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Bibby Stockholm will be back in the High Court facing another legal challenge

    A local resident is back in court over the Bibby Stockholm – trying to get the barge shut down, while putting the racist government policy that created it in the spotlight.

    On 27-29 February, the High Court will hear the case of Parkes v Dorset council to determine whether Dorset council has the power to enforce planning authority over the Bibby Stockholm barge.

    The Bibby Stockholm: in the judicial spotlight

    Carralyn Parkes, a local resident and the mayor of Portland, has brought this claim in her personal capacity. She previously took the Home Office to the High Court over the Bibby Stockholm. As the Canary reported, Parkes argued that the Home Office’s failure to seek planning permission for the Bibby Stockholm was unlawful.

    Parkes said that:

    If the Home Office had applied for planning permission, they would have had to consult with local people – but we never got the right to have our say.

    I believe that planning permission would have been refused.

    However, the government’s lawyers argued that the local planning authority did not think planning permission was necessary. The High Court agreed, refusing a judicial review.

    So, Parkes is now trying another avenue. In the new claim – this time against Dorset council – she is arguing various points.

    Dorset council: neglecting its duties?

    Firstly, she says the boundaries of Dorset council include Portland Harbour, because of the way that common law has historically dealt with harbours and enclosed bays (where the sea lies ‘within the jaws of the land’). The case is that these areas are more analogous to rivers, estuaries or inland lakes, which are all subject to planning control, than the open sea. Parkes’ argues that there are therefore obvious and sensible reasons why local authorities should have a say in what happens there.

    Next, and Parkes believes Dorset council must have the power to issue an enforcement notice on Crown-owned land (such as the seabed in the harbour within the outer breakwaters) because of the substantial impacts on the local community. Planning legislation’s purpose is to manage the impact on the local community, and so the law should be interpreted to ensure that this purpose is achieved.

    Further to this, Parkes says the Bibby Stockholm, an engineless accommodation barge and a permanently moored structure, is an ‘accretion from the sea’, like a pier, and therefore should be subject to planning law. In any event, Dorset Council should consider planning enforcement over the change of use of the finger pier, and the access road where the Bibby Stockholm barge is moored.

    The Bibby Stockholm must be closed for good

    Finally, Parkes considers that the Home Office is wrong to continue avoiding planning control over the Bibby Stockholm, simply by operating accommodation on a barge in a harbour. If the barge were placed almost anywhere else (on the dock, on land, in a lake, or on a canal, for example), it would be subject to planning control. Parkes believes that placing the barge in a harbour should not remove local people’s ability to have any say over what goes on in their community.

    The experience of those accommodated on the Bibby Stockholm has shown how disastrous and inappropriate this plan always was. Tragically, one person has lost their life. Many hundreds more have had to suffer isolation, overcrowding and deteriorating mental health. The barge is hugely costly, dangerous, and it is time that it is closed for good.

    Featured image via Wikimedia

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Council of Europe calls on UK not to process asylum claims in Rwanda

    People may be exposed to abuses such as torture and degrading treatment in Rwanda, says watchdog

    Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there.

    In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Indonesian fruit picker landed in debt bondage challenges Home Office

    Exclusive: Test case likely against UK’s seasonal worker scheme as charity alleges breach of right to be protected from labour exploitation

    When Ismael found himself sleeping rough at York station in the late October cold he struggled to understand how an opportunity to pick berries 7,000 miles from his home had so quickly ended there.

    He had left Indonesia less than four months earlier, in July 2022. He was 18 and ready for six months of hard work on a British farm to save for a science degree. “I thought the UK was the best place to work because I could save up a little money and help my parents,” he said.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Home Office U-turns on policy to restrict help for trafficking victims

    Rights groups hail change to Braverman policy that denied support to people with criminal convictions

    The Home Office has performed a U-turn on a policy to deprive some modern slavery victims of protection from traffickers.

    Human rights campaigners and lawyers representing trafficking victims have welcomed the government’s change of heart, which they say reinstates vital protections to vulnerable people.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Rwanda bill: legislation passes third reading as rightwing rebellion recedes – UK politics live

    The third reading of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) bill passed by 320 votes to 276, a majority of 44

    Rishi Sunak starts with the usual spiel about his engagements, and how he has got meetings with colleagues.

    Rishi Sunak is taking PMQs in 10 minutes.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Revealed: data from UK anti-radicalisation scheme Prevent being shared with ports and airports

    Personal details from voluntary programme sent secretly without consent with government departments and border agencies, document shows

    Details of thousands of individuals referred to the government’s controversial anti-radicalisation Prevent programme are being shared far more widely than was previously known, with data secretly sent to airports, ports and immigration services, as well as officials at the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).

    Critics believe the widespread sharing of data could be unlawful, with sensitive personal details of those referred to Prevent being moved between databases without the knowledge or consent of the individuals concerned.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Manston immigration staff being bussed to Heathrow to cover guard shortage

    Major staff shortage at Europe’s largest immigration detention centre comes as Home Office aims to expand detention tenfold

    Home Office contractors stationed at Manston to process small boat arrivals are being bussed to Europe’s largest immigration detention centre to plug a significant staff shortage, the Guardian has learned.

    Heathrow immigration removal centre, next to the airport, has such a big shortage of guards that an agreement has been made with the outsourcing company Mitie to redeploy Home Office contractors from Manston, in Kent, on days when there are no small boat crossings. The shortages come at a time when the Home Office wants to expand detention tenfold as part of the new Illegal Migration Act.

    Continue reading…

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

  • No 10 rules out overriding international law for Rwanda asylum flights

    Downing Street says ignoring ECHR and parts of UN refugee convention could delay emergency bill

    Downing Street has ruled out a proposal by rightwing Conservatives to override international law to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda, prompting threats that rebel MPs will simply seek to amend planned legislation.

