Category: refugees

  • Dissident couple say their lives would be under threat if returned from Bosnia to Kuwait, as rights groups claim notice undermines refugee law

    A Kuwaiti princess seeking asylum in Bosnia-Herzegovina has claimed the Kuwaiti state is using an Interpol red notice to intimidate and harass her and force the extradition of her partner, a prominent dissident blogger, back to the country.

    Sheikha Moneera Fahad al-Sabah and Mesaed al-Mesaileem, said they face torture and threats to their lives if they are returned to Kuwait due to their political activism.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks during a rally outside the U.S. Capitol on December 7, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    On Tuesday night, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) argued in favor of accepting Ukrainian refugees in the United States, emphasizing that asylum seekers from other parts of the world should be treated with similar respect.

    Speaking to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow following President Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address, Ocasio-Cortez made the case for giving Ukrainian refugees Temporary Protection Status (TPS), saying that the Biden White House should make it easier for individuals with that status to eventually become citizens.

    “Now that we know a huge, new migration is going to start because of that war, do you have caution or words of advice … in terms of how to be smarter about those politics, about the inevitable demonization of those victimized people?” Maddow asked the New York congresswoman.

    “The world is watching, and many immigrants and refugees are watching,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “How the world treats Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees should be how we are treating all refugees in the United States, especially when you look at such stark juxtapositions where so many of the factors are in common.”

    Citing the Syrian refugee crisis, Ocasio-Cortez said that “the way the world treated Syrian refugees versus the way the world is greeting Ukrainian refugees is a very stark contrast.” She also condemned U.S. policy toward asylum seekers from Central America and Haiti under Biden and past administrations.

    “We really need to make sure that, when we talk about accepting refugees, that we are meaning it, for everybody, no matter where you come from,” she added.

    Ocasio-Cortez also said that the current crisis presents “an opportunity” to make things better for all future asylum seekers coming to the U.S. Ukrainian refugees should receive TPS status, she said — and Congress and the president should make it easier for individuals who receive TPS status to become citizens, if they want to do so. This should apply not only to Ukrainians but also to other asylum seekers, she went on.

    Journalist Juan Escalante, who was once himself an undocumented immigrant, said that Ocasio-Cortez “is 100% correct.”

    The crisis in Ukraine could “push Biden to grant #TPS to Ukrainians in the United States,” as well as “push Congress to deliver a path to citizenship for all TPS recipients — including Venezuela, Haiti, Honduras, etc.,” Escalante said.

    Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will undoubtedly result in a refugee crisis. According to estimates from the United Nations, as of Tuesday, more than 874,000 Ukrainians have already fled the country, crossing their country’s border into neighboring areas.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Non-white refugees face violence and racist abuse in Przemyśl, as police warn of fake reports of ‘migrants committing crimes’

    Police in Poland have warned that fake reports of violent crimes being committed by people fleeing Ukraine are circulating on social media after Polish nationalists attacked and abused groups of African, south Asian and Middle Eastern people who had crossed the border last night.

    Attackers dressed in black sought out groups of non-white refugees, mainly students who had just arrived in Poland at Przemyśl train station from cities in Ukraine after the Russian invasion. According to the police, three Indians were beaten up by a group of five men, leaving one of them hospitalised.

    Continue reading…

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

  • The United Nations has admitted that some non-Europeans refugees have faced discrimination while trying to flee to safety at Ukraine borders after their experiences were dismissed as lies and “Russian disinformation” by online commentators.

    Filippo Grandi, the organization’s High Commissioner for Refugees, acknowledged their plight during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

    The post UN Admits Refugees Have Faced Racism At Ukraine Borders appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • With massive new flows starting in the wake of the Russian attack on Ukraine, the new book announced on 28 February 2022 by UNHCR –People Forced to Flee: History, Change and Challenge – is most timely.

    People Forced to Flee draws on the lessons of history to probe how we can improve responses to forced displacement. Tracing the roots of asylum from early history to contemporary times, the book shows how the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees turned the centuries-old ideals of safety and solutions for refugees into global practice. It highlights the major achievements in protecting people forced to flee since then, while exploring serious setbacks along the way.

    Published at a time when over 84 million people in the world are forcibly displaced, it examines international responses to forced displacement within borders as well as beyond them, and the principles of protection that apply to both: reviewing where they have been used with consistency and success, and where they have not. At times, the strength and resolve of the international community seems strong, yet solutions and meaningful solidarity are often elusive.

    Most forced displacement is experienced in low- and middle-income countries and persists for generations. People forced to flee face barriers to improving their lives, contributing to the communities in which they live, and realising solutions. Responding better is not only a humanitarian necessity but a development imperative.

    The book shows how this work gained momentum with the international affirmation in December 2018 of the Global Compact on Refugees; and it illustrates how it is being supported by a growing group of partners encompassing forcibly displaced people, local communities and authorities, national governments, international agencies, non-governmental organisations and the private sector.

    People Forced to Flee also examines how increased development investments in education, health and economic inclusion are helping to improve socio-economic opportunities both for forcibly displaced people and their hosts. Alongside this are greater investments in data, evidence and analysis pointing to what works best. And it discusses the wide array of financing mechanisms that can support sustainable responses.

    As noted by Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in his foreword, the book highlights with great clarity the enormous challenges to preventing, mitigating, and finding solutions to forced displacement. “The drivers of displacement are unrelenting; the demands placed on humanitarian funding are growing,” Grandi notes. Yet he adds that while “the challenges are enormous, history has repeatedly demonstrated the potential for, and power of, positive change”.

    The book is published by Oxford University Press in hardback or in digital format via this microsite.

    People Forced to Flee: History, Change and Challenge, takes up the mantle of a series of UNHCR publications, stretching back to 1993, that were previously entitled The State of the World’s Refugees. This book was written by Ninette Kelley.

    https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/2/621c851f4/new-book-explores-past-present-future-protecting-people-forced-flee.html

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • A newly-formed campaign has organised a demo over a racist piece of Tory legislation. It will see numerous organisations working together to oppose the government’s Nationality and Borders Bill. With up to six million people possibly affected by the new law, the protest is sorely needed.

    So ahead of the bill’s next reading in the lords on 28 February, the group has called a protest in London on Sunday. It is also highlighting and opposing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which is also back in the House of Commons on Monday.

    Racist Tory legislation

    As I previously wrote, the Tories’ Nationality and Borders Bill is a:

    nasty piece of legislation [that] aims to make it even harder for refugees to try and seek help and safety in the UK – trashing international law in the process. The bill will criminalise refugees and stop them arriving in small boats – including measures to let border control staff do so-called ‘pushback’ techniques which puts refugees at risk of drowning. It will also let the government strip people of their UK citizenship without even telling them. This would include people of Indian, Bangladeshi and Jamaican heritage.

    The bill is overall inherently racist. So, a campaign group is taking action.

    Our right to citizenship

    Citizenship Is A Right (CIAR) is a new coalition, formed of various groups. Groups involved include:

    • Jewish Voice For Labour.
    • Black Lives Matter (BLM) Coalition.
    • Sikh Council UK.
    • Muslim Association of Britain.
    • CAGE.
    • Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC) UK.

    The coalition says that:

    We believe in a fair, humane and caring immigration policy, and unequivocally reject the Hostile environment – driven by racism, hatred, greed and open contempt for international law.

    An entrenched hostile environment

    CIAR notes that the two bills:

    are a continuation of a full-scale assault on the lives of so many. We call on everyone to rise for justice to defend our already fragile democracy and basic rights – and join us in our fight to defeat them.

    As CIAR points out, currently UK law already allows governments to strip people of their citizenship. These bits of legislation date back as far as 1981. CIAR says that updates in 2014 allowed:

    the Home Office to remove a naturalised citizen’s citizenship as long as they have “reasonable grounds” for believing the person has a right to citizenship of another country. This could render them stateless – and for some already has.

    Now, it’s getting even worse. As CIAR notes, if the Tories make the Nationality and Borders Bill law:

    Every person with foreign-born parents is under threat. Shockingly, this Bill would also give this Government the power to introduce primary immigration legislation without parliamentary scrutiny, known as the Henry VIII clauses. This is wholly undemocratic and immoral and this is what we are campaigning to end.

    That’s six million people who CIAR refer to as being “under threat”. So, on 27 February, CIAR is taking to the streets.

    Protest

    The group has organised a demo from the Foreign Office to Parliament Square:

    Map of the CIAR march from the foreign office to parliament square

    CIAR says that:

    we’re taking to the streets to make some noise and put pressure on the House of Lords to kill this bill which will strip dual citizens of their British passport without notice and criminalise refugees.

    Other protests against the bills are being organised across the UK using the hashtags #KillTheBills and #DefendDemocracy, #CitizenshipIsARight and #RefugeesWelcome.

    Creating another Windrush scandal

    Zita Holbourne is the national chair of BARAC UK. She told The Canary:

    BARAC UK has been campaigning for migrant and refugee rights since we were established in 2010. This includes warning of, and then in opposition to, the Windrush scandal and mass deportations. We also believe in practical solidarity. So, for the past eight years have organised regular humanitarian aid missions to support refugees stuck in limbo in northern France.

    The [Nationality and Borders Bill] seeks to further reduce the rights of all these groups of people and many more.

    BARAC UK is working with a number of groups to campaign against it. We are one of the 21 co-founding organisations of CIAR who have organised the demo on Sunday. This is our second one since forming in January.

    Up to six million overwhelmingly Black and Brown people could have their citizenship stripped under the bill proposals. It seeks to create another Windrush scandal on an even larger scale.

    So it’s imperative that we mobilise, organise and take action against it with urgency.

    ‘Mobilisation is vital’

    Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi from JVL told The Canary:

    These bills reinforce attempts to undermine rights and liberties that are widely taken for granted in a liberal “free” society. Their full implications may not become visible immediately, or even under this government. They should be seen in the context of others already on the statute books, such as the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act, enacted in March 2021, anti-trade union legislation in force since the 1980s, and other ongoing threats such as the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices through imposition of the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism and the criminalisation of calls for BDS [Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions].

    These bills will almost certainly pass into law, given the Tories’ huge parliamentary majority. Mobilisation in advance is vital to alert vulnerable communities to their potential impact and prepare for the battles ahead.

    We’re all affected

    The Tories are currently attacking many of us on all fronts. But it’s the sheer scale of the assault of the Nationality and Borders Bill that is so shocking. With six million people potentially in the Tories’ line of fire over revoking citizenship alone, that’s around one in 11 people. Therefore, many of us will either be or will know someone personally affected by this. So – it’s each and every one of our duties to oppose this nasty, racist legislation.

    See you on the streets on 27 February.

    Featured image via CIAR

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Save the Children is releasing a powerful series of photographs by world-renowned photographer Jim Huylebroek to highlight the human tragedy unfolding in Afghanistan as the country this week marks six months since the dramatic transition of power

    The photographer Jim Huylebroek travelled across the country with the international children’s agency Save the Children, from the drought-ravaged plains of the north to the freezing streets of Kabul, capturing the stories of children whose lives have been devastated by the humanitarian crisis, for the series titled: children on the edge of life.

    Children on the outskirts of Kabul

    Continue reading…

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

  • Editor note: Today I have this piece by war reporter Alexander Kots. He set out to find human interest stories among the over 10,000 refugees who have crossed over from the Donbass region into Russia, just in the past couple of days.

