radiofree.asia

Category: refugees

  • ‘Nowhere to go’: divorced Afghan women in peril as the Taliban close in

    As horror stories emerge from areas that have fallen to the Islamist militants, women living alone fear they have no route of escape

    There’s an old saying in Afghanistan that encapsulates the country’s views on divorce: “A woman only leaves her father’s house in the white bridal clothes, and she can only return in the white shrouds.”

    In this deeply conservative and patriarchal society, women who defy convention and seek divorce are often disowned by their families and shunned by Afghan society. Left alone, they have to fight for basic rights, such as renting an apartment, which require the involvement or guarantees of male relatives.

    As provinces and cities fall under Taliban control across Afghanistan, women’s voices are already being silenced. For this special series, the Guardian’s Rights and freedom project has partnered with Rukhshana Media, a collective of female journalists across Afghanistan, to bring their stories of how the escalating crisis is affecting the lives of women and girls to a global audience.

    I left my family with only the clothes I was wearing. I got into a taxi to Kabul and never looked back

    Related: ‘I worry my daughters will never know peace’: women flee the Taliban – again

    ​Now more than ever, Afghan women need a platform to speak for themselves. As the Taliban’s return haunts Afghanistan, the survival of Rukhshana Media depends on ​readers’ help.​ To continue reporting​ ​over ​the next crucial year, ​it is trying to raise $20,000.​ If you can help, go to ​this crowdfunding page.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Fresh coronavirus cases found at Napier Barracks, months after major outbreak

    Cases of coronavirus (Covid-19) have once again been identified at a military barracks being used to house asylum seekers, several months after a major outbreak at the camp.

    Unfit habitation

    The Home Office said a “small number” of infections have been found at Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent. Nearly 200 people at the site contracted coronavirus earlier this year, leading to accusations that health advice had been ignored.

    The site has been dogged by allegations of poor conditions in communal dormitories, with inspectors describing an isolation block as “unfit for habitation”. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Home Office said on 12 August that it would be an “insult” to suggest that Napier Barracks is not “adequate” for asylum seekers.

    The department confirmed that those who tested positive have been removed from their dormitories but could not say if others are self-isolating.

    A spokesperson said:

    All appropriate Covid protocols are being followed in accordance with Public Health England advice to manage the small number of cases currently at Napier Barracks.

    While pressure on the asylum system remains, we will use Napier Barracks to ensure we meet our statutory duty.

    Last month, home secretary Priti Patel and Home Office officials defended their decision to continue using the site to MPs as they confirmed that half of the people living there are sleeping in dormitories. Questions have also arisen in recent weeks about the future of the Ministry of Defence-owned site, with MPs and peers told it could be used to house asylum seekers for “another couple of years”.

    The Canary has reported extensively on the “squalid” conditions at Napier Barracks, including interviews with former residents of the facility.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • After eight years in Australian detention, the only refugee family held in Darwin centre remains in legal limbo

    Held in small cabins behind the airport, Hajar Maghames says her family has ‘no resources left to withstand the oppressive situation’

    An Iranian family who are now the only refugees held in the Darwin detention centre are trapped in legal limbo, as their lawyers argue there is no basis for their continued detention after eight years in Australia’s offshore system.

    Hajar Maghames, 32, said she had “no resources left to withstand the oppressive situation” facing her parents, Malakeh and Yaghob, and her brother Abbas.

    Related: UN urges Australia to release dangerously ill refugee who has ‘given up on living’ after eight years

    Related: Afghan refugee may lose permanent residency in Australia – for supplying identity document

    Continue reading…

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

  • UN urges Australia to release dangerously ill refugee who has ‘given up on living’ after eight years

    UN human rights committee says Kaveh, who lies emaciated in a Melbourne hospital, should be moved to community detention

    A dangerously ill refugee held within Australia’s immigration detention regime for eight years has secured an interim order from the United Nations human rights committee urging the Australian government to release him into the community.

    Kaveh, a refugee from a Middle Eastern country, is currently in a Melbourne hospital, emaciated and suffering a range of complex physical and mental health issues. Standing at 176cm tall, he weighs just 47kg.

    Related: Afghan refugee may lose permanent residency in Australia – for supplying identity document

    Continue reading…

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

  • We Need a World Where the Olympic Refugee Team Can Go Home When the Games End

    The Refugee Olympic Team walks during the Opening Ceremony of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games at Olympic Stadium on July 23, 2021, in Tokyo, Japan.

    The Olympic Refugee Team filing into the stadium during Tokyo’s opening ceremonies provided a powerful, moving sight: almost 30 athletes, carrying the Olympic flag, striding alongside the delegations of almost every country in the world.

    Instead of their home countries, these refugees represent the millions around the world who’ve been forcibly displaced from their homes. The team is made up of extraordinary individuals who have overcome huge obstacles just to survive — let alone train as world-class athletes.

    They are swimmers, cyclists, judoken, wrestlers, runners, and more — from Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon, Sudan and South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and beyond.

    Several were part of the Olympics’ first Refugee Team five years ago, including Yusra Mardini, a Syrian swimmer and refugee from the country’s civil war.

    Her incredible story went viral. When their overloaded dinghy broke down in the Aegean Sea, Yusra and her sister jumped overboard and swam for three hours, pushing it to safety. They saved the lives of dozens desperately trying to reach safety in Greece.

    Yusra’s was only one of the stories of extraordinary trauma and triumph from Team Refugees. But unfortunately, the population represented by the team just keeps growing.

    At the time of the Rio Olympics five years ago, 65 million people were forcibly displaced. This year, that figure has soared to over 82 million. If it were its own country, Refugee Nation would be the 20th most populous country on earth, right between Thailand and Germany.

    There are many reasons people are forced to flee their homes — including war and violence, extreme weather and climate change, and economic injustice. The harsh reality is that mass displacement has become normalized, acceptable in today’s world.

    Global warming and climate chaos are so severe that climate refugees are emerging everywhere. Wars, including many involving the United States, continue to push millions of people out of their homes. And abject poverty, skyrocketing inequality, and a global pandemic are all forcing more desperately poor people to flee in search of work, food, and safety.

    It’s not enough to honor millions of refugees with an Olympic team of their own — they need rights, not medals. As long as millions remain displaced, it remains important to build broad and global movements to defend their rights.

    The rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights include “freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State,” the right “to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution,” and the right to return to their homes when hostilities are over.

    Unfortunately, from the dangerous waters of the Mediterranean to the arid U.S.-Mexico border, those rights are often denied. It’s a grim thing indeed that there are more people displaced now than at any time since World War II — so many that Refugee Nation appears to be a permanent feature of the Olympics.

    Still, the courage of these extraordinary young athletes at the Olympics keeps the plight of refugees — and the responsibility of our own governments for their plight — in front of the eyes of the world.

    Team Refugees’ entrance to Tokyo’s Olympic stadium provided a moment of hope and a moment of internationalism. It was beautiful.

    But how much more beautiful, how much better than medals, if those athletes — and the 82 million displaced people they represent — could go home after the games? To a home for themselves and their families, in their own country or abroad, safe from the wars and disasters and poverty that drove them out in the first place?

