Ruth Schöffl reported from Vienna, on 08 July 2022 how a Syrian refugee game developer, an Austrian company and UNHCR teamed up to create a video game that reveals the life-or-death decisions that refugees face.
Jack Gutmann was never one of those children whose parents badgered him to limit his screen time and go outside and play. On the contrary, they encouraged Jack and his four brothers to spend as much time as possible absorbed in computer games so they would stay indoors, safe from the conflict raging on the streets outside their home.
“I was scared, and I tried to escape reality,” says Jack, named Abdullah at birth and brought up in Hama, Syria’s fourth-largest city. “I didn’t want to see the war and I did not want to hear it.” When there was electricity, he played video games. When the electricity went out, he played on his laptop. When the laptop battery died, he designed on paper.
He never dreamed that years later – safe in Austria – his passion for computer design would equip him to produce an award-winning video game. A teaching edition of Path Out was re-launched by UNHCR for World Refugee Day (20 June 2022) this year to help schoolchildren in Austria and elsewhere stand in the shoes of a refugee, making life-and-death decisions along a hazardous journey to safety.
Jack, who took a new name when he forged a new life in Austria, began drawing and colouring digitally as a child and mastered the graphics programme Photoshop by the time he was fourteen.
“Digital art and computer games were the window to the world for me, out of my room in Syria, away from the war into a diverse world with very different people,” he says, reflecting on the crisis that broke out in March 2011, the same month he turned 15.
Since the start of the crisis in 2011, millions of Syrians have been forced to flee their homes. Today some 6.8 million Syrians have fled abroad as refugees, and almost as many – 6.9 million – are displaced within the country.
At 18, facing the danger of being drafted into the army, Jack fled his homeland – a dangerous and circuitous journey to Turkey and then across a number of countries until he reached Austria in the heart of Europe. This was the first place he truly felt safe.
“I didn’t plan to stay in Austria,” he freely admits. “But when I arrived here with my brother, we were really shocked because so many people helped us – positively shocked.”
Shortly after arriving, Jack met Georg Hobmeier, head of Causa Creations, a Vienna-based game-design company that sees video games not only as entertainment but, in the words of its website, as “meaningful, enriching experiences that can connect us, challenge our perceptions, and give insights into the world around us.” They’ve worked on issues such as migration, climate change and nuclear energy.
Jack, eager to turn his passion into a profession, teamed up with Causa Creations on a joint project. The result was Path Out, in which the player replicates Jack’s surreptitious trek from Syria, sometimes in the hands of people smugglers.
“We decided that Jack himself would be the main character of the game,” says Georg, adding that it was particularly important to show that behind every refugee statistic there are complex stories and complex personalities.
In the Japanese game style they chose, the cute characters contrast with the harsh reality of the journey. Jack – the designer and the character – are dressed throughout in the yellow shirt he actually wore on his odyssey, which now has sentimental value to him.
From a box in the corner of the screen, real Jack comments on the players’ moves in Youtuber style, often with humour. “You just killed me, man,” he exclaims when the player makes the wrong move. “In reality I wasn’t as clumsy as you.”
Originally released as a two-hour game in 2017, Path Out has won international and Austrian awards for “its effort to shed light on a serious issue.”
The new version Causa and UNHCR developed for schools takes no longer than one lesson and helps pupils who might never meet real refugees learn that Jack led a life much like theirs until his world was turned upside down and he had to leave everything behind. It was rolled out in German and English for World Refugee Day; other language versions are to follow.
Jack the designer is still writing his own happy ending. He felt safe as soon as he reached Austria, but it took time for the country to become his true artistic and emotional home.
“It took five years until I felt my journey was over, until I really felt relieved,” he says. Now 26, he speaks nearly flawless German and English. He completed vocational training, worked for a few years in a game development company, and now is training further in 3D modelling and animation to become an even better game developer and designer.
He met an Austrian woman who also plays video games – though not by profession – and they married last year.
And he maintains his sense of humour, a trait he considers essential both in real life and in his game, Path Out. “The story of flight and war is bad enough; one needs humour to be able to cope with it,” he says. Since the game reflects his reality, “it’s funny at the same time. After all, computer games are supposed to be fun.”
Timothy E. Lynch, The Right to Remain, Washington International Law Journal, Volume 31 (June 2022) Abstract below. Article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states, “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to…
This anthology of short stories for writers’ association English PEN is packed with poignant and moving tales from around the world
The central tenet of English PEN’s charter is that “literature knows no frontiers”. This richly varied collection of 11 short stories explores the barbed-wire fences of refugee camps, the barriers that divide communities today and the legacy of historical walls as well as celebrating how literature unites us across borders.
Brazilian author Paulo Scott, translated by Daniel Hahn, weaves an imaginative tale around the acrylic barriers erected during the 2016 summer Olympics to “stop the tourists with their photographic equipment from feeling like they are being exposed to a Rio de Janeiro that perhaps they would rather not face quite so close up”.
All Walls Collapse, edited by Sarah Cleave and Will Forrester, is published by Comma Press (£12.99). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Two years ago, COHA reported on the manufactured “refugee” crisis around Nicaraguans living in Costa Rica. Now the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is saying that “102,000 people fled Nicaragua and sought asylum in Costa Rica” in 2021. As this article shows, this statement is inaccurate, adding further to the myth that Nicaragua is suffering a refugee crisis.
On June 20, a group called “SOSNicaragua” which is based in Costa Rica, held a conference to mark World Refugee Day. Called “Breaking down walls, building hope,” it was addressed by the head of the Costa Rican government’s Refugee Unit, Esther Núñez. She confirmed that, since 2018, Costa Rica had received 175,055 applications for asylum, the majority from Nicaragua. However, the rest of her message must have been less welcome to the participants. Her unit had limited capacity to deal with these cases, she said, but in any case “a large proportion” of the people who apply for refugee status in Costa Rica do so “because they need to regulate their migratory status, but they do not really qualify for asylum” [my emphasis].
At the heels of World Refugee Day, HRI grieves the loss of over 50 lives that were abandoned in a truck in San Antonio, TX. Border militarization and anti-asylum policies like Title 42 and MPP have led people to take increasingly dangerous measures to reach safety—measures that too often cost them their lives. We mourn this horrific tragedy, and for the loved ones left behind, and we firmly call on Congress and the administration to restore pathways to safety before more lives are lost.
As world rightly unites to support Ukrainian refugees, it also reminds us of the justice that has been long denied to our Black and Brown siblings— especially those caught up in our racist immigration system, like our Haitian sibling, like our fellow human beings lost in a locked truck. Legal pathway to safety is the only way we can control this crisis.
The tragic reality is that over 100 million people around the world are now experiencing displacement—the highest number in history. In response to this crisis, you can join the fight of a lifetime – fight for those who cannot fight alone. HRI remains steadfast in our commitment to always respectfully support refugees and migrants.
Document published this year does not mention asylum seekers as priority group for ‘intrusive policy’
The Home Office appears to have contradicted its own guidance on GPS tagging, which prioritised “very high harm offenders”, after it announced the devices would be used on asylum seekers arriving in the UK.
An 86-page guidance document titled “Immigration Bail” was published on 31 January 2022. It includes a large section about the GPS tagging of migrants and does not mention asylum seekers who have not committed crimes as a priority group for GPS tagging.
On 17 June, home secretary Priti Patel gave her approval to a court ruling to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the US. He will face 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.
Assange’s lawyers are to appeal Patel’s approval of extradition within 14 days of her announcement, but the High Court will have to approve the appeal request. A judicial review of Patel’s decision is also possible.
Assange’s defence team has issued a statement giving some indication of what happens next:
— Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver (@deepa_driver) June 17, 2022
The statement says that Assange will appeal Patel’s decision. And it adds that he will “file grounds for appeal not able to be proceeded with during the past one and a half years”.
‘New’ information brought to court
According to Assange’s brother Gabriel Shipton, the appeal to the UK courts will be partly based on information that they couldn’t bring to the courts previously:
It will likely be a few days before the (14-day appeal) deadline and the appeal will include new information that we weren’t able to bring before the courts previously. Information on how Julian lawyers were spied on, and how there were plots to kidnap and kill Julian from within the CIA.
Previously, The Canaryreported that Spanish legal sources were confident the extradition process could be annulled. That assessment was based on ongoing revelations during the trial in Spain of David Morales, head of the surveillance company that spied on Assange’s lawyers in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.
That surveillance meant client-lawyer confidentiality was breached. And the law in England on client-lawyer confidentiality is clear, as this 2018 judgement in the Court of Appeal indicates.
The same Spanish court has summoned former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo. This is to answer questions about alleged CIA plots to spy on, kidnap, or kill Assange.
A matter of weeks?
Meanwhile, Assange’s defence lawyer Jennifer Robinson said Assange may also appeal, if necessary, to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). But that’s assuming the UK is still a member of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ‘Convention’), upon which the court is based, by the time the ECHR appeal happens.
That may not be the case.
In a separate but possibly linked development, the Strasbourg-based ECHRintervened and halted the flight that Patel planned to transport refugees to Rwanda. Consequently, prime minister Boris Johnson spoke of laws that would ensure such intervention can’t happen in the future. These remarks were interpreted as meaning he intends to pull the UK out of the Convention, which underpins the ECHR.