    Roughly half of these refugees are technically Russian citizens already, holding Russian passports. The other half being Ukrainian citizens who are resident in the Separatist-controlled Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) and Luhansk Peoples Republic (LPR).

    The order (issued by the leaders of those republics) to evacuate women, children, and elderly was given this past Thursday, after the Ukrainian army opened massive artillery barrages on the line of demarcation, threatening massive damage and loss of life to the residential communities.

    The post Donbass Refugees: A Horror Without End appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A roundup of the coverage of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Myanmar to Mexico

    Continue reading…

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

  • When in opposition, Alexander Downer, destined to become Australia’s longest serving foreign minister in the conservative government of John Howard, was easy to savage.  The Australian Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating was particularly keen to skewer an establishment individual prone to donning fishnet stockings and affecting a plummy disposition.  Never, he suggested, had there been a more conceited piece of fairy floss ever put on a stick.

    During the Howard years, Downer served in the role of a position that has become all but irrelevant, outsourced as it is to the US State Department and the fossil fuel lobby.  It was during that time that Australia supercharged its draconian approach to refugees and border security, repelling naval arrivals and creating a network of concentration camps that has since been marketed to the world.  The UK Home Affairs Minister Priti Patel is positively potty for it but has only managed to adopt aspects of the “Australian model”, including the relocation of arrivals to offshore facilities and co-opting the Royal Navy in an intercepting role.

    Efforts to use third countries to process asylum claims have been frustrated, though Patel has opted for a legislative route in stymieing the process and limiting the settlement rights of unwanted migrants.  While she has authorised the use of push backs on paper, these have yet to take place and are the subject of a legal challenge by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and charity, Care4Calais.

    The government of Boris Johnson has made something of a habit in mining the old quarry of Australian conservative politics.  Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was approved for a role as trade advisor for Global Britain, an appointment which did not sit well with critics worried that a reactionary dinosaur had been brought into the fold.  With Abbott offering advice, Global Britain risked becoming a Nostalgic Britannia of pink gins and wallahs, Union Jack flying high.

    Downer, for his part, has settled into the soft furnishings of British public life, occupying the role of High Commissioner for some years, becoming a presence around Australia House and King’s College, London as founding chairman of the international school of government.  Evidently, he is regarded as very clubbable, a member of the Royal Over-Seas League and chairman of trustees at the right wing think tank, Policy Exchange.

    Of late, he has been tapped to undertake a review of Britain’s border forces, a task he is likely to relish.  In this field, reform can only mean a few things: harsher policies, hardened feelings, and the tweaking, if not total circumvention, of international law.  The number of migrants attempting to make the crossing from France in 2021 was estimated to be 28,431.  In 2020, it was 8,417.  There are fears in the Home Office that the number could reach 65,000.  A siege mentality has well and truly seeded.

    A statement from the Home Office noted Patel’s commissioning of “a wide-ranging, independent review of our Border Force to assess its structure, powers, funding and priorities to ensure it can keep pace with rapidly evolving threats and continue to protect the border, maintain security and prevent illegal migration.”

    Patel doesn’t stoop to considering the right to asylum, or the safety and welfare of those making the crossing.  It’s all security and border protection.  “Since Border Force was set up in 2011, its remit has grown to meet the changing border threats we face, and in recent years has supported delivery of the government’s Brexit commitments and COVID-19 measures.”

    According to statements from the UK government, Downer was “delighted” to be leading the review, one mislabelled as independent.  “As an independent reviewer, I plan to lead a review that is robust, evidence-based and outcome-orientated.”

    Downer is unlikely to be troubled by the evidence.  For him, the outcomes are already determined and bound to offer Patel comfort.  The clue was in a piece written for the Daily Mail last September openly praising Patel’s efforts.  Despite the Home Secretary being “widely ridiculed on both sides of the Channel … I know that a ‘push-back’ policy can work.”  Never one for the finer details, the Australian suggested a sly approach verging on deception.  “My advice to Ms Patel would be to introduce a ‘push-back’ policy without fanfare, and to keep the French informed on a need-to-know basis only”.

    The views of those at the Policy Exchange think tank are also shot through with such presumption. In a report released on February 16, the authors consider the need for a “Plan B” which would involve removing people attempting to enter the UK on small craft “to a location outside the UK – whether the Channel Islands, Sovereign Bases in Cyprus or Ascension Island – where their asylum claims would be considered.”  Ideally, “Plan A” would involve the French shouldering the responsibility of preventing the arrivals in the first place.

    Downer’s anti-refugee resume is long, though he seems to have been overly credited with the copyright of the original Pacific Solution implemented by the Howard government from 2001.  The same goes for the general policy of turning vessels laden with asylum seekers and refugees back to Indonesia and potential watery graves.  That said, he was an important figure in leading negotiations with countries such as Nauru and Papua New Guinea, both becoming indispensably bribed in aiding Canberra’s sadistic solution.

    This is enough to have the PCS worried.  One spokesperson noted Downer’s role as “a prime architect of Australia’s inhumane immigration policy” claiming that his recent support for the push back solution made “him a wholly inappropriate choice to lead this review”.  General Secretary Mark Serwotka has also expressed his opposition to any push back policy “on moral and humanitarian grounds, and we will not rule out industrial action to prevent it being carried out.”

    The one saving grace in this needless review with pre-determined findings is the difficulty Britain faces in implementing any turn-back policy that does not violate international law.  French officials are incessant in reminding their British counterparts about that fact.  And without French cooperation in this endeavour, any proposed harshness will be mitigated.

    The post Tapping Fortress Australia: Priti Patel’s Border Force Review first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Private sector ships could be leased to stem the flow of migrants across the English Channel. At least, according to defence minister James Heappey. In a flustered interview on LBC, Heappey said the extra ships would be used in the channel to stop refugee boats.

    But there is a problem with this plan. Just weeks ago an ex-navy commander warned against virtually every aspect of it. And called for a move away from the rhetoric of ‘pushback’.

    Here’s Heappey stumbling his way through some moderately challenging questions from LBC presenter Tom Swarbrick:

    Stopping the flow

    Heappey seemed to be saying up to ten ships, and an unknown number of smaller vessels, would be leased by the military. He seemed to think these would be manned by military personnel. Measures in home secretary Priti Patel’s new Borders bill (here’s our take on this racist legislation) could then be used to arrest refugees “in the channel.”

    But Heappey’s comment were confused. And they contravened the advice of a former navy commander called before the defence select committee just weeks ago. However when pressed on who would be arresting refugees. Heappey admitted the Navy’s sailors and marines had no legal power to do so.

    Heappey also said that navy platforms were too big to ‘cross-deck’ people from dinghies to ships. And that:

    …we are looking that we would need anywhere up to another ten of the larger vessels that you would use to do the mid-channel cross-decking, and I’m guessing that we would need a number of smaller vessels to shadow dinghies to the shore.

    The plan was yet to be modelled, Heappey added, before suggesting 10 ships would be the upper end figure.

    Select committee

    But let’s look at what Heappey has said in comparison to recent testimony at the defence select committee on this exact issue or ‘Operation Isotrope’ as the military calls it’s involvement in the anti-refugee effort.

    The English channel is a busy global shipping lane, retired commander Tom Sharp warned the committee on 26 January. And he said that using boats to stop dinghies carried its own risk to life:

    In my view, we need to move our mindset very slightly away from this idea of large boats or small boats coming alongside overladen rubber dinghies. You are creating a safety of life issue right there, even though you are trying to help.

    Tremendous risk

    As currently envisaged, the operation carries serious risks to people’s lives, Sharp said:

    There is a tremendous amount of risk just associated with what is being discussed, which is why I do not think it is the right solution.

    Committee member Mark Francois asked about Rules of Engagement (ROE). This term usually describes the conditions under which the military can use violent force. Sharp did not approve:

    I am not even sure “rules of engagement” is the right term. This is a bit like confusing the inherent right of self-defence with rules of engagement.

    Immutable laws of the sea

    He also explained that it was “immutable” maritime law that mariners helped other mariners if they were in distress:

    SOLAS and UNCLOS 98 are immutable requirements that are nothing to do with rules of engagement. The rules of engagement will be set from the centre. They are then defined by lawyers.

    Francois then asked about “pushback” – the notion that small boats at sea could be turned around and sent back. Sharp rejected this terminology, and the ideas behind it:

    I would be happy if the expression “pushback” were never used again. I cannot conceive of a situation where you are physically turning these ships back that is either legal or, perhaps more importantly, safe

    Rhetoric vs reality

    Clearly the Tories love to sound hawkish on this issue. Refugees are one of their favourite punchbags to distract from internal crisis and appeal to their base. Former senior military officers would be the last place one would expect a nuanced view from. Yet the kind of views and plans put forward by people like Francois and Heappey have run aground on reality.

    The evidence is that there aren’t enough actual navy ships for the job; that the whole belligerent framing of the debate around ‘pushback’ and ‘rules of engagement’ is wrong; and that putting even more ships into an incredibly busy shipping lane is, according to people who actually know, a really bad idea.

    That’s before even getting into the heartlessness it takes to turn refugees away.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/PO Lee Blease, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under Open Government Licence.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Officials often underestimate the dangers faced by failed asylum seekers who are forcibly sent home, writes Jackie Fearnley

    The recent Human Rights Watch report on the harm done to Cameroonian asylum seekers, both while they were trying to make their claims in the US and when repatriated in a blaze of publicity, should be required reading for all asylum decision-makers (African migrants deported in Trump era suffered abuse on return, 10 February).

    From my experience of helping Cameroonian torture survivors over the past 14 years, I have noted that Home Office decision-makers, and many judges, can fatally underestimate the degree of risk attached to the forcible return process, particularly as failed asylum seekers are viewed as having brought the country into disrepute and can be punished with imprisonment.

    Continue reading…

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

  • There are no excuses left for treating people’s lives as chips on a poker table – leaders must end this shameful chapter in Australia’s history

    The world’s attention was focused on Australia’s immigration detention regime in January when a wealthy athlete got a court challenge to his detention. Novak Djokovic was ultimately released and sent home, with the court affirming the minister’s decision to cancel his visa because of his stance on Covid vaccines. But still 32 men languish in the Park Hotel, each of them desperate to leave.

    Australia successfully “stopped the boats”, but it forgot that there were people on those boats whose lives they stopped with them. These same people have been suffering for nearly nine years, unable to move on with their lives, unable to find peace of mind, stability or certainty.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Bexar County Sheriff’s Deputy Patrick Divers approaches the passenger door of a patrol car.

    A Texas sheriff’s deputy won’t face punishment for tasing an unarmed refugee child at one of the federal government’s shelters for migrant children in 2020.

    After Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting published body camera footage of the encounter in June, drawing global attention to the incident, the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office immediately placed the deputy, Patrick Divers, on administrative leave pending an investigation. 

    Since then, Sheriff Javier Salazar’s department has provided so many contradictory and confusing statements about its investigation into the deputy’s conduct that it can be difficult to understand what’s going on at the department, which serves the area around San Antonio. 

    In December, the department told Reveal reporters that Divers had returned to work, but the investigation was ongoing. 