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Boris Johnson’s descent into modern fascism continues

    Comments by Boris Johnson have once again ignited a row over the trajectory of his government. The PM’s use of divisive and harmful language forms part of a wider picture. It’s one that shows the creep of so-called “corporate fascism” in the UK.

    “Left-wing lawyers”

    The Law Gazette reported on comments Johnson made during an LBC interview. Host Nick Ferrari asked the PM:

    to respond to comments by Labour party leader Sir Keir Starmer that the Conservatives had become the party of crime and disorder.

    Johnson replied: ‘When you look at Labour, you see a party that voted consistently against tougher sentences for serious sexual violent offenders. The Labour opposition has consistently taken the side of, I’m afraid, left wing criminal justice lawyers against, I believe, the interests of the public’.

    The legal profession has condemned his remarks. The Law Gazette quoted the Secret Barrister as saying:

    I prosecute rapists while you prolong the agony of victims by cutting justice to the bone. One of us is acting against the interests of the public, Boris Johnson. It’s not me.

    Of course, this harmful, far-right language is nothing new from the PM.

    Repeated attacks by Johnson and Patel

    As the Guardian reported, in October 2020 Johnson gave a speech to the Tory Party conference. He said:

    We’re also backing those police up, protecting the public by changing the law to stop the early release of serious sexual and violent offenders and stopping the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by what the home secretary would doubtless – and rightly – call the lefty human rights lawyers, and other do-gooders.

    Johnson was backing up Priti Patel, who also made a speech at the conference. She said in relation to the asylum system:

    For those defending the broken system — the traffickers, the do-gooders, the lefty lawyers, the Labour Party — they are defending the indefensible.

    Moreover, Patel and the Home Office have repeatedly used phrases like “activist lawyers” and “lefty lawyers”.

    Real-world consequences

    The real-world effects of this hate-inciting language could be fatal. Allegedly, a far-right supporter who carried out a knife attack at a London law firm that deals with immigration cases was inspired by Patel’s comments. Moreover, in response to the Home Office spokesperson’s comments in the Telegraph, people on Twitter called lawyers ‘scum bags’; called for them to be deported; said they were “enemies” of the “great people of the UK”, and called for them to be ‘crushed’.

    But the bigger issue here is that the Tory government’s use of language is part of a deeper, even more worrying agenda.

    Descending into corporate fascism

    As The Canary has repeatedly written, all the signs are there that the UK is descending into what’s been called “corporate fascism”. We quoted Johanna Drucker’s comments about Donald Trump’s US government:

    Fascism is defined as the alignment of power, nationalism, and authoritarian government. We are there.

    But she noted that a better description would be:

    Corporate fascism [which] is wanton, virulent, and unregulated. Wanton because it has no regard for consequences (psycho-socio-political pathology is without constraints). Virulent because the full force of inflamed populism is fuelled by self-justified rage and unbounded triumphalism. Unregulated because the capital is now amassed in extreme concentrations of wealth without any controls. Corporate because Citizens United created the legal foundation for corporations to act with the same rights, privileges, and protections accorded to individuals, thus sanctifying the role of disproportionate power within a mythic construct of corporate entities.

    14 warning signs

    The Canary wrote about 14 warning signs that showed the UK’s descent into corporate fascism. These included:

    • Disregard for human rights.
    • Disrespect for intellectuals and the arts.
    • Obsession with crime and punishment.
    • Identifying of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

    Johnson and Patel’s attacks on refugees and lawyers ticks all these boxes. Moreover, there are numerous other examples. Take the Home Office, again. As Byline Times reported, it’s:

    just closed a consultation to change the Official Secrets Act, which includes plans suggesting that journalists should be treated in the same way as those who leak information (‘unauthorised disclosures’) and commit espionage offences. It has also proposed increasing maximum sentences for such offences from two to 14 years in prison – longer than those for child cruelty crimes and the same as causing death by dangerous driving.

    Fiction or fact?

    The warning signs are there. Moreover, notions of fascism are not some memory of the previous century. The Trump presidency is one such example.

    Interestingly, in recent years television dramas in the US have addressed the issues head-on. Legal drama The Good Fight had a long-running storyline about people killing lawyers, against the backdrop of Trump’s fascist presidency. The Handmaid’s Tale is littered with analogies to the real world. As its original author Margaret Atwood’s character June Osborne pondered about the coup by far-right Christian fundamentalists:

    Now I’m awake to the world. I was asleep before. That’s how we let it happen. When they slaughtered Congress, we didn’t wake up. When they blamed terrorists and suspended the constitution, we didn’t wake up then, either. Nothing changes instantaneously. In a gradually heating bathtub, you’d be boiled to death before you knew it.

    Yet still, even with Trump and high-profile TV addressing the issue, people seem unaware of what’s happening.

    Is it too late?

    As one Twitter user summed up recently about the UK:

    The thing about fascism is that you can tell people until you’re blue in the face that it’s coming, but most of them won’t believe you until it’s too late.

    The Johnson administration’s descent into corporate fascism is very real. It may not be the same as how the history books teach us fascism is, but it’s a 21st century version nonetheless. Whether or not most of us wake up in time to stop it remains to be seen.

    Featured image via the BBC – YouTube 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Marches in Minsk and Pegasus protests: human rights this fortnight – in pictures

    A roundup of the coverage of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Haiti to Pakistan

    Continue reading…

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

  • Refugees, including children, held in ‘shocking’ and ‘completely inappropriate’ conditions

    Women with babies and children were among 56 migrants packed into a small room in “shocking” conditions in Dover, the home secretary has been told.

    Priti Patel has been sent a letter by Yvette Cooper, chair of the Home Affairs Committee, raising “serious concerns” after MPs visited the Kent Intake Unit.

    As well as concerns over overcrowding and the length of stays, the committee was “very concerned” about the “clear risk” of a Covid-19 outbreak.

    In the letter, Cooper said: “I am writing to raise serious concerns about the shocking conditions the committee observed during its visit to the Kent Intake Unit yesterday.

    “The holding room facility, in which detained asylum seekers wait for onward placement and screening, is wholly inappropriate.

    “Yesterday there were 56 people packed into the small waiting room. The space is clearly unfit for holding this many people.

    “Most people were sitting or lying on a thin mattress and those covered almost the entirety of the floor including the aisles between seats.

    “Sharing these cramped conditions were many women with babies and very young children, alongside significant numbers of teenage and young adult men.

    “We heard that the maximum period of time any individual should be held in this room is 24 hours but that in recent weeks some people have been kept in this small holding room for periods up to 36 and 48 hours.”

    Cooper said the committee also visited the atrium facility, where people stay when they are no longer in detention and awaiting onward travel.

    She said atrium is “essentially an office space” with a large central room and several adjoining offices.

    She wrote: “We heard that since Kent County Council stopped accepting unaccompanied child migrants on 14 June 2021, there have been five stays of over 200 hours (10 days) in this office space and increasing numbers of multiple-day stays.