Johnson has also made it clear that in the coming weeks he intends to introduce a British bill of Rights. This would affirm “parliamentary sovereignty in the exercise of the legislative function, in the context of adverse Strasbourg rulings”. In other words, a Tory version of the Convention.
ECHR: a UK-led body
As The Canary already pointed out, the Council of Europe oversees the Convention. The UK joined the Council in 1949, with Winston Churchill as a prime mover:
And Johnson’s maternal grandfather James Fawcett was actually president of the European Commission of Human Rights for more than 20 years. The Commission, which became defunct in 1998, functioned as a gateway for individual claims to the Court.
Safeguarding role
The ECHR was created in 1959 and has jurisdiction over 47 countries. Over the years, it’s impacted on a number of human rights issues. It has also intervened on:
various social issues such as abortion, assisted suicide, body searches, domestic slavery, adoption by homosexuals, wearing religious symbols at school, the recognition of transsexuals, the protection of journalists’ sources and even environmental issues.
The ECHR and the Convention act as safeguards against breaches of human rights, often committed by governments.
A very recent and pertinent example where the ECHR intervened in the UK involved one of Assange’s lawyers, as previously reported by The Canary:
In 2016, I took legal action against the UK with @privacyint over surveillance & information sharing with the US – given my work as lawyer for #Assange & @wikileaks
UK admits violation of Art 8 & Art 10 (confidential journalistic material)
Another example of how the ECHR changed UK law for the better was the McLibel case, the longest trial in English legal history.
Helen Steel and David Morris, two environmental activists, handed out leaflets accusing McDonald’s of environmental destruction. McDonald’s sued for libel. Steel and Morris denied publishing the leaflets. The case was taken to the ECHR and the court ruled that a number of the Convention’s articles had been violated, including:
Applicants’ right to a fair trial was violated under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and that their leaflets were protected under Article 10’s freedom of expression.
It also found that denial of legal aid to the defendants was unfair, setting a new benchmark for future similar cases.
The importance of the ECHR and the UK’s membership of the Convention cannot be overemphasised. Particularly when the UK has a government that intends to criminalise the Fourth Estate – i.e. journalists.
Retaining power
As for Johnson’s recent pronouncements on the ECHR, they’re more about pandering to a xenophobic constituency to help him retain power. This comes at a time when the popularity of Johnson and his government has plummeted in the wake of numerous scandals. Partygate and the story of Rishi Sunak wasting £11bn are the most prominent in a long list. Patel’s National Security bill, which seeks to jail journalists for life, is also extremely concerning, if not contentious.
Should the Johnson government go ahead and pull out of the Convention and replace it with a Tory bill of rights, it will be a disaster for everyone in the UK. Such a move would be regressive and will present yet another threat to our ever-decreasing liberties. Moreover, if that move is expedited, Assange may lose out on an appeal to the ECHR.
It’s 9 pm in Thessaloniki, Greece, and on the third floor of a beaten-up office block on the outskirts of town, a presentation is taking place. The lights are switched off, and the audience settles in across two sofas and a scattering of plastic stools.
“Yes, that’s good,” the presenter says. “Next slide please.”
The presenter is Elaine Harrold, an employee of the Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN) in Greece. She turns to the large dust sheet behind her. Propped up across two clothes rails, the sheet has a shaky projected image cast across its center.
“Here’s just one report of a pushback we collected in 2021,” Harrold says. “Pushbacks consist of forcing individuals across national borders without documentation or the provision of basic rights like access to translation. They are illegal, often violent, and stand against every piece of refugee protection legislation in Europe.”
Harrold turns, pointing to the pixelated satellite image behind her. “On September 12, 2021, the respondent we interviewed described being approached by a group of armed police in the center of Thessaloniki, where he was detained, loaded into a van and transported to a cell on the outskirts of the city.
“After two days spent in the cell, a time in which the respondent reports multiple accounts of physical and mental abuse, he was loaded into a police bus with around 30 others, and driven four hours east to Feres. Feres is a border town on the Evros river. The surrounding region is somewhat of a dark zone for media access, but reports speak of ‘warehouse style’ asylum-seeker holding facilities, where basic welfare standards and human rights protections are completely disregarded.
“Here the respondent was collected with around 90 others and driven to the border. At the edge of the river, the groups were forced onto dinghies and ordered to cross to Turkey. The authorities selected individuals from the detainee population themselves to drive the boats, promising the drivers reentry into Europe if they agreed.”
Harrold tracks her finger across the border to Turkey, “The river crossing here is very dangerous and the site of countless asylum-seeker disappearances. The crossing is highly weather dependent, and the detainees are sometimes forced onto the islands in-between the two nations and guarded from accessing either side of the riverbank.
“In the hierarchy of political and geographical privilege, less powerful states like Greece and Turkey are offered massive incentives to limit asylum seekers entering the EU. The issue of harboring and managing the migrating populations is outsourced to these countries, and with the geographical distance and complexities of shared responsibility, the EU politicians who fuel the subsequent human rights abuses rarely have to answer for them directly.”
Detention as Default
The following afternoon in Thessaloniki, at the headquarters of the city’s largest refugee support organization, a mother in a giant puffer jacket shields her daughter from the wind. Beside her stand two young men, one of them leaning up against a wall with a crutch in his hand.
These individuals are part of the community of “People on the Move” (POTM) in Thessaloniki. “People on the Move” is the most recent descriptor for the complex population of migrants on European soil, encompassing both refugees and asylum seekers. Many of these individuals lack documentation, and, unable to gain access to the labor market or health care system, they often rely on volunteer organizations for help.
But today this small group will be turned away. It’s mid-afternoon and they’ve missed their chance to be treated. The volunteer organization space is dual-use, and in the afternoon the makeshift hospital becomes a distribution center, packed with donated clothes and vegetables. There is a great requirement for such services in the city. The community of POTM here are mostly homeless or living in temporary government housing. They exist in various states of engagement with the Greek asylum system, many of them deterred from interaction with the police by the threat of long-term detainment.
On November 16, 2021, Oxfam released “Detention as default,” a briefing on the asylum situation in Greece. Across this 31-page document, Oxfam paints a damning picture of the Greek asylum system, suggesting that Greece and the EU are colluding against asylum seekers, creating an inhumane and hostile environment, and using detainment centers to undermine any real attempt to form a productive asylum system.
Referencing figures from June 2021, Oxfam cites the 3,000 migrants in administrative detention, meaning detention without criminal charges, arguing that, although detention used to be considered a final resort for migrants in Greece, recent shifts in the law have moved it to the center of the asylum process.
The line of waiting POTM is long that afternoon, and during food distribution, an old saloon car pulls up with a plain clothes police officer in it. “They usually don’t bother us too much anymore,” says Bill O’Leary, a retired teacher from the United Kingdom, and the coordinator for that afternoon’s distribution, “They just come here to count the POTM, … trying to track the numbers in the city.”
Second-Class Humans
It’s Friday evening in Thessaloniki, and the waterfront promenade is busy with shoppers, bar-hoppers and teenage couples walking hand in hand. Here is a city organized around the sea, and to the east of the promenade, a wooden pier, dotted with benches and groups of teenagers, stretches out into the Mediterranean.
“When I was in Turkey, we worked every day,” says Robin, one of the community volunteers. “I was a tailor, working in a T-shirt factory. It’s not very complex work you understand, very basic and hard.”
Robin is Afghani. He’s in his mid-20s with a boyish face and impeccable English. “You take one piece of fabric,” he says, mimicking the action with his hands. “You attach it to another. It is good to have work, but the conditions are very bad and the migrants have no security.”
Behind Robin’s head, the lights of a pirate-themed tourist ship sail peacefully across the bay. “You work all month, and at the end of the month, the boss decides to pay you or not. It is unfair, but the migrant has no power or protection.” The group around him nod solemnly.
Ever since the Syrian civil war in 2014, the context of migration in Turkey has been increasingly problematic. Following the breakdown of government in Syria, huge waves of displaced people crossed the border into Turkey, or fled onward toward Greece and Italy.
To react to the necessary demand for refugee registration, Turkey created “Temporary Protection” (TP), a new status of legal registration for migrants. In its original conception, the TP status would be a short-term crisis measure, offering speedy and basic protections while avoiding the complexities and international guarantees around the status of asylum seekers. But with the wider economic and political situation at play, this “short-term” plan for TP registration was to come under pressure.
With the signing of the EU Turkey agreement in March 2016, 6 billion euros in financial aid was promised to Turkey, to support and harbor refugees, and to limit the number coming to Europe. This was the groundwork for a huge refugee outsourcing economy, and with Turkey now operating as an active asylum-seeker barrier, the role of temporary protection status would be instrumental in managing the additional population.
“You have not worked hard enough,” Robin says dramatically, lifting the blade of his hand into the air. “You are not worth your full salary. I pay you only half.” He drops the act and smiles, “It is very bad treatment we know. But the migrant has no documents, so they cannot argue.”
***
Eight years after the Syrian migrant crisis began, the country now holds the largest population of refugees in the world, the majority of whom are registered under temporary protection. With the breakdown of democracy in Afghanistan, a new wave of refugees is now moving into Turkey. But along with this great increase of displaced people at the border, there are other, more insidious growth factors at play.
