Category: refugees

  • A migrant man holds a baby at the Rio Grande near the Del Rio Port of Entry in Del Rio, Texas, on September 18, 2021.

    On June 20, 2020, World Refugee Day, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden made his most sweeping statement to date on how his administration would differ from his predecessor’s on the rights of migrants. Gone would be the “xenophobia and racism” that were “the unabashed tenets of Trump’s refugee and immigration policy.” Biden pledged to increase the cap on refugees allowed into the United States to 125,000 in his first year in office, and to restore “America’s historic role as leader in resettlement and defending the rights of refugees everywhere.”

    His first year did not go as promised.

    In the fiscal year ending in October 2021, the United States only resettled 11,411 refugees through regular channels. That’s 400 fewer than the previous fiscal year — which itself saw historically low resettlement — and far short of the 62,500 that Biden eventually ordered to be allowed to resettle in the United States in his first year in office. The U.S. has only released data for the first month of the new fiscal year, which shows 401 refugees have been resettled. Biden did finally raise the cap to 125,000, which, if met by the end of September 2022, would represent a massive turnaround not just over previous years, but of the last two decades: The last time the U.S. resettled more than 100,000 refugees was in 1994.

    An additional 40,000 Afghans were temporarily allowed into the United States under a program called humanitarian parole, though they have not been issued green cards, and in most cases, their status expires in a year or two. Roughly 30,000 Afghans still housed on military bases are waiting to be allowed into the United States.

    Sunil Varghese, policy director at the International Refugee Assistance Program, told Truthout that Biden’s low numbers have a lot to do with Donald Trump’s successful dismantling of the resettlement infrastructure, but plenty of blame rests with the current administration as well. Biden’s “rhetoric of a human rights-centric approach to migration and foreign policy may not be an overarching, guiding principle, but one of many competing considerations,” Varghese said.

    Other refugee advocates echo the degree to which Trump dismantled the refugee screening and support apparatuses. “The process of facilitating the resettlement of displaced persons into the U.S. is not like a light switch that can be turned on and off,” said Danielle Grigsby, director of external affairs at the Community Sponsorship Hub, which connects refugees with local sponsors and advocates. “The damage inflicted on the resettlement infrastructure will take significant time to repair.”

    Biden’s immigration, asylum and refugee policies in general have been a decidedly mixed bag. His administration has followed through on some long-held progressive priorities, but many others have fallen to the side. In mid-December, the administration ended the longstanding U.S. policy of holding immigrant families in prison-like detention centers, according to Axios. “This is truly a good development, even though the treatment of migrant families writ large continues to be poor,” American Immigration Council’s Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted in response to the news. Families can still be subject to confusing and arbitrary seeming court hearings and procedures, and many face significant economic hardships.

    Even this development is tempered, as the Department of Homeland Security will continue to rely at least partially on using GPS-enabled ankle bracelets to surveil migrants. Advocates have long criticized the use of bracelets, saying they lead to stigma and are unnecessary to compel migrants to appear in court.

    In other areas, the Biden administration is acting with near-total continuity to Trump. Biden continues to invoke a 1944 public health act called Title 42, which allows border agents to turn away asylum seekers without providing them an opportunity to make their case before a judge. Trump used the pandemic as an excuse to implement the rule, which many saw as a flimsy pretext to pursue his openly bigoted policies at the southern border. Biden has also reimplemented Trump’s so-called “Remain in Mexico” policy, which denies asylum seekers the right to live in the United States while their case is pending. Legal scholars say this practice is illegal and in violation of U.S. treaty obligation and international law.

    “It took a couple years for the Trump administration to figure out the nuances of the various immigration programs,” Varghese said. By the time Trump left office, though, he and his team had been very successful in jamming up almost every refugee and asylum assistance program in the executive branch. He and his top adviser, Stephen Miller, took an “all of the above” approach to limiting refugees and immigrants into the country. “That could be changing internal policies, it could be writing new regulations, it could be creating new policies and bureaucracies,” Varghese continued. “It could be by bankrupting [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services], it could be closing offices.”

    The plight of refugees is no longer in the corporate headlines, but in 2016, the subject was a major political issue. Then-candidate Donald Trump demonized refugees and asylum seekers constantly, especially Syrians fleeing their country’s civil war. Following his lead, nearly every other Republican candidate promised restricted refugee resettlement to the United States.

    Trump and Miller attempted to ban people from Muslim-majority countries from entering the country in the administration’s first week in office. After initially striking the policy down, the Supreme Court ultimately gave the ban its blessing once North Korea and Venezuela were added. The outrage over the “Muslim ban” was perhaps only matched by the administration’s family separation policy at the southern border.

    For all the criticism Trump deserves for dismantling the existing refugee apparatus, the Biden administration has not made rebuilding it a top priority, despite early promising signs. In February 2021, Biden issued Executive Order 14013, which called for the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program to be “rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need.” The order also revoked the discriminatory restrictions Trump had imposed, and called for additional reporting from the responsible executive agencies to determine what other changes could be made to address the refugee backlog.

    Then, somewhat inexplicably to outside observers, in April, Biden refused to raise the resettlement cap from Trump’s historically low 15,000. He reversed course two weeks later, bowing to pressure from progressives and refugee advocates. His administration’s new policy to resettle 125,000 refugees by September signals, on paper at least, a renewed commitment to expanding the assistance program. Whether the executive branch will actually devote the resources, time and political efforts to achieve those goals remains to be seen.

    The issue of refugee resettlement in the United States, and migrant humanitarian concerns throughout Europe and the rest of the world, will likely become more pressing with every year. The collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, along with continuing conflicts throughout the Middle East and Africa, all but ensure migration levels will stay at near-record highs for the foreseeable future.

    Deeply intertwined with migration from conflict zones is migration driven by climate change. The United Nations predicts that 200 million people could be forced from their homes by 2050 due to rising temperatures, drought, flooding, extreme weather and conflict over resources.

    The treatment of refugees has largely taken a backseat to other liberal priorities under Biden. The administration has prioritized its COVID response and push for a bipartisan infrastructure bill, two of Biden’s few major legislative accomplishments to date, all while trying to balance demands for increased attention to voting rights, gun control, health care costs, and other headline issues. The record-low number of refugees admitted barely made a blip in the mainstream media ecosystem. The State Department refused to comment on the record.

    Varghese and other refugee advocates would like to see Biden take a holistic approach to migrant rights and assistance, and to redouble his administration’s efforts. “What we’ve seen is basically a political calculation” from Biden to treat refugee issues as “just one factor among many,” Varghese said. “The Trump administration was so singularly focused on paring down humanitarian immigration programs” that Biden’s measured approach “is not enough to combat four years of a whole-of-government approach to tear down refugee resettlement.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By Karin M. Frodé

    Today marks what the United Nations calls International Human Solidarity Day’. The idea of solidarity across borders is appealing, particularly in light of the many global crises that challenge the enjoyment of human rights. But can we conceptualise solidarity in a manner which enables it to go beyond mere rhetoric? Does it (or can it) have work to do, in the realisation of human rights?

    How we conceive of solidarity has become a pressing issue in the 21st century, not least since the COVID-19 outbreak. The pandemic has made it abundantly clear that we simply cannot defeat global challenges along national lines. In response, the international community has made frequent calls for solidarity, often incorporated into mantras such as ‘we are all in this together’. In practice, such calls often go unanswered, particularly by states. Continued vaccine hoarding by wealthier countries and insufficient progress in combating climate change are just two examples which paint a bleak picture.

    STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES

    The lack of solidarity is particularly detrimental for already marginalised individuals, peoples and states. Structural inequalities within and between countries have, for example, been uncovered and exacerbated during the pandemic. To use the metaphor of the UN Secretary-General, “[w]hile we are all floating on the same sea, it’s clear that some are on superyachts while others are clinging to the drifting debris”. The sea metaphor is not just a figure of speech.  Migrants regularly drown at sea. Last month, over two dozen migrants lost their lives when attempting to cross the English Channel. The current UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, Professor Obiora Chinedu Okafor, has described refugee protection as “a crisis of international solidarity par excellence”.

    The actions by the US and its allies in Afghanistan, culminating in the disastrous response to the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021 is another example of the detrimental impacts of the lack of solidarity. The withdrawal of foreign forces from the country was not just a withdrawal of troops but the withdrawal of solidarity. Countless numbers of Afghans are still at risk of summary execution by the Taliban due to their support of foreign forces, organisations and liberal values.

    BEYOND STATE (IN)ACTION

    Non-state actors often step in to fill the solidarity gaps generated by state inaction. Indeed, the UN’s focus on international ‘human’ solidarity suggests that we all, as humans, have a role to play. Yet, in doing so, individuals and other non-state actors may face significant barriers, including exposure to criminal liability for so-called ‘crimes of solidarity’. This was the case for Cédric Herrou, a French farmer, who was charged and convicted for assisting the free movement of ‘illegal immigrants’. Interestingly, the French Constitutional Council found that the relevant provisions infringed the principle of ‘fraternité (fraternity) which the Council confirmed to be a principle of constitutional value. Herrou has since been acquitted.

    A HUMAN RIGHT TO INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY?

    The Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity has referred to the Herrou case to counter criticism that solidarity is too vague to be useful. In addition to a fundamental principle, the UN mandate on international solidarity has also conceived of international solidarity as a human right:

    “…by which individuals and peoples are entitled, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, to participate meaningfully in, contribute to and enjoy a social and international order in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.”

    This proposed right is reminiscent of other so-called ‘solidarity rights’, such as the rights to self-determination, peace, development and a healthy environment. These rights are often distinguished from ‘traditional’ human rights in that they belong not just to individuals but also to peoples and require collective action for their realisation.

    The Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity has found that there is no automatic bar on conceiving solidarity as a human right if we accept that human rights are contingent upon historical and social factors rather than a fixed list derived from a higher order.  

    It may be useful to take a step back and consider why it is that scholars debate over whether solidarity is or could be a human right. Solidarity rights depart from the ‘traditional’ understanding of human rights based upon individual rights against the state in which the person resides, and which concern narrow, concrete and justiciable claims. The criticism of claims being too vague and broad to be human rights has been powerfully opposed in theory and practice with regards to economic, social and cultural rights. Solidarity raises additional tensions, however. For example, by pointing towards a social, rather than individualistic ontology of rights.  Further, while states may still play a key role in the fulfilment of solidarity rights, correlative duties of solidarity also appear to fall upon non-state actors, including other individuals.

    In addition to tensions within the human rights framework as traditionally understood, solidarity raises various philosophical conundrums. For example, who are we in solidarity with and for what purpose/aim? The UN celebrates ‘human’ solidarity day. Can we really be in solidarity with the whole world? Is solidarity concerned with the recognition of similarities, acceptance of difference or perhaps something else entirely?

    WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

    If the international community continues to proclaim solidarity as the key to solving the world’s most pressing challenges, it is imperative that more efforts are made to engage with the tensions and challenges which solidarity poses to traditional understandings of the international human rights law framework, as well as the international system of which it forms part. Given the elusive nature of a concept like solidarity, this exercise may raise more questions than answers. But perhaps it is precisely the questions which solidarity evokes that may be the key to its potential usefulness in the realisation of human rights.  

    Karin M. Frodé is PhD Candidate and Raydon Scholar at the Faculty of Law, Monash University. She is also a PhD Affiliate at the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and engages in teaching and research in human rights within the Faculty. Her doctoral research considers the role of solidarity in international law, specifically international human rights law. Outside of her studies, she co-founded the Ham Diley Campaign, an initiative to support Afghans at risk together with other human rights lawyers and the Capital Punishment Justice Project (formerly Reprieve Australia).


    To receive notifications of new posts, click “sign me up” at the bottom
    To join the Castan Centre mailing list, 
    click here.
    To follow the Castan Centre on Twitter, 
    click here.
    To follow the Castan Centre on Facebook, 
    click here.

    This post was originally published on Castan Centre for Human Rights Law.

  • Ministers in Scotland and Wales have jointly condemned as “barbaric” measures in the UK government’s Nationality and Borders Bill – as well as warning the legislation may need approval from the parliaments in Edinburgh and Cardiff.

    Scottish social justice secretary Shona Robison and her Welsh counterpart Jane Hutt have written a joint letter to home secretary Priti Patel to demand the UK reconsiders its “hostile environment strategy” and develops “sufficient safe and legal routes” for asylum seekers.

    And they are calling for Patel to have talks with them before the end of the year, as there have been “no ministerial meetings in relation to these matters”.

    The Scottish and Welsh governments want a meeting with Home Secretary Priti Patel before the end of this year (Aaron Chown/PA)

    Ministers have “far-reaching concerns”

    The letter comes after 27 people lost their lives trying to cross the English Channel in November – a journey which has resulted in 166 people being recorded as either dead or missing since 2014. The Nationality and Borders Bill – which cleared the Commons on Monday – seeks to curb these crossings and also change how asylum claims are processed.

    Both the Scottish and Welsh governments have “far-reaching concerns about the impact of the provisions” in the Bill, the home secretary was told.