    Rishi Sunak has promised to introduce a bill to parliament to get around Wednesday’s supreme court ruling that flights to Rwanda could not take place because of the risk that people could be wrongly returned to their home countries.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Jess Phillips quits Labour frontbench as Keir Starmer suffers major rebellion over Gaza ceasefire – UK politics as it happened

    SNP motion calling for ceasefire in Gaza defeated 294-125

    Reed says the court has had to decide whether the Rwanda policy breaches the non-refoulement rule.

    The policy is in the Home Office’s immigration rules, he says.

    Continue reading…

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

  • David Cameron denies lobbying row should rule out return; Esther McVey made minister without portfolio – as it happened

    Former PM takes seat in Lords after return as foreign secretary; James Cleverly replaces Suella Braverman; Esther McVey to reportedly tackle ‘wokery’

    ITV’s Paul Brand says he has had a text with the word “Rejoice” from a Tory MP celebrating the sacking of Suella Braverman.

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, has been seen going into No 10, PA Media reports.

    Continue reading…

  • PSC brands Braverman ‘unfit for office’ and ‘disgraceful’ ahead of its next march

    The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has branded Suella Braverman “unfit for office” amid her “disgraceful” comments on the group’s upcoming march.

    Horror in Gaza and Palestine

    For the fifth consecutive Saturday since Israel launched its deadly war on Gaza, hundreds of thousands of people will protest in support of besieged Palestinians and for an immediate ceasefire. Following a Day of Action in cities and towns across the UK last week, this Saturday sees the fourth National March for Palestine, when more than 500 000 people are expected to converge in London, making it one of the largest political marches in British history:

    The Palestinian death toll in Israel’s merciless assault stands at 10 818 killed, including 4412 children. Thousands more are missing, presumed dead, under the rubble of buildings that have been destroyed. 1.5 million people have been forcibly displaced. Israel has cut off electricity, food, water and fuel from a population of 2 million people, half of whom are children.

    Oxfam have stated that starvation is being used as a weapon of war. Vital services, including health and sanitation are being pushed towards collapse. There is a huge humanitarian crisis unfolding in front of the world’s eyes.

    PSC on Braverman: “disgraceful remarks”

    PSC reasserts its concerns at the disgraceful remarks by Home Secretary Suella Braverman. She has sought to delegitimise the call for a ceasefire, which is supported by the vast majority of the British public, smear those marching for peace and stir up public unrest. The decision to avoid the centre of London and Whitehall on this weekend was made by the organisers many weeks ago and agreed with the Police.

    Suella Braverman was fully aware of this fact, as was Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, when they issued statements suggesting that the march was intended to disrupt preparations for Remembrance Sunday. As a result, they have caused, we believe intentionally, public concern and greenlit far right activists who have declared their intention to come to London “to protect the Cenotaph”.

    This has created additional unnecessary challenges to the Police and the march organisers to ensure public safety in stewarding many hundreds of thousands of people throughout the march.

    The uncertainty earlier this week as to whether the march might be banned also created delays in the normal process of communication with the Police to plan out the details of the march, including getting agreement to our request to have more than one stage area at the end, so that crowds can be dispersed and managed more easily.

    ‘Unfit for office’

    We reject the attempts by political leaders, opposed to the call for a ceasefire, to defame those marching as hateful, antisemitic and intent on causing disorder. On Saturday we will be marching for peace, for an immediate ceasefire to end the mass killing of civilians in Gaza, and for action to address the root causes of the current violence, which are Israel’s ongoing military occupation, and imposition of a system of apartheid upon all Palestinians.

    Ben Jamal, PSC Director, said:

    Contrary to the disgraceful rhetoric of Suella Braverman and other political leaders, hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life, will come to London to march for peace, for a ceasefire, and for the rights of the Palestinian people to be respected. They reject a narrative that seeks to dehumanise Palestinians and their legitimate struggle for freedom. They are appalled by the mass killing of Palestinians including 4500 children, and they want an end to British complicity in supporting Israel’s decades long violations of international law. They reject all forms of racism and believe that a consistent antiracism means opposing in word and deed the imposition upon the Palestinian people of a system of apartheid. They march as well to affirm the right to protest, now under its most severe attack by a Home Secretary who has shown herself to be wholly unfit for office.

    Featured image via Wikimedia and Wikimedia

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK supreme court to rule on legality of plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

    A finding against the Tory policy could increase pressure on Sunak to leave European convention on human rights

    Rishi Sunak’s government will discover next Wednesday whether its flagship immigration policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful.

    The supreme court will give its judgment after the Home Office challenged a court of appeal ruling that the multimillion-pound deal to send deported asylum seekers to the east African nation was unlawful.

    Continue reading…

  • Home Office holding refugees on the Bibby Stockholm in ‘quasi-detention’

    A document released by Dorset Council has revealed that it and the Home Office are actively discouraging refugees they’re holding on the Bibby Stockholm from leaving. Campaign group One Life To Live has said that this amounts to “quasi-detention”.

    Bibby Stockholm: refugees effectively stuck on board

    Dorset Council, which is responsible for health and safety on board the Bibby Stockholm barge and which is a member of the multi-agency forum (MAF) for the site, released the latest joint MAF update on 7 November. This revealed that asylum-seekers accommodated there are being confined to the barge as much as possible, and should be deterred from getting off the bus which is provided to take them into local towns.