In June 2021, following consistent pressure from the EU, Greece designated Turkey as a “safe third country” for asylum seeker deportation. As a premise, the use of such “safe third countries” is simple. If a prospective asylum applicant has passed through, or has a sufficient connection with a previous country where they could have applied for asylum, then they can be returned to that country to pursue an asylum application there.
“The concept of a safe third country presupposes the provision of a level of protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees by the third country,” stated Vasilios Papadopoulos, president of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and member of the Greek Council for Refugees. It also suggests “the existence of an essential link between the asylum seeker and that country and the consent of the third country. In the case of Turkey, none of the above is the case.”
According to its critics, adding Turkey to the “safe-third-country” list had not only endangered the human rights of the asylum seekers but further extended the means for asylum-seeker outsourcing. With the “safe-third-country” principle in play, a dangerous legal framework had been extended, and the EU now had greater freedoms to use financial and political incentives to pressure Turkey into harboring asylum seekers.
A Crossroads for Europe’s Refugee Policy
As the spring months roll on through Thessaloniki, the Balkan migratory routes become more easily passable again, and the foot traffic increases. But where the mountains and borders of the European landscape remain unchanged, the advent of war in Ukraine has created a vastly different geopolitical climate.
Make no mistake, Russia’s aggressive invasion has catalyzed both an acute European refugee crisis and a very long tail of humanitarian support required across the region. To put the numbers into perspective, in 2015, at the peak of the Syrian migrant crisis, 1.3 million refugees crossed the borders into Europe. Flash forward to 2022, and the last three months have seen more than four times that number crossing the Ukrainian border, an estimated 7.2 million people in need of immediate refuge and long-term support.
So how will this new crisis affect the already-strained context for migrants on the continent? Stepping back to view our present moment in history, it seems the next five years could bring a final pinch point in the story of immigration policy in Europe.
With this huge growth in POTM on the continent and an already unstable economic climate, governments will now face unavoidable questions, and the dangerous practice of outsourcing refugee support to less-stable nations will be forced into the public conversation.
As to the results of those discussions, it is perhaps too early to tell. But in the face of increasing crisis and hardship, the morality of European citizens will be truly tested: Are they ready to open up to the realities of human displacement and war on their border, or are they prepared to close their eyes, close their borders, and use their financial, political and geographic privileges to remain insulated?
Rights campaigners say ‘appalling’ pilot scheme treats those fleeing conflict and persecution as criminals
Refugee rights campaigners have described a new Home Office scheme to electronically tag asylum seekers as “appalling”, saying the move treats people fleeing conflict and persecution as criminals.
Under a 12-month pilot, which began on Wednesday, some people arriving in the UK in small boats or in the back of lorries will be electronically tagged.
Prof Julia O’Connell Davidson likens the government’s plans to deport asylum seekers to the forced returns facilitated by the Fugitive Slave Act in the US. Plus a letter from Mark Stephens
Priti Patel claims that the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is a means to combat criminal gangs involved in people trafficking – a form of modern-day slavery. Yet, unlike African victims of the transatlantic slave trade, the people described as trafficked today actively want to move, and for very good reason.
A better historical comparison is with people who tried to escape from slavery. Like “fugitive slaves”, they move in search of greater freedom. Through this lens, Patel’s Rwanda policy looks more like the forms of rendition facilitated by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act in the US, whereby those who escaped were more readily returned to the condition they had fled.
A dramatic late intervention saw a deportation flight to Rwanda halted on Tuesday 14 June. The decision, which would have seen asylum seekers sent to the African nation, was a victory for human rights. And it caused an outpouring of rage from the worst sections of British society.
The critical call was made in Strasbourg’s European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The judicial wing of the Council of Europe, the ECHR emerged following WW2 to protect citizens from their governments. Today, it’s hard to imagine that Britain was a key player in the ECHR’s development. It was also the first signatory of the 46 member states subject to its decisions.
As one Twitter user pointed out, Boris Johnson’s maternal grandfather was a central figure in the ECHR’s history:
James Fawcett Boris Johnson's maternal grandfather must be turning in his grave. Fawcett, a member of the European Commission of Human Rights enforcing the #ECHR from 1962 to 1984, & its president from 1972!
Critics of the ECHR decision, with typical attention to detail, were quick to claim that this kind of thing should have stopped with Brexit. But their error is in thinking that the ECHR is an EU initiative simply because it has ‘European’ in the title.
This is incorrect. And it is a distinction which even arch-centrists seem to be able to grapple with:
If you still don't know that the ECHR is different to the EU six years after the vote, I'm not sure I'm terribly interested in your view on what we should do about it.
Many fundamental rights are enshrined in, and protected by, the ECHR. These include everything from anti-slavery laws to freedom of speech, citizenship rights and much more:
Can all those who want to leave the ECHR please tell me which of these rights you are happy not to apply to you and your family. pic.twitter.com/b84hk1kO1d
Enraged Tories, including Boris Johnson, were already attacking the ECHR ahead of the court’s decision. As human rights NGO Liberty pointed out, the abandonment of the organisation would be disastrous for many vulnerable groups:
Leaving the ECHR would represent the biggest attack on human rights in this country in a generation.
It would irreversibly damage the UK's international reputation.
It would throw away the hard earned fundamental rights of countless people.
But Johnson’s rhetoric is a startling turn from his previous views. The Independent unearthed a video of Johnson from 2016. In it, he claims that the ECHR was “one of the great things” the UK had created.
Equally striking is the fact that Winston Churchill, one of Johnson’s idols, was himself a key figure in the development of the ECHR and the Council of Europe.
All-out assault
The ECHR’s intervention is justified, and the decision should be welcomed. However, liberal institutions are not the only factor here. Many individuals and organisations campaigned tirelessly to stop the deportations. Organisations like the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) mounted legal challenges alongside charities like Care 4 Calais and Detention Action. Stop Deportations took direct action, and the law firm InstaLaw also challenged the plans.
This led top Tories to fall back on accusations of left-wing lawyers disrupting their plans. This was a tactic wheeled out over their plans to stop British soldiers being held to account for war crimes. In 2016, then-PM Theresa May used the Tory conference to insist:
…we will never again in any future conflict let those activist left-wing human rights lawyers harangue and harass the bravest of the brave the men and women of our armed forces.
Since then, critics of hardline Tory asylum policies have had the same trope used against them.
Grassroots
Bottom-up anti-deportation protests have become more high-profile. Only days before the Rwanda flight was cancelled, Peckham locals blockaded an immigration raid until the police and immigration officers left the scene.
This is despite the police getting rough with the protestors, as video footage of the event shows:
The police in Peckham were violent today. They were determined to clear the road to get the van out with their hostage inside. We didn’t let them. pic.twitter.com/I55VJAr9NH
In May, Glasgow locals stopped authorities in another raid directed against two men who live in the city. On 15 May, the refugee and migrant charity Positive Action in Housing told The Canary they were considering legal action:
The Home Office have referred to these men as illegal.
Well they are wrong, and we are now investigating legal action against the Home Office for casting such aspersions.
The term illegal in this context is part of the hostile environment. It’s not appropriate to use it for people who have lived in the UK for several years and are part of a community.
War on human rights
There is a war on human rights in the UK. Refugee solidarity is a vital front in that conflict. The Tories are going all out against some of the most vulnerable in our society. And if they win, we all lose. Why? Well we can do worse than remember the words of the late Tony Benn:
The way the government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.
And he was right. Because if they can strip refugees and migrants of their humanity and drag them off to some gulag, you can bet they’ll do the very same to the rest of us if it suits their whims. The buck stops with us. The ECHR won out for now, but we can’t rely on far-off courts. Resistance begins in our own communities
Priti Patel has been accused by Labour of participating in a “government by gimmick” in the aftermath of the 11th-hour cancellation on Tuesday of the inaugural flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda.
As the home secretary entertained demands from Conservative backbenchers to pull out of Europe’s human rights framework after the policy was scuppered by a court ruling, Labour said the plan to transport refugees 4,000 miles away was never a “serious policy”.
After ruling by Strasbourg court, No 10 refuses to rule out withdrawing from European convention on human rights
Priti Patel was accused by Labour of overseeing a “shambles” and participating in a “government by gimmick” after the 11th-hour cancellation of the first plane carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The home secretary disclosed that some cancelled Rwandan flight passengers will be released into the community wearing tags, as she promised to continue to pursue the policy of outsourcing refugees to the east African state.
The home secretary says she is disappointed at the failure of the deportations, but she must rethink this terrible policy
Who knows what lies in store for the men who received a last-minute reprieve from being shipped thousands of miles across the globe to Rwanda.
The UK government still wants to press ahead: Priti Patel pronounced herself disappointed. But have no doubt, Tuesday night’s botched attempt – halted after a legal injunction from the European court of human rights – is a watershed moment: in government policymaking, in the country’s global standing and for our collective moral compass.
Enver Solomon is chief executive of the Refugee Council
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Are attitudes to refugees changing?Join Annie Kelly, Sophie Lucas, Zahra Joya and Shabia Mantoo who will be discussingthe issue. On Thursday 16 June 2022, 8pm–9pm BST. Book tickets here
First flight to Rwanda grounded after lawyers make successful emergency application
Boris Johnson’s plan to send an inaugural flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda has been abandoned after a dramatic 11th-hour ruling by the European court of human rights.