    Robison and Hutt stated:

    This legislation contains measures that will prevent migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, including the barbaric suggestions for ‘push-back’ exercises involving enforcement officials seeking to repel small boats.

    Rather than help matters, these measures will delay rescues and endanger lives.

    PA Graphics

    Patel’s Bill contradicts the UK’s obligations

    The Scottish and Welsh politicians told Patel this contradicts the UK’s “obligation under maritime laws and conventions to guarantee people’s safety”. Robison and Hutt make clear their governments “do not believe that increased marine or beach patrols, diversion, criminalisation, changes to legal status or reduced support to those who arrive in the UK” will deter people from seeking to enter the UK.

    They also told the home secretary:

    Scotland and Wales have always played their part in providing sanctuary to those fleeing conflict and persecution and we stand ready to do so again.

    Meanwhile, Welsh ministers have now decided that a Legislative Consent Memorandum is required at the Senedd in relation to some clauses in the Bill. Under the devolution settlement, such consent is needed where UK legislation touches on areas which the devolved administrations are responsible for – although Westminster in the past has pushed ahead with new laws without such approval,

    The letter adds that Scottish ministers:

    still require urgent clarity from the Home Office to ascertain whether similar legislative competence issues need to be addressed in Scotland

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 8 December, Priti Patel’s controversial Nationality and Borders Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons. Some MPs and campaigners were outraged and labelled the legislation racist and inhumane. Labour MP Zarah Sultana said it was:

    an attack on refugee rights, criminalising boats rescuing people at sea and violating our 70-year commitment to the Refugee Convention.

    Refugees were already under attack in the UK. In addition to this proposed racist legislation, there’s been a lot of lies spread about refugees arriving here. Moreover, earlier this month, a white supremacist group displayed racist, anti-refugee banners from a road bridge in London. And, as reported by The Canary, those that do make the journey through Europe do so in desperate conditions.

    Set the record straight

    On 14 December, between 12:30 and 2pm, the All African Women’s Group and Global Women Against Deportations are hosting an event. Gloria, chair of the All African Women’s Group, said that members want to:

    counter the widespread lies put out about people arriving in the UK to find refuge and spell out for others in the community how the Nationality and Borders Bill will, if enacted, cause even greater suffering and injustice.

    A combination of women who’ve recently arrived in the UK and those who have been here for decades will answer questions at this live event. The organisers added:

    Women who travelled overland, others who have family left in Greece, France, and in other European and African countries, some who fled homophobia, rape and other violence and mothers separated from their children, will all be speaking.

    Prior to tomorrow’s lunchtime webinar, some of those women spoke about their experiences. They also expressed their opinions on Patel’s racist legislation.

    “You can’t just tell people don’t come by boat”

    A woman called Lara, who was detained in her home country for organising against the government, is applying for asylum. She believes the UK government wants to stop refugees telling their story:

    I think the key thing about this Bill is that the government want to prevent us from ever setting foot in the country. In the justice system in the UK, you’re arrested; go to the court and you say everything out in public. And people decide, and then the judge [decides] based on the evidence. But now with this bill they want to decide outside the court, they want to prevent as many people as possible, from reaching a point where they can openly say what has happened to them.

    She believes it’s important refugees get this chance because:

    Just being there in person in court makes a big difference so that somebody can sit down and have time to listen, give a proper fair hearing. Where you feel safe enough to say everything that has happened to you and to show your evidence, because sometimes you don’t even realise what is evidence? They want to decide your asylum case outside of the asylum system.

    Another woman called Kundi added:

    I came here to escape life-threatening domestic violence.  When I started my case they didn’t believe me. They kept on rejecting me.  It wasn’t until they took me to detention, where a GP saw all the scars and they wrote to the Home Office to say they should believe me.

    Patel wants to play off “two groups against each other”

    In March this year, Patel claimed she was defending women who were “elbowed out of the way by young men” jumping the asylum queue. Chika warned people about this saying:

    please don’t fall for that as there is actually no place for women either

    They went on to say:

    Priti Patel is just playing off two groups against each other. There are no pathways for women to claim asylum. We can’t be fighting over something that doesn’t exist.

    But it’s still harder on women

    Others added that while it was hard for men, in their view it was still harder for women claiming asylum. Natu remembered the terrible time she had when she was pregnant.

    I had my baby in the hospital and immediately the midwives took me out into another room and immigration officers were there to question me. They said we need to know your status. My mind was going everywhere. They’re gonna take me back? They’re gonna take my baby? I was shivering and shaking. Those are the things that women go through because we are the mothers and the children depend on us.

    Visola added.

    It’s quite hard for women to be able to claim asylum and to speak out, because most of the time we are victims. Some men go through rape as well, but women are the [ones] who goes through it more. And they feel the pain because there is no woman that will want to leave her own country to go to another place if it wasn’t to find somewhere to be safe.

    Getting on those boats is a way of escape, whether we make it or not, to just find a place and settle with the children. That’s why we say to people that we must oppose this Bill so that women at least get a listening ear.

    Listen to the women “who have made the dangerous journey”

    The event organisers want people to listen to the women “who have made the dangerous journey”. They can:

    counter the lies put out about people fleeing for safety, including those arriving by boat on UK shores.

    They point out there are:

    no safe and legal ways to get to the UK. Twenty-seven people have now tragically died in the Channel. This adds to the horrendous toll of nearly 40,000 known to have died in the Mediterranean, and those who perished at the Belarus border, in the backs of lorries and in the many other dangerous ways that desperate people have been forced to travel. Without wars, famine and environmental devastation, much of which the UK is guilty of, people wouldn’t have to flee their homes.

    Anybody wishing to attend this event can register for free at this link.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons – DFID – UK Department for International Development

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • MPs’ inquiry given further details of Britain’s mismanagement of Afghanistan exit with ‘people left to die at the hands of the Taliban’

    Further evidence alleging that the government seriously mishandled the withdrawal from Afghanistan has been handed to a parliamentary inquiry examining the operation, the Observer has been told.

    Details from several government departments and agencies are understood to back damning testimony from a Foreign Office whistleblower, who has claimed that bureaucratic chaos, ministerial intervention, and a lack of planning and resources led to “people being left to die at the hands of the Taliban”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • While UK headlines were concerned with prime minister Boris Johnson’s 2020 Christmas party, home secretary Priti Patel’s controversial nationality and borders bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons on 8 December. International and human rights lawyers have called the legality of the draconian legislation into question. MPs and campaigners took to Twitter to speak out against the bill, labelling it racist and inhumane.

    A Tory majority in parliament

    Announcing the results of the Commons vote, Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana tweeted:

    Indeed, 298 MPs voted in support of the controversial bill, while only 231 voted against it. This gave the government a 67 vote majority. Sharing the devastating news, Poplar and Limehouse MP Apsana Begum – who had tabled an amendment to the draconian bill – said:

    Sending solidarity to those impacted by the bill, writer Ilyas Nagdee shared:

    A racist immigration bill
    The bill will allow the home secretary to remove a person’s citizenship without warning. Analysis by the New Statesman found that under the new legislation, two in five racially minoritised Britons could become eligible to be deprived of their citizen status without warning. This is compared to just one in 20 people from a white background. According to Institute of Race Relations vice-chair Francis Weber: 
    People with ethnic minority heritage become, effectively, sort of second-class citizens.

    Linking this to the government’s longstanding ‘hostile environment’, Black Lives Matter UK tweeted:

    Lamenting the limited coverage of the legislation which could impact the lives of countless racially minoritised Britons, Mish Rahman tweeted:

    The bill will also empower the home secretary to remove the citizenship of anyone who also has citizenship in another country. This has the potential to continue rendering them stateless. Highlighting the unprecedented case of Shamima Begum, journalist Ash Sarkar said:

    Inhumane legislation

    Ahead of the Commons vote, a Lords committee questioned the legality of the home secretary’s bill. Peers raised particular concerns about Patel’s plan to make border force officials push boats crossing the Channel back into French waters. The inhumane bill will grant immunity to border force staff if people die in these dangerous operations, while criminalising anyone trying to help drowning refugees and asylum seekers.

    The Insider news fellow Bethany Dawson tweeted:

    The United Nations Refugee Agency warns that the bill “would penalise most refugees seeking asylum in the country”. And said it could create a model that “undermines established international refugee protection rules and practices”. Due to its multiple breaches of international and human rights law, Patel’s bill will likely come up against further legal challenges.

    Take a stand against the bill

    Calling on opponents of the overtly racist bill to “resist by any means necessary“, campaign group Movement for Justice shared:

    Highlighting the need for broad-based collective action against the draconian bill and the encroaching carceral state, Garden Court Law barrister Zehrah Hasan shared:

    Additionally, media campaign group, Media Diversified is pushing for people to mobilise against the bill and sign the its petition:

    Indeed, from the racist immigration bill to the anti-protest policing bill, the Tories are trying to push through the most oppressive legislation we have seen in recent history. We must unite to fight the government’s populist, authoritarian, ultra-nationalistic agenda before it’s too late.

    Featured image via UK Parliament/YouTube

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Huge media coverage has been devoted to allegations, and now serious evidence, that a Christmas party was held at 10 Downing Street on 18 December 2020. London was then in a strict lockdown with social events banned, including parties.

    In leaked footage obtained by ITV News, senior Downing Street staff are shown four days later, laughing and joking about the party being a ‘business meeting’ with ‘cheese and wine’. Allegra Stratton, then Boris Johnson’s press secretary, was leading a mock televised press briefing and, through laughter, said there had been ‘definitely no social distancing.’

    The original story was broken on 30 November by Pippa Crerar, the Daily Mirror political editor.  When pressed at Prime Minister’s Questions, Johnson refused to deny three times that a ‘boozy party’ had taken place at 10 Downing Street when such events were banned.

    One source who was aware of the party in Downing Street told ITV News:

    ‘We all know someone who died from Covid and after seeing this all in the papers I couldn’t not say anything. I’m so angry about it all, the way it is being denied.’

    Understandably, there is much public anger, though perhaps little surprise, that the Tory government under Johnson has once again been found to have broken rules and then attempted to deceive the public about it. That anger is felt most keenly by those who suffered the unimaginable pain and grief of not being allowed to be with loved ones who were dying of Covid.

    Even BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, who has spent much of her latter career shielding Johnson, began her BBC News website piece on the latest revelations with condemnations from Tory MPs: ‘Indefensible’, ‘catastrophic’ and ‘astonishing’.

    She added:

    ‘Expect to hear plenty of the charge of “one rule for us, one rule for them” in the next few days.

    ‘On the back of Downing Street’s attempt to change the rules on MPs’ behaviour after former minister Owen Paterson broke them, even some senior Conservatives are making that claim tonight.’

    It is possible that this is yet another nail in the coffin for Johnson’s leadership of the Tory party. There will surely come a time, if it has not already, when the Conservatives will assess that he has become an electoral liability and that he must be replaced to ‘steady the ship’ in order to continue promoting elite interests. After all, financial capital and the establishment require a ‘respectable’ figure at the helm.

    While public anger is justified and entirely understandable, with the ‘mainstream’ media judging that the scandal deserves laser-like focus and intensity, the bigger picture is that the government has committed much greater crimes that have not received the same level of scrutiny.

    A Surreptitious Parade Of Parliamentary Bills

    Just one example is the Health and Care Bill that was being passed while the furore over the Downing Street Christmas party was erupting. As John Pilger observed:

    ‘The US assault on the National Health Service, legislated by the Johnson govt, is now relentless – but always by “stealth”, as Thatcher planned.’

    Pilger, whose 2019 documentary, The Dirty War on the NHS, is a must-watch, urged everyone to read ‘a rare explanatory piece’ on this assault, largely ignored by corporate media including the BBC. The article, by policy analyst Stewart Player and GP Bob Gill, warned that the ‘Health and Care Bill making its way through official channels simply reinforces’ the ‘penetration of the healthcare system’ by private interests; in particular, the giant U.S. insurer UnitedHealth.

    Player and Gill explained that the bill’s centrepiece is a national scheme of Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) across all 42 health regions of England. This network of ICSs ‘is being effectively designed and fast-tracked by the private UnitedHealth’.

    They continued:

    ‘The Health and Care Bill will essentially provide legislative lock-in for the changes already embedded throughout the NHS. Patients will be denied care to generate profits for the ICS, over which their family physician or hospital specialist will have no influence, while the growing unmet patient need will have to be serviced either through out-of-pocket payments, top-up private insurance, or not at all.’

    Player and Gill warned:

    ‘The NHS will, in the immediate future, resemble “Medicare Advantage” or “Medicaid Managed Care”, a basic, publicly funded, privately controlled and delivered corporate cash cow repurposed to make profit, though in time the full range of the organizational options found in the U.S. will follow.

    ‘All this will increase the total cost of healthcare, deliver less, harm thousands, enrich foreign corporations and destroy what was once Britain’s national pride.’

    Where is the in-depth scrutiny and across-the-board coverage of this scandal?