    “The Permanent Secretary has now confirmed in correspondence to the committee that one of the individuals held in this office space for over 10 days was an unaccompanied child.

    “One girl was sleeping on a sofa in an office, as the only available separate sleeping accommodation.

    “For children, this kind of accommodation for days on end is completely inappropriate.”

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Kurdish refugee sues Australian government for alleged unlawful imprisonment in Melbourne hotels

    Mostafa ‘Moz’ Azimitabar seeks damages for detention over 14 months in case that could carry implications for hundreds of asylum seekers

    A refugee detained for more than a year in two Melbourne hotels is suing the federal government for damages, arguing its use of hotels for immigration detention is illegal.

    Mostafa “Moz” Azimitabar is suing the Australian government in the federal court for unlawful imprisonment. He is seeking damages for his detention over 14 months in Melbourne’s Park and Mantra hotels.

    Related: The Iranian refugee writing songs of love from his ‘luxury torture cell’

    Related: ‘I never felt alone’: refugee Mostafa Azimitabar on justice, Jimmy Barnes and freedom after eight years

    Continue reading…

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

  • Denmark faces legal action over attempts to return Syrian refugees

    Activists fear a ‘dangerous precedent’ being set as Copenhagen uses a report that deems Damascus safe to deny residency status

    Denmark’s attempt to return hundreds of Syrians to Damascus after deeming the city safe will “set a dangerous precedent” for other countries to do the same, say lawyers who are preparing to take the Danish government to the European court of human rights (ECHR) over the issue.

    Authorities in Denmark began rejecting Syrian refugees’ applications for renewal of temporary residency status last summer, and justified the move because a report had found the security situation in some parts of the country had “improved significantly”. About 1,200 people from Damascus currently living in Denmark are believed to be affected by the policy.

    Related: Greek police arrest Dutch journalist for helping Afghan asylum seeker

    Continue reading…

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

  • Deposed Burmese Leaders Are Now Changing Their Tune on Human Rights of Rohingya

    Myanmar's State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi looks on as health workers receive a vaccine for the COVID-19 coronavirus at a hospital in Naypyidaw, Myanmar, on January 27, 2021.

    The United Nations (UN) has long characterized the Rohingya Muslims, a religious and ethnic minority population in Myanmar, as the world’s most persecuted community. Since achieving independence from British colonial rule in 1948, successive military and civilian governments have subjected the Rohingya to crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocidal campaigns. Most recently, in 2017, such mass atrocity crimes culminated in the exodus of nearly 1 million Rohingya from Myanmar (also known as Burma) to neighboring Bangladesh, where they have settled in refugee camps. Others have sought safe haven in the United States.

    On February 1, 2021, political events in Myanmar once again grabbed international headlines following a military coup that deposed democratically elected members of the nation’s ruling party. Significantly, the coup has not only inspired mass protests among the civilian population demanding democratic reform, but it has also culminated in some surprising developments. Specifically, a new series of public declarations from the National Unity Government of Burma (NUG), composed of the exiled parliamentarians elected in the November 2020 democratic elections whom the military subsequently ousted, prove historic. This is because they focus almost exclusively on advancing Rohingya human rights despite decades-long persecution. The declarations are not only important to the work of immigration attorneys and human rights advocates, but also those involved in rule-of-law initiatives in Myanmar and beyond.

    Repealing the 1982 Citizenship Law

    On May 26, 2021, the NUG called to repeal the 1982 Citizenship Law that rendered the Rohingya the world’s largest stateless population in violation of public international law. By way of background, many Burmese saw the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from South Asia allowed in by their former British colonizers. Myanmar’s authorities have denied them citizenship rights on this basis even though their presence predates colonial rule. In fact, the country’s Citizenship Law codified the Rohingya’s legal exclusion in 1982 by refusing to grant them citizenship while recognizing more than 100 other racial and ethnic groups. Today, the Rohingya are the world’s largest “stateless” community deprived of legal protection from the government.

    Significantly, Rohingya statelessness or lack of citizenship has exacerbated the population’s vulnerability because they are not entitled to any legal protection from their government. In fact, from restrictions to accessing health care and educational opportunities to arbitrary detention and extrajudicial violence, the group’s lack of citizenship has helped facilitate human rights abuses over the course of decades by both private and public actors. As such, the NUG’s call to repeal the discriminatory measure represents an initial and necessary step toward achieving formal equality.

    Recognizing Rohingya Muslims as a Distinctive Group

    Subsequently, on May 28, the NUG issued another public statement that not only demanded equal rights for the persecuted minority population but actually recognized the group as “Rohingya.” To understand the significance of this particular development, some social, political and legal context is necessary.

    Prior to the most recent military coup, Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s deposed leader who now serves as NUG’s State Counsellor, refused to recognize the Rohingya as an Indigenous group with a unique language, culture and history. To that end, like the military and many Burmese nationals, she alleged the term “Rohingya” was inflammatory. Rather, the group was consistently called “Bengali” (and instructed to return to Bangladesh). Ultimately, such social hostilities culminated in discriminatory legal measures such as the citizenship law noted above.

    As such, the NUG’s recognition of the Rohingya as a distinct racial and religious group carries social, political and legal significance. This is particularly so given pending international legal claims before the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. In both contexts, attorneys allege that Burmese officials have engaged in a genocidal campaign and perpetrated mass atrocity crimes against the group. Prior to the NUG’s declaration, government officials refused to recognize the existence of the community in the first instance, let alone the human rights violations in question. Significantly, in public international law, establishing the Rohingyas’ distinctive identity as a religious and ethnic minority group is key to proving genocide.

    Cooperating With the International Court of Justice

    On May 30, the NUG released yet another public declaration claiming that (as the democratically elected government of Burma), it was fully cooperating with the International Court of Justice in the pending case The Gambia v. Myanmar, alleging an official genocidal campaign against the Rohingya. Some additional context is warranted to fully appreciate the significance of this public commitment.

    On November 11, 2019, on behalf of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the West African nation of The Gambia filed a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s highest court, accusing Myanmar of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). As noted, Burmese officials have long subjected members of the Rohingya Muslims population to a spectrum of human rights abuses, including the denial of citizenship rights, restrictions on religious freedom, forced displacement, gender-based violence and the arbitrary deprivation of life. The UN’s primary judicial body, the ICJ adjudicates international legal controversies between nations while also issuing advisory decisions to UN entities regarding international law. This case represents the first time the international community has attempted to hold officials accountable.

    The Gambia’s lawsuit seeks to enforce Myanmar’s obligation to protect the Rohingya from acts of genocide. Specifically, The Gambia relied on Article 9 of the Genocide Convention, allowing any party to the Convention to hold another state accountable for genocide since all member states have an affirmative duty to prevent and to punish genocide. The Gambia not only seeks to stop Myanmar’s genocidal acts against the Rohingya while also ensuring legal accountability, but also provides reparations, including the “safe and dignified return” of refugees abroad.