    The provision of the bus is a requirement of the contract between CTM and the Home Office. However, the latest MAF update states:

    There have also been concerns that [the bus] service means that asylum seekers are just being dropped-off and left to ‘hang out’ in Weymouth and Portland. This is not happening, nor is it in anyone’s interest for it to happen… There are also be [sic] exercise, recreational and multi-faith facilities on board to minimise the need to leave the site.”

    The update was signed off as usual by Paul Beecroft of the communications team at Dorset Council, with the words “Sent on behalf of the MAF group” – indicating the agreement of all MAF members. Besides Dorset Council these include the Home Office, Portland Port, Dorset NHS, and Dorset Police. MAF meetings are held regularly, and invitees include elected members from the local authorities (town, district and county), MPs, voluntary and community sector partners, and local businesses.

    Now, a campaign group has said this amounts to quasi-detention.

    What is quasi-detention?

    The Home Office factsheet for the Bibby Stockholm site says that it provides “non-detained accommodation”. However, many campaigners, NGOs, and immigration lawyers have long maintained that the barge represents quasi-detention.

    According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention (whose members are cross-party MPs and peers), asylum accommodation sites can be ‘accurately described’ as quasi-detention if they include:

    1. Visible security measures.
    2. Shared living quarters.
    3. Reduced levels of privacy.
    4. Isolation from the wider community.

    All of these apply at the Bibby Stockholm site.

    (1): visible security measures

    Security on board is provided by ICSA, a private contractor, which has assigned a team of “18 guards trained to military standard”. There are security cameras in all communal spaces and along the corridors on each floor. Whenever leaving or returning to the Bibby Stockholm, asylum-seekers undergo airport-style security, including x-rays of their possessions. They cannot walk to anywhere other than the small compound at the head of the barge, which is surrounded by 20-foot-high spiked metal fences and heavy metal gates. To get out of the compound, they must take a scheduled shuttle bus.

    (2) and (3): shared living quarters and reduced levels of privacy

    Cabins on board the Bibby Stockholm, designed for single occupancy, now have bunk beds and people must share with strangers. Each person’s living space is smaller than the average car-park bay.

    (4): isolation from the wider community

    To leave the port, asylum-seekers must take a shuttle bus out of the compound, across the port and out of its gates. The bus is arranged by Portland Port and paid for out of CTM’s £1.6bn contract with the Home Office. According to page 18 of Annex A to that contract, the Home Office must approve the timetables and destinations for the bus. It is understood that there are two stops on the bus route: Victoria Square on the island of Portland, and Commercial Road in Weymouth (on the mainland).

    The MAF update comment about the shuttle bus service is at odds with the way buses are generally understood to operate – which is that passengers may dismount at the appointed stops, and are then free to do as they wish (including ‘hanging around’).

    Furthermore, ‘exercise and recreational’ facilities onboard are extremely limited. Many public spaces have been converted to cabins; the gym contains just two treadmills (for an eventual cohort of 425 men); and even the basketball is not freely available but must be signed in and out – apparently because it could be used as a weapon.

    As a result, the men feel demoralised about this and rarely sign the basketball out.

    Nicola David of One Life To Live, which campaigns against the large-scale asylum containment sites, commented:

    Placing asylum-seekers away from communities, and attempting to contain them there while restricting their freedom to move about, drives a public perception that they have done something very wrong or even criminal, which inevitably and unfairly tarnishes public sentiment towards them. In fact, these asylum-seekers have done exactly what we would all do if we faced war, conflict or persecution – flee for our lives.

    The Bibby Stockholm residents are here legally and they are not criminals. Therefore there is no legal or ethical reason to segregate and contain these asylum-seekers, or to restrict their freedom. This is quasi-detention, pure and simple.

    Discrimination and segregation

    Under Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and specifically Section 149 (the public-sector equality duty), segregation on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic/national origin or religion is unlawfully discriminatory. Nevertheless, residents of the Bibby Stockholm have been sent to live in a contained space away from local amenities and segregated from the local population – which is overwhelmingly White British.

    Attempting to prevent them from leaving the barge, and preferring that they do not dismount from the shuttle bus contractually provided for their exclusive use, would appear discriminatory.

    Only asylum-seekers who have been in the UK since 7 March 2023, and whose asylum claims are already being processed, are eligible to be sent to the Bibby Stockholm. A high proportion of the cohort came here by plane; they also claimed asylum immediately on arrival in the UK, exactly as required. They should not be treated as if they are here illegally or as if they have committed a crime.

    In a Guardian report on 29 October, one barge resident said:

    We have exactly the feeling of being in prison. It is true that they say that this is not a prison and you can go outside at any time, but you can only go to specific stops at certain times by bus, and this does not give me a good feeling. Even to use the fresh air, you have to go through the inspection every time and go to the small yard with high fences and go through the X-ray machine again. And this is not good for our health. In short, this is a prison whose prisoners are not criminals, they are people who have fled their country just to save their lives and have taken shelter here to live.

    Featured image via Ashley Smith/Wikimedia Commons, resized to 1910×1000 under licence CC BY-SA 4.0

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • An asylum seeker reached desperation point after finding out he was destined for the Bibby Stockholm

    A Nigerian man attempted suicide after finding his name on a list of people being sent to the Bibby Stockholm. The case exposes the traumatic impact that the barge is having on asylum seekers in the UK.

    Bibby Stockholm transfer list

    An asylum seeker attempted to hang himself in a Colchester car park on 26 October. According to a press release by Colchester-based Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Migrant Action (RAMA), the man had just discovered he was being sent to the Bibby Stockholm. Another refugee at the hotel found him and alerted a security guard. They cut the Nigerian man down and an air ambulance later took him to Colchester Hospital, where doctors put him on life support.

    RAMA said this isn’t an isolated case, however:

    Eight other asylum-seekers at the hotel are also due to be transferred to the Bibby Stockholm. Six of them said they would rather kill themselves than be sent there, and RAMA believes that four of them are serious about intending to take their own lives.