    A month later, Deputy Johnny Garcia said in an email that the investigation into Divers had actually concluded in July. In the end, Divers’ administrative leave lasted 10 days, and it was paid.

    The department also originally told us that Divers couldn’t be punished because of a union contract that forbids action against any officer more than 180 days after the incident occurred. 

    Weeks later, we obtained a copy of the internal affairs investigation that concluded Divers followed protocol when he tased the unarmed migrant child for half a minute. 


    Divers tased the boy in May 2020. However, it didn’t become publicly known until more than a year later, after Reveal obtained the bodycam footage through a public records request and published it. In the footage, Divers is shown arriving at Southwest Key Casa Blanca, a government-sponsored shelter in San Antonio. Staff there had called 911 after the boy, who had fled Honduras at age 15, refused to go to class and had allegedly broken some bed frames and storage bins.

    Divers, a 27-year veteran of the department, didn’t request evidence of the child’s alleged wrongdoing before tasing him at the time, according to the footage. When he encountered the boy in a small bathroom, the deputy didn’t attempt to have his orders translated into Spanish by the bilingual shelter staff, nor did he tell the boy that he was under arrest. He ordered the teen in English to stand up and turn around. The child showed no signs of fighting back or resisting arrest, according to the video footage. Divers then shot the boy with his Taser and repeatedly pulsed the weapon on his torso and thighs, shocking him for 35 seconds, the footage shows. Divers arrested the boy on a charge of criminal mischief. It’s unclear what ultimately happened with the criminal case because of juvenile privacy laws in Texas.

    The internal affairs report contends Divers “utilized reasonable force based on the circumstances that (the deputy) had at the time the force was used.” In its justification, the report cites what it calls the child’s “aggressive behavior, prior assaultive behavior, and additional pertinent information provided by staff members at the facility.” 

    The report says Divers was informed by an unnamed female staffer of the child’s past behavior, but notes that it happened after the tasing. That information was shared by the child’s then-case manager, Julie Tamez – who later told us that she regretted what happened and wanted to apologize to the teen for her part in what occurred. 

    The internal affairs investigation concluded that, because he was able to state his age, the child “understands some of the English language.” 

    The investigation also claims that the boy was a risk because he was tying the string on his pants. Tying one’s pants “has been established through training as a que (sic) that (the child) was preparing to fight or run,” the report states.

    The child was released from federal custody when he turned 18; he remains in the United States while he seeks immigration relief. 

    After he was released, the teen told us he understood that he was being told to stand up and did so – but he didn’t understand that Divers was ordering him to turn around. He also explained that he tied his pants because he was worried they would fall down, leaving him exposed after standing. He also said the Sheriff’s Office hadn’t communicated with him as part of this investigation. 

    The department’s investigation did find that Divers failed to notify supervisors in a timely manner about his Taser use. Divers submitted a use-of-force form that day, but he did not “verbally notify” the on-duty supervisor of the tasing, which prevented the supervisor from investigating and obtaining photographs of the child’s injuries, according to the report. In a written statement to internal affairs, Lt. Kenneth Murray recalled that when he walked into the sergeant’s office that day, two sergeants were in an “uproar because an officer had used their Taser earlier in the shift and they did not know about it,” the report states.

    It also found that Divers violated two subsections of the county’s civil service rules: “Poor Job Performance” and “conduct which has proven to be detrimental or has an adverse affect (sic) on the Sheriff’s Office,” but the report doesn’t describe why. 

    Finally, the investigation found that Divers failed to advise his supervisor of the teen’s immigration status – prohibiting the department from alerting “Immigration and Naturalization Services” of the child’s presence in the United States. (The INS doesn’t exist anymore; it became U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in 2003.) The child, however, was already in the federal government’s custody in the Southwest Key shelter due to his immigration status and seeking asylum.

    The Sheriff’s Office said in an email that Divers couldn’t be disciplined for any policy violations because he’s covered by a collective bargaining agreement that shields deputies from discipline 180 days after any given incident. But the union behind that agreement, the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Bexar County, disagrees with the sheriff’s framing, alleging that Salazar is using the 180-day rule to avoid criticism for keeping Divers on the job. 

    The union contract includes a provision that allows the Sheriff’s Office to seek disciplinary action at any time in cases that involve “criminal conduct,” which according to the contract, “does not require that a criminal charge be filed against the employee.” Ron DeLord, an attorney and chief negotiator for the union, said the sheriff could have pursued discipline against Divers, if the investigation merited it, under this category. 

    “He tased someone. Now that could be a criminal charge, couldn’t it?” DeLord said. “Police just can’t shoot you with a Taser if they want to.”

    When Reveal inquired about the criminal conduct provision, the Sheriff’s Office said “there was no criminality founded from the investigation that was conducted by the Public Integrity Unit, regarding the tasing incident.” 

    The department later suspended Divers for 10 days for an unrelated incident. Divers is appealing; the department won’t disclose details of the incident.

    Reveal also has obtained new records that raise questions about whether the Sheriff’s Office knew about the child’s tasing immediately after it happened. Last summer, the agency told us that it did not know about the May 2020 incident until we brought it to the sheriff’s attention. But Divers completed a use-of-force report the day of the tasing. It was signed by a supervisor and forwarded to internal affairs, records show. 

    An internal affairs investigation conducted at that time would not have run up against the 180-day limit for punishment.

    Reveal has requested to speak with Salazar on at least a dozen occasions since May. Despite repeated statements from his office that staffers would check his availability and get back to us, his team formally declined an interview last month. 

    Divers couldn’t be reached for comment. Records indicate Divers was represented by Ben Sifuentes, a San Antonio criminal and employment defense attorney. Sifuentes did not return calls for comment. 

    Ananda Tomas, executive director of ACT 4 SA, a grassroots advocacy organization focused on police reform initiatives, told Reveal that she disagrees with the sheriff’s decision to not hold Divers accountable. 

    Documents the Sheriff Tried to Keep Secret
    Reveal obtained a number of documents from the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office through public records requests and appeals to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
    Policy Manual  
    Internal Affairs Investigation Report
    Use-of-Force Form

    “A 16-year-old boy was tased for 35 seconds. That’s serious damage to a young boy physically. Adults who are much larger have been killed by Tasers. What we have here is excessive force,” she said. 

    “It clearly should have been a criminal conduct investigation.”

    A new Bexar County union contract, which was approved by the county commission this week, includes changes to the 180-day language. It would give the Sheriff’s Office 180 days to discipline deputies for “minor misconduct” from the time an incident is discovered, 365 days for “major misconduct” and 730 days for misconduct that led to “significant personal, physical, or mental injury” or violations of constitutional rights.

    Sheriff Javier Salazar speaks into TV microphones.
    Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar has positioned himself as a reformer since entering the job in January 2017. Credit: San Antonio Express-News

    The sheriff has positioned himself as a reformer. Salazar began his career at the San Antonio Police Department, where he spent part of his tenure as an internal affairs investigator and later the director of communications. A Democrat, Salazar was sworn into the Sheriff’s Office in January 2017. 

    During his first term, he fired more than 100 deputies. He told KSAT News last February: “I’ve made no secret of the fact that we’ve got people employed here that probably should never have been hired, some of them probably should have been fired years ago.”

    Salazar was reelected in 2020 after running on a campaign that touted his various reforms since becoming sheriff, including creating the agency’s first public integrity unit, expanding the internal affairs division and upgrading its body camera system

    The tasing incident was part of a larger pattern in the shelter system for migrant children. Reveal’s investigation found that a number of the government’s shelters have been turning to police to manage the sort of behavior that could be expected of children, in particular isolated refugee children. Over the previous six years, shelters had discharged at least 84 children, from ages 11 to 17, to local law enforcement, according to data we obtained after suing the federal government. 

    U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat who represents San Antonio, called for a federal investigation into the issue last year. It’s unclear whether the government has investigated the tasing or the broader practice of involving local police in incidents that involve migrant children’s emotional outbursts. 

    Last month, Castro confirmed the inspector general’s office for the Office of Refugee Resettlement received his inquiry. He also told Reveal that he included language in a 2022 appropriations bill; that legislation recommends more funding to, in part, “rebuild, support and train staff on trauma-informed care.”

    “Immigrant children seeking asylum are often under immense stress within government-funded shelters and it’s crucial that the staff which oversees their care have a clear understanding of when it is appropriate to engage local law enforcement as well as stipulate how local law enforcement treats these minors,” Castro said in a statement.

    This story was edited by Andrew Donohue and copy edited by Nikki Frick. 

    Aura Bogado can be reached at abogado@revealnews.org, and Laura C. Morel can be reached at lmorel@revealnews.org. Follow them on Twitter: @aurabogado and @lauracmorel.

    Texas Deputy Who Tased Unarmed Refugee Child Won’t Be Disciplined is a story from Reveal. Reveal is a registered trademark of The Center for Investigative Reporting and is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Lawyer says refugees, who were protesting against Turkey leaving Istanbul convention on violence against women, are at risk in Iran

    Three Iranian refugees are facing deportation from Turkey after taking part in a demonstration against Ankara’s withdrawal from the Istanbul convention on violence against women.

    Lily Faraji, Zeinab Sahafi and Ismail Fattahi were arrested after attending a protest in the southern Turkish city of Denizli last March. A fourth Iranian national, Mohammad Pourakbari, was detained with the others, despite not attending the protests, according to Buse Bergamalı, their lawyer.

    Continue reading…

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

  • U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive to detain a group of Central American asylum seekers near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018, in McAllen, Texas.

    Immigrant rights advocates led by Witness at the Border released an open letter on January 17, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, urging the Biden administration to honor his memory by upholding the rights of migrant victims of family separation to full reparations and restorative justice. They argue these steps should include the creation of a truth commission to investigate and document serious human rights crimes on both sides of the border. This is especially appropriate, as well, amid ongoing observances of Black History Month.

    The Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families created by President Joe Biden’s February 2021 executive order is a necessary but sorely insufficient step toward broader remedies that correspond to Trump-era cases of family separation. The administration’s duty to take these steps is being drastically undermined by its current policies.

    The Trump administration’s policies of family separation were clearly unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights of family integrity and substantive due process. They also included practices which violated the U.S.’s obligations pursuant to international law. These acts were equivalent to torture and forced disappearances, according to leading legal and clinical experts.

    Such practices have been defined as “crimes against humanity” pursuant to Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. All victims of human rights crimes of this kind are entitled to just and adequate remedies. International crimes of this order of magnitude trigger state duties to fully redress victims’ rights to truth, justice, and to material and symbolic forms of reparation, as well as guarantees of non-repetition, according to internationally recognized standards.

    No administration, and no public official has the “discretion” or “option” to promote or implement policies that are unconstitutional and/or which violate international human rights standards. This is especially so, as in the cases of family separation during the Trump era, where the acts at issue (forced disappearances and torture) rise to the level of “crimes against humanity.”

    Thus, it is especially appropriate that the Biden administration take full measures to respect, protect, and fulfill victims’ rights to memory, justice, full reparations and restorative justice in Dr. King’s memory. His universalist commitment to human rights, as well as his foundational commitment to restorative justice and reparations in compensation for historical crimes against people of African descent in the U.S. underscore the urgent need to honor these principles not only in the context of anti-Black racial injustice, but also in the context of crimes against humanity on the border.