    Since the ICJ’s adjudication of these requests requires several years, The Gambia also requested provisional measures, akin to an injunction against a country, to ensure protection of the Rohingya remaining in Myanmar and its own rights to fair proceedings as the legal process unfolds. Specifically, on November 11, 2019, the Republic requested provisional measures that would require Myanmar to cease all genocidal acts; to stop non-state actors from engaging in such acts; to prohibit the official destruction of evidence; and mandate official cooperation with all UN experts and entities investigating the mass atrocity crimes alleged. The Gambia argued that such injunctive relief was justified given the urgent ongoing threat to the Rohingya population.

    On January 23, 2020, the ICJ granted The Gambia’s application for provisional measures to prevent irreparable harm to human rights. In doing so, the Court ordered Myanmar to: (a) ensure that non-state actors refrain from committing genocidal acts; (b) preserve all relevant evidence; (c) report on its compliance with the Court’s order; and (d) “take all measures within its power” to prevent the genocide of the Rohingya among other measures while describing the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar as “extremely vulnerable” to state-sanctioned violence.

    In response, Human Rights Watch asserted, “This is the most important court in the world intervening in one of the worst mass atrocity situations of our time while the atrocities are still happening.” Significantly, the provisional measures order is legally binding on Myanmar and The Gambia. As such, the NUG has made clear that it intends to comply with the ICJ’s provisional ruling.

    While one hopes that the NUG’s calls for human rights reform come to fruition, it is difficult to ignore the broader context from which these public commitments emerge. To ensure strategic self-preservation prior to the military coup, Myanmar’s deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi oversaw the genocidal military campaign against the Rohingya that has since animated the litigation noted above.

    Indeed, during her reign of power, Aung San Suu Kyi, the human rights advocate who triumphed in the 2015 democratic elections, refused to pursue meaningful reforms to realize Rohingya human rights. In response to related criticism that she ignored flagrant human rights violations against the Rohingya Muslims, she characterized the 2017 humanitarian and human rights crisis as the unintended consequences of necessary counterterrorism measures rather than representative of decades-long persecution. She also accused international actors of “drumming up a cause for bigger fires of resentment.” In other words, the long-celebrated democracy icon provided political cover for official mass atrocity crimes that the military committed against the Rohingya as a matter of strategic self-interest only to be subsequently deposed by those very criminals.

    Now a government in exile, the NUG, which she helps lead with other lawmakers, has called for historic reforms to protect a once reviled group. While such changes are noteworthy, this is presumably intended to solidify support among a wider swath of compatriots and also more broadly in the international community. For better or worse, it underscores the role of politics in protecting, promoting and advancing human rights.

    After President Biden ordered sanctions against Myanmar’s generals in the coup’s immediate aftermath, critics pointed to atrocity crimes committed against the Rohingya while questioning the absence of such measures during the genocide. In tandem with late Harvard legal scholar Derrick Bell’s interest-convergence theory, NUG’s series of public statements demonstrate that reforms for individual rights may arise as a matter of strategic self-interest rather than an altruistic desire to assist an “otherized” population — even as a matter of public international law. This is a significant consideration for those working on rule of law initiatives in Myanmar and beyond.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progress or War: On Islamophobia and Europe’s Demographic Shifts

    Europe’s identity crisis is not confined to the ceaseless squabbles by Europeans over the EU, Brexit or football. It goes much deeper, reaching sensitive and dangerous territory, including that of culture and religion. Once more, Muslims stand at the heart of the continent’s identity debate.

    Of course, anti-Muslim sentiments are rarely framed to appear anti-Muslim. While Europe’s right-wing parties remain committed to the ridiculous notion that Muslims, immigrants and refugees pose a threat to Europe’s overall security and unique secular identities, the left is not entirely immune from such chauvinistic notions.

    The right’s political discourse is familiar and is often condemned for its repugnantly ultra-nationalistic, if not outright racist, tone and rhetoric. The left, on the other hand, is a different story. The European left, notably in countries like France and Belgium, frame their ‘problem’ with Islam as fundamental to their supposed dedication to the secular values of the State.

    “A problem arises when, in the name of religion, some want to separate themselves from the Republic and therefore not respect its laws,” Macron said during a speech in October 2020.

    Leftist politicians and intellectuals were just as eager as the right to prevent Ihsane Haouach, a Belgian government representative, from serving as a commissioner at the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men (IEFH). Again, both sides joined forces, although without an official declaration of unity, to ensure Haouach had no place in the country’s democratic process.

    It was a repeat of a similar scenario in France last May when Sara Zemmahi was removed from the ruling party’s candidates list for seemingly violating France’s valeurs de la République – the values of the Republic.

    These are but mere examples, and are hardly restricted to French-speaking countries. There are many such disquieting events pointing to a deep-seated problem that remains unresolved. In Britain, Rakhia Ismail, who was celebrated as the country’s first hijab-wearing mayor in May 2019, resigned from her post less than a year and a half later, citing racism and marginalization.

    While the Belgian, French, and British media elaborated on these stories as if unique to each specific country, in truth, they are all related. Indeed, they are all the outcome of an overriding phenomenon of anti-Muslim prejudice, coupled with a wave of racism that has plagued Europe for many years, especially in the last decade.

    Though Europe’s official institutions, mainstream media, sports clubs and so on, continue to pay lip service to the need for diversity and inclusion, the reality on the ground is entirely different. A recent example was the horrific outcome of England’s defeat in the EURO2020 final against Italy. Gangs of white English, mostly males, attacked people of color, especially black people, whether on the street or online. The extent of cyber-bullying, in particular, targeting dark-skinned athletes is almost unprecedented in the country’s recent history.

    Various British officials, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson, condemned the widespread racism. Interestingly, many of these officials have said or done very little to combat anti-Muslim hate and violence in the past, which often targeted Muslim women for their head or face covering.

    Strikingly, Johnson, purportedly now leading the anti-racist charge, was one of the most disparaging officials who spoke demeaningly of Muslim women in the past. “Muslim women wearing burka look like letter boxes,” he said, according to the BBC.

    Of course, Islamophobia must be seen within the larger context of the toxic anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiments, now defining factors in shaping modern European politics. It is this hate and racism that served as the fuel for rising political parties like Le Front National in France, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, The Freedom Party in Austria and the Lega in Italy. In fact, there is a whole intellectual discourse, complete with brand new theories that are used to channel yet more hate, violence and racism against immigrants.

    And where is the left in all of this? With a few exceptions, much of the left is still trapped in its own intellectual hubris, adding yet more fuel to the fire while veiling their criticism of Islam as if genuine concern for secularism.

    Oddly, in Europe, as in much of the West, crosses and Stars of David as necklaces, or the Catholic nuns’ head covering, velo delle suore, let alone the kippahs, the religious tattoos and many other such symbols are all part of Europe’s everyday culture. Why do we never hear of such controversy of a Jewish man being tossed out of a public building because of his kippah or a white French woman being expelled from university for wearing a cross? The matter has less to do with religious symbols, in general, than of the religious symbols of races and peoples who are simply unwanted in Europe.