    Moreover, one refugee attempted suicide while on the Bibby Stockholm. A letter written by some of those housed on the barge and published by Portland Global Friendship Group on Facebook on 25 August said:

    Also, in a tragic incident, one of the asylum seekers attempted suicide, but we acted promptly and prevented this unfortunate event.

    Some friends even said they wished they had the courage to commit suicide, and our personal belief is that many of these individuals might resort to this foolishness to escape from problems in the future.

    ‘Strongest possible protest against inhumanity’

    The Nigerian man who attempted to hang himself wasn’t a new arrival to the UK. RAMA said he had arrived as an unaccompanied child and lived in foster care until the age of 18. Five years later, the Home Office wanted him moved to the Bibby Stockholm.

    According to Maria Wilby of RAMA, the unnamed man’s reaction reflects anxieties widespread amongst Colchester’s asylum seekers:

    They are grieving the fact that the Home Office is closing the hotel down. While it may not be perfect, it’s been their home for up to a year. They’ve planted trees in Colchester, attended therapy here, volunteered here, made friends here. They are no problem to anyone; local police have confirmed there have been no criminal incidents arising either from the men at the hotel or from other asylum-seekers dispersed in the community. And yet they’ve been treated in a way that is beyond inhumane, and which disregards all the efforts which they have made to find community here. This suicide attempt is the strongest possible protest against that inhumanity, and also shows just how much the Bibby Stockholm is feared.

    Meanwhile, the Guardian said it had confirmed two other suicides of refugees in hotels. Afroze Fatima Zaidi recently reported for the Canary on the “inhumane” conditions that many refugees find themselves in at hotels.

    Cost of racist policies

    The Canary has repeatedly reported on the racism of the Bibby Stockholm and what it represents. This case highlights the deeply personal cost of that racism. Nicola David of refugee support group One Life To Live emphasised this in RAMA’s press release:

    This has been a horrific incident – a tragedy which was entirely preventable. Before COVID, asylum-seekers lived among us in the community. Now, they are ‘othered’: segregated away into ghettoes and deprived of respect and dignity. It never ceases to amaze me that major hotel brands and their franchisees are willing to take the government shilling and turn the other cheek to what goes on in their properties.

    Here is a young man, with his whole life ahead of him, who was treated as a number and not a human being, and for whom the prospect of the Bibby Stockholm was simply too much. The Home Office should feel deep shame – if it knows how.

    The Bibby Stockholm is little more than a prison ship for people that haven’t committed a crime. And its existence alone is enough to drive already vulnerable people to the brink.

    The Guardian said prime minister Rishi Sunak “ignored” a question about the suicide attempt mentioned in the asylum seekers’ letter. No doubt he’d ignore questions about the latest attempt too. And that, of course, about sums up the government’s attitude to the harm it is causing asylum seekers.

    Featured image via The Telegraph/YouTube

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Portland resident loses case against Bibby Stockholm asylum barge, but shines light on its racist impact

    It’s been a week of bad news for refugees and those fighting against the inhumane and racist barge-turned-asylum accommodation, the Bibby Stockholm.

    The London High Court has quashed a local Portland resident and mayor’s challenge against the Tories’ controversial refugee detention barge. Meanwhile, the Home Office has notified asylum seekers that they will be returned to the vessel on 19 October. Both came as i News reported that the government department has refused information requests to disclose the full cost of the floating, formerly disease-infested hell-site.

    Bibby Stockholm – a racist floating cage

    Home secretary Suella Braverman’s asylum housing barge has so far been a repeated source of embarrassment for the far-right Tory government.

    Days after the Home Office had forced 39 migrants aboard the vessel in August, tests detected the bacteria legionella within its water system. This bacteria can cause a potentially deadly respiratory condition known as Legionnaires’ disease.

    As a result, the government had to evacuate the refugees from the barge. In September, freedom of information requests (FOI) revealed that tests had identified the most deadly strain of legionella on the vessel. The Bibby Stockholm has remained vacant since 11 August.

    Meanwhile, others have highlighted the huge sums of taxpayer’s money the government has thrown at the abhorrent floating cage.

    As the Canary’s Glen Black detailed in September, a migrant solidarity group had estimated the cost of the barge at £560k in just four weeks. However, new information obtained by investigative group Corporate Watch has revealed the Bibby Stockholm’s bill to be much higher in total, revealing the weekly cost at nearly £300k. Which means that the government squandered £2.2m while the barge remained vacant due to legionella.

    Yet, as i News has reported, the Home Office is withholding the true cost of the asylum barge. It refused an FOI request made by the Liberal Democrats.

    Given all this, and the sheer callousness of the Home Office’s plan, campaigners have kept up the heat. Since the government announced its asylum barge, protests have sprung up against the barge from Cornwall and Dorset all the way to Liverpool.

    High Court dismisses local resident’s legal challenge

    On Tuesday 10 October, one Portland resident also took Braverman and the Home Office to court. Portland town councillor and Mayor Carralyn Parkes issued the challenge in a private capacity. She did so after Dorset Council decided against taking legal action over the barge.

    Parkes crowdfunded for the judicial review. Nearly a thousand people donated to her fundraiser, which quickly met its £25k target.

    On the day of the case, protesters from Stand Up to Racism turned out in solidarity outside the High Court. Parkes spoke to the crowd before entering. She lamented to the protesters that she had tried to speak out against the barge “on the grounds of humanity” but it had not been enough to stop the government’s immoral plans. Instead then, she hoped she might be able to stop them on the grounds of planning permission.