Up to seven people who had come to the UK seeking refuge had been expected to be removed to the east African country an hour and a half before the flight was due to take off.
Despite human rights concerns, it looks like flights to send refugees to Rwanda are set to go ahead. There’s been much discussion, including here at The Canary, about the legality of the plans – and as is so often the case with the courts, just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean that it’s also morally correct.
Let’s take a look at the ethnicities of the people who might be on the flight. The BBC reported on 13 June that, after legal challenges, a list of an estimated 37 people has been whittled down to 11. The report says that the charity Care4Calais suspects that the legal action:
leaves 11 people still set to fly on Tuesday, including four Iranians, two Iraqis, two Albanians and one Syrian.
That number at the time of publication is now seven. However, what is clear is that the treatment of Black and brown refugees is very different to that of white refugees.
Comparison
Half a glance at the UK’s response to Ukrainian refugees tells us a lot. First off, let’s get the obvious out of the way. The conflict in Ukraine has been horrific. There have been possible war crimes, millions of displaced Ukrainians, and the usual war profiteering. Ukrainians need full solidarity from the rest of the international community.
The thing is, though, all kinds of support has been rushing forward. And it’s happened in a way that is very different to how the UK normally treats refugees.
Economically, culturally, and socially, Ukraine has received the kind of support that must leave refugees from other countries in disbelief.
The UK has excluded some Russian banks from its financial system. The European Union has banned all imports of oil from Russia that arrive by sea. The US has made it harder for Russia to repay its international loans. These economic sanctions punish Russia and make it difficult for Russia to function.
Cultural support can be difficult to pin down, but this is not so for Ukrainian refugees. People have been putting up the Ukrainian flag in their windows. In fact, the Ukrainian flag has popped up at food stalls, in schools, all over the place. People want to show their solidarity with Ukraine, and it’s effective.
Ukraine won Eurovision, and this was seen as a sign of international solidarity. As The Canary’s Eliza Egret said at the time, this flew in the face of the fact that in 2018 Israel won, and then later hosted, Eurovision. There was no such solidarity for Palestinians then – but there was solidarity for apartheid Israel.
People have even opened up their homes to Ukrainian refugees. It’s undeniably a generous thing to do.
Limits
But that generosity has a limit, apparently. How many times has the government sponsored such a generous scheme for people from Yemen? Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? I’ll save you the trouble of checking: none. None of the information from the Home Office or from charities challenging the deportation flights to Rwanda has mentioned any Ukrainian refugees. The deportation to Rwanda is for people who arrive in the UK outside of sanctioned means. Of course, that wouldn’t be Ukrainians, because the government has made sure to provide them with the structure they need to arrive in the UK safely.
Meanwhile, Black and brown refugees are at risk of being sent to Rwanda because of white supremacy. And no, white supremacy isn’t just white people running around in Ku Klux Klan hoods and burning crosses. It’s also when existing structures make the survival of white people easier. That survival often comes at the cost of others.
Wherever a refugee comes from – whether it’s Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, or Afghanistan – they should have safety and support. The support for Ukrainian refugees has happened in a wholehearted way. Where’s that heart for everybody else?
It’s almost as though people in the UK don’t value and respect the lives of Black and brown people. They merely tolerate us. They don’t value us as human beings; they see us as cockroaches to keep out of the way. Ukrainian people are considered as a whole – their culture, their traditions, their communities. Black and brown people don’t get that luxury. This is because white people only consider fellow white people to have inalienable rights.
Most refugees coming to the UK face the prospect of drowning in the English Channel or, now, being shipped off to Rwanda.
It’s an absolute disgrace that the UK clearly has the willingness to support and house refugees – but only if they’re white.
Survivors of torture and trafficking must be able to present their case in a fair and lawful way. That simply isn’t happening
Yesterday, my organisation lost its bid to have an urgent injunction put in place to prevent any flights to Rwanda carrying refugees from leaving the UK, until after a full hearing on whether the policy is lawful next month. Our case is one of two applications brought forward by coalitions of charities and activists Unfortunately, both of these applications have been rejected, which means that flights are due to take off today.
However, we are confident in our view that the way the Rwanda scheme is being implemented is unlawful and unfair. At Asylum Aid, we have over 30 years’ experience providing legal representation to asylum seekers who have experienced some of the worst cases of torture, human trafficking or gender-based violence. Some of our clients are unaccompanied children or stateless people with very complex cases. We also know how many people we unfortunately have to turn away when they ask for our help, and we know what it takes to provide it.
Kerry Smith is CEO of Asylum Aid
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.com
A union challenging the government’s controversial policy of deporting people to Rwanda said it hopes it can win an appeal to stop the first flight taking off this week.
“Appalling”
A High Court ruling on 10 June paved the way for a flight to the east African country to go ahead on 14 June. But an appeal against that decision is due to be heard on 13 June. The immigration policy has come in for criticism from various groups. And there are reports that the Prince of Wales privately described the move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as “appalling”.
The boss of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) said the “legality of these proposals” must be tested. But he added that there’s also a need to debate “the morality and lack of humanity that the Government is demonstrating” with its approach. The PCS represents more than 80% of Border Force staff.
Up to 130 people have been notified they could be removed. And on 10 June, the court in London heard that 31 people were due on the first flight. The Home Office is also planning to schedule more flights this year. Alongside the PCS, lawyers brought the first claim against the policy on behalf of asylum seekers. Groups including Care4Calais and Detention Action are also challenging the policy on behalf of everyone affected.
On 10 June, justice Jonathan Swift ruled against granting a temporary block to the policy until a full hearing next month. But he granted the claimants permission to appeal against his decision, suggesting Court of Appeal judges would hear the case on 13 June.
Respect
PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka told Sky’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday programme:
We hope we win tomorrow in the Court of Appeal to stop the flight (on Tuesday). But, of course, the legality of these proposals will only be tested out at the full court hearing in July.
We’re absolutely confident that in July, in line with what the UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) said very graphically in court, we believe these proposals will be found to be unlawful.
He said home secretary Priti Patel would not ask civil servants to carry out the policy before its legality had been tested in court if she “had any respect, not just for the desperate people who come to this country, but for the workers she employs”.
Meanwhile Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis defended the government’s policy. He said it aims to “break” the “business model” of people smugglers. Asked if he was personally comfortable with the policy, he told the same programme: “Yes, I am, actually”.
The policy has drawn criticism from people including Labour MP Richard Burgon:
Whether or not the Rwanda policy is legal, it is a vile, immoral, inhumane policy.
And as Tony Benn said: "The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."
Many Conservative politicians and other commentators are expressing their joy about the Rwanda plan decision. Let’s be clear what they are joyful about: a trade in human beings. One that transports people abroad without their consent, essentially making the UK the trafficker.
— Prof Tanja Bueltmann (@TanjaBueltmann) June 11, 2022
And members of the clergy have also voiced their concern:
I challenged a politician today, in private, and said that the policy of deporting people to Rwanda is wrong.
I was expressly told that priests should not make political statements.
If the church doesn’t challenge injustice then it facilitates it.
June 10 bore witness to a valiant effort on the part of refugee groups and a trade union to stop what promises to be the first journey of many as part of the UK-Rwanda plan. Their attempt to seek an injunction failed to convince the High Court. Next Tuesday, the first flight from the UK to Rwanda filled with asylum seekers will, unless the Court of Appeal rules otherwise, take off. Some 31 people of Iraqi and Syrian background have been told they will be on board with one-way tickets.
The UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, hammered out by the Home Secretary Priti Patel and her counterparts in Kigali, has one central purpose: to deter the arrival of asylum seekers by boat across the English Channel. Its genesis lies in a range of sources, none more insidious than the Australian model of offshore processing. At its core is a rejection of international refugee law and its obligations. In its place is the sentiment of convenience, callousness and cruel stinginess.
This conduct is only appealing to the insecure and the smug. In a piece by Sam Ashworth-Hayes, a former director of studies at the conservative Henry Jackson Society, we see the old nostalgic refrain that Britain is glorious, people want to travel there, but that, unfortunately, transport has become easier and cheaper in a world where refugee laws simply have not kept up. Borders needed to be firmed; regulations tightened. And praise be showered upon Rwanda, who can profit from the refugee industry and market model so maligned by Patel. The plan had to “surely rank as among the most generous development aid schemes ever devised.” Apart, of course, for those unfortunates seeking asylum.
The policy has irked a goodly number, and not just the steadfastly committed campaigners. The Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, has made mutterings about it, expressing the view that the “whole approach is appalling.” Admittedly, this revelation was spilled by an anonymous source to the Daily Mail and Times. When asked for comment from Clarence House, a spokesperson said that: “We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales, except to restate that he remains politically neutral. Matters of policy are decisions for the government.”
Multinationals, on even more slippery ground, have also taken issue with the policy. Ben and Jerry’s took to Twitter to stormily urge “folks” to “talk about Priti Patel’s ‘ugly’ Rwanda plan and what this means.” The dispenser of ice cream products took issue with the UK’s “plan to forcibly send people to a country thousands of miles away, simply for seeking refuge in the UK” as “cruel and morally bankrupt.”
In the High Court, various arguments by the legal team representing the charities Detention Action, Care4Calais and the PCS Union were made hoping to block the first flight scheduled to leave on June 14, calling the plan unsafe and irrational. According to the court submission from Raza Hussain, the barrister representing the three groups, Patel’s “assessment … that the UNHCR [Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees] is giving this plan a green light is a false claim.”