    The Biden administration should also take urgently needed remedial steps within this latter context because of the persistent disproportionate impact of U.S. immigration policy and border policy on communities of color. Family separation, and the continued use of Title 42 and the “Remain in Mexico” policy as pretexts for the negation of the right to seek asylum, reflect these continuing legacies today, with the active complicity (and thus ultimate responsibility) of both U.S. and Mexican authorities.

    Historical Origins and Continuing Legacies of Family Separation

    Racism and xenophobia have been the intertwined, guiding threads of U.S. border and immigration policies since their origin. This includes the genesis of forcible processes of family separation in the African slave trade and African slavery, and in the genocidal policies imposed within the framework of European settler-colonialism against Indigenous communities throughout North America.

    These culminated in compulsory residential or boarding schools for Indigenous children and continuing abuses within the framework of family and child welfare systems, the administration of orphanages, and adoptions. The overall objective of these policies, as in Canada and Australia under similar circumstances, was to “assimilate” these children by destroying their identities. Trump-era family separation policies shared crucial features of these longstanding genocidal practices.

    Mass deportation of persons of Mexican origin in the 1930s and 1950s reproduced these destructive mechanisms of family separation through practices of detention and deportation, which have reappeared with the recent mass deportations of Haitians carried out by the Biden administration in the last few months. Similar practices which resulted in involuntary separation of families were engaged in during the period of internment of persons of Japanese origin between 1942 and 1945. The Trump administration’s family separation policies embodied all of the most regressive, convergent characteristics of these oppressive practices.

    These legacies are articulated in the large numbers of migrants of African descent and of Indigenous origin who were among the victims of the Trump administration’s family separation policies, as reflected in the lead plaintiff in the paradigmatic Ms. L case (an asylum seeker originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo), and in two of three named plaintiff families in the Wilbur P.G. case (asylum seekers of Maya Mam Indigenous origin from Guatemala), among others.

    Biden Administration Policies

    The Biden administration has recently announced its decision to withdraw from global settlement negotiations regarding pending family separation cases and to litigate each of these individually. More than 5,500 children and families who were victims of Trump-era policies may be affected by this decision. This includes many who were seeking to exercise their internationally recognized rights to seek asylum and were in effect punished for this by being subjected to both the forcible separation of their families and to detention under inhumane conditions, pursuant to Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy, and more recently through mechanisms such as Title 42 and the Remain in Mexico policy.

    The administration has “denounced the prior practice of separating children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border” and “condemn[ed] the human tragedy” that ensued. But it has also argued, unconscionably, that the decision to separate and detain these families and others fell within the federal government’s “reasonable” range of discretion as to its choices in immigration policy.

    The Biden administration cannot have it both ways. The practical effect of its position would prevent further proceedings and trials in these pending cases, and the denial of the full compensation to which these victims are entitled. This compounds the original injustices that led to the case filings, and further exacerbates the suffering and victimization of these families and children.

    The Biden administration has also argued that Trump’s family separation and detention policies were lawfully executed, and thus, justify immunity for those who implemented these deliberate acts of cruelty. This in practice would likely result in impunity for Trump officials who were responsible for the massive suffering inflicted on thousands of migrants between June 2017 and June 2018. This also leaves the door open for future administrations to opt again to enact these kinds of criminal policies.

    Forced Disappearances and Torture

    As plaintiffs have alleged in the complaint filed in Wilbur P.G., et al v. U.S. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, families subjected to the Trump administration’s family separation policies were often held in separate, distant facilities that were unknown to them, and were denied the right to communicate with their fellow family members. This reproduces the kinds of paradigmatic conditions which have been defined as constitutive of “enforced disappearances,” pursuant to international human rights law and international criminal law:

    When the government separated these families, the Plaintiff children were 6, 11, and 13 years old. The children did not know why they had been separated from their parents. The parents did not know why they had been separated from their children. None of the Plaintiffs knew whether they would ever be reunited with their families, and at various times, Plaintiffs believed that they might be deported from the United States alone, without their accompanying family member. All suffered from extreme emotional distress at the point in time when the government forcibly separated them, went on to endure additional weeks of sustained emotional distress during their forced separation, and then continued to experience lasting emotional distress even after they were reunified. This suffering was the intentional purpose of the Policy.” (para. 4, p. 3 of the complaint)

    Gerald Gray, a psychotherapist and clinical social worker who specializes in treating victims of torture and co-founder of the renowned Center for Justice and Accountability, noted the following in the first text published in the U.S. (shortly followed by others published internationally), which argued that Trump’s policy of family separation must be understood as involving acts of forced disappearance and torture:

    What is happening with the … separation of children from parents or other caretakers is one form of forced disappearance — in this case, the kidnapping of two parties instead of one. Even if the parent or caretaker knows enough of the prison staffs’ language (presumably usually English), they don’t really know most of the time where the children are, who is responsible for them and whether they care, how the childrens’ health is, and if and when they will ever see the children again.

    For the children, the separation is even worse — are the parents or caretakers alive? What are the guards in the prisons saying in a new language? What does “Chicago” mean? How can they survive bullying or sexual predation? And of course, if and when will they ever again see their families or caretakers? An adult may sometimes temporarily have a rough idea of the location of a childrens’ prison, but without language, constant contact, and all the education required to understand geography, children have an impossible task. For the reader here, look at the clinical literature on the outcome of kidnapping or holding children as hostages.”

    These arguments are developed in further detail in the amicus brief in the D.J.C.V, et al v. U.S. case submitted on behalf of Stanford University’s Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health program, whose co-founders include Gray and Beth Van Schaack.

    All of this suffering was compounded for families of Indigenous origin who spoke neither English nor Spanish proficiently and were systematically denied necessary attention and services in their native Indigenous languages. This included children from involuntarily separated families detained under inhumane conditions in abusive settings, such as the Tornillo, Texas, and Homestead, Florida, migrant youth detention camps.

    As of November 2018, a Guatemalan consular official estimated that approximately 40 percent of the thousands of children unjustly held at Tornillo were of Guatemalan, mostly Indigenous origin. Many of these children had their origins in Guatemala’s poorest and most marginalized Indigenous communities, which bore the brunt of the U.S.-backed genocide targeting these regions during Guatemala’s civil war between 1960 and 1996. Forced migration from these communities today is in effect the continuation of the same kinds of structural injustices, which led to genocide and resulted in massive, forced displacement and exile during that period.

    A member of Witness at the Border’s leadership team was able to confirm at this time that the Guatemalan children he interviewed were of Indigenous origin, in need of appropriate services in their own languages, and suffering deeply because of their mistreatment by U.S. officials and the precarious conditions which characterized their confinement. Within less than a month, two Indigenous Guatemalan migrant children, aged seven and eight, died in the custody of the Border Patrol in El Paso, Texas, due to the deliberate neglect of their urgent medical needs in confinement.

    Conclusion

    The position that the Biden administration has taken in its recent filings in the family separation cases is the predictable result of its failure to settle the claims of thousands of victims of the criminal policies during the Trump era.

    We must stand with the children and families who were victims of these crimes to demand full measures of accountability, reparations and restorative justice for all human rights violations related to the forced separation and detention of migrant families, regardless of the administration which is responsible. The Biden administration’s current approach amounts to active complicity with the continuing effects of these extraordinarily serious violations.

    The Biden administration has the moral, ethical, and legal obligation to fully redress all of the injuries and suffering inflicted by these criminal policies. This must be undertaken through a comprehensive program of restorative, transitional justice, consistent with the international standards that are referenced above.

    This goes way beyond the limited mandate of the Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. What is needed, in addition, is a full-fledged transitional justice process including a truth commission empowered to investigate and document serious human rights crimes on both sides of the border, and to make recommendations for needed reparations and measures of restorative justice, consistent with international standards.

    This commission’s mandate must include not only family separation, but also the continued deployment of Title 42 and the Remain in Mexico policy, and the mass deportations of Haitians, among other specific instances, as well as their historical origins and contemporary implications. It must also include human rights crimes attributable to U.S. policy that have unfolded on Mexican territory and beyond, as part of the extraterritorial impact of policies, such as “prevention through deterrence.

    This is the Biden administration’s duty, pursuant to both U.S and international law.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Refugees housed in an ageing military barracks say they feel like they are in a “prison” at risk of coronavirus despite the Home Office claiming it has made improvements to the controversial site.

    People living in Napier Barracks in Kent – many of whom risked death in the English Channel to get to the UK – sleep in 20-bed dormitories separated by curtains.

    The military site in Folkestone dates back more than 130 years and its use to house refugees has been fiercely criticised by campaigners, particularly following a major outbreak of coronavirus last year.

    As the Home Office prepares to use another military base in nearby Manston to process asylum seekers, the PA news agency heard from a number of Napier residents who spoke of poor conditions and safety fears.

    Brexit
    Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, says the accommodation is ‘far from ideal’ (PA)

    “We are always at risk”

    One man who has lived at the barracks for six weeks said:

    I can tell you Napier camp it’s a very bad place for living.

    You don’t have a room alone, you can’t go outside for a long time. It’s very bad because you think it is a prison.

    He said he does not feel safe from Covid-19 at the barracks, adding:

    Every time, there are three or four buildings in the camp in quarantine.

    Another who had been there for five weeks said the site is old and unclean.

    He added:

    It is not safe because we have no doors – we are always at risk.

    One man who arrived at Napier Barracks in the past two weeks said staff and security were friendly and polite. But he added that bathrooms are “dirty” and said he does not feel safe in relation to Covid-19.

    Others spoke about difficulty sleeping in the busy dormitories.

    People coming to the UK for safety deserve better

    A Home Office spokesperson said:

    We provide safe accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, including 24/7 access to healthcare.

    We have made significant improvements to Napier Barracks in the last year and continue to do so, including more recreational and outdoor activities, additional coronavirus tests and reduced capacity.

    Our New Plan for Immigration will overhaul the broken asylum system. We will welcome people through safe and legal routes whilst preventing abuse of the system.”

    But Clare Moseley, founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, which has supported people living in Napier Barracks since it opened, said:

    Institutional accommodation that is set far from local communities can never be the right place for people who have come to the UK in need of safety. It is essential that they can access healthcare, faith centres and other amenities, and integrate within society.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • I came to this country at fifteen looking for help. How does keeping me locked up help to heal the trauma I have experienced?

    Last week the prime minister, Scott Morrison, was asked about whether it was appropriate some refugees had been held in Melbourne’s Park Hotel for eight years after he had earlier claimed not everyone detained there is a refugee.

    In his response he referenced Mehdi, a member of the persecuted Ahwazi Arab minority in his homeland Iran, who had been speaking out about the conditions after Novak Djokovic was briefly detained in the same hotel.

    I didn’t make the statement that every single person was who was in that place was not a refugee. I said that was, to my understanding, the case with some people who were there. There are a number of people who were at that facility who have not been found to be owed protection.

    … I’m aware of one particular individual who has been the comment of this focus of a lot of attention, who is on such a pathway, and I would be encouraging them to take up that permanent option that is available to them in the United States. We provided it, we secured it, we got it in place. And so if they wished they could go to the United States along that pathway. And that’s what we are encouraging them to do.