    Also, limiting the discussion to refugees and immigrants may give the impression that the debate is mostly concerned with the non-European ‘others’ who are ‘invading’ Europe’s shores, determined to ‘replace’ Europe’s original, white, Christian inhabitants. This is hardly the case, since a sizable percentage of Belgians and French, for example, are themselves Muslims, estimated at 6 percent and 5% respectively. Namely, these Muslims are European citizens.

    Haouach, Zemmahi and Ismail actually wanted to be a part of – not break apart from – these societies by honoring their country’s most cherished political traditions, yet without erasing their own cultural heritage and religious identities in the process. Alas, they were all vehemently rejected, as if Europe has made a collective decision to ensure that Muslims subsist in the margins forever. And when Muslim communities try to fight back, using Europe’s own judicial systems as their supposed saviors, they are, once again, rejected. The latest of such spurns was in June, when Belgium’s constitutional court resolved that prohibiting the wearing of hijab does not constitute a violation of freedom of religion or the right to education.

    It is time for European countries to understand that their demographics are fundamentally changing, and that such change can, in fact, be beneficial to the health of these nations. Without true diversity and meaningful inclusion, there can be no real progress in any society, anywhere.

    But while demographic shifts can offer an opportunity for growth, it can also inspire fear, racism and, predictably, violence as well.

    Europe, which has fought two horrendous wars in the last century, should know better.

    The post Progress or War: On Islamophobia and Europe’s Demographic Shifts first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Australia’s migration “detention” industry again denounced

    Behrouz Boochani wrote in the Guardian of 21 July 2021 a trenchant opinion piece: “For eight years, Australia has been taking refugees as hostages. It’s time to ask: who has benefited?” About Boochani, see also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/2080f978-3f72-4e02-9ed1-dcea4299ccd0

    The government needs our bodies for political power, while the detention industry needs us to fuel its money-making torture machine. But what has Australia truly gained?

    Behrouz Boochani

    Kurdish-Iranian born journalist and refugee Behrouz Boochani spent six years in Australian-run detention on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. He now lives in Christchurch, New Zealand. Photograph: Martin Hunter/AAPWed 21 Jul 2021 03.14 BST

    Eight years have passed since the Australian government mandated offshore detention for all asylum seekers who arrive by boat, which led to the banishing of more than 3,000 refugees to Nauru as well as Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

    Since then, we have heard many tragic stories about the stranded refugees – stories of death, violence, child detention, family separation and countless violations of human rights. See also; https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/04/15/rescuing-refugees-a-moral-imperative-not-a-crime/

    We have heard the stories of the hundreds who have been traumatised and the 14 who were killed. We got to know about Reza Barati who was surrounded by a group of guards and beaten to death. We were told about Hamid Khazaei who developed a leg infection, ended up in a wheelchair and died while in custody. Faysal Ishak Ahmed also died in a Brisbane hospital. For the refugees Australia imprisons, music is liberation, life and defiance.

    When I think about the stories of these refugees, including myself, the first thought that springs to mind is the abduction of human beings on the sea. We were kidnapped and forcibly transferred to an island we had never heard of. We were robbed of our identity. We turned into a string of numbers through a carefully planned process of dehumanisation. We were led into an evil system which was designed to diminish our identity.

    The offshore detention policy was a form of official hostage-taking. For years, the Australian government refused to accept us, while preventing us from being transferred elsewhere. Even when it succumbed to public pressure by signing a resettlement deal with the United States, the government prolongated the transfer process. After all these years, many refugees are still held in indefinite detention.

    The offshore detention policy is a combination of hostage-taking, deception, secrecy, corruption, populist propaganda and systematic torture

    In addition to being a form of official hostage-taking, the policy provided a platform for the spread of populist ideas and false claims. Kevin Rudd, for example, announced this policy just before the 2013 federal election, while Scott Morrison went to the Christmas Island detention centre alongside a dozen reporters in 2019 and posed heroically against the backdrop of the sea.

    They deceivedthe public into believing that the offshore detention policy was like a building that would collapse if one brick were to be removed from it. They warned against the invasion of boats on Australian shores, but no boats arrived. What boats anyway? They returned every single one to Indonesia.

    This is a key point, because whenever the public has put pressure on the government since 2013, officials have highlighted the risks of opening up the borders. This turned out to be an outright lie. What the government has done is create unjustified fear while hiding behind the notion of national security.Advertisement

    The reality is they needed our bodies for retaining their political power. Along the way, they created a $12bn detention industry which has greatly benefited politicians as well as certain security and medical companies. The contracts signed with Paladin is the only instance leaked to the media, but I believe that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Loghaman Sawari

    The Australian government has made every effort to preserve its detention industry. When thousands of refugees were transferred to the US, the government brought in a group of New Zealanders previously held in Australia. At the end of the day, human bodies are fuel to this money-making torture machine.

    The offshore detention policy is a combination of hostage-taking, deception, secrecy, corruption, populist propaganda, and of course, systematic torture. It is sadistic, costly, and unnecessary. After all these years, Australians need to find the courage to look in the mirror and ask themselves, “What have we gained? What have we lost?” These are crucial questions.

    It is time to challenge the foundations of this deceitful policy. In the last eight years, human values have been undermined, more than $12bn has been spent and the international reputation of Australia has suffered immensely. The key question to ask right now is: “Who has benefited from this policy?”

    Written by Behrouz Boochani, a former detainee and nor adjunct senior fellow at University of Canterbury [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/12/01/behrouz-boochani-gives-interview-in-new-zealand-finally-out-of-manus-island/]

    —

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/21/for-eight-years-australia-has-been-taking-refugees-as-hostages-its-time-to-ask-who-has-benefited

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

  • Eight years on activists continue to protest ‘PNG solution’

    Alex Bainbridge reports on a protest to mark eight years since Kevin Rudd declared the so-called “PNG solution”.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Wenda appeals to NZ, West to supply covid vaccines direct to Papuans

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    A pro-independence movement in West Papua has appealed to several Western countries — including New Zealand — to provide urgent humanitarian help by supplying covid vaccines directly to the Papuans to cope with the “double crisis” in the Indonesian-ruled region.

    Benny Wenda, interim president of the Provisional Government of West Papua, said today he had made the appeal by writing to the foreign ministers of Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the US.

    “I have also written to the President of the European Commission, the WHO [World Health Organisation] and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the escalating covid-19 situation in our land,” he said in a statement.

    “This new crisis is a further existential threat to my people.”

    Indonesia had caused a double crisis for the people of West Papua by launching military operations in the middle of the pandemic, Wenda said, as he had warned.

    “Just yesterday, villagers from the West Moskona district were attacked by troops after attending a peaceful worship session against ‘Special Autonomy’, fleeing to the forests and the city of Bintuni,” he said.

    “Woman and children are afraid to return to their villages in case the military and police arrest or attack them.”

    50,000 plus displaced
    “More than 50,000 people have been displaced in Nduga, Puncak and Intan Jaya over the past two and a half years. Their homes have been destroyed, their churches burned and their schools occupied by soldiers.

    “They are left in internal displacement camps, where the virus will spread rapidly. Already in the cities, patients are being turned away or treated in cars outside the hospital.”

    Western countries and the WHO had an urgent moral obligation to give vaccine doses direct the local Papuan government for distribution, Wenda said.