    Likewise, where is the large-scale, non-stop ‘mainstream’ media outrage over the Tory government’s Nationality and Border Bill to be voted on this week? Home Secretary Priti Patel said the Bill would tackle ‘illegal’ immigration and the ‘underlying pull factors into the UK’s asylum system’.

    However, as Labour activist Mish Rahman noted via Twitter:

    ‘While ppl are focused on the video of the govt laughing at us a year ago and a Downing Street Party – the government, with the minimum of media coverage are getting the Nationality & Borders bill passed which will allow them to strip ppl like me of my citizenship without notice’

    A report by the New Statesman found that almost six million people from ethnic minority backgrounds in England and Wales could have their British citizenship in jeopardy. Al Jazeera noted that:

    ‘The bill also aims to rule as inadmissible asylum claims made by undocumented people as well as criminalise them and anyone taking part in refugee rescue missions in the English Channel.’

    But, as Jonathan Cook, pointed out: ‘Britain helped create the refugees it now wants to keep out’, adding:

    ‘Those making perilous journeys for asylum in Europe have been displaced by wars and droughts, for which the West is largely to blame.’

    The bill is being pushed through shortly after the appalling tragedy of 27 people losing their lives at sea while attempting a Channel crossing from France to England. Compounding the tragedy:

    ‘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.’

    Cook summarised his analysis:

    ‘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.’

    Meanwhile, yet another bill endangering life and liberty is being pushed by the government. Patel has just added an extra 18-page amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. George Monbiot warned:

    ‘It looks like a deliberate ploy to avoid effective parliamentary scrutiny. Yet in most of the media there’s a resounding silence.’

    The bill seeks to add to the existing plethora of legislation, together with sinister undercover police and surveillance operations, that obstruct and criminalise protest and dissent. Monbiot noted that, if the bill passes, it will become:

    ‘a criminal offence to obstruct in any way major transport works from being carried out, again with a maximum sentence of 51 weeks. This looks like an attempt to end meaningful protest against road-building and airport expansion. Other amendments would greatly expand police stop and search powers.’

    He added:

    ‘Protest is an essential corrective to the mistakes of government. Had it not been for the tactics Patel now seeks to ban, the pointless and destructive road-building programme the government began in the early 1990s would have continued: eventually John Major’s government conceded it was a mistake, and dropped it. Now governments are making the greatest mistake in human history – driving us towards systemic environmental collapse – and Boris Johnson’s administration is seeking to ensure that there is nothing we can do to stop it.’

    Unscrutinised UK Foreign Policy

    While corporate news coverage continues to delve into the 2020 Downing Street Christmas party, the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, fuelled in significant part by UK foreign policy, barely gets a mention. Cook rightly observed:

    ‘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”.’

    We wrote in a recent media alert that Matt Kennard and Phil Miller of Declassified UK had investigated the largely-hidden role of a factory owned by arms exporter BAE Systems in the Lancashire village of Warton. The factory supplies military equipment to the Saudi Arabian regime, enabling it to continue its devastating attacks on Yemen.

    Kennard and Miller reported that:

    ‘Boris Johnson recently visited Warton and claimed the BAE site was part of his “levelling up agenda”. No journalist covering the visit seems to have reported the factory’s role in a war.’

    In fact, you could take just about any article published on the exemplary Declassified UK website and compare its quality journalism with the omission-ridden, power-friendly output of ‘respectable’ media. Here is a recent sample:

    • Anne Cadwallader on the UK government’s attempt to rewrite the history of British policy in Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, the UK government is actually ‘censoring numerous files showing British army complicity in the deaths of civilians, depriving bereaved families of access to the truth.’ See also Michael Oswald’s documentary film, ‘The Man Who Knew Too Much’, about Colin Wallace, an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland who became a whistleblower and was framed for murder, likely by UK intelligence. Declassified UK published a review of this important film, describing it as ‘essential viewing for anyone who seeks to hold power to account, who seeks to understand the dark links between state intelligence and the media apparatus.’
    • An article by Richard Norton-Taylor, the former Guardian security editor, titled, ‘Manchester bombing: What are the security agencies hiding?’. He wrote: ‘We need to know why MI5 and MI6 appear to have placed their involvement in power struggles in Libya, and Britain’s commercial interests there, above those of the safety of its own citizens.’
    • Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis reported that Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett, the judge that will soon decide Julian Assange’s fate, is a close personal friend of Sir Alan Duncan who once described Assange in Parliament as a ‘miserable little worm’. When Duncan was the UK foreign minister, he arranged Assange’s eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy.
    • Israeli historian Ilan Pappé wrote that ‘Britain is ensuring the death of a Palestinian state’. His piece explained that: ‘The UK claims to support a “two-state” solution in Israel-Palestine but the body of a Palestinian state has long been in the morgue, although nobody dares to have a funeral. As long as Britain and other states continue to superficially endorse a two-state solution, Israel will become entrenched as a full-blown apartheid state with international blessing.’

    Any one of these topics, and many more on the Declassified UK website, would be a major item on ‘mainstream’ news if there was a functioning ‘Fourth Estate’ to scrutinise power and hold it to account. In particular, Israel is continually given a free pass by the ‘free press’.

    Israeli journalist Gideon Levy – a rare example of a journalist who regularly reports and comments on Israel’s serious crimes – published a recent piece, ‘A Brief History of Killing Children’. He wrote:

    ‘Soldiers and pilots have killed 2,171 children and teenagers, and not one of these cases shocked anyone here, or sparked a real investigation or led to a trial. More than 2,000 children in 20 years – 100 children, three classrooms a year. And all of them, down to the last, were found guilty of their own death.’

    Needless to say, these facts are hidden, or at best glossed over, by ‘responsible’ news outlets. As we pointed out last month on Twitter after Israel had dropped bombs on Syria’s capital Damascus – the fourth Israeli attack on Syria in three weeks:

    ‘Hello @BBCNews

    ‘Seen this? Of course you have. But most likely you’ll ignore Israel’s latest breaking of international law. Or, at best, you’ll mention it briefly at 3am on  @bbcworldservice

    ‘You are indeed the world’s most refined propaganda service, as @johnpilger says.’

    The ‘mainstream’ media has almost entirely ignored major reports by two human rights groups – B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch – classing Israel as an apartheid state. Cook observed that, despite this, ‘the Labour and Tory parties are now competing to be its best friend’. Commenting on a ‘shameful speech’ by Labour leader Keir Starmer that uncritically supported Israel, Cook added:

    ‘Israel’s apartheid character, its vigorous lobby and support for a boycott are all off the table. But worse, Labour, like the Conservative party, is once again reluctant even to criticise the occupation.’

    Near-silence also greeted human rights groups’ condemnation of the UK government’s announcement of a new 10-year trade and defence deal with Israel. The Morning Star was virtually alone in giving ample space to critical voices, such as Katie Fallon of Campaign Against the Arms Trade:

    ‘The evidence that Israeli spyware has been used against journalists, human rights defenders and lawyers in the UK continues to pile up. This agreement signals that the government prioritises trade deals to the degree that they are willing to jeopardise the security of people in the UK who are most at risk of illegal surveillance — totally at odds with their stated foreign policy priority to protect and support human rights defenders.’

    War on War’s senior campaigner for militarism and security, Chi-Chi Shi said:

    ‘If the UK government observed its duty to uphold human rights and international law, it would end the UK-Israel arms trade.

    ‘Instead, it is actively enabling grave human rights abuses and Israel’s occupation and apartheid regime against the Palestinian people.’

    But full, accurate and critical coverage of anything to do with Israel is essentially out of bounds for ‘mainstream’ news media.

    So, too, is anything that truly exposes the role of corporate and financial power in driving humanity to the point of extinction: a vital point which we have repeatedly emphasised since Media Lens began in 2001.

    Following the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, the esteemed climate scientist James Hansen summarised that ‘COP meetings are actually Conferences of the Pretenders’ 1.

    He continued:

    ‘Political leaders make statements that they know – or should know – are blatant nonsense. COPs can produce numerous minor accomplishments, which is sufficient reason to continue with the meetings.’

    In typically blunt fashion, Hansen stated:

    ‘Why is nobody telling young people the truth? “We preserved the chance at COP26 to keep global warming below 1.5°C.” What bullshit! “Solar panels are now cheaper than fossil fuels, so all we are missing is political will.” What horse manure! “If we would just agree to consume less, the climate problem could be solved.” More nonsense!’

    ‘Young people, I am sorry to say that – although the path to a bright future exists and is straightforward – it will not happen without your understanding and involvement in the political process.’

    Noam Chomsky, who recently turned 93, concurs. Asked what is the greatest obstacle to solving the climate crisis, he responded:

    ‘There are two major obstacles. One is, of course, the fossil fuel companies. Second is the governments of the world, including Europe and the United States.’

    Ending the climate crisis, says Chomsky, ‘has to come from mass popular action’, not politicians.

    While corporate news media are content to expose the galling, but comparatively minor crime of holding a Christmas party at 10 Downing Street during lockdown, they remain essentially silent about much bigger state crimes.

    1. ‘A Realistic Path to a Bright Future’, newsletter [pdf], 3 December 2021
    The post A Christmas Tale: The Downing Street Party, Laughter And Bigger State Crimes first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The legality of Priti Patel’s plans to turn back migrant boats at sea has been called into question by peers including senior lawyers and a former judge.

    “Concerns”

    The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has written to the home secretary expressing “concerns” over the legal basis for the so-called ‘pushbacks’. The letter adds to “growing concern both in and outside Parliament” over the policy proposed in a bid to curb Channel crossings, peers said.

    It comes as the Nationality and Borders Bill is being considered by MPs in the Commons. It’s at report stage for a second day before it gets a third reading. Patel insisted the plan has a “legal basis” when questioned by the committee in October. That’s despite concerns being repeatedly raised over its legality and effectiveness which prompted campaigners to threaten her with legal action.

    The Home Office’s permanent secretary Matthew Rycroft previously conceded that only a “small proportion” of boats could be turned back.

    The committee’s Liberal Democrat chairwoman, former solicitor baroness Sally Hamwee, said:

    Statements, including from the Home Secretary, are that there is a legal basis for the policy of so-called ‘turnarounds’. We question that.

    The so-called ‘turnaround’ policy would force fragile small boats crossing the Channel to turn back. It is hard to imagine a situation in which those in them would not be in increased danger or where captains would not be obliged to render assistance.

    Instead, the Home Secretary has set a policy of forcing them to turn around. Even if there is a domestic legal basis, if it were actually implemented, it would almost certainly contravene the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    Policing borders should be done in full accordance with the principles of national and international law, and we look forward to full engagement with our questions.

    English Channel migrant deaths
    A campaigner wearing a Priti Patel mask tears up an ‘I Welcome Refugees’ placard (Victoria Jones/PA)

    “Not the solution”

    Labour members baroness Shami Chakrabarti, a barrister and former director of human rights group Liberty, and ex-home secretary lord David Blunkett; Conservative member and solicitor baroness Fiona Shackleton, and retired Court of Appeal judge and crossbench peer baroness Heather Hallett also sit on the committee.

    Its letter asks under what powers the tactics could be used as the law stands currently. The letter calls for a response from the Home Office by 5 January. The committee said it “fully” endorses a report published last week by another group of MPs and peers which found the tactic could endanger lives and is likely to breach human rights laws.

    The turnaround tactics are “not the solution” and will “do the opposite of what is required to save lives”, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said.

    It described the proposed Bill as “littered” with measures which are “simply incompatible” with the UK’s international obligations.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The asylum seekers on the Poland-Belarus border are not aggressors: they are desperate pawns in a disgusting political struggle

    One thought is a constant in my head: “I have kids at home, I cannot go to jail, I cannot go to jail.” The politics are beyond my reach or that of the victims on the Poland-Belarus border. It involves outgoing German chancellor, Angela Merkel, getting through to Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus. It’s ironic that this border has more than 50 media crews gathered, yet Poland is the only place in the EU where journalists cannot freely report.

    Meanwhile, the harsh north European winter is closing in and my fingers are freezing in the dark snowy nights.

    Continue reading…

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

  • We map out the rising number of high-tech surveillance and deterrent systems facing asylum seekers along EU borders

    From military-grade drones to sensor systems and experimental technology, the EU and its members have spent hundreds of millions of euros over the past decade on technologies to track down and keep at bay the refugees on its borders.

    Poland’s border with Belarus is becoming the latest frontline for this technology, with the country approving last month a €350m (£300m) wall with advanced cameras and motion sensors.

    Continue reading…

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

  • By Ralph Underhill

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As people are dying trying to reach the UK via the English Channel, one tweet sums up the toxic attitude and policies of the Tory government:

    Dying in the Channel

    27 people died on Wednesday 24 November while trying to cross the Channel in a dinghy. As BBC News reported, those who drowned:

    included 17 men, seven women – one of whom was pregnant – and three children

    The UN said it was the largest loss of life in the Channel since it began monitoring the situation in 2014. Yet the Tory government’s toxic narratives surrounding refugees continues.