    Specifically, Parkes’ case revolved around the Home Office’s failure to seek planning permission from the local council. In a statement in advance of the hearing, Parkes said that:

    If the Home Office had applied for planning permission, they would have had to consult with local people – but we never got the right to have our say.

    I believe that planning permission would have been refused.

    However, the government’s lawyers argued that the local planning authority did not think planning permission was necessary. In particular, Dorset Council had taken the view that since the barge operated below the mean low water mark, this would place the Bibby Stockholm outside its jurisdiction.

    Parkes’ legal team disputed this. As the Canary’s Steve Topple previously explained, they argued that:

    1. Idea of a ‘low water mark’ as a boundary for planning permission should be “interpreted flexibly”. Parkes argues that in this instance, the Bibby Stockholm is in the local planning authority’s jurisdiction as it’s in the harbour.
    2. The Bibby Stockholm is attached to the land for electricity, sewage, and so on. Therefore, it is “effectively a permanent structure” like a pier, so does fall under planning rules.

    Despite this, on 11 October, the High Court rejected these as grounds for a judicial review.

    ‘Racial segregation’

    Moreover, part of the case focused on what the lawyers argued amounted to “racial segregation”. In a press release ahead of the challenge, Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors stated that the Equality Impact Assessment:

    conducted only days before the barge’s use commenced, is woefully inadequate as it fails to consider the impact of the barge’s operation in radicalising far-right extremism and in segregating rather than integrating asylum seekers.

    Of course, this is exactly the purpose of Braverman’s racist asylum accommodation project. As the Canary’s Afroze Fatima Zaidi wrote in September:

    Current policy regarding asylum in the UK is an extension of the ‘hostile environment’ introduced by former PM and home secretary Theresa May.

    In other words, the Bibby Stockholm sits among the government’s portfolio of racist plans designed to position the UK as unwelcoming to refugees.

    Predictably also, the barge has indeed served as a focal point in drawing out far-right fascist groups like Patriotic Alternative.

    In effect, the Bibby Stockholm embodies the government’s hostile rhetoric, which seeks to sever asylum seekers’ connection with the surrounding community and support groups.

    ‘Remote’ and ‘monstrous’ location

    And a barge in Portland harbour is the perfect place to do this. Speaking to the protesters outside the High Court, Parkes also remarked on the remoteness of the location for housing asylum seekers. She explained that Portland port:

    is a secure area – you can’t easily come in and out of it.

    As a result, she argued that:

    The whole idea of holding human beings on a barge in such a location is so monstrous

    Specifically, Portland is an island tied to the Dorset coastline by a singular access road. Between 2015 and 2017, the island was also host to the Verne immigration removal centre. A local detention centre visitor group, and even the prison inspectorate, had raised concerns about the inaccessibility of the site. Notably, the inspectorate said that:

    the remoteness of The Verne made visits very difficult for many families.

    As Open Democracy reported in 2015, the inspectorate’s survey:

    revealed that just 19 per cent of detainees had been visited by family or friends, compared with an average of 43 per cent for other immigration detention centres. Only a quarter of lawyers had managed to visit their clients.

    The site where the government has moored the barge is therefore extremely isolated.

    Back to the Bibby Stockholm

    Parkes’s loss in the High Court came as the Home Office announced it would be returning asylum seekers to the barge. The department gave notice via letter that it would move asylum seekers onto the Bibby Stockholm on a “no-choice basis” on 19 October.

    Countering the government’s hostile environment rhetoric, in August, Parkes said that:

    human beings belong in communities and need to be cared for in communities, not on barges

    Moreover, protesters have vowed to continue to fight the Home Office’s cruel asylum plans.

     

    Braverman may have fought off this legal challenge, but she won’t stop people across the UK from welcoming asylum seekers into their communities. The people seeking safety whom this callous government is forcing onto the Bibby Stockholm will be no exception.

    Feature image via Ashley Smith/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rwanda ‘tortures and murders’, UK supreme court hearing asylum challenge told

    Home Office brings fresh legal challenge after court of appeal ruled UK’s deportation policy unlawful

    Rwanda is a country that “imprisons, tortures and murders” its opponents, including those who have already fled the country, the UK’s supreme court has heard.

    Raza Husain KC, representing asylum seekers challenging the Rwanda policy, told five senior judges of human rights breaches in the east African country. He said opponents of the Rwandan government were at risk of police violence and “absolute repression”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Campaign group Liberty is dragging Suella Braverman to court over anti-protest laws

    The High Court has announced that human rights group Liberty can take home secretary Suella Braverman to court over anti-protest laws. Liberty says that her actions were unlawful – as she pushed through changes which parliament already rejected, in what the group calls the Tories’ latest “power-grab”.

    Braverman’s draconian Public Order Act

    As the Canary previously reported, the Tories brought in the Public Order Act earlier in the year:

    The draconian Public Order Act was given royal assent on 2 May, dramatically increasing police powers to arrest protesters. The Home Office has already cited the new Act in threatening letters to anti-monarchists. The campaign group Republic received intimidating letters this week, listing the arrest powers under the new Act. Extinction Rebellion has also received similar threats.

    In fact, the Guardian reported that one ‘senior’ insider, who knew about the discussions between the police and the government, confirmed that the Act had been brought into force early, ahead of the coronation on 6 May.

    The new Public Order Act powers include penalties of a year in custody for blocking roads, railways and airports. In addition, protesters who use the tactic of locking-on could face up to six months in prison.

    However, during the passage of the law through parliament the House of Lords rejected parts of it. Specifically, it refused to sign off on Braverman reducing the threshold of what constitutes “serious disruption” caused by protesters. This is the level at which police are allowed to try and stop demonstrations.