    Continue reading…

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

  • This article is part of a joint investigation with anti-capitalist research group Corporate Watch

    Refugees in London are being housed by the Home Office in run-down, insect-infested hotels. Meanwhile, private housing providers are raking it in.

    Corporate Watch spoke to an Iraqi Kurdish family who arrived in the UK in November 2020. Since then, the family – who wish to remain anonymous – have been put up by the Home Office in disgusting conditions in several hotels in London with their six children. They told Corporate Watch that – aside from the insect infestation – they have had to deal with the ceiling caving in; water pouring in from the apartment above them; insufficient food, a lack of electricity, and – when there has been power – dodgy and dangerous electrics.

    Mother of the family Rojda (not her real name) told Corporate Watch:

    I’m a mother of six kids, our life is very hard here, and we have no rights.

    When we arrived here [in 2020] we had two rooms for all of us… all of our accommodations have been very bad

    Rojda described how she often had to take the family to see another friend living in a different hotel in order to take showers because of the lack of hot water. Rojda said that it was a “shame” that despite living in a rich capital like London she didn’t even have electricity or hot water.

    The adults in the family have not been given permission to work in the UK and are completely dependant on the Home Office for accommodation.

    They are currently living in a hotel in just three rooms for a total of eight people. The hotel is infested with bed bugs which are causing skin irritation. They provided Corporate Watch with these shocking photos:

    Skin irritation on the back of a baby's head
    Skin irritation on the back of a baby’s head
    Skin problems caused by the insect infestation
    Skin problems caused by the insect infestation
    Skin irritation from insect bites in a Home Office Hotel
    Skin irritation from insect bites in a Home Office Hotel
    Insect bites on one of the children
    Insect bites on one of the children
    Dead insects in a child's cot
    Dead insects on a child’s cot

    The family were temporarily moved to new accommodation after a housing officer intervened, but Rojda told us that within weeks they were forced to return to the bug-infested hotel.

    Heartbreakingly, Rojda told us that the staff at the hotel had denied her son food, after he complained about the state of the family’s accomodation.

    Rojda said that it’s not just her family who are suffering. She doesn’t have a common language to communicate with the other families at the hotel, but she can see that the conditions are just as bad for them

    The Home Office’s slum landlords

    Nearly 55,000 refugees are currently housed in the Home Office’s ‘contingency accommodation’ waiting to find out if their asylum claim will get approved. The UK’s asylum housing contracts have been wholly privatised since 2012.

    The company that provides the accommodation Rojda’s family is housed in is believed to be Clearsprings Ready Homes. This company reported a massive jump in profits in its last set of accounts – to £4.5m. Its surging profits have led to a seven-fold increase in dividends to the parent company. Clearsprings handles the asylum accommodation contracts for the Home Office in the south of England.

    Clearsprings also runs Napier, an ex-military barracks which is being used to house refugees in Kent in conditions described as “squalid” by lawyers of the residents.

    In other parts of the UK, the Home Office has awarded contracts to Serco and Mears Group. Outsourcing giant Serco reported £180m in profits in 2019, while Mears reported over half a million worth of profits from its housing business alone.

    We’ve decided not to name the Central London hotel because of fears that fascists will target the residents.

    “Imagine coming to school with that”

    Rojda suggested that we speak to the children’s teachers so they could tell us about the effect living in these conditions has on the wellbeing of the children and their education

    The school provided a statement which says that it has had to get “more and more involved” with helping children in “temporary accommodation”, including providing support with practical things like travel and uniforms, as well as “navigating the bureaucracy”. Its statement reads:

    Living in these difficult conditions obviously impacts the children. They tell us about how overcrowded it is, how noisy, and how they have trouble sleeping.

    Imagine coming to school with that. They are trying to learn a new language, integrate into a new school, adapt to a new culture when at the same time they have to deal with great uncertainty about how long they will be staying for.

    Passing the buck

    The Canary contacted the Home Office about the conditions at the hotel. They passed the buck to Clearsprings, saying:

    We are dealing with unprecedented pressures on the asylum system, but despite this we continue to ensure the accommodation provided is safe, comfortable and secure.

    However, we expect high standards from all of our providers, and any asylum seekers who have problems can get in touch with Migrant Help 24/7, every day of the year.

    We also contacted Clearsprings Ready Homes. A spokesperson said:

    Clearsprings Ready Homes works closely with its delivery partners to ensure that safe, habitable and correctly equipped accommodation is provided. Whenever issues are raised, or defects are identified Ready Homes will undertake a full investigation and ensure that those issues are addressed.

    The Home Office also said:

    The Nationality and Borders Bill that we are introducing will deliver the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix the broken asylum system.

    However – far from making the situation better for refugees – the Nationality and Borders Bill will make the situation even worse by introducing endless reviews of people’s asylum claims, which stretch out the asylum process. This means that people are reliant on Home Office accommodation for even longer. In general, the bill is designed to make claiming asylum in the UK even more difficult.

    “Not an isolated experience”

    Rojda’s family’s situation is not unique at all. The Home Office’s private contractors routinely provide dirty and dilapidated accommodation to those seeking asylum. Earlier this month, Clearsprings was forced to make improvements to flats it’s using to house refugees in Uxbridge after they “were found to be rife with damp, mould, water leaks and pest infestations”. Last year, six men won a high court legal challenge. The court ruled that their accommodation at the Napier Barracks in Kent – which is managed by Clearsprings – failed to meet a “minimum standard”.

    We spoke to Maddie Harris, director of the Humans for Rights network. She said:

    The experience of this family is utterly appalling and shows a clear disregard for their health, well-being and rights. It is also, not an isolated experience. We have spoken to hundreds of people seeking sanctuary in the UK who are accommodated in hotels throughout England and it is clear from the testimonies shared with us that there is no attention paid to upholding even the most basic of rights. People often spend well over a year in cramped, overcrowded hotels, run by private contractors who surveil their every move.

    Medical care is limited

    Harris continued:

    Medical care is often limited or restricted by staff who refuse to assist people in registering with GP surgeries. Food is nutritionally poor and small in quantity and often lacks consideration for faith, cultural or dietary requirements. Access to solicitors and legal advice is severely lacking and little to no information is provided to people. These hotels and accommodations such as Napier Barracks, are for many experienced like quasi-detention and we have heard from numerous people that their mental health is severely effected by isolation, lack of information and complete uncertainty as to the progress of their asylum claim. These accommodations are run by private companies, who profit from and are responsible for much of this harm.

    “Ultimate accountability lies with the Home Office”

    Harris concluded that, although private companies are profiting from running the accommodation, the Home Office bears the final responsibility. She said:

    Ultimate accountability lies with the Home Office who are responsible for these contracts and the welfare of asylum seekers in the UK, yet there is a complete lack of oversight for how these contracts are managed, resulting in untold harm to many thousands of people seeking sanctuary in the UK.

    Solidarity

    Refugees living in the Home Office’s slum accommodation can be found in many of our communities. These are people who are new to the UK, and they are bearing the brunt of a racist state which is colluding with ruthless private companies out to make a fast buck from the suffering of others. We need to be ready to stand in solidarity with people in the Home Office’s slum accommodation, and to struggle alongside them for better conditions.

    Featured image via Alisdare Hickson/Wikimedia Commons (resized to 770×403 pixels), all other images used in this article were provided to Corporate Watch by Rojda’s family (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The latest Tory threat to use the navy to stop refugees in the English Channel has been ripped to shreds. This week Boris Johnson, possibly to distract from his partying habits, signed off on a “cruel and inhumane” plan to hand control of the channel to the military. But two security scholars have pulled this pledge apart.

    Professor Timothy Edmonds and research associate Scott Edwards, both from the University of Bristol, published their critique in The Conversation. The pair looked at key Tory claims around the issue. But they weren’t particularly convinced.

    Key claims

    Home secretary Priti Patel then told the Commons on Tuesday 18 January, that she had “commissioned the MoD [Ministry of Defence] as a crucial operational partner to protect our Channel against illegal migration”. She spoke of a “blended approach” which – she said – the public would support.

    While the Ministry of Defence said:

    Unacceptable numbers of people continue to make the dangerous Channel crossings and last November’s tragic deaths serve as the strongest reminder of the need to stop them.

    The ships

    The Bristol academics debunking starts with the maths. They said that while on the face of it navy ships outnumber Border Force ships, this is itself deceiving. The Archer and River class ships which would be most useful are already in use as far away as the Indo-Pacific, Gibraltar, the Caribbean and the Falklands/Malvinas.

    They added:

    With so many vessels already in use elsewhere, it seems unlikely that the Admiralty will welcome new deployments to the Channel -– especially so soon after an announcement that Border Force is receiving money for an upgraded fleet of cutters.

    So it seems that the navy lacks the ships for the task, and the political will to do the job anyway.

    Leadership role?

    Secondly, the pair questioned how naval involvement would change anything – even if the capacity was found. They also tested the underlying motivations:

    Perhaps there is a hope that the Royal Navy will put some backbone into this policy, especially given that Border Force’s union has recently threatened strikes if pushbacks are implemented.

    But would the navy even have the authority to carry out the government’s “cruel and inhumane” anti-refugee operations? Legally, this doesn’t seem to be the case at all.

    Bound by law

    Edmonds and Edward warned that if the navy did start to push back small boats crossing the channel, they would breach long established maritime law:

    This is enshrined in Article 98 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and elsewhere. The Royal Navy is just as bound by the law of the sea as Border Force.

    They wrote:

    The navy has already indicated that it has little appetite for such pushbacks, and any extra capacity it can bring is most likely to be deployed in search and rescue tasks.

    The truth

    This leads to questions about what the navy can actually do in the Channel. As the authors point out, not much more than they already are. The authors registered surprise at the announcement of a “blended response”. Because “that is exactly what’s already happening”.

    They say the navy has been increasingly integrated into border operations since 2010. One recent expression of this ‘blended approach’ is:

    The Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2020, coordinates the UK’s maritime assets and helps different agencies to work together at sea. Hosted by the navy, it enables cross-agency information sharing through its Maritime Domain Awareness programme.

    So if this is already happening – and has been for a decade – we should question why Priti Patel is calling for it anyway.

    A grown-up response?

    Edmonds and Edwards proposed a different approach. They said:

    The UK needs to move beyond populist announcements on the small boat problem and develop a response along three lines.

    First, it should continue to develop better interagency operations. Secondly, it should “foster closer cooperation with France and Belgium to help manage this shared problem of human desperation and misery”. And thirdly, it should “recognise that policing at sea can only address symptoms rather than causes of increased Channel crossings”.

    They added:

    A long-term solution requires the reestablishment of humane and accessible refugee and migration routes into the UK.

    Populist distraction

    The Tories have made a habit of using refugee-bashing and the militarist populism to distract from their internal problems. This latest call looks much the same. But this time the incoherence of such callous inhumane plans has been laid bare.

    Johnson and Patel seem oblivious to the fact they’ve blood on their hands when it comes to refugees crossing the Channel and instead want to talk the talk. But even if the navy did have the capacity to intervene in the channel, doing so does nothing to address the root causes of the refugee crisis.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/LA Phot Nicky Wilson, cropped to 770 x 440, under Open Government Licence.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Park hotel, where Novak Djokovic was also detained, holds 25 refugees and seven asylum seekers

    Human rights advocates have criticised the prime minister, Scott Morrison, after he wrongly claimed those held in detention in Australia for as long as eight years had not been recognised as refugees.