    For example, the Home Office has refused to rule out using “pushback” techniques to stop people crossing the Channel. This would be where agencies like the UK Border Force would send boats back mid-voyage to France. Charities and a trade union have launched a legal challenge against the government over this policy. PCS Union boss Mark Serwotka told the Guardian:

    The pushback policy being pursued by the home secretary is unlawful, unworkable and above all morally reprehensible.

    The Tories are seemingly indifferent to the suffering – even engaging in a blame-game with France. And one tweet from an independent journalist sums up the situation perfectly.

    “Selective” panic

    As Declassified UK chief reporter Phil Miller tweeted:

    Miller shared a screengrab from a Wall Street Journal article from January 2021. It’s headline was:

    U.K. Opens Its Doors to Five Million Hong Kong Residents

    This is the story that the UK has set up a visa scheme for people from Hong Kong, due to China’s actions in the area. As BBC News noted, the visa scheme will offer them

    and their immediate dependents… a fast track to UK citizenship.

    Technically the Hong Kong residents seeking British citizenship aren’t refugees, because they haven’t left their home nation. Like with actual refugees, though, it’s true they’re leaving because of persecution. Figures on the right argue that migration is acceptable in the case of Hong Kong citizens who follow the government’s preferred procedures, but unacceptable in the case of refugees who do not.

    The Tory government, for example, has repeatedly accused people crossing the Channel of doing so ‘illegally’. The problem with their argument is that under international law, people have the right to enter a country in order to make an asylum claim. This means people from Afghanistan and Syria have as much right to physically seek asylum in the UK as Hong Kong residents have to apply through other means.

    Crunching the numbers

    The Times reported that 88,800 people from Hong Kong had applied for UK settlement by 30 September. For context, according to BBC News over 25,700 people had come to the UK via crossing the Channel in boats.

    So that means the number of people from Hong Kong wanting to live in the UK is 346% higher than those coming via the Channel. Moreover, in the year ending June 2021 there had been a 4% fall in the number of people claiming asylum in the UK. But of course, that’s not how BBC News framed it. Its headline said:

    Migrant crossings: Number reaching UK this year three times 2020’s total

    It took the BBC until the eighth paragraph of the article to say that overall asylum applications had fallen by 4%.

    The ‘right kind’ of “migrants”

    Of course, at the heart of this situation is the Tory notion that asylum-seekers from Hong Kong are acceptable yet those from other countries are not. There’s also the convenience of vilifying China in offering refuge to Hong Kong residents. Home secretary Priti Patel said of people coming to the UK from Hong Kong:

    Safeguarding individuals’ freedoms, liberty and security is absolutely vital for those individuals that go through this process

    Yet she and her government are not affording the same decency to people crossing the Channel to get here. There’s no good reason why both groups of people should not be allowed to easily apply to live in the UK. One group is no more deserving than the other of being free of persecution.

    Featured image via Mstyslav Chernov/Unframe – Wikimedia and Good Morning Britain – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Around 150 people have gathered near 10 Downing Street to protest over the deaths of more than two dozen people who drowned while attempting to cross the English Channel this week.

    The demonstration was organised by anti-racism group Stand Up To Racism. It heard speeches from the general secretary of the UK’s largest teachers union – the National Education Union – and several others including religious groups and volunteer organisations directly involved in helping refugees.

    English Channel migrant deaths
    People take part in a protest outside Downing Street (Aaron Chown/PA)

    Safe passage

    Twenty-seven people died during the crossing on 24 November. That has made it one of the deadliest days for refugees crossing the channel. Women and children were among those on board the boat which capsized after leaving Calais. Only two survived.

    Following the tragedy, politicians argued about how to halt the perilous Channel crossings. MPs from Labour, the SNP, and the Green Party called for safe passages that would allow refugees to travel securely in accordance with international law:

    While several Conservatives blamed France, it’s been pointed out that countries like France have taken in considerably more people than Britain over the past decade:

    There’s also the fact that the UK has contributed to the refugee crisis by its involvement in military action in other countries. But it now refuses to take responsibility for the refugees it helped to displace.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A Home Office minister has insisted that relations between France and the UK are “strong”. That’s despite Boris Johnson and French president Emmanuel Macron clashing over how to deal with refugees crossing the English Channel in small boats as they flee war, poverty, and persecution.

    Deadliest day of Channel crossings

    Damian Hinds, whose brief covers security and borders, defended the prime minister’s letter to the French leader as “exceptionally supportive and collaborative”. It came after Paris was enraged by Johnson making the letter public on Twitter.

    A full-scale diplomatic row between the two nations erupted as the first of the 27 victims of a capsizing on 24 November was named as a young Kurdish woman from northern Iraq.

    Relatives identified 24-year-old Maryam Nuri Mohamed Amin, known to her family as Baran, as one of the people who died on 24 November. It was the deadliest day of the Channel migration crisis. The student was said to have been trying to join her fiance who already lives in Britain.

    Tres bien?

    As families mourned the loss of their loved ones, politicians argued about how to stem perilous Channel crossings. Paris withdrew an invitation to home secretary Priti Patel to attend a meeting of ministers from key European allies in Calais on 28 November.

    France was angered by Johnson releasing a letter he sent to Macron setting out his proposals. They included reiterating a call for joint UK-French border patrols along French beaches to stop boats leaving, which Paris has long resisted.

    French government spokesperson Gabriel Attal rejected the proposal as “clearly not what we need to solve this problem”. And he said the prime minister’s letter “doesn’t correspond at all” with discussions Johnson and Macron had when they spoke on 24 November.

    “We are sick of double-speak,” he added. He said Johnson’s decision to post the letter on his Twitter feed suggested he was “not serious”.

    But despite the open derision from French politicians, UK ministers claimed that British-French relations remained intact.

    “Breaching sovereignty”

    Hinds told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

    British and French officials have been working together throughout, in fact we’ve been working together for years, on these really important issues. The partnership is strong.

    Moreover, he insisted “nobody is proposing breaching sovereignty” amid concerns over the request for UK officials to join patrols on French beaches. He added:

    The tone of the letter is exceptionally supportive and collaborative, it absolutely acknowledges everything the French government and authorities have been doing, that it’s a shared challenge, but that now, particularly prompted by this awful tragedy, we have to go further, we have to deepen our partnership, we have to broaden what we do, we have to draw up new creative solutions

    Hinds acknowledged the challenges of policing the French coastline and added:

    There is more that can be done and clearly we can’t just say it’s difficult because it’s hundreds of miles of coastline, we have to do what’s necessary to save human life.

    But some have made suggestions as to how the UK can better help “save human life”:

    Patel left out

    In a statement reported in French media, the interior ministry said the meeting on 28 November would go ahead with interior minister Gerald Darmanin and his counterparts from Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, as well as representatives of the European Commission.

    Although the meeting with Patel has been cancelled, the No 10 spokesperson said Home Office officials had travelled to France for talks on 26 November with French counterparts as planned.

    Amid the diplomatic storm, Krmanj Ezzat Dargali identified his cousin among those who died on 24 November. He posted a tribute to Nuri Mohamed Amin on social media and told Sky News:

    The situation is just awful. She was a woman in the prime of her life.

    I understand why so many people are leaving for a better life, but this is not the correct path. It’s the route of death.

    And he said he hoped the British and French governments would “accept us in a better way”, adding:

    Anyone who wants to leave their home and travel to Europe has their own reasons and hopes, so please just help them in a better way and not force them to take this route of death.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • France has reacted with fury after Boris Johnson publicly called on Paris to take back people who succeed in making the perilous Channel crossing to Britain. A French government spokesperson accused the prime minister of “double-speak” as the fallout from the sinking of a refugee boat on Wednesday with the loss of 27 lives erupted into a full-scale diplomatic row.

    “Double-speak”

    Earlier the French Interior Ministry announced it was withdrawing an invitation to home secretary Priti Patel to attend a meeting in Calais on 28 November of ministers from key European countries to discuss the crisis. The French were enraged by Johnson releasing a letter he sent to president Emmanuel Macron setting out his proposals to tackle the issue. They included joint UK-French patrols by border officials along French beaches to stop boats leaving – a move which Johnson said could begin as early as next week but which Paris has long resisted.

     

    Johnson also called for talks to begin on a bilateral returns agreement, saying it could have “an immediate and significant impact” on the flow of people attempting the crossing. However, the proposal was dismissed by French government spokesman Gabriel Attal, who said it was “clearly not what we need to solve this problem”.

    He said the prime minister’s letter “doesn’t correspond at all” with discussions Johnson and Macron had when they spoke on 24 November. He said:

    We are sick of double-speak

    Macron said Johnson’s decision to post his letter on his Twitter feed suggested he was “not serious”. He told a news conference:

    We do not communicate from one leader to another on these issues by tweets and letters that we make public. We are not whistleblowers

    Johnson’s alleged “double-speak” has prompted a new round of criticism following the many other problems he’s recently brought upon himself:

    “Hand in glove”

    Transport secretary Grant Shapps insisted Mr Johnson’s proposals were made in “good faith”, and appealed to the French to reconsider their decision to withdraw the invitation to Patel. He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme:

    I think it is really important that we work hand-in-glove with the French. I don’t think there is anything inflammatory to ask for close co-operation with our nearest neighbours

    The proposal was made in good faith. I can assure our French friends of that and I hope that they will reconsider meeting up to discuss it.”

    In a statement reported on French media, the Interior Ministry said the meeting on 28 November would go ahead with interior minister Gerald Darmanin and his counterparts from Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany and representatives of the European Commission.

    Boris Johnson (left) greets French President Emmanuel Macron
    President Emmanuel Macron (right) said Boris Johnson’s proposals were ‘not serious’ (Alastair Grant/PA)

    In his letter, the prime minister argued a bilateral returns agreement would be in France’s interest by breaking the business model of criminal gangs running the people-smuggling trade from Normandy.

    Under Johnson’s proposals:

    – Joint patrols would prevent more boats from leaving French beaches.

    – Advanced technology such as sensors and radar would be deployed to track migrants and people-trafficking gangs.

    – There would be joint or reciprocal maritime patrols in each other’s territorial waters and airborne surveillance by manned flights and drones.

    – The work of the Joint Intelligence Cell would be improved with better real-time intelligence sharing to deliver more arrests and prosecutions on both sides of the Channel.

    – There would be immediate work on a bilateral returns agreement with France, to allow migrants to be sent back across the Channel, alongside talks to establish a UK-EU returns agreement.

    English Channel migrant deaths
    Migrants in Grand Synthe near Dunkirk (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    However, as many people argue, a much better way of dealing with the crisis would be to open the borders:

     

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Women and girls everywhere continue to be subjected to multiple forms of gender-based violence, including femicide, online violence and domestic violence, UN and regional experts (for impressive list see below) said today. They call on States to exercise due diligence and to fight pushbacks on gender equality.

    On the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, they issue the following statement: [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/11/19/16-days-of-activism-against-gender-based-violence-start-on-25-november-2019/]

    “Although they represent more than half the world’s population, women and girls the world over are still at risk of being killed and subject to violence, intimidation and harassment when they speak out – for the simple fact of being women and girls. Violence against women and girls is the result of intersectional forms of social, political, economic, racial, caste and cultural discrimination perpetrated daily against women and girls in all of their diversity, including in the context of armed conflict, and States and the international community have the obligation mandated by international human rights law and standards to address this violence. Together, these forms of discrimination not only aggravate the intensity and frequency of violence but also sharpen the impunity that exists against it and increase societal and individual readiness to allow it.

    Of particular concern is the fact that not only women and girls continue to be subjected to multiple manifestations of violence but that the spaces where this violence takes place have also multiplied. Nowhere is this more apparent than within online spaces, including social media. Governments, private companies and others may seek to hide their responsibilities behind the seemingly “borderless” nature of the internet. But human rights are universal and, as such, there is one human rights regime that protects the rights of women and girls offline as well as online, and that demands zero tolerance for violence against women and girls in the digital space. Violence against women and girls flourishes because those who seek to silence women and girls and facilitate their exploitation, abuse, maiming and killing are not firmly prevented from and held accountable for their actions.

    It is unacceptable that in today’s world where humanity and life on this planet faces the existential threats of climate change and toxic pollution amidst a proliferation of conflict; the COVID-19 pandemic has killed at least 5 million people and infected at least 250 million worldwide in less than two years, also causing an increase in domestic violence against women, that women and girls are unable to participate fully in responding to these threats or in the search for solutions because they are discriminated, abused and continue to suffer violence, including sexual violence, exploitation and death on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. These global crises interact with and further deepen pre-existing inequalities as well as legal, institutional and policy gaps to eliminate gender-based violence against women and girls, which in many cases, worsen them. Indigenous women, internally displaced women, women with disabilities, lesbian and transgender women and women belonging to other vulnerable or marginalized groups are particularly affected by the failure of these policies to prevent such violence, as well as protect and assist survivors.