    So, instead of accepting the House of Lords’ decision, Braverman pushed her changes through via the back door. In June, after the Public Order Act became law, the home secretary used secondary legislation to change it. This is where a minister can make changes to existing laws without having to get parliament to vote on it.

    Groundbreaking – but not in a good way

    At the time, Braverman’s move caused outrage. The cross-party House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said of her actions:

    As far as we can ascertain, this is the first time a Government has sought to make changes to the law by making those changes through secondary legislation even though those same changes had been rejected by Parliament when introduced a short while before in primary legislation. This raises a constitutional issue as to the appropriate use by Government of secondary legislation, particularly as it arises in the context of an area of law which is important and attracts controversy.

    As the Guardian reported, Labour’s home affairs spokesperson in the Lords – Vernon Coaker – said:

    It is an absolute fundamental constitutional outrage, what has actually taken place. Primary legislation was defeated. So what does the government do? It doesn’t bring forward new primary legislation; it tries to sneak through, in an underhand way, secondary legislation without proper public consultation. They undermine the workings of our parliamentary democracy and, as such, it is shocking.

    Of course, Labour’s outrage is performative – given it failed to support Green Party peer Jenny Jones’s fatal motion in the Lords which would have stopped Braverman.

    So, the home secretary’s changes are currently law. The real-world implications of this are that police now have almost free rein to stop whatever protests they like. This is because the change Braverman made means they can now stop demonstrations even if they only cause “more than minor” disruption – whatever that may mean.

    Liberty: see you in court

    However, Liberty are not having it – and the High Court has agreed. It has said the group can bring a legal challenge to Braverman’s changes. Liberty said that:

    the Home Secretary was not given the powers by Parliament to take this action, making her actions a serious overreach which violate the constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected by Parliament.

    Liberty’s interim director, Akiko Hart, said:

    This is just the latest power grab from this Government, which has shown it is determined to erode the ways people can hold it to account, whether that’s in Parliament or on the streets. The Home Secretary’s actions give the police almost unlimited powers to stop any protest the Government doesn’t agree with – and the way she has done it is unlawful.

    We are taking legal action to make sure those in power are not allowed to put themselves above the law. Our message to the Home Secretary is clear – see you in court.

    Katy Watts is the lawyer leading Liberty’s case. She said:

    The Home Secretary has side-lined Parliament to sneak in new legislation via the back door, despite not having the power to do so. This overrules Parliament who voted these same proposals down just a few months ago – and is a flagrant breach of the separation of powers that exist in our constitution.

    The wording of the Government’s new law is so vague that any anything deemed by police to cause ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it. This same rule was democratically rejected earlier this year, yet the Home Secretary has gone ahead and introduced it through other means regardless.

    It’s really important the Government respects the law and that the Home Secretary’s decision is reversed immediately.

    Dwindling democracy

    Braverman’s move was hardly surprising – given that the current crop of Tories are some of the most authoritarian in recent memory. As the Canary‘s Joe Glenton previously wrote:

    Under the Tories, a range of authoritarian bills have passed into law. And they have brought with them the sense of democratic space narrowing before our eyes.

    With the Spy Cops Bill, the Policing Bill, the Overseas Operations Bill, and the Snooper’s Charter, it is evident that many of the basic rights which have been won over many years are being stripped back

    As such, if Liberty can navigate the courts to stop at least one aspect of the Tories’ current assault on all our rights, then that would be a win for everyone.

    Featured image via the Telegraph – YouTube and Liberty – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ‘Incoherence and inconsistency’: the inside story of the Rwanda deportation plan

    There were so many warnings it would fail. How did it get this far?

    On the afternoon of 14 June 2022, as the clock ticked nearer to takeoff, Hamza was sitting alone in a van, handcuffed, crying. Like dozens of other men selected for removal to Rwanda, he had come to Britain in search of refuge after fleeing mortal danger in his home country. The first he had heard of Rwanda was when he received a letter from the Home Office in mid-May, sent to the detention centre where he was being held a few weeks after he crossed the Channel from France.

    “I’m being relocated to Rwanda – what does this mean for me?” read the title of a factsheet Hamza was later given. “Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country,” the document continued. “It is known as ‘the land of a thousand hills’ due to its striking landscape and is home to a wide array of wildlife.” Rwandans, it added, “are friendly to visitors”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Vanessa Redgrave gives £4,000 to Bibby Stockholm legal fight

    Actor’s donation enables fund to reach target in challenge to Home Office’s use of barge to house asylum seekers

    Vanessa Redgrave has donated £4,000 to a legal fund challenging the Home Office’s use of the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge to accommodate asylum seekers.

    The actor and human rights campaigner has been an outspoken critic of the government’s policy to house asylum seekers on the barge in Portland, Dorset.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Vanessa Redgrave gives £4,000 to Bibby Stockholm legal fight

    Actor’s donation enables fund to reach target in challenge to Home Office’s use of barge to house asylum seekers

    Vanessa Redgrave has donated £4,000 to a legal fund challenging the Home Office’s use of the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge to accommodate asylum seekers.

    The actor and human rights campaigner has been an outspoken critic of the government’s policy to house asylum seekers on the barge in Portland, Dorset.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Asylum seekers ‘degraded’ at detention centre: key points from Brook House inquiry

    Report on immigration removal centre details ‘crushing’ abuse and excessive use of force that has left detainees with PTSD

    The Brook House public inquiry report, published on Tuesday, has been described as a searing indictment of immigration detention, where migrants who are not being punished for a criminal offence are locked up indefinitely.

    The report was commissioned because undercover footage obtained by the BBC’s Panorama team provided evidence of suffering by many detainees. The report includes moving pen portraits of some of those detained.