Government lawyer Mathew Gullick countered the criticisms of the UK-Rwandan arrangement. They were “backward-looking” and did not genuinely take into account the way migrants were to be treated. Deterring illegal immigration was a matter of “important public interest”.
Husain’s point was confirmed by a last minute intervention from the UNHCR, which argued in its submission to the court that the UK-Rwanda scheme failed to meet the standards of “legality and appropriateness” in terms of transferring asylum seekers from one state to another. Laura Dubinsky, QC, representing the UNHCR, told the court that the agency believed there were “risks of serious irreparable harm to refugees” inherent in this “unlawful” plan. The UK Home Office has peddled “inaccuracies” in claiming that the agency endorsed the scheme.
The court document from the UNHCR revealed “serious concerns that asylum seekers transferred from the UK to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status, with consequent risks of refoulement.”
Refoulement, a term Patel breezily buries when considering asylum seeker claims, remains a canonical precept of refugee law outlined in Article 33 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Contracting states have an obligation not to “expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in a manner whatsoever to the frontiers or territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened on account of his [or her] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
In the agency’s view, there was also a grave risk “that the burden of processing the asylum claims of new arrivals from the UK could further overstretch the capacity of the Rwanda national asylum system, thereby undermining its ability to provide protection for all those who seek asylum.”
The UNHCR was being fleet footed in avoiding any description of Kigali’s less than impressive record on refugees and human rights. In its 2022 report on Rwanda, Human Rights Watch noted the iron hand of the Rwandan Patriotic Front in stifling dissent and criticism, the detention and disappearing of opposition members and critics, the liberal use of torture, arbitrary detention and a scanty observance of the rule of law.
Disturbingly enough, Rwanda has produced its own refugees and asylum seekers, who continue being threatened, harassed and, in some instances, “forcibly disappeared and returned to Rwanda, or killed.”
None of the arguments were enough to convince Judge Jonathan Swift in his June 10 decision to reject the application to block the removal of the asylum seekers. There was a “material public interest in the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) being able to implement immigration decisions.”
Resorting to that ancient method of reasoning when faced with a tight conundrum, Judge Swift could only dismiss the concerns voiced by the applicants as insignificant or lying “in the realms of speculation”. In their submission to the Court of Appeal, and in the fuller judicial review of the plan to take place later in the month, the appellants have much to prove otherwise.
Campaigners, charities, and a union will face the government in the High Court today. Their mission? An injunction to stop the Tory government sending refugees who arrived in the UK to Rwanda.
They will argue that the plan, devised by home secretary Priti Patel, and backed by prime minister Boris Johnson is unlawful as well as entirely brutal.
The Tory line, predictably, is that ‘leftie’ lawyers are interfering with a legitimate process. But the truth is, Patel and Johnson’s problem isn’t with lawyers – it’s with the rule of law itself.
Leftie lawyers
Patel herself previously claimed that those who oppose her plans are leftie lawyers. But this has become a default line for many on the refugee-bashing right:
Priti Patel has said from the start that lawyers (she said “leftie lawyers”) would try to block the plan. But that her department had done all the legal work to take on those challenges 3/
The basic argument reads like a far-right conspiracy theory: lawyers – those who represent refugees, for example – are some sort of crypto-socialist activists undermining Tory schemes, which of course are in the country’s best interest.
The Law Gazetterecently took issue with an outlandish claim by Johnson when he said:
When you look at Labour, you see a party that voted consistently against tougher sentences for serious sexual violent offenders. The Labour opposition has consistently taken the side of, I’m afraid, left wing criminal justice lawyers against, I believe, the interests of the public.
Classic right wing drivel, wherein it is the Conservatives (yes, the austerity people) defending the public’s interests against lefties.
And bear in mind the deportations are opposed by the United Nations among others.
Bold?
The bizarre logic of the anti-refugee camp was captured in the Daily Mail recently. Where else?
In that right wing fantasy land, the government should be applauded. The likes of Patel and Johnson are deporting refugees to a dictatorship to help them. This is a “bold, imaginative scheme” to combat the “vile” trafficking trade which brings people across the Channel to England.
Lawyers, meanwhile, seeks “to impose their political ideology — even against the will of the British public — through the ruthless exploitation of our ramshackle legal system”, or so writes the Daily Mail:
These ideologues care nothing for our national interests, only for the triumph of their dogma and the humiliation of the elected government.
Culture War
The truth is the Tories will try to fight every battle as part of the culture war. And the Rwanda scandal is no different. They want to frame any opposition to their plans as a left-wing conspiracy carried out to the detriment of the country.
The ‘activist lawyer’ trope was also wheeled out when the Tories were legislating on behalf of British war criminals, which culminated in the Overseas Operations Bill. That legislation aimed to protect veterans of past (and future) wars from criminal investigations by victims of British foreign policy.
Theresa May even wheeled it out in 2016, for example, at the Tory party conference in a bid to appear patriotic:
We will never again — in any future conflict — let those activist left wing human rights lawyers harangue and harass the bravest of the brave, the men and women of our armed forces.
Remaking the world
The Tories are doing what any government would do with a large majority: remaking the world in their own image. The assault on desperate refugees is precisely in keeping with that. And to justify it they’ve made up an enemy. In this, and other cases, that enemy is a largely fantasised ‘activist left-wing lawyer’.
But the truth is the Tories’ real enemy is the rule of law itself.
Priti Patel’s planed date for sending refugees to Rwanda is creeping closer. The Home Office has said people will be sent to Rwanda from 14 June. Under the plan, the Home Office will send people who aren’t granted asylum in the UK to Rwanda for processing and relocation.
Campaigners, rights groups, and politicians have called the plans “ill-conceived, inhumane and evil.”
However, protests and legal challenges stand in the way of the government’s plans. Before we take a look at those, though, there have been a few recent developments.
Opposition
The deportation plan has already been delayed. It was supposed to go ahead in May, but the government blamed legal challenges for the setback. In fact, Priti Patel mentioned “specialist lawyers” and Boris Johnson blamed “liberal lawyers” as the reasons behind the delay. The chair of the Bar Council, Mark Fenhalls QC, said:
Attacks on men and women for simply doing their jobs are irresponsible and undermine the rule of law.
contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.
The challenges from lawyers come as people who face the threat of deportation to Rwanda have been on hunger strike. The Guardian reported:
At least 17 people from Syria, Egypt and Sudan, who are being held at the Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport, began the protest when they were told they would be sent to Rwanda on 14 June as part of a controversial new scheme.
Incredibly, the Guardian also claimed to have seen a letter which tells the hunger strikers that if they don’t eat they’ll be deported sooner. The letter read:
Your refusal of food and/or fluids will not necessarily lead to your removal directions being deferred. In the interests of your health and safety we may prioritise your removal from detention and the UK.
Meanwhile, the BBC saw a letter of deportation notice which told the asylum seeker they could not appeal the decision.
Importantly, immigration lawyer Steven Galliver-Andrew said:
The law which allows the government to do this doesn’t appear to come into force until the 28th of June 2022.
What they are doing can and will be challenged – and they know and expect that.
It remains to be seen if the latest deadline will be one the government can stick to.
Legal challenges
However, this isn’t to say that the government can simply wait until 28 June and then carry on with its deportation plan. There are a number of legal challenges that are looking to stop them altogether.
Charity Freedom from Torture is preparing to bring a legal challenge against the plans to send people to Rwanda. Its crowdfunder for legal costs says:
Treating people who are seeking safety from torture and war as if they’re a problem to be got rid of is not only deeply immoral, but likely unlawful.
The charity sent a letter to the Home Office explaining why it was looking into legal action. The charity’s solicitor Carolin Ott said:
Our client further considers the policy constitutes a breach of the Home Secretary’s duty not to induce breaches of human rights by her agents and is unlawful because it is contrary to the Refugee Convention.
A policy which raises such a ‘shopping list’ of potential illegality and poses such a risk to individuals should plainly not be enforced until its lawfulness has been properly tested.
Meanwhile, campaigners from Detention Action has teamed up with charity Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union. The union represents Home Office staff who would have to carry out the proposed plan. They’ve also sent a pre-action letter to the government warning them about an incoming legal challenge. They say they’re challenging:
the Home Secretary’s failure to disclose the criteria dictating which people seeking asylum will be transferred by force to East Africa and which will remain in the UK.
states that the home secretary’s proposals run contrary to international law and the UN refugee convention, as well as breaching British data protection law.
Protest
While the legal challenges are happening, there’s also a protest planned. There’s going to be a protest at the Rwanda High Commission in London on Wednesday 8 June from 4pm to 7pm. Movement for Justice are calling for people to join them and make their support for asylum seekers clear:
The government’s deportation plans have received widespread opposition from lawyers, human rights activists, and everyday people who can see these plans for what they are: inhumane and illegal.
The Home Office is allegedly trying to deport unaccompanied minors to Rwanda.
Charities claim there’s a “worrying pattern” of the government classing asylum seekers younger than 18 as adults.
The refugee charity Care4Calais is currently engaged in an age dispute with the Home Office over two teenage boys. The Home Office has issued the boys notices of removal.
The boys say they’re 16. But the Home Office – after undertaking age assessments – claim they’re 23 and 26 respectively.