    While a number of States, non-state actors and other stakeholders have stepped up their interventions and resource allocations to prevent and respond to gender-based violence against women and girls, more effort in terms of both financial and non-financial interventions is needed to make these approaches truly transformative, particularly with regards to prevention, to avoid that policies remain ‘gender blind’, ‘gender exploitative’ or ‘race neutral’. Many of these policies do not disaggregate data based on social and racial constructs which discriminate, marginalize, exclude, and violate women and girls. These policies need to transform the prevailing social, economic and political systems that produce, nurture, and maintain gender inequality and drive violence against women and girls everywhere, through increased investment in their education and skills development, access to information, social services and financial resources, and support for positive representation and images in public discourse and social media. Collectively, they need to do more to challenge the patriarchal social norms and constructs of masculinity, femininity, racism and casteism that are based on extremely harmful stereotypes and which can cause psychological, physical, emotional and economical harm, including for women of colour, including those of African descent. These stereotypes pervade state institutions as evidenced by the lack of accountability for many cases before law enforcement and justice systems. States must also ensure access to comprehensive physical and mental care for survivors of gender-based violence, as part of the full range of quality sexual and reproductive health care that must be available for all.

    Collective effort is required to stop the reversal of progress made in ending violence against women across the world and to counter the backlash against gender equality and the tenets of human rights-based legislation and governance. Those responsible for these regressive steps often begin by attempts to co-opt the justice system, change or issue new legislation and curtail fundamental rights and freedoms for women and girls, such as their freedom of thought, expression and association, their right to peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and, in particular, their sexual and reproductive rights. All human rights are inalienable, interdependent and exist without a hierarchy, despite the efforts of some actors to sacrifice some of these rights at the expense of others, often in the name of their own cultural or religious norms and their particular perception of societal harmony.

    Women and girls around the world need to be heard; their voices should not be silenced nor their experiences go unnoticed. Women will never gain their dignity until their human rights are protected. Women’s rights are human rights. Women and girls’ agency and participation in all processes that affect their rights and lives need to be promoted and protected at all costs. States should ensure and create an enabling environment for women to exercise their fundamental freedoms of expression, association, peaceful assembly and public participation free from intimidation and attacks. States must exercise their due diligence obligation and protect women human rights defenders, activists and women’s organizations who are regularly harassed, intimidated and subjected to violence for defending their rights and promoting equality. The level and frequency of violence against them should raise alarm bells everywhere. It is, and should be, a public policy and a human rights priority.

    If we want to gauge the underlying health, security and prosperity of a society, we all need to address our duty to play a part in the respect and furtherance of women and girls’ rights. There will be no prosperity without ending violence against women and girls in the public as well as in the private sphere.

    There will be no ending of violence against women and girls if we don’t recognize and protect the dignity, rights and security of women and girls everywhere and at all times.” ENDS

    *The experts:

    Platform of independent expert mechanisms on the elimination of discrimination and violence against women (EDVAW Platform): Reem Alsalem*, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; ****Melissa Upreti ****(Chair), **Dorothy Estrada Tanck **(Vice-Chair), Elizabeth Broderick, Ivana Radačić, and **Meskerem Geset Techane, ***Working Group on discrimination against women and girls*; ****Gladys Acosta Vargas, ***Chairperson of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women;* Margarette May Macaulay******, ****Rapporteur on the Rights of Women of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights**; Iris Luarasi, President of the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence of the Council of Europe; Tatiana Rein Venegas**, President of the* Committee of Experts of the Follow-up Mechanism to the Belém do Pará Convention*; Maria Teresa Manuela, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa.*

    Obiora Okafor*, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity; Javaid Rehman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; Fabian Salvioli, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; Marcos A. Orellana, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; Francisco Cali Tzay, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples; Vitit Muntarbhorn,*Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia*; Mama Fatima Singhateh, Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children; Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; **Victor Madrigal-Borloz, ***Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity*; ****Alioune Tine****, Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Mali; **Sorcha MacLeod (Chair-Rapporteur), Jelena Aparac, Ravindran Daniel, Chris Kwaja, ***Working Group on the use of mercenaries*; Gerard Quinn****, ****Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities*; Livingstone Sewanyana*, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; ****Fionnuala Ní Aoláin****, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism; Cecilia Jimenez-Damary, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons;** Saad Alfarargi, Special Rapporteur on the right to development; **Tomoya Obokata, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences; Fernand de Varennes****, Special Rapporteur on minority issues; Yao Agbetse, Independent Expert on the situation of Human Rights in the Central African Republic; **Nils Melzer, ***Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment*; Felipe González Morales, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing; Tlaleng Mofokeng, Special Rapporteur on the right to health; Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on debt, other international financial obligations and human rights; Pedro Arrojo Agudo, Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation;****Elina Steinerte**** (Chair-Rapporteur), ****Ms. Miriam Estrada-Castillo**** (Vice-Chair), ****Ms. Leigh Toomey****, ****Mr. Mumba Malila****, ****Ms. Priya Gopalan****, Working Group on arbitrary detention;** Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food; Ahmed Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; Muluka Anne Miti-Drummond,Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism; Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association**; **Isha Dyfan, ***Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia* ; ****Luciano Hazan (****Chair-Rapporteur),**** Aua Balde ****(Vice-Chair),**** Gabriella Citroni, Henrikas Mickevicius**** and ****Tae-Ung Baik, ***Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances*; ****Alexandra Xanthaki, ***Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights;* **Morris Tidball-Binz ***Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions*; Anais Marin, Special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus; Surya Deva (Chairperson), Elżbieta Karska (Vice-Chairperson), Githu Muigai, Fernanda Hopenhaym, and Anita Ramasastry, Working Group on Business and Human Rights; David Boyd, Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment; Ms. Dominique Day (Chair), Ms. **Catherine S. Namakula (Vice-Chair), Ms. Miriam Ekiudoko,** Mr. Sushil Raj, Ms. Barbara G. Reynolds Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; **Irene Khan, ***Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

    See also:

    https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/combating-violence-against-women-in-a-digital-age-utilising-the-istanbul-convention-grevio-general-recommendation-no-1-on-the-digital-dimension-of-vio

    https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/2021/11/619e0ae14/refugee-women-lead-combating-gender-based-violence.html

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

  • Following the deaths of 27 people attempting to cross the English Channel, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, attacked the government’s approach to refugees. According to the Guardian, Solomon said:

    How many tragedies like this must we see before the government fundamentally changes its approach by committing to an ambitious expansion of safe routes for those men, women and children in desperate need of protection?

    Every day, people are forced to flee their homes through no fault of their own. Now is the time to end the cruel and ineffective tactic of seeking to punish or push away those who try and find safety in our country.

    As people die politicians play the blame game

    British and French leaders have reportedly begun to blame each other for this loss of life. Additionally, French interior minister Gerald Darmanin said the loss of 27 lives was an “absolute tragedy” as he blamed human trafficking gangs who promised people the “El Dorado of England” for a large fee.

    Prime minister Boris Johnson called on France to agree to joint police patrols along the French Channel coast, while French politicians pointed the finger at UK authorities for failing to tackle the issue.

    However, while the British and French officials blamed each other and human trafficking gangs for this loss of human life, some people on social media are clear about where the blame lies:

    Some refugees have arrived safely

    However, other refugees forced into making the dangerous trip across the Channel are reported to have been brought safely ashore by the RNLI in Kent.

    A group of people wearing life jackets and wrapped in blankets were seen huddled together on board an RNLI lifeboat before disembarking in Dover on Thursday morning.

    A call for action

    Responding to the deaths of these 27 people, the Refugee Council said:

    We will honour those lost by ensuring we take action today, stand united and call for urgent and immediate change from the UK Government. No one should ever feel their only option for their future is to cross the world’s busiest shipping lane in a dinghy. 98% of those who cross the channel claim asylum. They are men, women and children who have made the heart breaking decision to leave everything they know behind to flee war, persecution and violence. They have experienced untold trauma both in their home countries and on route here to the UK.

    And it calls on the UK government to:

    1. commit and deliver the expansion of existing safe routes including both resettlement and refugee family reunion. The government should commit to an annual resettlement target of at least 10,000 refugees and expand the existing family reunion rules to allow child refugees to be able to sponsor their parents and adult refugees to be able to sponsor their children under the age of 25 or their elderly parents to join them in the UK.
    2. establish a humanitarian visa system to allow people to apply for a visa to enter the UK for the purposes of claiming asylum, thereby reducing the need for people to make dangerous journeys across the Channel. People can only claim asylum in the UK when they are physically here, which is why they make desperate, often fatal journeys to reach the UK. It doesn’t have to be this way – humanitarian visas would enable people in need of protection to travel to the UK in a safe manner.
    3. Recognise that many people seeking asylum will have no other option other than making an irregular journey, as recognised in the 1951 Refugee Convention, and therefore they need to be treated fairly and humanely by being granted a fair hearing on UK soil. The Government need to put in place an efficient and effective asylum decision making system with timely decisions that are of high quality so people do not have to wait for months or years for an outcome on their case

    Featured image via – YouTube – ITV News

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Berlin, November 23, 2021 — Polish authorities should allow journalists to cover refugee movements and other events of public interest without interference, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

    Since November 14, Polish police, border guards, and soldiers have detained and obstructed at least seven journalists covering refugee movements near the country’s border with Belarus, according to news reports and journalists who spoke with CPJ.

    Belarus authorities have recently allowed at least 3,000 asylum seekers from the Middle East to pass through the country to the border with Poland, sparking a diplomatic confrontation between the two countries, according to news reports.

    “Polish authorities must allow reporters covering refugee movements to work freely, especially in border areas,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “If police detain, harass, or obstruct journalists, they are depriving the Polish people and the rest of the world of vital information regarding an issue of global importance.”

    On November 14, police and border guards near the northeastern village of Czeremcha stopped reporter Claudia Ciobanu and photojournalist Jaap Arriens, both with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and regional news website Balkan Insight, and held them for about 30 minutes, according to Balkan Insight and Ciobanu, who spoke with CPJ via messaging app.

    The officers demanded that the journalists disclose their phones’ serial numbers, and when Ciobanu and Arriens asked why, the officers said they were suspected of having stolen the phones, according to those sources.

    The officers released the journalists without charge, but only after accusing them of illegally entering Poland’s state of emergency area, and saying they could face criminal charges and up to 48 hours of detention for doing so, Ciobanu told CPJ.

    In September, Polish authorities declared a state of emergency covering the border area with Belarus, and barred journalists from entering that zone, as CPJ documented at the time. Ciobanu denied having entered the prohibited area.

    On November 15, police in the village of Usnarz Gorny detained and questioned reporter David Khalifa and camera operator Jordi Demory, both with the Russian government-funded network RT France, as they were documenting refugee movements, according to a report by their employer, news reports, and tweets by Khalifa.

    Authorities held Khalifa and Demory for several hours and took them to a court in the city of Sokolka, where they were fined for allegedly working in the emergency zone, banned from reentering that zone, and then released, according to those sources.

    RT France’s report did not disclose the amount of the fine; CPJ emailed the broadcaster for comment but did not receive any reply.

    On November 16, in the outskirts of the northeastern village of Wiejki, outside of the emergency zone, a group of soldiers stopped a car carrying photojournalists Maciej Nabrdalik, a freelancer; Maciej Moskwa, with the Polish media collective Testigo; and Martin Divíšek, with the European Pressphoto Agency, according to Nabrdalik, who spoke to CPJ in a phone interview, and reports by the Polish Press Club professional organization and Press.pl trade website.

    Nabrdalik told CPJ that the three introduced themselves to the soldiers as journalists, said they would take photos, and the soldiers did not protest. However, when he, Moskwa, and Divíšek started to leave the scene, the soldiers abruptly stopped them, Nabrdalik said.

    The soldiers forcibly pulled the three journalists out of their car, handcuffed them, and held them for about an hour while they searched their car and examined their cameras and cellphones, according to Nabrdalik and those reports. The soldiers were not able to unlock the journalists’ phones, but reviewed and took notes on the phone numbers and other information displayed on their locked screens, those reports said.

    The Polish Press Club’s report features photos of bruises on the journalists’ wrists caused by the handcuffs.

    In a statement published on Twitter, the Polish Ministry of Defense alleged that Nabrdalik, Moskwa, and Divíšek did not identify themselves as journalists and attempted to flee the scene, and that the soldiers detained them until police could arrive. However, Press.pl wrote in its report that the outlet had reviewed an audio recording taken during the incident, which confirmed that the journalists identified themselves as members of the press, and the soldiers cursed at them and could be heard demanding to review their photos.

    In a November 20 interview with the Polish radio station RMF, Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak praised the soldiers’ behavior in the encounter, saying, “it is their duty to be firm.”

    CPJ emailed the press departments of the Ministry of the Interior, which oversees the police and the border guard, and the Ministry of Defense, for comment, but did not receive any replies.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • When the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), feels the need to speak out publicly – as it did on 22 November 2021 – it must be serious: It said that it deplored Thailand’s deportation of a Cambodian refugee, which occurred only ten days after the authorities deported two other Cambodian refugees. This action contravenes the principle of non-refoulement, which obliges States – including Thailand – not to expel or return people to a territory where their life or freedom would be threatened.