    Australia’s harsh border policies have been thrust into the spotlight since the detention of tennis star Novak Djokovic at the notorious Park hotel in Melbourne, where dozens of asylum seekers and refugees are detained indefinitely.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Novak Djokovic exclaims while holding a tennis racket

    Tennis player Novak Djokovic’s refusal to get vaccinated against COVID-19 — and his subsequent efforts to manipulate Australia’s medical exemption system so as to be allowed a visa to enter the country and compete in the first Grand Slam of the year — is one of the most surreal developments in tennis history.

    As of this writing, the stubbornly unvaccinated Djokovic is still in Australia, and still slated to play in the championships starting on Monday. Yet, for days now, he’s been hanging on by a thread. On Friday evening, Australian time, Alex Hawke, the country’s immigration minister, decided, for the second time in nine days, to expel him from the country for breaking quarantine rules while infected with COVID, for misleading immigration authorities about his travels prior to entering the country earlier this month, and for becoming a focal point of anti-vaccine sentiment in the country.

    Djokovic’s team is appealing, but he is quickly running out of options. It is more than probable that the world’s best tennis player will, just before the Australian Open begins, be unceremoniously dumped onto a plane and told not to return to Australia for at least three years.

    The course of events that have unfolded since Djokovic was first detained by immigration authorities on January 5 is an extraordinary example of self-sabotage from one of the sporting world’s most famous figures, who, in recent years, acquired the media nickname “No-Vax Djokovic” for his controversial opinions regarding vaccines.

    But, by accident rather than design, Djokovic’s surreal and self-inflicted drama has also served the important purpose of turning global public attention toward the cruel treatment that Australia routinely metes out to undocumented immigrants seeking asylum in the country.

    To summarize events to date: Australia — which implemented one of the world’s strictest and longest lockdowns in an effort to emulate China’s zero-COVID stance — has a policy of only letting vaccinated travelers enter the country. Medical exemptions are allowed, but the criteria for these exemptions is narrow. A couple weeks ago, however, Djokovic, a nine-time winner of the Australian Open, boarded a plane to Australia unvaccinated, having been granted an exemption to allow him in.

    After a hullabaloo about this, the country’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, went on a very public warpath against the world’s top tennis player. As a result, when the Serbian player arrived, he was promptly detained by immigration authorities, who noted that the type of visa he had applied for didn’t allow for medical exemptions. After a night of arguing with authorities, Djokovic — who is tied with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal for the most Grand Slam wins of any male player in history, and who was predicted by many to win the Australian Open and break the tie — was unceremoniously carted off to a detention center and locked up in a room with several other detainees.

    The hotel-cum-jail that Djokovic ended up in housed several dozen would-be refugees and asylum seekers caught up in Australia’s notoriously harsh immigration detention system. Nine years ago, the current Liberal-National governing coalition got elected on a “stopping the boats” anti-immigration policy, implementing Operation Sovereign Borders to repel boatloads of refugees. Soon afterwards, it began locking up would-be immigrants in off-shore detention sites on the islands of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and only reluctantly let some onto mainland Australian soil when they were too sick to be kept in the island detention fortresses any longer. Once in Australia, they were housed in overcrowded and under-resourced privately run “hotels” for years at a stretch. Some of those with whom Djokovic was detained have been held for up to nine years, since the earliest days of Operation Sovereign Borders.

    Djokovic spent the weekend in the Park Hotel detention center, in a suburb of Melbourne. Those incarcerated in the detention center have to ask permission to use the bathroom, and are shackled before being moved from one part of the facility to another. They are provided with such low caloric intake that human rights activists say the food regimen amounts to near-starvation conditions — and what food there is, critics say, is sometimes filled with maggots. Sick people incarcerated at the Park Hotel continue to be provided with deeply substandard medical care despite a series of lawsuits against the agencies responsible for maintaining services in the detention sites. Djokovic’s parents, in a series of broadsides, accused the authorities of torturing him.

    On Monday, a judge ordered his release, and, in a scathing rebuke of the government, announced that Djokovic had abided by all the requirements to secure an exemption — including providing proof that he had recently tested positive for COVID — and that he should, therefore, be allowed to stay in the country.

    Despite it being late at night, the tennis player, famed for his focus and will to win, immediately headed to the practice courts.

    But, in the days since, a barrage of revelations has shattered Djokovic’s reputation and given Australia’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, an opening to once more seek to deport the sports megastar. The German daily newspaper Der Spiegel published an investigation casting doubt on the authenticity and date of Djokovic’s supposed positive COVID test on December 16. The investigation suggested that the data had been manipulated in order to give Djokovic cover for claiming a medical exemption, open to people recently infected with, and recovered from, COVID that he otherwise would not have had access to. In quick succession, it also turned out that Djokovic had attended several indoor, unmasked events shortly after supposedly testing positive, and that he had also given an interview to a French sports journalist without letting the journalist know that he had an active case of COVID.

    Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. Djokovic either conjured up a fake-positive test result to game the Australian immigration system, or he genuinely tested positive and didn’t care enough to abide by basic quarantine restrictions that have been in place the world over for the past two years.

    Making matters worse, it then turned out that Djokovic’s immigration forms contained a bald-faced lie. Someone on his team had ticked that he hadn’t traveled anywhere other than Spain in the 14 days prior to boarding a flight from Spain, via Dubai, to Melbourne. In fact, numerous photos soon circulated showing that the tennis superstar had also been in Serbia during this time, where he had attended a series of high-profile ceremonies in his honor. Djokovic put out a perfunctory apology on Instagram, saying his team member had simply made an honest mistake in filling out the form wrong. But the damage was done: Lying on immigration paperwork is grounds both for deportation and also imprisonment.

    As I write this, on Friday morning California time, with less than three days left before play begins at the Australian Open, Hawke has once more revoked Djokovic’s visa, and the tennis star, seeded number one in the upcoming championships, has agreed to surrender for further questioning on Saturday morning. Barring another extraordinary twist in the legal saga, Djokovic will be unable to play in the event.

    If and when “No-Vax” Djokovic is expelled from Australia, he will have no one to blame but himself. It’s a tennis tragedy with more than an absurdist tinge to it.

    Meanwhile, thousands of would-be refugees and asylum seekers continue to be held in appalling conditions in Nauru, in Papua New Guinea and in Australia itself in hotels such as the Park. Their stories are the true stories of injustice, and the conditions they are held in for years at a stretch, as a result of the Australian government’s embrace of harsh anti-immigration measures, are a human rights violation that deserves the world’s attention.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Immigration Minister Sean Fraser rises during Question Period, in Ottawa, Dec. 10, 2021. Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press

    Six months after the federal government promised to help thousands of Afghan women leaders, human- rights activists and journalists flee to Canada, the first planeload has landed.

    Immigration Minister Sean Fraser announced the arrival of 252 Afghan refugees on Tuesday, including the first 170 admitted through a special program for people the government deems to be human-rights defenders.

    It is a privilege to welcome today this cohort of Afghan refugees, who face persecution as a result of their work to protect the human rights of others,” Mr. Fraser said in a statement.

    “I am grateful for their work to document and prevent human rights abuses and proud that they now call our country home.”

    The Liberal government launched the special program in July after weeks of criticism from angry Canadian veterans upset Ottawa wasn’t doing more to help Afghans facing possible Taliban reprisals for having worked with Canada in the past.

    Mr. Fraser’s office said the 170 who arrived through the special program had been referred to Canada by the Ireland-based human-rights organization Front Line Defenders, which has been working to identify those most at risk.

    The Liberals have promised to resettle 40,000 Afghan refugees to Canada, but nearly all of those are expected to be people living in UN camps in Pakistan and other neighbouring countries.

    With Monday’s arrivals, the government says it has so far resettled about 6,750 Afghan refugees in Canada. Fraser suggested last month that it could take up to two years for the government to meet its promise of bringing in 40,000 Afghans.

    Veterans and refugee groups aren’t the only ones who have lamented the pace of the government’s efforts when it comes to helping Afghans escape to Canada, with opposition parties also joining the chorus of criticism in recent months.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-first-afghan-human-rights-activists-arrive-six-months-after-ottawas/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Human rights report slams Australian treatment of refugees as in previous years, and addresses climate for the first time

    Australia’s “backwards” positions on global heating and asylum seekers are becoming increasingly unacceptable to the world, a leading human rights group says.

    Human Rights Watch launched its annual world report on Thursday, again finding “serious human rights issues” in Australia, despite its overall record as a strong, multicultural democracy.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Although 2021 is now behind us, there are many issues that will linger for a while, or much longer, and will certainly dominate much of the news in 2022, as well. These are but a few of the issues.

    NATO-Russian Brinkmanship 

    Exasperated with NATO expansion and growing ambitions in the Black Sea region, Moscow has decided to challenge the US-led Western alliance in an area of crucial geopolitical importance to Russia.

    Ukraine’s quest for NATO membership, especially following the Crimea conflict in 2014, proved to be a red line for Russia. Starting in late 2021, the US and its European allies began accusing Russia of amassing its forces at the Ukrainian border, suggesting that outright military invasion would soon follow. Russia denied such accusations, insisting that a military solution can be avoided if Russia’s geopolitical interests are respected.

    Some analysts argue that Russia is seeking to “coerce the west to start the new Yalta talks,” a reference to a US, UK and Russia summit at the conclusion of World War II. If Russia achieves its objectives, NATO will no longer be able to exploit Russia’s fault lines throughout its Western borders.

    While NATO members, especially the US, want to send a strong message to Russia – and China – that the defeat in Afghanistan will not affect their global prestige or tarnish their power, Russia is confident that it has enough political, economic, military and strategic cards that would allow it to eventually prevail.

    China’s Unhindered Rise 

    Another global tussle is also underway. For years, the US unleashed an open global war to curb China’s rise as a global economic power. While the 2019 ‘Trade War’, instigated by the Donald Trump administration against China delivered lukewarm results, China’s ability to withstand pressure, control with mathematical precision the spread, within China, of the Covid-19 pandemic, and continue to fuel the global economy has proved that Beijing is not easy prey.

    An example of the above assertion is the anticipated revival of the Chinese tech giant, Huawei. The war on Huawei served as a microcosm of the larger war on China. British writer, Tom Fowdy, described this war as “blocking exports to (Huawei), isolating it from global chipmakers, forcing allies to ban its participation in their 5G networks, imposing criminal charges against it and kidnapping one of its senior executives”.

    However, this is failing, according to Fowdy. 2022 is the year in which Huawei is expected to wage massive global investments that will allow it to overcome many of these obstacles and become self-sustaining in terms of the technologies required to fuel its operations worldwide.

    Aside from Huawei, China plans to escalate its response to American pressures by expanding its manufacturing platforms, creating new markets and fortifying its alliances, especially with Moscow. A Chinese-Russian alliance is particularly important for Beijing as both countries are experiencing strong US-Western pushback.

    2022 is likely to be the year in which Russia and China, in the words of Beijing’s Ambassador to Moscow, Zhang Hanhui, stage a “response to such overt (US) hegemony and power politics”, where both “continue to deepen back-to-back strategic cooperation.”