Our lawyers will fight for that. One 16 year old saw his brother killed in front of him when his village was raided in Sudan. He escaped and went back later to find the whole village gone.
In a statement, charity Care4Calais pledged to use its lawyers to challenge the notices. It said:
One (of the) 16-year-old (boys) saw his brother killed in front of him when his village was raided in Sudan. He escaped and went back later to find the whole village gone.
Anti-trafficking charity Love146 UK similarly expressed alarm over the government’s age assessment system for asylum seekers.
Campaigns manager Daniel Sohege told the Guardian the charity is seeing children “as young as 14 being incorrectly age-assessed as 23”.
He added:
The number of children we have seen who have just had 1999 put down as their date of birth when they are clearly under 18 is highly concerning, and putting young people at risk.
Lauren Starkey, a social worker for the charity, told the newspaper:
It is not within the realm of possibility that anyone, especially someone trained in child protection, could look at the children we have seen and believe they are in their 20s.
Disregard for human rights and rule of law
The PA news agency has asked the Home Office for comment over the charities’ remarks.
The Home Office claims it won’t remove any person from the UK if it’s “unsafe or inappropriate” to do so. And it denied that unaccompanied minors will be among those sent to Rwanda as part of the government’s potentially illegal scheme to process migrants offshore.
Earlier this week, Home Secretary Priti Patel said she’s “absolutely determined” that the UK will send migrants to Rwanda. That’s despite the prospect of legal challenges from human rights groups.
The Home Office has begun formally notifying migrants of their removal to Rwanda. And the first deportation flight is expected to depart on 14 June.
The government described the move as the “final administrative step” in its partnership with the east African nation. It will see the government permanently shipping off people it deems to have entered the UK ‘illegally’.
Nearly 10,000 refugees have arrived in the UK so far this year after crossing the English Channel in small boats (Gareth Fuller/PA)
Effective deportation
Court action from human rights groups could hold up removals. But Patel said she is “resolute” about delivering the scheme “for the British public”. She also claims that “it’s exactly what the British people want.”
The policy will see asylum seekers deemed to have entered the UK by illegal means sent to Rwanda. Their asylum claims will be processed for residence in Rwanda, not the UK. If successful, they will be granted asylum or given refugee status in the country.
Those with failed bids will face deportation to the home countries from which they fled.
When it comes to the tawdry, hideous business of politicising the right to asylum, and the refugees who arise from it, no country does it better than Australia. A country proud of being a pioneer in women’s rights, the secret ballot, good pay conditions and tatty hardware (the Hills Hoist remains a famous suburban monstrosity) has also been responsible for jettisoning key principles of international law.
When it comes to policy Down Under, the United Nations Refugee Convention is barely worth a mention. Politicians are proudly ignorant of it; the courts pay lip service to the idea while preferring rigid domestic interpretations of the Migration Act; and the United Nations is simply that foreign body which makes an occasional noise about such nasties as indefinite detention.
It should therefore have come as no surprise that, in the dying days of the Morrison government, another chance to stir the electorate by demonising refugees arose – somewhat conveniently. As voters were, quite literally, heading to the polls, the commander of the Joint Agency Task Force Operation Sovereign Borders, Rear Admiral Justin Jones, revealed that a vessel had “been intercepted in a likely attempt to illegally enter Australia from Sri Lanka.”
The Rear Admiral’s statement insisted that Australian policy on such arrivals had not changed. “We will intercept any vessel seeking to reach Australia illegally and to safely return those on board to their point of departure or country of origin.” Shallow formalities are observed: the implausible observance of international laws, consideration of safety of all those involved “including potential illegal immigrants”. Nothing else is deemed worthy of mention. “In line with long standing practice, we will make no further comment.”
With only a few more hours left being Australia’s most jingoistic Defence Minister in a generation, Peter Dutton tweeted a warning, referring to the statement from Jones: “Don’t risk Australia’s national security with Labor.” In another comment, Dutton decided to peer into the minds of those aiding the asylum process. “People smugglers have obviously decided who is going to win the election and the boats have already started.”
The Minister for Home Affairs, Karen Andrews, was also mining the message for its demagogic potential, raising the spectre of emboldened people smugglers. They, she squeaked, “are targeting Australia.” The “people smuggling vessel” had been intercepted “off Christmas Island.”
Andrews might as well have been using the same language to condemn drug traffickers and their commodities which, in terms of analogy, Australian politicians have implicitly done for decades. But for the occasion, the obvious target was the opposition vying for government. “Labor’s flip flopping on border protection risks our border security. You can’t trust them.”
The Liberal Party’s electioneering machinery picked up on the Sri Lankan connection, bombarding voters in marginal seats with text messages about this newfound discovery. “Keep our borders secure by voting Liberal today,” came the prompt. As things transpired, the entire operation, from Cabinet to the distribution of phone messages, had the full approval of Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Revealing the existence of ships moving on mysteriously convenient schedules (another, according to the Saturday Newspaper, was also intercepted by Sri Lankan authorities) raised two burning questions. The first goes to the troubling relationship with Sri Lanka, which the Australian government had gone some ways to promoting as a safeguard against asylum seekers. Canberra has tended to skirt over issues of human rights, not least those associated with that country’s long civil war. In fact, Australian officials have done their best to encourage Colombo to prevent individuals leaving Sri Lanka with a view of heading to Australia by boat. In 2013, 2014 and 2017, Bay-class naval vessels were gifted to the Sri Lankan Navy to aid the interception of smuggling operations.
During his time in office, Dutton has made more than the odd trip to Colombo. In May 2015, he made a visit as then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to discuss “continued cooperation regarding people smuggling and to further strengthen ties between our two countries.” He duly rubbished people smugglers – they had been “cowardly and malicious” for aiding individuals to pursue their right to asylum – and praised the success of Operation Sovereign Borders. “Since we started turning back boats there have been no known deaths at sea.”
In June 2019, he paid another visit to shore up the commitment. It was prompted by a report that a vessel carrying 20 Sri Lankan asylum seekers had been intercepted off Australia’s north-west coast, with the possibility of six others on route. Then, as now, Dutton could only blame his Labor opponents for somehow encouraging such journeys while reiterating the standard, draconian line. “People are not coming here [to Australia] by boat and regardless of what people smugglers tell you, the Morrison government, under the Prime Minister and myself, will not allow those people to arrive by boat.”
The second question goes to the supposed success of Operation Sovereign Borders. This military grade, secretive policy had supposedly “stopped the boats” and remains a favourite Coalition mantra. But why reveal a chink in the armour, a breach in the fortress unless it was manufactured with the aid of the Sri Lankan authorities or a failure to being with? As comedian and political commentator Dan Ilic observed in a pointed remark to Dutton: “This happened on your watch dude.” The Sri Lankan revelation demonstrated, when it comes to such matters, mendacity oils the machine of border protection.
No side in Australian politics has been able to avoid politicising the issue of refugee and asylum arrivals via boat. The moment Australia’s Labor government made the arrival of individuals without formal authorisation a breach of law warranting mandatory detention, the issue became a political matter. It took the Liberal National Coalition led by Prime Minister John Howard to turn the issue into a form of feral, gonzo politics.
That form remains unforgettably marked by the use of SAS personnel against 400 individuals, rescued at sea by the Norwegian vessel, the MV Tampa, in August 2001. In defiance of maritime conventions and in blatant disregard for human safety, the Howard government held the asylum seekers at sea off Christmas Island for almost ten days. Those on the vessel were accused of piracy and economic opportunism. From this barbarism issued the Pacific Solution, a tropical concentration camp system which has had a few iterations since.
Governments, both Coalition and Labor, have drawn political capital from harsh policies against unwanted naval arrivals, smearing the merits of asylum and ignoring the obligations of international refugee law. The new Albanese government has the chance, however unlikely it is to pursue it, to extract the political and replace it with the humanitarian.
In a moving series of interviews with those fleeing persecution, the authors expose the appalling conditions in Greek refugee camps
In this timely book,Helen Benedict, a British-American professor, and Eyad Awwadawnan, a Syrian writer and refugee, expose the appalling conditions of the overcrowded Greek camps where desperate people fleeing war, persecution, poverty and violence are confined and denied their legal rights under the watch of the west.
As a consequence of the 2016 deal the EU made with Turkey, Greece has become “a trap” for those detained in camps while they wait to be granted refugee status or returned to Turkey, which many consider unsafe. Since 2020, thousands have been left in limbo in a country that does not want them and cannot accommodate them.
Posted on streetlamps all over Germany are stickers showing fleeing silhouettes with the caption, “Refugees welcome – bring your families”. Some have been blacked out with felt markers or ripped partially away. The Germans have mixed feelings about refugees, as demonstrated in the earlier waves from the Mideast and the current one from the Ukraine.
Germany took in over two million refugees from the Mideast wars, far more than any other country. The equivalent for the US population would be eight million.
This has created an enormous financial and cultural strain in a country that historically has had little immigration. It comes at a time when poverty is increasing and social services are being reduced. The once-generous welfare state is gradually being dismantled. This financial squeeze is worsening now because of expenses for the refugees. The two million newcomers receive enough money to live on plus free healthcare, education, and access to special programs. Some cheat on this, registering in several places under different names and getting multiple benefits. Many Germans resent paying for all this with high taxes while their own standard of living is declining.