    On 19 November, the Cambodian refugee was arrested. UNHCR immediately notified the authorities of the individual’s refugee status and urged the Government not to return the individual to Cambodia over serious concerns for the safety of the refugee. The refugee was held in a detention centre in Aranyaprathet overnight and deported to Cambodia the following day, on 20 November.

    We are extremely alarmed by this trend of forcibly returning refugees to Cambodia, where they face a serious risk of persecution. Given recent developments, we are very concerned about the safety of UNHCR recognised Cambodian refugees in Thailand,” said Gillian Triggs, UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection.

    We urge the Royal Thai Government to refrain from deporting recognized refugees and to abide by its international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement. UNHCR continues to offer its full support to the Government in ensuring the protection of those in need in Thailand,” she added.

    UNHCR is seeking urgent clarification from the Thai authorities regarding the circumstances leading to this most recent deportation and the fate of those returned in Cambodia. UNHCR exhorts Cambodian authorities to uphold international human rights standards and to allow human rights organisations access to the deportees.

    See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/05/11/three-democratic-voice-of-burma-journalists-and-two-activists-risk-refoulement-by-thailand/

    https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2021/11/619ba8da4/unhcr-dismayed-deportation-third-cambodian-refugee-thai-authorities-month.html

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

  • The home secretary fans rhetorical flames on asylum seekers and refugees, but the numbers disagree

    Home secretaries from both main parties have scapegoated asylum seekers in attempts to endear themselves to voters in recent decades. But none with the fervour of Priti Patel, who in her two-year tenure at the Home Office has announced a series of initiatives to put people off seeking asylum in the UK. Wave machines in the Channel, flying asylum seekers to inhospitable islands thousands of miles away to be processed, criminalising those who rescue people drowning at sea: all are recent measures proposed by the home secretary regardless of their compatibility with international law and Britain’s moral obligations.

    Patel gives the impression that there is an escalating crisis in terms of the numbers of people arriving in the UK and trying to illegitimately claim refuge. This is not true. There is absolutely a crisis for asylum seekers trying to reach British shores by making the treacherous Channel crossing in small boats and dinghies. The British government should be doing all it can to clamp down on the people traffickers making a fortune by charging desperate people to attempt the crossing. But the number of people coming to the UK to claim asylum fell by 4% last year and stands at less than half what it was in the early 2000s. Britain receives a fraction of the asylum applications of Germany and France and fewer per resident than the EU average. Low-income countries host nine out of 10 displaced people worldwide.

    Continue reading…

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

  • A roundup of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Pakistan to Poland

    Continue reading…

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

  • Guards come and laugh at me through the bars of my cell.

    “You’re the English, right?”, they ask me. “What are you doing here?”

    “You tell me,” I say, for the hundredth time. But they just laugh and wander off.

    I am the only Westerner in a detention centre full of thousands of refugees. I am also the only inmate waiting to be deported to the UK – though of course, I am pretty much the only person here who would not do anything for a one-way plane ticket to London. In a similar irony, the Greek police who run the facility make it very plain they do not want any of my fellow inmates (Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis, North Africans) in their country. And yet it’s the same police force which violently arrested them and prevented them leaving.

    Earlier this year, while on holiday in Greece, I was detained at the Italian border, arrested, thrown into the Greek detention and migration system for two months, and informed I was banned from the Schengen Area for the next ten years. Though I still haven’t been provided with any documentation about the ban, it appears likely that I am being targeted as a result of my reporting and media advocacy from North and East Syria (NES), the democratic, women-led, autonomous region built around Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava), which the Turkish government is hell-bent on destroying. Chillingly, it seems the autocratic Turkish government now has the power to impose a unilateral ban from Europe on a British citizen, professional journalist, and media activist like myself.

    My two months in detention were just a brief taste of what many refugees, political activists, and journalists from the Middle East and beyond must spend a lifetime enduring. My case provided a window into the violence, squalor, and farce of day-to-day life in the EU’s detention-deportation machine. But it also illustrates the complicity of European states and the Turkish regime in suppressing journalistic freedom, political dissent, and democratic movements.

    Inside the Greek migrant detention system

    While travelling from Greece to Italy with a friend earlier this year, I was met off the ferry at the Italian border by a group of armed, balaclava-clad police. I was banned from the Schengen Area for ten years, they told me, at the request of the German government. Thus began my whirlwind tour of the Greek migrant detention system. The port where I was arrested, Ancona, lies on a popular route for people without papers trying to travel through Greece on to Western Europe, and so the Greek police simply dealt with me as they would deal with any irregular migrant pushed back from Italy by the Italian police.

    I was variously detained in Patras police station, the notorious Migrant Pre-Removal Detention Center at Korinthos which was condemned by the Committee to Prevent Torture, and another Pre-Removal Center in Petrorali, Athens. Conditions were as you might expect. The police station in Patras only has small holding cells, but I spent a week here sleeping on the bare stone. Others were held in the same conditions for a month or more. For days at a time, I was locked in my cell and not allowed to mix with other inmates, passing the time squashing cockroaches and playing chess with myself on a contraband paper set. Most of my fellow inmates were cut and bruised from the beatings they’d received upon arrest, trying to smuggle themselves on to ferries at the port. On one occasion, the police violently beat a petty drug dealer on the floor outside my cell.

    One day myself and a group of my new friends – Afghan migrants – were handcuffed and bundled into a windowless van. To keep us quiet, the police implied we were soon to be released, but instead we found ourselves issued with new prison numbers and lined up along the wall at Korinthos, a massive, police-run prison facility officially known as a ‘Pre-Removal Detention Center’. This name, we soon learned, had become a farce, since there were virtually no ‘removals’ (deportations) taking place due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis.

    Officially, people here should have exhausted all possible legal routes to remain in the EU, or else have voluntarily accepted deportation. In practice, they are held for six to eighteen months, or even more. before suddenly being released – sometimes with the assistance of the shadowy lawyers who circle the centre like vultures demanding huge cash payments for unclear forms of ‘assistance’ – sometimes seemingly at random. People are interviewed about their asylum cases, but these days everyone is being rejected, regardless of the validity of their case. Some people are released, re-arrested days later, and placed back in the detention centre for another undetermined spell.

    In Korinthos, as elsewhere, the system is totally opaque. All NGOs are banned from entering. Particularly Kafkaeseque is the way some guards will tell you whatever you want to hear; some will say they know nothing, and some will tell you to fuck off, with added racist abuse, where applicable. But they are all simply trying to make their own lives easier. It’s impossible to know how your case is going, where you will be sent next, when your interview will be, whether the lawyers (who never actually visit their clients in the detention facility, only occasionally shouting at them through the barbed wire) really can speed up your release. The conditions are squalid, with frequent water outages, and up to forty men sharing each cell.

    The result is desperation. In the cell where I stayed, one Kurdish refugee had recently killed himself in desperation, hanging himself with two phone chargers woven together. The lights are kept burning 24 hours a day, and yet when the residents need a doctor, or the water runs dry, no-one comes. I see one long-term inmate climb up the prison building and threaten to throw himself off just to get access to a dentist.

    Another slashed himself all over with a razor after being consistently denied access to the doctor for his agonising kidney problems. There are hunger strikes, fights, and clashes with the guards with stones, and burning mattresses. For the final two weeks, I am transferred to a higher-security facility in Petrorali, Athens, where we once again spend most of the time in isolation. Here, more troubled inmates kept in isolation thrash against the bars, screaming, cursing, begging, fighting.

     

     

     

    Rumours fly through the bars as frequently as the cigarettes and teabags passed around via cardboard chutes. Transfers occur in windowless vans. On arrival at a new facility, we are stripped and cavity searched, have our blood taken and are given injections, but not told what the injection is for, fostering a dangerous paranoia among the migrant population.

    When I arrive at Petrorali the medical staff tell me, laughing, that I have somehow contracted multiple forms of hepatitis: that I will never be able to have children: and that there’s nothing to be done about this. They send me back to my cell, untreated. It’s only after many weeks of worry later, back in England, that my doctor tells me I have nothing to worry about, and what the Greek tests picked up were my vaccinations against the disease. Whether this was done through malice or oversight, I don’t know.

    I see much comradeship and joy too. In Patras, a brace of Hells’ Angels held on drug charges make the migrants and I laugh by breaking wind. They also share the festal food brought in by their wives for orthodox Easter, and advise the young Afghans on how to handle the guards.

    In Korinthos, we organise language classes, legal training ahead of the migrants’ admissibility interviews, work-out sessions where we leg-press the fattest guy in the cell, and hold a clandestine livestream where we relay conditions in the prison to the outside world. We play ludo, chess, football, run out into the yard in the rain, and belly-flop on the flooded concrete. I write poetry on the cell wall, Blake, Milton: the mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. We laugh a lot, debate politics and religion, comfort one another as best we can.

    When I am woken at dawn for the last time and put on a plane back to the UK, my overriding emotion is guilt that I cannot bring all my new friends and comrades with me. It’s all I can do to dish out my last remaining cigarettes before I am handcuffed and swept away.

    A cause worth defending

    Six months later, back in the UK, I am still trying to get my hands on any official paperwork to explain exactly what has happened. Since I have never had anything to do with the German authorities and given Germany’s strong trade ties and strategic relationship with Turkey, it appears likely Turkey asked Germany to issue the ban. This was done via an opaque institution known as the Schengen Information System, which has been the target of sustained criticism by academics, EU bodies and civil rights organisations since its inception.

    But why should the Turkish government care so deeply about a British journalist on holiday in Greece? You will have seen the world-famous images of ‘Kurdish women fighting ISIS’ broadcast around the world, as Kurdish-led forces spent years pushing back ISIS from strongholds like Raqqa before totally eradicating their caliphate in March 2019 – as the main partner force of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, led by the US but including the UK, Germany, and most Schengen Area member states. You will probably also have seen footage from the two Turkish invasions of the region, including the October 2019 assault green-lit by Donald Trump. Turkish warplanes and tanks backed radical militias, including scores of former ISIS members, to take over swathes of NES, looting, raping, pillaging and murdering as they conducted forcible ethnic cleansing against the region’s Kurdish, Yezidi, and Christian minorities.

    And beyond the frontlines, the political project in NES has endured. Several million people now live in a system of direct, grassroots democracy, with guaranteed female participation and women’s leadership at all levels of political and civil life. The project is not flawless, but in a region beset by war, poverty, and a total breakdown of infrastructure, NES continues to guarantee remarkably high standards of human rights, rule of law, and due process. The three years I spent living and working in NES were an education in both utopic thinking and practical action, as I witnessed refugees coming together around cooperative farming projects to beat the Turkish-imposed embargo on the region, and the women of Raqqa taking control of their own autonomous council in defiance of ISIS’ continued presence. The revolution is very much alive.

    You may also be aware that a number of Westerners have travelled out to join the ‘Rojava revolution’. At first, many joined the military struggle against ISIS, with scores sacrificing their lives in the process. But these days, the majority of Western volunteers work in the burgeoning civil sphere, in women’s projects, health, education – or, in my case, media.

    I am a professional journalist, and during my time in Syria, I filed reports for top international news sources like VICE, the Independent, and the New Statesman, as well as hosting a documentary series for a Kurdish TV channel. But my main role was as a co-founder of the region’s top independent news source, Rojava Information Center (RIC). As RIC, we worked with all the world’s top media companies and human rights organisations, including the BBC, ITV, Sky, CNN, Fox, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, the US Government, and many more, to help them cover the situation on the ground.

    Our raison d’etre was connecting these news sources with people on the ground, to help them understand the reality of NES, without propaganda. I never sought to hide my presence in Syria, or what I was doing there. On the contrary, I was proud to lend my voice to advocate for a political project I wanted the international community to recognise, understand, and engage with.

    Political repression

    Working in Kurdistan as a journalist is enough to incur political repression from Turkey. Turkey is the world’s number one jailer of journalists, has the highest incarceration rate in Europe, and in recent years has dismissed or detained over 160,000 judges, teachers, civil servants, and politicians – particularly targeting Kurdish politicians and members of the pro-Kurdish and pro-democratic HDP party. Turkey’s actions reach far beyond Turkey and the regions it invades and occupies in Syria and Iraq, with Turkish intelligence going so far as to assassinate three female Kurdish activists in Paris in 2013, while fascist ‘Grey Wolves’ paramilitaries linked to Recep Erdoğan’s AKP party regularly carry out violent attacks in Europe.

    The EU must turn a blind eye to these abuses because it relies on Turkey to host millions of refugees who would otherwise travel to Europe. Turkey uses these refugees as leverage to threaten Europe, even while its invasions of NES and military interventions in Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and elsewhere force hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes in the face of ethnic cleansing. Absurdly, even Kurdish refugees in the EU must prove that Turkey is not safe for them, with almost all applications being rejected.  If Turkey was shown to be unsafe, after all, that would mean the EU admitting it was refouling migrants into life-threatening danger, in defiance of international law.