    “As the 2018 Asmat health crisis showed, Jakarta cannot be trusted with the health of the West Papuan people,” he said.

    “Over nearly 60 years of colonisation we have seen a chronic failure to develop health facilities in West Papua, leaving us dying on top of the natural riches Indonesia is extracting. If Jakarta is allowed to hold the reigns of vaccine development, my people will suffer further.”

    Wenda said the developments were part of a “continued genocide against my people”.

    “Our forests have been torn down, our mountains decapitated, our way of life destroyed. Indonesia restricts healthcare and enforces a colonial education whilst killing anyone who speaks out for self-determination,” Wenda said.

    “Launching military operations in the middle of a pandemic is a policy designed to further wipe out our population. We need urgent international assistance, direct to the local Papuan government, not through the colonial occupier.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • For eight years, Australia has been taking refugees as hostages. It’s time to ask: who has benefited? | Behrouz Boochani

    The government needs our bodies for political power, while the detention industry needs us to fuel its money-making torture machine. But what has Australia truly gained?

    Eight years have passed since the Australian government mandated offshore detention for all asylum seekers who arrive by boat, which led to the banishing of more than 3,000 refugees to Nauru as well as Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

    Since then, we have heard many tragic stories about the stranded refugees – stories of death, violence, child detention, family separation and countless violations of human rights.

    Related: For the refugees Australia imprisons, music is liberation, life and defiance | Behrouz Boochani

    The offshore detention policy is a combination of hostage-taking, deception, secrecy, corruption, populist propaganda and systematic torture

    Related: Three countries, eight years: one refugee’s nightmare odyssey through Australia’s detention system

    Continue reading…

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

  • Dying To Be Regularized: Migrants On Hunger Strike

    Farida is 51 years old. She was born in Belgium. Her entire family has the Belgian nationality. Farida has a steady job. She cleans offices and public buildings, for €6-8 per hour. Her last application for a regularization of her administrative status got rejected and she has received a state-issued order to leave the territory.

    Kiran fled a civil war in Nepal 16 years ago and applied for asylum in Belgium. While his asylum request was still pending, he got a job that paid €10 an hour. When his asylum claim got rejected, his wage fell to €2.5 an hour. His daughter, born in Belgium, is now five years old and speaks fluent Flemish, which she learned at school. The family submitted five applications to be regularized, they were all rejected.

    The post Dying To Be Regularized: Migrants On Hunger Strike appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Supporting Asylum Seekers Holistically

    Client Items Basket at The Advocates for Human Rights

    People who flee their home country seeking security and protection in the United States face a long and unpredictable asylum process, even when they’re able to access free legal services like those offered by The Advocates for Human Rights. Many countries support asylum seekers according to the human rights standards declared by the United Nations; the United States does not. Asylum seekers in the U.S. do not receive temporary housing, a living allowance, or health care. They must wait months before applying for a work permit, have no access to federally funded programs such as SNAP or Medicaid, lack local community connections, and often have little ability to connect with family left behind in dangerous situations. They are among the most vulnerable members of our community.

    When the asylum review process became longer and longer, sometimes lasting years rather than months, The Advocates decided to include Social Work Interns in our work to support our clients during this difficult process. Partnering with local universities including Augsburg, St. Catherine’s University, the University of St. Thomas and the University of Minnesota, as well as Denver University’s Online program, The Advocates has hosted over 10 social work interns since the program started in 2013. The Advocates relies on volunteer Social Work professionals to provide joint supervision for the social work students. Emily Villanueva, Almena Dees, and Rachel Amerman, our current Social Work Interns, help clients who need housing, health care, clothes, food, and other essentials by referring them to trusted community resources. For example, Emily recalled a family that couldn’t pay their energy bills but was deemed ineligible to receive energy assistance due to their immigration status. Determined to help, she utilized local social services networks, reviewed energy regulations, and soon was able to find that the family did qualify for energy assistance and assisted the family with the application process

    Emily Villanueva on the left and Rachel Amerman on the right.

    No one can do this work alone. There is a dynamic collaboration between lawyers, social service networks, and Social Work Interns. As clients meet with lawyers to build their legal case, the interns also build trusting relationships with clients and seek to connect them with communities of support to uplift and empower them. If someone enjoys playing the piano or sports, the interns work with local networks to connect clients with such opportunities. Rachel commented that “it takes a lot of research to find who can provide the rights resources.” Thankfully, “the network of service providers for immigrants and refugees within Minneapolis and Saint Paul is a very tight-knit, strong community of people who are all working hard towards the same goal.” Supporting clients does not mean taking away their agency. While asylum seekers often depend on other people’s kindness and compassion to help them navigate an unfamiliar system, it is crucial to build trust and relationships that allow space for the clients to be in control of their own lives. “One size does not fit all. When you have a client, you need to sit with the client and really listen to what they need,” explained Almena.

    The systemic racism and bias that became highly visible after George Floyd’s murder deeply affect the experiences of our clients. Recognizing that the murder by police and civil unrest would be particularly unsettling to our clients given their own personal histories of political persecution and violence, Social Work Interns and staff redoubled their outreach efforts. One of our clients said, “I am a young man who has come of age in times of great challenges mixed with great hope. As an asylum seeker in the USA, I thought I had never faced the wrath of racism and segregation

    because of my color … I realized that racism in America is much more than just physically being subjected to racial slurs.” This structural racism is deeply intertwined with white nationalism and the immigration laws to which The Advocates’ clients are subject. Social Work Interns must consider these overlapping crises in their work, as clients “take the trauma they experienced in their home country with them. When they arrive in the U.S., they’re shut out of community services, then face the backlash and hate of an anti-immigrant narrative in our society. The most important part of my work is to show each client that someone is listening, that someone cares for their well-being” said Rachel.

    Due to racism and lack of protections in our asylum system the current reality for many of our clients is that it takes a social work intern to act as an intermediary to access and meet their basic needs. Together with attorneys and service networks, The Advocates works to support and provide legal representation for clients seeking protection. By including social work interns in our work, we are addressing the crucial need of providing holistic wellbeing and support so that clients regain independence. With compassion, deep listening, and the drive to make a difference in people’s lives, Social Work Interns like Emily, Almena, and Rachel are changing the world for good at The Advocates, one client at a time.

    The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.

    Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.

    Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.

    By Jessie Lu, 2021 Macalester Graduate and Development Intern.

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.

  • EU border agency ‘has failed to protect asylum seekers’ rights’

    Author of European parliament report says Frontex agency’s director should resign or be sacked

    The EU border agency has failed to protect the human rights of asylum seekers, according to a damning European parliament report on the organisation.

    After a four-month investigation by MEPs the report’s author, Tineke Strik, told the Guardian, that Frontex “did not fulfil its human rights obligations and therefore did not address and therefore did not prevent future violations”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Priti Patel’s borders bill is designed to look tough, not solve any real problems | Daniel Trilling

    Asylum claims in the UK are at a historic low. These punitive measures will only force more people into legal limbo

    We are living at a time where displacement is a major feature of life on this planet – but it’s one we have the resources to deal with. Faced with that reality, wealthy countries have a choice between acting in solidarity with the rest of the world’s population or pulling up the drawbridge.