    Continue reading…

  • Physical and verbal abuse found in Brook House immigration removal centre inquiry

    Report identifies ‘toxic culture’ and breaches of human rights laws relating to torture and inhuman treatment

    The first public inquiry into abuses at a UK immigration detention centre has identified a “toxic culture” and numerous breaches of human rights laws relating to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as racist, derogatory language used by some staff towards detainees.

    The inquiry calls for sweeping changes to immigration detention including the introduction of a 28-day time limit.

    Continue reading…

  • Suella Braverman restates wish for UK to leave European court of human rights

    Home secretary calls the court ‘politicised’ and refuses to rule out mass tagging of asylum seekers

    Suella Braverman has reiterated her wish to leave what she called the “politicised” European court of human rights (ECHR) and refused to rule out the mass tagging of asylum seekers, a move one refugee charity said would treat people as “mere objects”.

    Marking a return to the political fray after a summer recess in which a series of Home Office policy hiccups prompted speculation she could be replaced as home secretary, Braverman said the government would “do whatever it takes” to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

    Continue reading…

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

  • MPs call for former Guantanamo detainee Ravil Mingazov to be reunited with his family in the UK

    Six MPs have written to home secretary Suella Braverman appealing for Ravil Mingazov, a Russian former Guantanamo inmate, to be able to reunite with his family in the UK. Moreover, United Arab Emirates (UAE) authorities are currently holding Mingazov without charge or trial. So, alongside the letter from the MPs, advocacy group CAGE is launching a campaign for his freedom.

    Release from UAE prison

    The signatories to the letter, dated 17 August, include the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. They also include former Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and Labour MP John McDonnell. Mingazov’s son Yusuf is a constituent of Labour MP Apsana Begum, who is also a signatory, and whose office submitted the letter to the home secretary.

    In 2002, Mingazov was abducted in Pakistan. He spent 15 years – without charge or trial – in Guantanamo. After the US finally released Mingazov in January 2017, he came to the UAE. However, when he arrived, UAE authorities detained him without clear explanation. He’s been incarcerated in the Al Razeen prison in Abu Dhabi ever since, and the authorities now plan to repatriate him to Russia.

    The letter from MPs expressed concern regarding these plans, noting:

    The abuse former Guantanamo detainees have suffered in Russia has been well-documented by Human Rights Watch and other NGOs. Mr Mingazov was never charged with any crime before, during or after his his detention at Guantanamo.

    If Mr Mingazov is repatriated to Russia, he will face serious persecution

    It added that returning Mingazov to Russia would breach the UN Convention against Torture. Plans to repatriate Mingazov to Russia have also received condemnation from UN human rights experts.

    Ravil Mingazov: separated from family

    CAGE’s head of public advocacy Anas Mustapha said:

    Ravil Mingazov was tortured and held without charge or trial by the US. He was misled when the US failed to guarantee his freedom upon his transfer to the UAE where he has been imprisoned since. His son has appealed to the Home Office in 2015 to bring his father home but was refused. MP’s are right to request he is granted access once again in the face of the imminent threat of torture facing Mr Mingazov.

    The US State Department and Senior Representative of Guantanamo Affairs Tina Kaidanow must also right this wrong by ensuring that Ravil is released and reunited with his son in the UK.

    The letter to the home secretary noted that an application from Mingazov to enter the UK had received no response:

    Mr Mingazov made an application for leave to enter the United Kingdom on 10th August 2015, through his legal representatives Thompson HD. Thompson HD advise that the Home Office acknowledged receipt on 24th September 2015 but have not responded since.

    It concluded with an appeal from the MPs:

    We are requesting that you meet with us and urgently contact the UAE to ask that Mr Mingazov not be repatriated to Russia, and that you immediately consider granting his application to enter and remain in the UK, and be reunited with his son and family.

    Yusuf, Mingazov’s son, told CAGE:

    I don’t remember much about my father. But I mostly know about him from my mother, he would tell her how she should raise me. To teach me manners, help those in need, to give to others, those who are disabled and elderly to support them. She said he wouldn’t hurt a fly, if there were insects in our home he wouldn’t kill it but remove it, without harming it. He was a very gentle, kind and smart person.

    I have heard the same good things about him from many people, beyond just my family, such as his friends in Russia also. When I began to speak to him through the Red Cross, I would find the same characteristics in him. In those conversations, he would try and teach me, almost as if to compensate for the things he missed in my childhood.

    Victims of the war on terror

    Mansoor Adayfi, Guantanamo project coordinator at CAGE, was also held in Guantanamo for 15 years. He said about Mingazov:

    I met Sa’eed (Ravil Mingazov) in Guantanamo Bay for the first time when we were protesting in 2003. He was a very polite and sensitive person. He joined us on the hunger strike actions we took to protest our detention. He was targeted by the guards because he tried to convince other brothers to join us.

    A press release from CAGE, announcing their campaign for Mingazov’s release, read:

    The case of Ravil Mingazov underlines significant failures in the US strategy for transferring prisoners from Guantanamo. While Mingazov’s case exemplifies some of the more egregious violations of agreements within the transfer arrangements involving former detainees, numerous other prisoners continue to grapple with formidable challenges, detentions and dire poverty..

    It went on to add:

    The Biden administration’s appointment of seasoned diplomat Tina Kaidanow as the Senior Representative for Guantanamo Affairs signals a shift towards closing the facility. As part of this responsibility, addressing historical injustices becomes crucial, including urgent intervention in the case of Ravil Mingazov.

    The letter from MPs to the home secretary also makes a case for the UK to intervene and help Mingazov reunite with his family.  Whether Braverman and the current UK government will act to correct this historical injustice of the US and UK’s post-9/11 ‘war on terror’, however, remains to be seen.