    The issue is not Turkey alone. EU and Western governments regularly target, harass, and detain their own nationals for lending support to the democratic project in NES or the Kurdish rights movement. Volunteers who fought against ISIS have been charged and jailed in Denmark, Australia, Italy, Spain, France and my own home country, the UK. Danes and Australians can be jailed simply for setting foot in NES – something the UK has threatened but not yet enacted.

    Fighting for women’s rights, democracy and freedom should not be a crime. But as my case illustrates, this repression is not limited to combatants. In the UK, even members of ecological delegations have been detained under terror laws and prevented from travelling to the region. Facing intense, targeted police harassment, unable to find work as a result, feeling isolated and alone, several former volunteers have killed themselves. At least one other British volunteer in NES has been handed the same ten-year ban from the Schengen Area as myself, and we suspect other peaceful activists have also been listed on the SIS.

    Turkish pressure, therefore, contributes to Western governments’ own desire to stop the spread of the decentralised, transformative vision of society put forward by NES. (Turkey, of course, knows they incur much more negative press when their bombs kill British or European citizens than when they are simply wiping out Kurdish and Arab locals – one reason why continued Western engagement in NES is so important.)

    Erdoğan is able to use the millions of Syrians now resident in Turkey to tacitly or openly threaten Europe with another influx of refugees if it does not consent to his demands. The UK is particularly close to Turkey as a key trading partner, the more so post-Brexit, and accordingly takes a much harder line against NES than, say, France or the USA, both of whom have welcomed NES’ political leaders to the White House and the Champs-Élysées. Notably, in the UK, repressive moves have come in response to high-level meetings between Turkey and the UK, in particular when arrests targeted not only former volunteers in NES but even their family members in the days following Erdoğan’s 2019 visit to London.

    The same shared interests lie behind my own, relatively brief, detention. The political movement in NES resists borders and the violence inherent in the capitalist nation-state. These ideas are anathema to Erdoğan, but they also constitute a challenge to the EU border regime. Little wonder, then, that Turkey and the EU work together to stifle legitimate journalism and political advocacy.

    Outside the law

    As the British novelty act in the Greek detention centre, I was of course spared the racism, the violence, and the worst of the uncertainty. I knew it would only be so long before I was back in the UK, where, though I had to sit through a ‘Schedule 7’ interview on my return, the police assured me that I was not facing charges and had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. It is an immense frustration to be summarily banned from Europe, but then I FaceTime with friends still detained in Korinthos or playing the dangerous ‘game’ trying to jump onto lorries at Patras ferry port, and I remember how incredibly free I am.

    The effect of repression against Western volunteers, activists and journalists who have worked in NES is to place us, temporarily, outside the normal protections afforded to UK or EU citizens. Millions of civilians in NES, like millions of migrants in Europe, exist in this vacuum as their constant condition. Turkey feels it has impunity to rape, murder, bomb and ethnically cleanse in NES, which remains unrecognised by any government or international organisation, despite its leading role in defeating ISIS.

    The Greek police can beat, humiliate, and dehumanise the migrants in Patras, Korinthos, or Petrorali as much as they please, knowing no lawyers or NGOs are able to enter the detention centres to monitor their behaviour. The inmates of the Greek migrant detention system and the free people of NES are both victims of the same system, which sacrifices peoples’ lives in the name of bilateral trade agreements, arms sales, and ethno-nationalist state politics. But this is precisely why I, and other international supporters of the political movement in NES, have chosen to make our voices heard, even in the face of imprisonment and police repression. This is why I hope my ban will be overturned, and that I can continue my peaceful journalism and advocacy in support of this vital cause.

    The vision being promoted in NES, of local, decentralised, grassroots democracy, is the only way to resolve not only the Syrian conflict but also a global crisis occasioned by capitalist extraction overseen by neo-imperialist states. Only in this way can we provide people with what they want most – a safe home they have no need to flee.

    Featured image and all other images via the author

    By Matt Broomfield

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • An abandoned life jacket in the Aegean Sea in 2016 | Photo: Picture-alliance/AP Photo/L.Pitarakis
    An abandoned life jacket in the Aegean Sea in 2016 | Photo: Picture-alliance/AP Photo/L.Pitarakis

    A post by Marion MacGregor published on 15 November 2021in ‘Infomigrants’ brings out an awful truth which I have to face up to even though Greece is my adopted country. In the face of Turkey ‘weaponsing’ migrants, it is trying its hands at deterrence in the hope that it will diminish the pressure of inflows

    Greece and other European countries are increasingly using the threat of criminal proceedings against aid workers and those migrants who ended up being marked as migrant smugglers.

    Hanad Abdi Mohammad is in prison, he says, because of something he was forced to do. The Somali is serving an impossibly long sentence of 142 years (!) after he was convicted last December for driving an inflatable dinghy carrying migrants to Greece. He says that he didn’t have a choice, because the smuggler hit him in the face and threatened him with a gun before abandoning the boat in rough seas. As 28-year-old Mohammad told journalists and members of the European Parliament who visited the prison last week, he “didn’t think saving people is a crime.”

    In the same prison on the Greek island of Chios two men from Afghanistan, Amir Zaheri and Akif Rasouli, both in their 20s, are also serving sentences of 50 years for similar criminal offences. The men’s convictions and staggering prison terms show how far Greece is ready to go in order to stop migrants in their tracks.

    On the day the smuggler abandoned them at sea between Turkey and Greece, Mohammad and nearly three dozen other migrants were only concerned about their lives. Mohammad says that he called the Turkish coast guard repeatedly, begging to be rescued. But when it arrived, the Turkish patrol boat circled the migrants’ dinghy sending water into the boat and gradually pushing it toward Greece. In the chaos, two women fell overboard and drowned, AP reports.

    The survivors were finally rescued by the Greek coast guard, and Mohammad helped others onto the rescue boat. He admitted to having driven the boat after the smuggler left. It didn’t cross his mind that would lead to him being prosecuted as a smuggler.

    It’s not possible that someone who comes to claim asylum in Greece is threatened with such heavy sentences simply because they were forced, by circumstances or pressure, to take over handling a boat,” one of the lawyers representing the three imprisoned in Chios, Alexandros Georgoulis, told AP. Greek authorities, he said, “are essentially baptizing the smuggled as the smuggler.”

    From file: Sara Mardini and Seán Binder | Screenshot from Amnesty International Ireland
    From file: Sara Mardini and Seán Binder | Screenshot from Amnesty International Ireland

    Greek authorities have also accused aid workers and volunteers helping migrants in Greece of serious crimes. In one widely publicized case, the Syrian human rights worker Sara Mardini, a refugee herself, and an Irish volunteer Sean Binder were arrested and detained for months in 2018 on suspicion of espionage, money laundering, human trafficking and other offenses. Due to face trial on the island of Lesbos alongside 22 other civil society activists later this week, Binder says he is “terrified.”

    I’ve had a taste of life in prison on Chios. It was all scabies and bed bugs with 17 of us packed in a cell,” Binder told The Guardian. “The police holding cells were even worse, the most awful place on earth; squalid, windowless rooms full of asylum seekers just there because authorities had nowhere else to put them.”

    Giorgos Kosmopoulos, a campaigner with an Amnesty International group which plans to monitor the trial in Greece, says that this is not only happening there. “Human rights defenders across Europe are being criminalized … for helping refugees and migrants,” he told The Guardian. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/10/09/mary-lawlor-condemns-criminalization-of-those-saving-lives-in-the-mediterranean/

    AP reports that, according to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Germany, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece have initiated 58 investigations and legal proceedings since 2016 against private entities involved in search and rescue.

    I think it’s important to challenge these in the courts, to not at all sit back and accept that we should be cast as smugglers or spies because I offered CPR, (or) more often than not just a smile, to someone in distress,” Binder told the news agency. “It is preposterous that we should be cast as criminals. I don’t accept it….It doesn’t matter who you are, you don’t deserve to drown in the sea.

    Binder told The Guardian that he has not bought a return ticket to the UK, where he has been studying. He and Mardini face a maximum eight-year sentence, convertible into a fine. They are still under investigation for offences which could carry 25-year sentences if they are convicted.

    In my view, the problem can only be tackled in a European context [see e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/legal-migration-and-integration_en%5D but it seems most member states cling to outdated notion of sovereignty.

    Not directly related but possibly relevant is recent legislation in Greece, adopted on November 11, 2021, that makes it a criminal offence to spread “fake news.” Human Rights Watch said that the Greek government should immediately move to revoke the provision, which is incompatible with freedom of expression and media freedom. “In Greece, you now risk jail for speaking out on important issues of public interest, if the government claims it’s false,” said Eva Cossé, Greece researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The criminal sanctions risk making journalists and virtually anyone else afraid to report on or to debate important issues such as the handling of Covid-19 or migration or government economic policy.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/36487/greece-migrants-and-aid-workers-facing-decades-in-prison

    https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/kerry-aid-worker-faces-trial-in-greece-41058865.html

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/17/greece-alleged-fake-news-made-crime

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

  • Refugee crises are often manufactured by governments.  They can be done at the source: war, famine, rapacious institutions.  They can also be manufactured by the refusal of governments to accept those seeking asylum, sanctuary and refuge.

    The latter is very much in evidence in Europe: governments of the European Union are staring down desperate humans keen to travel into the EU; Belarus, engaging in its own form of mega-trafficking, has become a conduit for the movement of asylum seekers and migrants fleeing from Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.

    Despite being granted Belarussian visas at considerable cost, many being initially housed in government hotels, their stay is only intended as temporary.  After brief respite, they are pushed towards the country’s border with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.  How they get there is not entirely clear.  Some migrants are escorted by uniformed men; others pay additional fees to be transported.  It has also been reported that Belarusian security forces have furnished instructions and tools – axes and wire cutters – to aid the crossing of the border.  Attempts by Belarussian personnel to destroy border fences near Czeremcha, and disorientate Polish soldiers with stroboscopes and lasers, have also been noted.

    Once at the border, the migrants are not allowed to approach any checkpoints to seek asylum. Nor are they allowed to return to Minsk, threatened by Belarusian border guards who insist on keeping them there.

    Trapped in purgatorial fashion along the border, the migrants find themselves sleeping in rude conditions and left at the mercy of the elements.  They have inadequate supplies, lack warm clothing and are starving.  One estimate has put the death toll at nine.

    All political sides are making hay from this suffering.  Lukashenko can be accused of being an opportunistic trafficker of desperate folk and keen on jailing opponents in a desperate bit to stay in power, but Poland’s Law and Justice Party has happily stirred xenophobic hysteria.  Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and President Adrzej Duda are part of an administration that does not shy away from demonising arrivals they associate with terrorists with kinky characteristics.  Doing so supplies an appropriate distraction from accusations of corruption, galloping inflation and a troubling rise in COVID-19 numbers.

    In September, the Minister of the Interior, Mariusz Kamiński, and the National Defence Minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, appeared at a press conference to show a picture of a man copulating with a cow.  The content had been allegedly found on a phone belonging to an Afghan migrant lurking in the woods.  Spokesman for the Ministry of the Interior, Stanisław Żaryn, suggested that this was an act “associated with sexual disorders”, signalling a government campaign to link refugees with zoophilia and paedophilia.

    In a gesture of such refined generosity, TVP Info, the main propaganda outlet of the ruling party, ran a video with a suitably prurient title: “He raped a cow and wanted to enter Poland?”  There were two problems with the footage: the material, recorded on a VHS videotape, was drawn from bestiality porn from the 1970s; and the animal in question was a mare, not a cow.

    Earlier this month, Duda signed a bill into law to construct what was described as “a high-tech barrier on the border with Belarus to guard against an influx of irregular migrants.”  The barrier, valued at some €350 million, was “needed due to increased migratory pressure from Belarus”.  The right to asylum had all but entirely vanished.

    Liz Throssell, spokesperson from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), is adamant that, “The human rights of migrants and refugees have to come first.”  Unfortunately, she was far from informative on what solutions might be pursued on the Belarus-EU border.  “It is really important they must be respected under international human rights refugee law, but as for the political dimension to this, I would leave that to others to address”.

    Along the Belarus-Polish border, refugees and migrants have been instrumentalised, their rights assiduously ignored.  Lukashenko has been accused of using a form of “hybrid” warfare by throwing migrants at the border like willing assailants of rabid intent.  The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, makes the point.  “It is a hybrid attack, a brutal attack, a violent attack and a shameful attack.”  Such nasty terminology has turned those wishing to make their way to the EU into foot soldiers in a political cause they wish to play no part in.  Wedged in between this vicious play of power, these unfortunates trapped on the border find themselves divested of their humanity, their desires, their wishes.

    The EU is also playing its own vile game, falling back upon frontier states who have held themselves up to be saviours of European civilisation.  “It is important that Lukashenko understands that [the regime’s] behaviour comes with a price,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned after talks with US President Joe Biden.  Sanctions are being considered against the airlines that have been accused of facilitating human trafficking.