    The World ‘Hanging by a Thread’

    However, other conflicts exist beyond politics and economy. There is also the war unleashed on our planet by those who favor profits over the welfare of future generations. While the Glasgow Climate Pact COP26 began with lofty promises in Scotland in November, it concluded with political compromises that hardly live up to the fact that, per the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “we are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe”.

    True, in 2022 many tragedies will be attributed to climate change. However, it will also be a year in which millions of people around the world will continue to push for a collective, non-political response to the ‘climate catastrophe’. While Planet Earth is “hanging by a thread” – according to Guterres – political compromises that favor the rich become the obstacle, not the solution. Only a global movement of well-integrated civil societies worldwide can compel politicians to heed the wishes of the people.

    Refugees, Democracy and Human Rights

    The adverse effects of climate change can be felt in myriad ways that go beyond the immediate damage inflicted by erratic weather conditions. War, revolutions, endemic socio-economic inequalities, mass migration and refugee crises are a few examples of how climate change has destabilized many parts of the world and wrought pain and suffering to numerous communities worldwide.

    The issue of migration and refugees will continue to pose a threat to global stability in 2022, since none of the root causes that forced millions of people to leave their homes in search of safer and better lives have been addressed. Instead of contending with the roots of the problem – climate change, military interventions, inequality, etc. – quite often the hapless refugees find themselves accused and demonized as agents of instability in Western societies.

    This, in turn, has served as a political and, at times, moral justification for the rise of far-right political movements in Europe and elsewhere, which are spreading falsehoods, championing racism and undermining whatever semblance of democracy that exists in their countries.

    2022 must not be allowed to be another year of pessimism.  It can also be a year of hope and promise. But that is only possible if we play our role as active citizens to bring about the coveted change that we would like to see in the world.

    Happy 2022!

    The post Coming This 2022: Refugees, Democracy and Human Rights first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • While Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic in the detention of the same hotel refugee rights activists have taken to opportunity to protest the detention of refugees brought to Australia under the Medevac law in 2019.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Refugees queue for food distributed by a local NGO on November 7, 2021, in Calais, France.

    There is a hill in Dover, England, that winds down from the main road through housing estates, past schools and to the town center and port. On the hill, somewhere just before Christ Church secondary school, is a section of road characterized by mini-roundabouts, each of them painted with the slightly fading white and red of the St. George cross.

    At the bottom of the hill, inside Dover’s shipping port, a red line on the floor designates the bicycle check-in route. The line weaves between trucking lanes and the port reception building, and approaches the small passport control booth, where five or six armed border officers are busy eating their breakfast.

    The officer at the window checks passports, assesses would-be travelers, and asks the necessary questions. The French city of Calais is a short ferry ride (just 21 miles) across the English Channel. It’s the most popular landing point for British tourists traveling to the continent by boat, but for those planning to spend a night in the area, serious warnings are issued: There are migrants operating in the Calais area. Travelers must be “aware of this, and very careful.”

    Dunkirk

    It’s Tuesday afternoon in Dunkirk, France, and a large van has pulled off the motorway, slowed down to a crawl, and turned a hard left onto the narrow farm service road. The van chugs on for another 100 meters, then pulls into a dusty gravel parking lot, where a number of organizations have gathered to offer services to the refugees who live nearby.

    The services on offer today will include food bags for four people, hot drinks, basic medical attention, hairdressing facilities, phone charging, and games such as Dominoes and Connect 4.

    The scene itself is not an oddity in Calais or Dunkirk. Look out the window of a passing car, and you might just see it. A small collection of vehicles, with plastic-gloved volunteers distributing basic goods to 80 or so refugees out the back.

    There are an estimated 2,000 refugees living like this in the Calais/Dunkirk region. The nationalities and cultures represented are numerous: Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan, Eritrean and Kurdish. Officially, these tent and tarpaulin settlements — often situated in forests, under bridges or on fallow farmland — are illegal. But recognized by the state or not, it’s here that the refugee communities are sleeping and gaining access to basic provisions.

    It’s 2 pm when the van pulls in, and the volunteers climb out. Two of them usher the vehicle into position and others place cones down to encourage spacing. A coordinator jumps out, unlocks the rear door and wrenches it back.

    While the bags begin to be handed down and distribution gathers pace, a huddle of people has formed to one side. This is a familiar practice, some of the community always choosing to wait apart from the others. Today the group consists of two women, a man with a crutch and a lone 10-year-old boy. Servicing this separate group is always a balancing act. Today the weather is good, and there’s plenty of food to go around, but these are desperate living conditions, and there can be complex internal relationships and hierarchies at play.

    After waiting some time, the two women receive a food bag, and the man with the crutch drifts away with another group. But 15 minutes later, when the last bag is distributed and the van door slams shut, the boy is left protesting on his own. His family is asleep at the camps, he says, and he needs the bag to take back and share with them. The story sounds believable enough, but true or not, there is an important precedent in place, and a four-person bag cannot be handed to a single individual.

    Off to the left of the car park scene, a fold-out camping table has been set up along the edges of the trees. Crouched down behind the table, an Afghan refugee and an international volunteer are filling up cups of water from two large tanks, lining them up on the tabletop above.

    “What will happen here in the winter?” the refugee says. “I think it’s getting too cold.”

    The volunteer looks up at him, “You stay here for longer?” she says. The man shakes his head.

    “I don’t know,” he says.

    “And this winter?” the volunteer asks. “What is your plan for this winter?”

    The man laughs, turning his palms over to face the sky.

    “My plan?” he repeats, grinning and shaking his head. “Yes, what is my plan?”

    The man is dehydrated, the skin on his cheeks folding like tissue paper as he smiles. Today the scene in front of them is ordered and calm, but over the next month, there will be regular nightly raids by the French police, looking to leverage the seasonal change to push the refugees from the coastal region. Zooming out further still, we see a chaotic political climate, growing international tensions over border control and the threat of hostile policy changes in 2022.

    “Hospital”

    There is a large hospital that serves the Calais area. Between the hospital building and the distant motorway fly-over, there is a system of roundabouts, fishing lakes and scrub-land, and it’s here, hidden behind the first line of bushes, that we find the largest settlement of refugees in the region. This site, named “Hospital,” is home to a highly transitory, mixed-nationality community. Distributions here are busy. The atmosphere is usually controlled and calm, but living conditions like this must be treated with respect. There are countless unseen factors that can break the balance of stability.

    It is a Friday. Distribution would usually take place at Hospital on Saturday afternoons, but other organizations and community liaisons have reported disturbing news: The previous night, the police went into the settlement with tear gas, dismantled and destroyed the tents and possessions, loaded many of the inhabitants onto buses, and transported them away from the area. According to the coordinator, the exact relocation point of the refugees in question is now unknown. If the raid had been planned, it is possible that they would have been dropped at a police station in Arras (the region’s capital). Often however, the intention of relocations like this is simply to scatter, driving the inhabitants far enough away from the hospital to deter them from returning on foot.

    As the volunteers gather for their lunchtime briefing, heavy rain reverberates off the warehouse roof. There has been a change of plan. For those refugees who avoided transportation from the Hospital settlement, or have managed to make their way back in the early hours, there will be a great need for basic provisions.

    At 7:30 pm, the van pulls into the Hospital site, loaded with 150 tarps and 150 blankets. The refugees are aware that they are coming, and have formed a line to collect the goods. They look tired and stretched in the closing light. After a baseline level of poor health, now their only possessions have been taken away from them, and many have faced long journeys on foot to get back to this location.

    The coordinator pulls on the handbrake and turns to brief the volunteers. The current position of the line is not going to work; it will need to be moved about a hundred meters across the car lot.

    While the van repositions itself, the volunteers try to communicate the message calmly. At first the rearrangement looks achievable, with the majority of community members working to maintain order. But as the van parks and the rear door opens, the line begins to march and bunch up, and a few people from the rear make a break for a better position.

    “We have enough for everyone,” the volunteers repeat. But they have said things like this before, and however hard they try to enforce fairness at distribution, the back of the van will always be closed at some point.

    As the refugees form up again, a few men argue for position. A distribution like this would usually be a place for smiles and a few cheeky jokes. But tonight, the community appears glassy-eyed and exhausted. They take the items, thank the distribution team in hushed tones, and make their way back behind the scrub.

    Old Lidl

    The following evening, at the Hospital distribution site, new signs have been erected. This area serviced the largest number of refugees in the region, but now it’s clearly prohibited to distribute here. For the volunteer coordinators, the signage changes are nothing new. Just another temporary measure, brought in by a policing network structured around short-term measures. A 15-minute walk away from Hospital is another well-used refugee site, and reports suggest that the community has moved there.

    This location used to be home to a Lidl supermarket, but now the building has been demolished, leaving an empty parking lot beside a dusty farming field. When the distribution van comes through at 2 pm, the road between Hospital and the old supermarket is a steady stream of people. The van pulls across a set of train tracks and into the lot. Across the dirt field, perhaps 200 meters away, there is a dense tree line with a string of tarpaulins running along its edge. Despite the great desire for tents, blankets, tarps and jackets, the organizations are unable to be reactive, and today’s drop will be the pre-arranged food bags.

    Forty minutes into the distribution, a heavy rain shower comes in. The charging boards are covered with plastic tarps and everyone hurries beneath the cover of the largest trees.

    A group of boys in their early teens are gathering at the rear of the parking lot. Two of them walk off into the distance, heading toward the shadow of an industrial site on the horizon. The others kick at the dust at their feet, and watch them intently.

    Toward the end of the distribution, one of the boys approaches the van, asking for shelter and winter clothing.

    “The police, they come at night and take everything warm,” he says, pointing a finger toward the road. “From the Hospital, we come here, and last night they follow us. They are OK sometimes. But sometimes they shoot gas or abuse … sometimes very bad abuse.” The boy steps back and mimics someone hitting the ground with a club repeatedly.

    After a short time, the rain stops and the organizations collect the trash and prepare to leave. It’s early evening when they climb up into the van and take their seats.

    The key is placed in the ignition, when a member of the refugee community approaches the passenger-side window. The coordinators greet this man by name.

    There is an emergency situation unfolding. The man points off toward the tree line. Last night someone was seriously injured and needs urgent medical attention. There is a protocol for emergencies like this, and the volunteer coordinator steps out of the van to address the situation.

    Ten minutes later, as the coordinator advocates for the injured man, two French riot police transporters arrive with eight officers inside. The officers approach the volunteers, requesting IDs and insurance documents for the vehicles. One of the volunteers isn’t carrying ID, and is threatened with detainment and a large fine.

    But as police retreat to discuss the matter between themselves, the atmosphere seems to have calmed. The leading officer approaches the coordinator, speaking to him authoritatively. This time the organization will be allowed to leave, he says, but next time the maximum fines will be issued.

    Passing Blame

    Following the dismantling of the Hospital settlement, police continued to increase their hostile activities, and Human Rights Watch issued a report warning of the “daily harassment and humiliation” faced by the refugee groups.

    The autumn season had seen a great surge of refugee sea crossings, and with many found dead in the English Channel, and media coverage growing, both United Kingdom Home Secretary Priti Patel and Prime Minister Boris Johnson publicly blamed the French government.

    In July 2021, Patel had promised a fresh £54 million for increased fencing and police presence in Calais, but now, following the rise of crossings, there are open threats to withhold the money, and French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin declared that “not one euro” has yet been paid.