The trauma of war and displacement has caused a few refugees to lose their moral compass. They do things here they wouldn’t do at home.
Two-thirds of the refugees are young men, some of them convinced Allah has ordained males to dominate females. In their view, women who aren’t submissive need to be punished. Since being male is the only power many of them have, they feel threatened by women in positions of power, and they sometimes react with hostility. Over a thousand women have been physically attacked — some murdered and raped and many aggressively grabbed on the breasts as a way of showing dominance. Many more have been abused — insulted, harassed, spat upon.
Many refugees are aware that Germany, as a member of NATO, supports these wars that have forced them to flee their homes. They’re not fooled by the rhetoric of “humanitarian intervention.” They know NATO’s motives are imperialistic: to install governments agreeable to Western control of their resources and markets. Although they are now safe, their relatives and friends are still being killed with weapons made in Germany and oppressed by soldiers and police trained and financed by Germany. Rather than a grateful attitude, some have come with a resentful one.
Crime has increased, especially violent crimes such as knife attacks. Police and others have been killed and wounded by refugees. Organized criminal clans have become established in Germany’s lenient legal atmosphere. A few ISIS and al-Qaeda members slipped in with the refugees. They have bombed a Christmas market, attacked synagogues, murdered Jews on the street, recruited new members in mosques.
In the past 75 years Germany has become a peaceful country. The current violence is profoundly disturbing to them. It brings back terrible memories.
The violent refugees, though, are only a small minority. Most of the newcomers have a positive attitude. They are getting a fresh start in life, recovering from trauma, getting an education, learning new skills. They’ve been introduced to other cultural possibilities.
Women in particular are responding favorably to this new environment. Seeing how women here live, some of them are beginning to free themselves from patriarchal bondage. With help from German feminists they are developing the energy and determination to challenge male rule and change the conditions of their lives. And they’ll inspire their sisters back home.
The situation with the Ukrainian refugees is much different. The cultures are similar, so there’s less clash. The war hasn’t been going on for long, so there are few of them and problems have not yet developed. They are being celebrated as brave heroes standing up to an aggressive Russia intent on dominating Europe. Anti-Russian feelings have been strong in Germany for two centuries, so this propaganda finds ready acceptance. During the Cold War the German government beamed out the constant danger of Russian attack in order to justify the presence of US troops and nuclear weapons on their soil. Now they condemn Putin as the new Hitler. Atrocity stories of Russian troops get enormous coverage, those of Ukrainian troops against separatists in Donbass are ignored. Every small Ukrainian victory is cheered with blood-thirsty enthusiasm. Welcoming these refugees is part of the strategy for maintaining NATO dominance.
But, of course, it is important to take them in, to shelter them from this latest capitalist butchery. Like the Arabs, most of them are fine people, and many will stay and contribute to the society in their new home.
Germany still has anti-foreign, anti-Semitic, right-wing extremists, but since World War Two the West German government has systematically pushed them out of public life. Unfortunately that wasn’t true in East Germany. There the Stalinist regime ignored the problem, as did Stalinist governments in the eastern European countries. They didn’t want to risk provoking uprisings against their dictatorships. In the former East Germany, which is much smaller than the West, right-wing extremists are a small minority, but a hateful, well-organized, and sometimes violent one. In eastern Europe they are much stronger, sometimes the most powerful political force.
The establishment press in the USA, Britain, and France jump at every opportunity to exaggerate right-wing incidents in Germany in order to divert attention from problems in their own country. The right wing in the USA is much more powerful and dangerous than that in Germany. That’s why our resistance to it is so important.
People fleeing Afghanistan made up almost a quarter of the migrants crossing the Channel in the first three months of the year.
Out of 4,540 people detected arriving by small boats between January and March 2022, some 24% (1,094) were Afghan nationals, according to Home Office figures.
This was the most out of any nationality recorded, followed by 16% who were Iranian (722) and 15% (681) Iraqi – which both typically outrank Afghans in the numbers.
Taliban takeover
The rise has prompted concerns from campaigners that the Government’s resettlement scheme in the wake of the Taliban takeover is failing and raised questions over whether Afghans could be at risk of being deported to Rwanda because they could be deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally under new immigration rules.
(PA Graphics)
It comes as separate figures showed the number of asylum claims made in the UK has climbed to its highest in nearly two decades, while the backlog of cases waiting to be determined continues to soar.
Dangerous routes
Marley Morris, from think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), said:
Today’s migration stats show a shocking rise in the number of Afghans arriving in the UK on small boats. The government has said it is giving Afghans a ‘warm welcome’, but these figures reveal that many have felt they have been left with no option but to take this dangerous route to make it to the UK.
Morris also added:
Now the government’s new plans in response to the Channel crossings could mean that Afghan asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda. This would be an unimaginably awful outcome for people who have already faced such great hardship.
Contrary to the government’s claims, there are few safe routes for people forced into small boats to make it to the UK.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said:
The sharp increase in the numbers of people fleeing Taliban atrocities in Afghanistan, having no choice but to make desperate journeys over the Channel to find safety here in the UK, is concerning but unsurprising.
This increase is the inevitable consequence of the restrictive nature of the Afghanistan resettlement schemes, for which the vast majority of Afghans are simply ineligible.
Solomon continued:
The government must honour the promises they made to the people of Afghanistan by immediately ensuring the most vulnerable people in the country are able to access a safe route to the UK, so they are not forced to risk their lives in order to find safety here.
Dr Peter William Walsh, senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford said:
The arrival of Afghans in small boats on the UK coast indicates that many more wish to find protection here than are able to do so under the UK government’s existing schemes.
Questions remain
The Government pledged to resettle 20,000 refugees, with as many as 5,000 in the first year under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).
It relocated the first people on January 6 2022 once the scheme opened some six months after the Taliban took over the country’s capital Kabul in August. But questions remain over its progress to date.
Meanwhile, an estimated 7,000 people have been relocated under the existing Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) which launched in April last year and offers priority relocation to the UK for current or former locally employed staff who had been assessed to be under serious threat to life.
The official Government figures on Channel crossings also show most of the people who made the crossing (89%) were male, the same as the average between 2018 and 2021.
Some 3,448 men were recorded to have made the journey in the three-month period, as well as 342 women and 743 children, of which 594 were boys and 142 were girls, with seven recorded as unknown.
But information on age, gender and nationality was not available for some arrivals.
The average number of migrants on board each boat crossing the Channel almost doubled in the first three months of this year compared to the same period in 2021, up from 18 to 32.
Crossings took place on 30 out of the 90 days.
Some 9,330 migrants have reached the UK after navigating busy shipping lanes from France in small boats such as dinghies since the start of 2022, according to analysis of Government data by the PA news agency.
A total of 28,526 people made the crossing in 2021, compared with 8,466 in 2020, 1,843 in 2019 and 299 in 2018, according to official figures.
Federico Soda said there needed to be ‘more condemnation’ of the conditions in state-run detention centres in Libya
Europe has been accused by a senior international official of acquiescence in the plight of thousands of migrants in Libya held in arbitrary detention in “deplorable conditions”.
Federico Soda, chief of mission at the International Organisation for Migration’s mission in Libya, said not enough was being done by outside actors to try to change the war-torn country’s “environment of arbitrary detention and deplorable conditions” for migrants.
Fawzia Amini advocates for rights of Afghan women and girls from London hotel room she’s been stuck in for nine months
One of Afghanistan’s top female judges has been honoured with an international human rights award while she continues her work to advocate for her country’s women and girls from a London hotel.
Fawzia Amini, 48, fled Afghanistan last summer after the Taliban takeover of the country. She had been one of Afghanistan’s leading female judges, former head of the legal department at the Ministry of Women, senior judge in the supreme court, and head of the violence against women court.
On 14/04/2022, the Home Secretary Priti Patel announced a new initiative to combat the incorrectly named ‘illegal’ crossings in the English Channel: those that cross the Channel seeking to claim asylum will be removed from the UK and placed in Rwanda, where they will then have the chance to claim asylum. During the announcement speech, Johnson referred to the November 2021 tragedy, where 27 people lost their lives crossing the Channel, in order to promote and rationalise this new policy. This is not the first-time fatalities in the Channel have been used to justify cruel and inhumane policies. Over the last decade, Channel crossings have been weaponised, used to push a political agenda that advocates for a harsher and more restrictive immigration system. Across government and the general public, we have witnessed a growing appetite to default on the moral and legal obligations we have towards those fleeing war, persecution and destruction. Successive governments have created policies (like the Rwanda initiative) to deter refugees and contain them in the Global South, thereby denying refugees their human right to claim asylum.
In this immoral crusade against our obligations to refugees, the Johnson government’s most prominent strike is the extremely controversial Nationality and Borders Bill. Amnesty International has shown explicit concern about this bill, drawing attention to the following provisions (Amnesty International, 2022):
It would penalise and criminalise asylum seekers depending on the way they arrive in the UK. (e.g., crossing the Channel)
It would give government the power to strip people’s British citizenship without notice.
This bill has been widely condemned for its likelihood to violate human rights, international and domestic law. Despite the already problematic nature of this Bill, the November 2021 tragedy was used by several Conservative MPs to not only advocate for further-reaching provisions to be added, but also to attack human rights (Riley-Smith, 2021). Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh said that “We have to be tough. We have to face down the human rights lawyers. If governments are weak, people die.” (Riley-Smith, 2021).