    There is one final perversion in all this.  In essentially condemning human trafficking, the EU and its counterparts are condemning the right to asylum, which such trafficking aids.  With that sentiment, von der Leyen would regard Oskar Schindler and his more recent equivalent, Iraq’s Ali Al Jenabi, as traffickers worthy of punishment.

    The post Manufactured Cruelties: Belarus, Poland and the Refugee Crisis first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On 18 November, 24 human rights activists are on trial for saving refugees’ lives at sea. They were arrested on the Greek island of Lesbos in 2018, held in pre-trial detention for 100 days, then released on bail. Now, almost three years later, the Greek state will finally begin its prosecution.

    Among those in the dock are Sarah Mardini, Nassos Karakitsos, and Irish man Seán Binder. They volunteered for the now defunct Emergency Response Centre International, and they’re accused by the Greek authorities of people smuggling, being part of a criminal organisation, money laundering, and espionage. Mardini herself reached the shores of Lesbos by dinghy after fleeing Syria in 2015. She made headlines at the time, when she and her sister – both competitive swimmers – saved the lives of the others in their dinghy after the engine broke down.

    A brutal crackdown

    The trial, although shocking, is perhaps unsurprising as European states continue to crack down on those who help refugees. Free Humanitarians, which advocates for criminalised human rights defenders, states that:

    In 2019, 171 individuals across 13 European states faced criminalisation and between 2020 and 2021 at least 44 people in Greece faced similar accusations like those against Sarah, Seán and Nassos. Criminalisation coincides with the securitisation of borders and worrying instances of pushbacks and collective expulsion, especially at sea.

    A ‘pushback’ is when state authorities literally push back refugees from their border, both at land and sea, after people have successfully crossed. Pushbacks can violate international law.

    Free Humanitarians went on to argue:

    The humanitarian assistance of people like Seán, Sarah and Nassos has been essential as at least 1,675 people have lost their lives or gone missing on the East Mediterranean sea since 2015. Since their release from pre-trial detention, they have campaigned tirelessly against the criminalisation of solidarity and for refugee rights. If found guilty, their case could set a worrying precedent with adverse implications for humanitarian assistance far beyond Greece.

    Meanwhile, 49 human rights organisations have signed an open letter, demanding that the Greek state drops all charges against the activists. 72 members of the European Parliament have also signed a letter, expressing their “grave concern” at the charges filed against the activists. They are calling for:

    a thorough review and change to member state policies that have led to the criminalisation of humanitarian workers

    Fortress Europe

    The prosecution of the activists comes at a time when so-called ‘democracies’ are becoming more and more right-wing and fascistic, making hostile immigration policies, or attempting to criminalise those who dare to help our fellow human beings. Instead of spending money on saving refugees, the EU continues to strengthen fortress Europe, paying agencies like Frontex to prevent people from arriving, essentially leaving them to drown.

    Sea Watch, which actively rescues people from sea, argues that:

    By 2027, the EU is letting Frontex’s work cost 5.6 billion euros without spending a single euro on saving human lives.

    It continues:

    The EU actively prevents legal and safe entry routes by strengthening the border police and outsourcing further border controls through cooperation with third countries. It thus de facto not only abolishes the fundamental right to asylum but bears direct responsibility for thousands of deaths at its borders.

    At the same time, some European countries refuse to face the fact that the refugee crisis is largely due to their policies, as they have actively participated in invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, provided weapons to destroy lives in Syria, and meddled in politics around the world.

    Featured image via Georgios Giannopoulos / Wikimedia Commons

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Wednesday November 10, 2021, at 12noon ET, the American Bar Association will host a webinar entitled Refugees and Asylum in the U.S. & Review of Domestic Interpretations at Odds with International Guidance. This webinar will review the differences between the…

    This post was originally published on Human Rights at Home Blog.

  • New York, November 4, 2021 — Turkish authorities should immediately release Syrian journalist Majed Shamaa, end deportation proceedings against him, and allow him to do his job freely and safely, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

    At 1:30 a.m. on October 30, police arrested Shamaa, a reporter for the Dubai-based broadcaster Orient TV, at his home in downtown Istanbul, according to news reports, a statement by his lawyer, Muhammad Ali Artvi, and a statement by the Syrian Media Council, a coalition of Syrian press freedom organizations and journalists’ unions.

    The journalist is facing deportation to Syria for allegedly inciting hatred and insulting the Turkish people in a satirical video he produced as part of a news program, according to those sources.

    Today, Orient TV and the Turkish free speech group Susma Platformu reported that the journalist had been transferred to a deportation center in the southern Turkish city of Gaziantep.

    “By arresting journalist Majed Shamaa and threatening him with deportation, Turkish authorities are not only showing a lack of sense of humor, but also an utter disregard for press freedom and human rights,” said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Representative Ignacio Miguel Delgado. “Turkish authorities must immediately release Shamaa, stop his deportation, and allow Syrian journalists in Turkey to do their jobs freely and without fear of reprisal.”

    Shamaa reports for Orient TV on issues affecting Syrian refugees in Turkey, and has recently covered topics including difficulties refugees encounter in renting homes and accessing hospitals, as well as other and human interest stories about refugees.

    In late October, he produced an episode of the program Street Poll in which he interviewed Syrians in Istanbul’s Fatih district about the so-called banana wars, a dispute over standards of living in the city sparked by a viral video of a Turkish man claiming that he could not afford bananas but saw Syrians buying many of them, according to news reports.

    Since that clip went viral, Syrians living in Turkey have shared videos and pictures on social media of themselves eating bananas, prompting Turkish authorities to arrest several Syrians for alleged provocation and incitement to hatred, according to news reports, which said that those arrested could face deportation.

    In his Street Poll episode, in addition to interviewing locals, Shamaa also aired a satirical sketch of himself buying bananas in a shop, hiding them under his shirt, and eating them in secret. The video has since been removed from YouTube.

    In his November 3 statement, Shamaa’s lawyer said that the Public Prosecution Office had interrogated Shamaa twice concerning allegations of incitement to hatred and insulting the Turkish people based on that video.

    When the journalist and his lawyer “explained to the public prosecutor that Shamaa is a journalist and deportation would endanger his life,” the prosecutor ordered him to be released, Artvi wrote.

    But by that time, the Immigration Department already initiated deportation proceedings against Shamaa, and ordered him to remain in detention while that decision is pending, according to his lawyer’s statement.

    The statement noted that Shamaa had been “highly critical of the [Syrian President Bashar] Al-Asad regime, would receive a sentence no less than a death penalty” if sent back to Syria.

    Artvi wrote that Shamaa had not intended to incite hatred or insult the Turkish people, and that the video was done in accordance with his work as a journalist. The statement said that Shamaa had filed an appeal against potential deportation.

    In a letter Shamaa wrote to Orient TV, published today, the journalist said the staff at the Gaziantep deportation center had forced him to sign and fingerprint deportation papers, even though they knew that he did not want to be deported. He wrote that his criticism of the Syrian government and armed factions, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, would put him in danger if he returned to Syria.

    CPJ emailed and sent requests for comment via messaging app to the Istanbul Immigration Department and Omer Tanriverdi, head of public diplomacy at the Turkish presidency’s Directorate of Communications, but did not receive any replies.

    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

  • RNZ News

    In just a few weeks the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated sharply as millions cope without desperately needed international aid, New Zealand journalist Charlotte Bellis says.

    Bellis is Al Jazeera’s senior producer in Afghanistan and reported on the turmoil in August as the Taliban took over the government and thousands of people tried to flee.

    She has dealt with Taliban leaders for a long time, and has sensed a change in their attitudes since they first ruled the country before being toppled 20 years ago.

    She had to leave the country in mid-September because the network feared for her safety and Bellis noted on Twitter that the Taliban were detaining and beating journalists trying to cover protests.

    Now she has returned and told RNZ Sunday Morning that she was not worried about her safety.

    “The situation here is pretty dire and there are a lot of stories still to be told and I feel invested in what’s happening here and I also just love the country. It’s a beautiful place to be with amazing people and I genuinely like being here.”

    However, the country is facing an uncertain future with its population suffering more than ever now that international aid has been cut off.

    UN warns of humanitarian crisis
    This week the United Nations warned that Afghanistan is becoming the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and Bellis agrees.

    “The Taliban took over about two months ago and I just can’t believe how quickly everything has deteriorated.

    “People cannot find food, there’s no money, they can’t pay for things, employers can’t pay their workers because there’s no cash, they can’t get money out even from the ATMs.”

    Millions of jobs have disappeared, half of the population does not know where their next meal is coming from and already children are dying from malnutrition, Bellis said.

    All the aid agencies are appealing to the world to listen.

    23 million need urgent help
    She is about to go out with the UN Refugee Agency whose teams are organising some aid distribution as the temperatures drop to 2 degC overnight as winter approaches. They are handing out blankets, food and some cash to thousands of the needy in camps in Kabul.

    “But it’s such a Band-Aid. There is no way they can reach the number of people they need to reach — it’s  like 23 million people who need that kind of assistance,” she said.

    Neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran were very concerned, in part because they fear a huge influx of refugees. They have closed the borders to try and keep them away.

    The process of getting money and food into people’s hands had broken down, she said, with a lot of it due to United States sanctions.

    Three quarters of the country ran on foreign donations before the Taliban took over and that has dried up because no countries are recognising the Taliban’s legitimacy to govern.

    Bellis has spoken to one senior Taliban official who said that at recent meetings between the Taliban and the US in Doha the Americans would not tell the Taliban what policies they needed to enact to unfreeze billions of dollars in funding.

    “They [the Americans] are playing with millions of people’s lives.”

    School problem for girls
    She believes some Taliban leaders are pragmatic and would be willing to agree to high school girls being educated but are worried they will alienate their conservative base.

    In the main, primary school age girls are able to attend their lessons but the problem is at secondary school level.

    “If you’re a high school girl in Kabul it’s awful – sitting around thinking how did this happen. It’s really frustrating and really frustrating for everyone to watch and say this doesn’t make sense.”

    Taliban Badri 313 fighter
    An elite Taliban Badri 313 fighter guarding Kabul airport … facing threats from ISIS-K. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR

    Bellis said while she feels safe at the moment, the main problem is the terrorist group, ISIS-K, who have made threats against the hotel where she is staying.

    The Taliban have said they will protect guests and have placed dozens of extra guards outside.

    ISIS-K is believed to only number between 1200 and 1500 yet they are a potent force with their random attacks, such as beheading members of the Taliban, whom they hate.

    She believes the Taliban’s biggest worry is that ISIS will appeal to its most fundamentalist members.

    ISIS attracting recruits
    ISIS is also believed to be trying to attract recruits who would be trained as fighters and be paid $400 a month which is a substantial amount of money in Afghanistan.

    Bellis said she feels guilty staying at a hotel with the scale of poverty and deprivation she is witnessing.

    “Right outside the door people are desperate,” she said.

    She visited a major maternity hospital in Kabul yesterday and the only medication available for women giving birth was paracetamol.

    “Imagine going into labour and thinking, OK if anything goes wrong I’ve got paracetamol. It’s just life and death on so many levels.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • When Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of the San Diego-based Haitian Bridge Alliance, learned that she had won this year’s RFK award, she wanted to celebrate in another way. She brought the ceremony to the border and led a group, including Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights staff and musician Wyclef Jean, to the Tijuana Immigration Shelter and then to the Otaimesa Detention Center, which houses detainees at the Immigration and Customs Department.

    We wanted to bring this award to people on both sides of the border and let them know that it was for them,” Joseph said. “We hear them. We see them. We keep fighting for them.”

    We went to the border because we heard there were Haitians,” she said in a speech outside the detention center, recalling the early days of her organization’s activities in Tijuana. “We went for the Haitians, but we stayed for everyone, and we continue to fight for everyone.

    Kerry Kennedy, daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, has known Ms Joseph for three years since working together to help Haiti and Cameroon immigrants in Tijuana.

    For more on this award and its laureates, see: https://thedigestapp.trueheroesfilms.org/awards/69FD28C0-FE07-4D28-A5E2-2C8077584068/edit

    The great thing about Guerline is that she’s tackling a big problem. She works in a crucible of poverty, race and immigrants,” Kennedy said.

    According to Joseph, her parents gave up a comfortable life in Haiti to move to the United States after the coup. Back in Haiti, they had a big house and her father was the mayor. In the United States, the father became a taxi driver and the mother became a housekeeper. Both worked long hours to take care of their families.

    https://californianewstimes.com/haitian-activist-wins-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-brings-celebration-to-the-border/573950/

    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/story/2021-10-28/haitian-activist-kennedy-human-rights

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

  • Experts say Home Office risks traumatising refugees by housing them in courthouse turned into hostel

    Asylum seekers are being housed by the Home Office in a former courthouse turned hostel which promised nights in “an authentic prison cell” to backpackers.

    Hundreds of people are understood to be in the facility – which appears to have been a form of court and prison cell “theme park” accommodation – including some who were imprisoned in the past in their home countries, including Libya.

    Continue reading…

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