    Judging by the contents of the nationality and borders bill, which has its second reading in parliament on 19 and 20 July, the UK is opting for the latter. Although trailed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, who is the minister in charge, as a major reform of the country’s “broken” immigration system, its main effect will be to add an extra dose of cruelty to the existing arrangements.

    Daniel Trilling is the author of Lights in the Distance: Exile and Refuge at the Borders of Europe and Bloody Nasty People: the Rise of Britain’s Far Right

    Continue reading…

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

  • ‘I see my work as: the more I contribute to the organisation, the more the organisation will give to people. In other words, putting people’s interest first is my main motivation.’ ‒ Interview with Nichapa Chanwisitkul, East Asia and ASEAN Programme Associate at FORUM-ASIA

    This month, FORUM-ASIA talked with Nichapa Chanwisitkul, East Asia and ASEAN Programme Associate at FORUM-ASIA. In the interview, Nichapa shares with us on how she started her work in the human rights sector, her experiences with refugees and migrants, and about always putting people’s interest first in her work.

     

    How did you become involved with human rights? And how did you become involved with FORUM-ASIA?

    After completing my Bachelor of Law from Chulalongkorn University, I had the opportunity to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as a protection intern, supporting refugees in Bangkok. This first experience with human rights, where I helped refugees on the frontlines of Thailand. Although it was more humanitarian work, I also has the opportunity  to use a lot of human rights law to help them access their basic rights. This inspired me a lot to work in the human rights and humanitarian field as well, and even continued as a refugee lawyer, where I exercised more human rights and international human rights law and developed arguments for refugees I worked with.

    I decided to join FORUM-ASIA because, when I worked as a refugee lawyer, I realised that there was a need for changes in legislation and policy, particularly related to refugees. That was how I got interested in the advocacy and policy work, and it was then that I noticed that FORUM-ASIA uses the UN and ASEAN Human Rights mechanisms as a means of advocacy.

    So, when a job opportunity arose,  I applied and that is how I got involved with the organisation. Also, I knew people who had already worked with FORUM-ASIA and who showed me the work of the organisation, and this made me more interested. Therefore, I consider working at FORUM-ASIA a great opportunity and I hope to continue contributing to the work of the organisation as well as continuing to learn.

    What motivated you to become involved? And has that motivation changed over the years?

    When I started my career and even when I applied for the internship at the UNHCR, I did not have a great motivation or life goal to work in the human rights field. But what motivated me to apply for this internship was because, during my studies, I attended some classes that discussed human rights.  Those classes made me interested in human rights  and I started to think about how I can apply international law to address human rights issues. As international law it focusses more on the principles as well as the problem, it is  necessary to find an answer to a problem related to human rights.

    However, human rights by themselves may be the main principle for solving other problems, which involve different challenges that are ever-changing.

    As human rights challenges or violations are always centred around people, there is no unique way to the solutions, therefore allowing more creativity in the problem-solving process.

    This, especially when I started working in this area, made me realise that I really enjoy helping people solve their problems, motivating me to continue working in the field.

    My motivation has evolved  from the beginning of my career as it has now become a personal interest. But the main cause, which is very important to me, has remained the same: working with people.

    I see my work as: the more I contribute to the organisation, the more the organisation will give to people. In other words, putting people’s interest first is my main motivation.

    Please tell us one of the most inspiring moments for you in your work in the past?

    One of the most inspiring moments was when I worked with the refugee community and started to see the changes over time in them, especially when they felt more comfortable doing things on their own. This progress was partly a result of my work and the training I gave them. My role was to help refugee groups understand the laws in Thailand and equip them with the skills and knowledge of basic human rights to exercise their rights on their own and understand how the legal system operates.

    Because if they are aware of their rights, they can start their first steps and seek help for any unjust situations. The most inspiring moment for me is related to the long-term work that I have with the refugee groups. After one year, I could already see a lot of growth in them and their ability to share and process this knowledge and tools with their community. Their stories demonstrate the power to influence people, going from a small group to various communities.

    What do you experience as the main challenges as someone working on human rights? And how do you deal with such obstacles in your work?

    I think the biggest challenge for me is to reconcile the dilemma of expectations against results. Change in human rights is not easy, and it cannot happen as quickly as we would like, or even not at all. However, people working in the human rights field tend to have these expectations to see the result of our work and see change, namely a better scenario.

    On the other hand, having these expectations gives us the motivation to continue our work. Meanwhile, it is important for us to understand that there are several factors that influence actions and decisions which are beyond our control.

    Find the right balance between expectations and results has not been easy. I cannot have too low expectations, so I do not lose interest in the work; at the same time, I cannot have too high expectations, so I do not burn out easily for not seeing the change I want in my work.

    The second challenge I found is that the job market in the human rights field is highly competitive and there is no job security. Therefore I consider myself very privileged to have continued to work in this field.

    When it comes to how I deal with the first challenge, I try to tell myself: human rights are more than seventy years old, and from day one there have been many developments and progress, but even so we still consider that more needs to be done.

    For someone like me who has been in the field for only four years, I should not be stressed about something that could happen in my lifetime, and that is alright. Therefore, I always try to do my best and get the best possible scenario of what I can do at this moment, being aware that there are factors that I cannot control.

    For the second challenge, I still have not figured it out yet, but I always try to look at it as something I am working on now and then see what the future will bring. However, even if there is no job for me in this field or if I must work for a corporate in the future, I believe that as long as I can support myself, I still have the opportunity to continue helping people and contributing to society.

    If you could give a message to the new generation of people working on human rights or development, what would it be?

    The first point I would like to make is that, in any work you can do, even if it is not in human rights or development sectors, there are always opportunities to help and contribute to society, the community and people, through volunteering, donations, or pro-bono services.

    The second point is that when we are working in the field of human rights or development, regardless of your position or the level of policy in your organisation, we must always consider the needs of the people who are affected the most. We must always ensure that these people are heard and have space to participate, as well as the people who are  working at the grassroots level.

    The last thing I would like to say is that you do not need to have a big name or position to make the change because everyone can play a role in the change process as long as you are willing to.

    This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.

  • A civilised country is one that treats refugees with compassion | Letters

    Members of Exiled Writers Ink respond in horror to Priti Patel’s plans to create offshore centres to process asylum seekers. Plus Dr Liz Curran pleads with the UK not to follow Australia’s dehumanising policy and Pat Beesley wonders when we stopped treating refugees like human beings

    We are refugee and migrant writers living in Britain who are members of Exiled Writers Ink, and we are horrified at Priti Patel’s new proposals for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers (Priti Patel to reveal proposals for offshore centres for asylum seekers, 5 July). Having suffered intolerable ordeals to reach the UK, undergoing pain or terror, whether in our countries of origin or on our journeys, we need to be treated with humanity, decency and respect.