Leigh’s statement reflects a sentiment select Conservative MPs have expressed. They argued that if the UK forcefully repels refugees and continues to perpetuate the hostile environment created by then-Home Secretary Theresa May, less people would try to cross the Channel. Subsequently, fatalities would fall. However, the refugee’s human rights prevent them from doing this. Effectively, these MPs have argued that if the government continues to respect the human rights of refugees and their legitimate claims to asylum, we are actively perpetuating dangerous and fatal Channel crossings.
This rhetoric displayed by these MPs leads us away from a universal understanding of rights to an exclusionary position where they can be given and taken in pursuit of political goals. Here, these Conservative MPs are advocating for an exclusionary interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where Article 14 can be suspended for some in order to ‘stop’ Channel crossings. This interpretation of human rights is not isolated to the issue of the refugees. In their 2021/22 International Report, Amnesty International has warned that several pieces of the government’s proposed legislation have the potential to erode human rights for all of us here in the UK (Amnesty International, 2022, pg.388-389). In addition to the Nationalities and Borders Bill, Amnesty mentions the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill (PCSB) and proposed changes to the Human Rights Act (HRA) (Amnesty International, 2022, pg.388-389). Within these Bills, Amnesty highlights two potential breaches to human rights law: (1) the PCSB’s threat to our Freedom of Assembly and ability to protest and (2) how the proposed changes to the HRA would make it harder for UK citizens to make Human Rights claims, diminishing the UK’s accountability (Amnesty International, 2022, pg.388-389).
These potential breaches of human rights law alone have grave consequences for all UK citizens. The Johnson government want to silence those who wish to challenge the government by restricting our right to protest. They want to restrict our ability to make human rights claims to supernational bodies (e.g., Council of Europe) when we have exhausted domestic means. This diminishes the UK’s accountability to the international community, an analysis shared by Amnesty UK’s campaign manager, Laura Trevelyan. Trevelyan stated that the proposed changes to the HRA are an attempt to take away the power of the general public, to suffocate their ability to challenge the government and the decisions they make (Badshah, 2022).
By advocating for this exclusionary and restrictive interpretation of human rights, we demote these rights to mere privileges that can be taken and given at the will of governments (Bhambra, 2017, pg.404). Human rights were based upon the model of natural rights where they are derived from our shared humanity (Donnelly, 1982, pg.391). This interpretation adopted by Johnson’s government contradicts the very nature of human rights. This is why human rights must exist outside the law and remain inalienable: to ensure their universal enjoyment without the threat of governments or states. Without these protections, we will see oppression flourish, leaving some without the basic rights that enable them to live full, human lives.
But alas, the government has landed a devastating blow. Since I started writing this article, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill have now been passed. These bills will severely restrict everybody’s access to certain freedoms and rights. We face this threat universally because the erosion of human rights anywhere in society will affect us all. Regardless of where one stands politically, giving governments legislative power to restrict access to certain rights is an extremely dangerous precedent. One that promoted the creation of human rights. These bills have no place in a healthy democracy.
But it is not too late. We must continue to push against this exclusionary and restrictive vision for human rights. We must challenge the government and show that we will not accept privileges, only rights. We must be guaranteed that no piece of UK legislation will ever be used to infringe on our human rights. We are entitled to these rights, as human beings, regardless of whether we are UK citizens or refuges. We have to all speak out. We have to transcend their attempts to divide us. We have to be united.
That is my plea: let us speak out together in order to protect our freedoms and human rights. Because if we shout loud enough, they will have to listen.
Bibliography
Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2021/22: The State of the World’s Human Rights, Amnesty International Ltd, 2022
Bhambra, Gurminder K., ‘The current crisis of Europe: Refugees, colonialism, and the limits of cosmopolitanism’, European Law Journal, Vol.23, No.5 (2017), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pg.395-405
Donnelly, Jack, ‘Human Rights as Natural Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.4, No.3 (1982), John Hopkins University Press, pg.391-405
The occasions when an activist, writer or commentator triumph over defamation lawsuits launched by a thin-skinned politician are rare in Australia. When it comes to matters regarding the law of reputation, Australia remains a place where parliamentarians, as a species, thrive in the knowledge they can use favourable provisions to protect their hurt feelings and soiled reputations.
The country, in also lacking a bill of rights protecting free speech and the press, has further emboldened politicians. At best, the Australian High Court has only left an anaemic implied right “to protect freedom of communication on political subjects”, which should really be read as a restraint on executive and legislative power, never to be personally exercised.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton, ever the nasty enforcer of the Morrison government, was one who had every reason to feel confident when he took refugee activist Shane Bazzi to court in April last year. In February 2021, Bazzi published a six-word tweet: “Peter Dutton is a rape apologist.”
The tweet was made some hours after Dutton had told a press conference that he had not been furnished with the finer details of a rape allegation made by former Coalition staffer Britney Higgins. The context here was also important. Dutton had, when Home Affairs Minister, characterised refugee women being held on Nauru, one of Australia’s carceral domains, as “trying it on” to get access to the Australian mainland for medical treatment.
The following month, this sadist-in-chief promised that he would start to “pick out some” individuals who were “trending on Twitter or have the anonymity of different Twitter accounts” posting “all these statements and tweets that are frankly defamatory.” It was an informal declaration of war against critics.
In instigating proceedings against Bazzi, Dutton claimed in the trial that he was “deeply offended” by the contents of the tweet. He accepted that, “As a minister for immigration or home affairs … people make comments that are false or untrue, offensive, profane, but that’s part of the rough and tumble.” But Bazzi had gone one step too far. “It was somebody that held himself out as an authority or a journalist.” His remarks “went beyond” the tolerably bruising nature of politics. “And it went against who I am, my beliefs … I thought it was hurtful.”
In finding for Dutton in November and awarding $35,000 in damages, Justice Richard White ruled that the tweet had been defamatory, and that Bazzi could not resort to the defence of honest opinion. Dutton failed to gain damages in three of the four imputations, while also troubling the judge with his hunger in pursuing the defendant for the full legal bill. But in his remarks on Bazzi’s claim of honest opinion, White was dismissive. “Bazzi may have used the word ‘apologist’ without an understanding of the meaning he was, in fact conveying.” If this had been the case, “it would follow that he did not hold the opinion actually conveyed by the words.”
On May 17, Bazzi found that he had convinced the Full Court of the Federal Court that the reasoning behind the six-word tweet, and the purportedly defamatory imputations it conveyed, was flawed. Justices Steven Rares and Darryl Rangiah, in a joint judgment, found that Justice White had erred in not explaining “how the reader would understand the whole (or any part) of the tweet to convey the imputation.” They also noted that Justice White had found the meaning of the word “apologist” was not that of an excuser but of a defender. “When the material is read with Mr Bazzi’s six words, the reader would conclude that the tweet was suggesting that Mr Dutton was sceptical about claims of rape and in that way was an apologist.” It was “very different from imputing that he excuses rape itself.”
The judges put much stock in the context of the tweet, and the need to read it alongside Dutton’s previous remarks on the women held on Nauru as recorded in The Guardian. “The reader would perceive that the message in the tweet consisted of both parts, Mr Bazzi’s six word statement and The Guardian material, read together.” When read together, the reader “would understand that the point that the tweet was conveying was that a ‘rape apologist’ behaves in the way Mr Dutton had in expressing scepticism about the claims of rape. That is a far cry from conveying the meaning that he excuses rape itself.”
Justice Michael Wigney also found that the primary judge had erred in finding the tweet defamatory and “substantially agreed” with the two other justices. It was “tolerably clear” that Bazzi’s statement “was about, or responsive to, the extract from The Guardian article.” The primary judge had erred in how the ordinary reasonable Twitter user would have read the tweet, downplaying, for instance, the significance of the link to the article.
Accordingly, “It was wrong for the primary judge, in analysing whether Mr Bazzi’s tweet conveyed the alleged imputation, to dissect and segregate the tweet in the way he did.” While the tweet did convey “an impression that is derogatory and critical of [Dutton’s] attitude to rape or rape allegations,” it did “not go so far as to convey the impression that [Dutton] is a person who excuses rape”.
Dutton’s litigious boldness was much in keeping with the Morrison government’s general hostility to social media outlets and the internet, in general. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has shown a willingness to do battle with social media and making the platforms assume greater responsibility for material hosted on their sites. Taking advantage of the killings in Christchurch in March 2019, he exploited the chance to pursue a global agenda of online censorship. “We urge online platforms to step up the ambition and pace of their efforts to prevent terrorist and VECT (violent extremism conducive to terrorism) content being streamed, uploaded, or re-uploaded.”
In the latter part of last year, the government announced that it was drafting laws that would make social media companies gather user details and permit courts to force the divulging of user identities in defamation proceedings. While a re-elected Morrison government will be a dark day for internet freedoms and expression, Dutton’s defeat is a cause for genuine celebration. It also heralds the need to water down the persistently draconian nature of laws that do all too much in protecting that strange animal known as the offended politician.
Game designer Jack Gutmann (left) sits alongside Georg Hobmeier, head of Causa Creations, at their offices in Vienna, Austria. © UNHCR/Simon Casetti
(@Gottlieb1889) 