    Featured mage via Pxhere/CAGE

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A local mayor is taking the Tories to court over the Bibby Stockholm – in her capacity as a resident of Portland

    The Bibby Stockholm refugee detention barge continues to dominate the news. It has been subject to numerous protests over recent weeks. However, a local resident in Portland – where it is now docked – is taking the Tories to court over the situation. She also happens to be the local mayor.

    Bibby Stockholm: encapsulating Tory racism

    As the Canary has documented, the Bibby Stockholm has been at the eye of the storm over the Tory government’s immigration policies. We previously wrote that:

    the Home Office is planning to forcibly detain around 500 male refugees on the Bibby Stockholm. This is despite Dutch authorities’ alleged human rights abuses aboard the vessel when its government used it to detain refugees in the 2000s. The UK government’s plans have also prompted outrage from groups like Amnesty International.

    The barge was previously moored at Falmouth in Cornwall, for refurbishment. There, it and the companies operating on it saw multiple protests from local people and groups. On 18 July it reached its final destination at Portland Port in Dorset. There, the Bibby Stockholm also saw protest from people opposed to its presence – some right-wing, some not.

    On 7 August, as Sky News reported:

    The first 15 asylum seekers are now on board the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge, according to the Home Office – although the government was unable to put another 20 on the vessel.

    Support group Care4Calais had managed to help the 20 refugees resist the government forcing them onto the barge. According to Sky News, Care4Calais claimed that this number included:

    people who have disabilities, people who have had traumatic experiences crossing the sea and victims of torture and modern slavery.

    Protests have continued in Portland. However, so far the local authorities involved have failed to put up any resistance. So, Portland’s mayor has taken it upon herself (in a personal capacity) to take the government to court over the Bibby Stockholm.

    A legal challenge

    Carralyn Parkes is the mayor of Portland, a Labour councillor on Portland Town Council, and a local resident. She previously hit out at the Tories’ plans for the Bibby Stockholm. As the Guardian reported, Parkes said:

    I think it’s appalling that this government would consider putting some of the most vulnerable and traumatised people on a barge in Portland port… There isn’t the infrastructure to care for them. We don’t have a hospital. We have a GP that covers up to about 14,000 people. Portland is cut off with one road on and one road off.

    If they do house these people here, our council will treat them with love and respect, but it’s disgraceful that in the 21st century the government is thinking about housing asylum seekers on a barge.

    Now, after Dorset Council chose not to go ahead with a legal challenge, and with Portland Town Council having no statutory authority to do so, Parkes is doing it herself.

    Law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn is representing her. She will be applying for a judicial review of the Bibby Stockholm, in which the High Court will look at the evidence and decides if the government acted lawfully. Deighton Pierce Glynn said in a press release that Parkes’ legal challenge centres around the issue of planning permission. It noted that:

    Dorset Council have said publicly that they consider that planning permission is not necessary for the installation, operation and use of the barge in Dorset to accommodate asylum seekers, because the barge lies below the mean low water mark, and is therefore not within the local planning authority’s jurisdiction.

    Parkes disagrees. This is because the:

    1. Idea of a ‘low water mark’ as a boundary for planning permission should be “interpreted flexibly”. Parkes argues that in this instance, the Bibby Stockholm is in the local planning authority’s jurisdiction as it’s in the harbour.
    2. The Bibby Stockholm is attached to the land for electricity, sewage, and so on. Therefore, it is “effectively a permanent structure” like a pier, so does fall under planning rules.

    So, she is is seeking a judicial review on the grounds that planning permission was neither sought nor granted. Parkes has published a CrowdJustice page to raise the money she needs to do this. You can read and donate to that here.

    The Tories and the Bibby Stockholm: “inhuman”

    Overall, as Parkes noted:

    I think containing people on the barge is an inhumane way to treat those fleeing from war, conflict or persecution. The people who will be placed on the barge are NOT ILLEGAL because their asylum claims have already started to be processed by the Home Office. These people are asking for our protection, not our cruelty.

    It is as simple as that. Of course, it would be too much to ask the Tory-run Dorset Council to take the government to court. So, it is down to Parkes – and the public she needs support from.

    Featured image via Ashley Smith – Wikimedia, resized to 1910×1000 under licence CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ‘Should we cheer?’: support for asylum seekers arriving at Dorset port

    Local campaigners deliver welcome packs for people transferred to Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland

    After weeks of local strife and national buildup, the sparsely filled coaches entering the Dorset port where the Bibby Stockholm is moored were a boost to pro-refugee demonstrators.

    “Should we cheer just in case?” asked Heather, a local campaigner and member of Stand Up to Racism Dorset as a fifth, seemingly empty, coach drove into the port.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Home Office ordered to change rules that restrict help for trafficking victims

    Court rules all potential victims must be assessed for support, after policy disqualified people with criminal convictions

    A high court judge has ordered the home secretary to change a key part of a trafficking policy introduced just months ago.

    In an urgent hearing on Wednesday, lawyers representing trafficking victims said they were at risk of human rights violations such as slavery, servitude and forced labour if the policy continued.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Battle over Rwanda deportations to continue as No 10 gears up for appeal

    Sunak insists Rwanda is safe country to be sent after court rules in favour of charities and 10 asylum seekers

    The bitter legal battle over the government’s flagship immigration policy is set to reach new heights after Downing Street insisted it would fight to overturn a ruling that sending refugees to Rwanda was unlawful.

    Charities and others were jubilant on Thursday after judges at the court of appeal ruled in favour of campaign groups and 10 affected asylum seekers, while the opposition claimed the policy at heart of Rishi Sunak’s “Stop the Boats” pledge was now unravelling.

    Continue reading…

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