    As the weeks roll on, the pressure on the refugees continues to mount. In late November, 27 people were found drowned in the channel in a single day, and while U.K. Home Secretary Patel targets the French government for allowing these crossings, her counterpart, Gérald Darmanin, fires back, citing the U.K.’s illegal labor market as the main incentive for the refugee migration. It’s an international blame game that shows little understanding of the complex motivations of the refugee groups, or the shared responsibility that the U.K. and France have for managing the situation. But for Patel and the U.K. government, there is a longer-term focus here at play.

    Toward the summer of 2022, the U.K. government hopes to pass the “Nationality and Borders Bill,” a complete overhaul of the policy in respect to refugee and asylum seeker treatment. A legal review of the legislation, led by eminent human rights lawyer Raza Husain, has found the document in breach of multiple articles across the European Convention for Human Rights and the United Nations Refugee Convention. Husain’s report depicts the bill as a destructive rollback of previous legislation, reversing “a number of important decisions of the UK courts, including at the House of Lords and court of appeal level.

    If the proposed legislation does pass, refugees trying to make the crossing will be met with criminalization at the U.K. border, subsequent detainment at purpose-built offshore facilities, and the possibility of relocation back to “safe third countries” if their asylum application to the U.K. should be rejected (safe being a complex and subjective concept).

    “What’s clear from these proposals is that Priti Patel’s anti refugee bill is cruel, inhumane and deeply flawed,” concludes British human rights organization Freedom From Torture, and the effect of the new policy “will actually just lead to a greater number of vulnerable people living in limbo, in constant fear of removal to persecution and enduring unbearable hardship and exclusion.”

    But the proposed policy changes wouldn’t stop there. Along with its hard line on asylum application, the bill includes the highly controversial Clause 9, which would allow the government to strip individuals of their British citizenship without any prior warning, if the action to do so was deemed necessary by the secretary of state as within “public interest” or “the interest of national security.” The inclusion of Clause 9 has sparked a massive reaction from the British public, especially among ethnically marginalized groups, and an online petition calling for a review of Clause 9 has now been signed by over 300,000 people. “We believe these provisions should be removed,” the petition’s organizers state. They are “unacceptable, and inconsistent with international human rights obligations.”

    For critics, these sweeping policy changes look like a power grab from the British government, an attempt to establish a higher level of centralized control, with particular long-term consequences for asylum seekers, protesters, and those non-white British communities who are more likely to have their citizenship threatened and be disproportionately criminalized by increased stop and search powers. Whatever the outcomes of policy change in 2022, we can be sure this year will be a stormy one for politics in the U.K.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A roundup of the coverage of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Mexico to Hong Kong

    Continue reading…

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

  • Iranian was 15 when he arrived by boat in Australia seeking sanctuary. Despite formal recognition as a refugee he hasn’t been free since – he turned 24 on Friday

    Nine. Nine birthdays in detention. Mehdi reels them off : “Sixteen, 17, 18, 19 …”

    “I’m 24 now,” he says in resignation. “I’m still here.”

    Continue reading…

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

  • The deaths of at least 27 people who drowned as they tried to cross the Channel in an inflatable dinghy in search of asylum have quickly been overshadowed by a diplomatic row engulfing Britain and France.

    As European states struggle to shut their borders to refugees, the two countries are in a war of words over who is responsible for stopping the growing number of small boats trying to reach British shores. Britain has demanded the right to patrol French waters and station border police on French territory, suggesting that France is not up to the job. The French government, meanwhile, has blamed the UK for serving as a magnet for illegal workers by failing to regulate its labour market.

    European leaders are desperate for quick answers. French President Emmanuel Macron called an emergency meeting of regional leaders a week ago to address the “migration” crisis, though Britain’s home secretary, Priti Patel, was disinvited.

    Britain’s post-Brexit government is readier to act unilaterally. It has been intensifying its “hostile environment” policy towards asylum seekers. That includes plans to drive back small boats crossing the Channel, in violation of maritime and international law, and to “offshore” refugees in remote detention camps in places such as Ascension Island in the mid-Atlantic. UK legislation is also being drafted to help deport refugees and prosecute those who aid them, in breach of its commitments under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

    Not surprisingly, anti-immigration parties are on the rise across Europe, as governments question the legitimacy of most of those arriving in the region, calling them variously “illegal immigrants”, “invaders” and “economic migrants”.

    The terminology is not only meant to dehumanise those seeking refuge. It is also designed to obscure the West’s responsibility for creating the very conditions that have driven these people from their homes and on to a perilous journey towards a new life.

    Power projection

    In recent years, more than 20,000 refugees are estimated to have died crossing the Mediterranean in small boats to reach Europe, including at least 1,300 so far this year. Only a few of these deaths have been given a face – most notably Aylan Kurdi, a Syrian toddler whose body washed up on the Turkish coast in 2015 after he and others in his family drowned on a small boat trying to get to Europe.

    The numbers trying to reach the UK across the Channel, though smaller, are rising too – as are the deaths. The 27 people who drowned two weeks ago were the single largest loss of life from a Channel crossing since agencies began keeping records seven years ago. Barely noted by the media was the fact that the only two survivors separately said British and French coastguards ignored their phone calls for help as their boat began to sink.

    But no European leader appears ready to address the deeper reasons for the waves of refugees arriving on Europe’s shores – or the West’s role in causing the “migration crisis”.

    The 17 men, seven women, including one who was pregnant, and three children who died were reportedly mostly from Iraq. Others trying to reach Europe are predominantly from Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and parts of North Africa.

    That is not accidental. There is probably nowhere the legacy of western meddling – directly and indirectly – has been felt more acutely than the resource-rich Middle East.

    The roots of this can be traced back more than a century, when Britain, France and other European powers carved up, ruled and plundered the region as part of a colonial project to enrich themselves, especially through the control of oil.

    They pursued strategies of divide and rule to accentuate ethnic tensions and delay local pressure for nation-building and independence. The colonisers also intentionally starved Middle Eastern states of the institutions needed to govern after independence.

    The truth is, however, that Europe never really left the region, and was soon joined by the United States, the new global superpower, to keep rivals such as the Soviet Union and China at bay. They propped up corrupt dictators and intervened to make sure favoured allies stayed put. Oil was too rich a prize to be abandoned to local control.

    Brutal policies

    After the fall of the Soviet Union three decades ago, the Middle East was once again torn apart by western interference – this time masquerading as “humanitarianism”.

    The US has led sanctions regimes, “shock and awe” air strikes, invasions and occupations that devastated states independent of western control, such as Iraq, Libya and Syria. They may have been held together by dictators, but these states – until they were broken apart – provided some of the best education, healthcare and welfare services in the region.

    The brutality of western policies, even before the region’s strongmen were toppled, was trumpeted by figures such as Madeleine Albright, former US President Bill Clinton’s secretary of state. In 1996, when asked about economic sanctions that by then were estimated to have killed half a million Iraqi children in a failed bid to remove Saddam Hussein, she responded: “We think the price is worth it.”

    Groups such as al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State quickly moved in to fill the void that was left after the West laid waste to the economic and social infrastructure associated with these authoritarian governments. They brought their own kind of occupation, fragmenting, oppressing and weakening these societies, and providing additional pretexts for meddling, either directly by the West or through local clients, such as Saudi Arabia.

    States in the region that so far have managed to withstand this western “slash and burn” policy, or have ousted their occupiers – such as Iran and Afghanistan – continue to suffer from crippling, punitive sanctions imposed by the US and Europe. Notably, Afghanistan has emerged from its two-decade, US-led occupation in even poorer shape than when it was invaded.

    Elsewhere, Britain and others have aided Saudi Arabia in its prolonged, near-genocidal bombing campaigns and blockade against Yemen. Recent reports have suggested that as many as 300 Yemeni children are dying each day as a result. And yet, after decades of waging economic warfare on these Middle Eastern countries, western states have the gall to decry those fleeing the collapse of their societies as “economic migrants”.

    Climate crisis

    The fallout from western interference has turned millions across the region into refugees, forced from their homes by escalating ethnic discord, continued fighting, the loss of vital infrastructure, and lands contaminated with ordnance. Today, most are languishing in tent encampments in the region, subsisting on food handouts and little else. The West’s goal is local reintegration: settling these refugees back into a life close to where they formerly lived.

    But the destabilisation caused by western actions throughout the Middle East is being compounded by a second blow, for which the West must also take the lion’s share of the blame.

    Societies destroyed and divided by western-fuelled wars and economic sanctions have been in no position to withstand rising temperatures and ever-longer droughts, which are afflicting the Middle East as the climate crisis takes hold. Chronic water shortages and repeated crop failures – compounded by weak governments unable to assist – are driving people off their lands, in search of better lives elsewhere.

    In recent years, some 1.2 million Afghans were reportedly forced from their homes by a mix of droughts and floods. In August, aid groups warned that more than 12 million Syrians and Iraqis had lost access to water, food and electricity. “The total collapse of water and food production for millions of Syrians and Iraqis is imminent,” said Carsten Hansen, the regional director for the Norwegian Refugee Council.

    According to recent research, “Iran is experiencing unprecedented climate-related problems such as drying of lakes and rivers, dust storms, record-breaking temperatures, droughts, and floods.” In October, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies noted that climate change was wreaking havoc in Yemen too, with extreme flooding and an increased risk of waterborne diseases.

    Western states cannot evade their responsibility for this. Those same countries that asset-stripped the Middle East over the past century also exploited the resulting fossil-fuel bonanza to intensify the industrialisation and modernisation of their own economies. The US and Australia had the highest rates of fossil fuel consumption per capita in 2019, followed by Germany and the UK. China also ranks high, but much of its oil consumption is expended on producing cheap goods for western markets.

    The planet is heating up because of oil-hungry western lifestyles. And now, the early victims of the climate crisis – those in the Middle East whose lands provided that oil – are being denied access to Europe by the very same states that caused their lands to become increasingly uninhabitable.

    Impregnable borders

    Europe is preparing to make its borders impregnable to the victims of its colonial interference, its wars and the climate crisis that its consumption-driven economies have generated. Countries such as Britain are not just worried about the tens of thousands of applications they receive each year for asylum from those who have risked everything for a new life.

    They are looking to the future. Refugee camps are already under severe strain across the Middle East, testing the capacities of their host countries – Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – to cope.

    Western states know the effects of climate change are only going to worsen, even as they pay lip service to tackling the crisis with a Green New Deal. Millions, rather than the current thousands, will be hammering on Europe’s doors in decades to come.

    Rather than aiding those seeking asylum in the West, the 1951 Refugee Convention may prove to be one of the biggest obstacles they face. It excludes those displaced by climate change, and western states are in no hurry to broaden its provisions. It serves instead as their insurance policy.

    Last month, immediately after the 27 refugees drowned in the Channel, Patel told fellow legislators that it was time “to send a clear message that crossing the Channel in this lethal way, in a small boat, is not the way to come to our country.”

    But the truth is that, if the British government and other European states get their way, there will be no legitimate route to enter for those from the Middle East whose lives and homelands have been destroyed by the West.

    • First published in Middle East Eye

    The post Britain helped create the refugees it now wants to keep out first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.