    The bill should exercise compassion rather than criminalise refugees simply because they are forced to deploy unconventional methods to enter the country. The reason for the dangerous and illegal journeys into the UK is the draconian system that prevents refugees from entering this country through legal means. Crucially, Patel needs to be aware of the grave danger of returning migrants to their home countries, given that numerous regimes would be only too pleased to receive the deportees in order to kill them.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Priti Patel’s immigration bill could make the RNLI criminals

    Priti Patel’s controversial new immigration bill has thrown up a troubling possibility: that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution’s (RNLI) volunteers could spend life in prison for helping drowning refugees and asylum seekers.

    The Nationality and Borders Bill

    As The Canary previously reported:

    The Nationality and Borders Bill [entered] parliament on 6 July. The Home Office said its reforms will make it harder for people who enter the UK ‘illegally’ to stay.

    Patel said the new bill will change our “broken asylum system”, stopping gangs from facilitating illegal journeys to the UK. She added it will further streamline the removal of “those with no right to be here”.

    You can read Jasmine Norden’s analysis of the bill here. As she wrote:

    The proposals in this bill serve to harm refugees desperately in need of safety. They will make it harder for them to gain asylum and criminalise them for trying to escape danger.

    And there’s one bit of the bill which is causing a fresh outcry.

    Criminalising a charity

    Richard Murphy tweeted that:

    This seems to be a distinct possibility. As Colin Yeo wrote for freemovement, Patel is changing the law on helping asylum seekers getting into the UK. Previously, if a person “facilitates” this, it would only be illegal if it was for that person’s “gain”. But Patel wants to remove the word “gain”. So, as Yeo summed up:

    While someone working for an organisation that “aims to assist asylum-seekers” cannot be charged with this offence, someone who works for a more general-purpose charity like the RNLI and who helps an asylum seeker enter the UK may, on the face of it, be criminalised by this change.

    The bill is currently at an early stage in its passage through parliament. This means it’s not yet clear what the implications are for charities like RNLI. George Peretz QC explained:

     

    Peretz offered some thoughts on why Patel’s department might target charities like RNLI:

    More readings of the bill are still to come. However, the suggestion that the state could prosecute a charity whose sole purpose is saving lives on the water – for doing just that – is very troubling. The maximum sentence for this is life imprisonment.

    “Profoundly shocking”

    As Murphy wrote:

    I have been a long time supporter of the RNLI… I am deeply shocked by this move… to find that saving the life of an asylum seeker is now to be criminalised is profoundly shocking. What sort of mentality is required to create such a possibility?

    But as Daniel Sohege said on Twitter, who else could the Tories prosecute for rescuing drowning asylum seekers?

    Writer Alex Tiffin thought maybe boat skippers:

    The RNLI had already faced abuse from the far-right. Nigel Farage recently called it a “taxi service for illegal immigration”. The Daily Mail then ran a story on his claim. But the charity is not having it. It said in a statement on Twitter:

    Our lifeboats operate under international maritime law, which states we are permitted and indeed obligated to enter the waters of other territories for search and rescue purposes.

    Where we believe there is a risk to life at sea, we will always launch.

    So, first Farage and now our far-right government are demonising refugees and asylum seekers so much they’re apparently willing to criminalise one of the most well-known charities in the country. When he was London mayor, Boris Johnson supported the RNLI. How the political wind changes.

    Featured image via Ronnie Robertson – Flickr and Good Morning Britain – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Priti Patel wants to make people criminals for trying to escape danger

    Priti Patel is set to reveal a new bill shaking up immigration laws to criminalise people arriving in the UK without prior permission.

    The Nationality and Borders Bill enters parliament on 6 July. The Home Office said its reforms will make it harder for people who enter the UK ‘illegally’ to stay.

    Patel said the new bill will change our “broken asylum system”, stopping gangs from facilitating illegal journeys to the UK. She added it will further streamline the removal of “those with no right to be here”.

    Immigration and refugee campaigners say the new reforms could leave thousands seeking safety turned away, and accused the bill of ‘criminalising’ refugees.

    The bill

    The bill is set to introduce a new definition of ‘entering’ the UK, which is likely to make it easier to prosecute migrants intercepted in UK waters.

    Refugees travelling into the country via ‘unofficial means’ could face up to four years in prison – the current maximum sentence is six months.

    It will further introduce a maximum life sentence for ‘people-smugglers’ and new age assessments. It will also downgrade status for asylum seekers the government isn’t able to deport to a ‘safe country’.

    The new law would also allow the government to remove asylum seekers to offshore centres while their appeals are processed.

    “Major concerns”

    According to the Refugee Council’s analysis, the reforms could mean up to 21,600 people each year that would currently be accepted as refugees would no longer be due to how they arrive.

    Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said:

    Today this government is cruelly choosing to not only turn away those in need of safety but also treat them as criminals.

    This anti-refugee Bill will drive an already inefficient and ineffective system into disarray with even worse delays and far greater expense.

    The British Red Cross said they had “major concerns” with the bill. The charity said it would mean asylum seekers’ cases would be decided based on “how they entered the country”. This would be instead of their need for protection.

    Mike Adamson, chief executive of British Red Cross, said:

    People seeking asylum have been through some of the worst horrors imaginable, and their search for safety is often long and arduous. Many people spend years internally displaced in their own country, before making journeys to other places to seek safety. Even then, people are often forced to keep moving on due to violence, overcrowded refugee camps or being unable to access asylum systems.

    If Global Britain is truly to be a force for good, we need to lead by example. That means making changes to our own asylum system towards a compassionate approach to people seeking refuge here, and looking outside our borders for opportunities for lasting change. 

    The effect on asylum seekers

    According to watchdog the Independent Monitoring Board, the Home Office’s plan to quickly deport asylum seekers in 2020 led to a huge increase in the number of people at risk of suicide.

    From July to December 2020, the Home Office operated several deportation flights. Officials placed one-third of all the people detained at Brook House Removal Centre on suicide watch during this time.

    Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said the bill does nothing to deal with the “chaos” created by the Conservatives’ immigration policy. He added that it doesn’t:

    deal with the fact that the time taken to process claims has rocketed or desperate people are still falling victim to criminal gangs. Instead, they will reduce support for victims of human trafficking, potentially break international law, and there are still no effective, meaningful proposals to deal with the increasing number of people risking their lives crossing the Channel.

    In March, Patel insisted that the proposals do not break international law.

    ‘Criminalising’ refugees

    The proposals in this bill serve to harm refugees desperately in need of safety. They will make it harder for them to gain asylum and criminalise them for trying to escape danger.

    The proposals do the opposite of fixing our ‘broken asylum system’ and are likely to lead only to more chaos.

    Featured image via YouTube/UK Parliament

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Madrid court rules far-right anti-migrant poster is legitimate

    Political rivals and human rights campaigners criticise use of inflammatory campaign material by Vox party

    Human rights groups and politicians in Spain have spoken out after a court ruled that a controversial and false election poster for the far-right Vox party should not be withdrawn because it is legitimate political expression, and because the unaccompanied foreign minors it depicts in a relentlessly negative light are “an obvious social and political problem”.

    The poster, which Vox used as part of its campaign in May’s bitterly contested Madrid regional election, was put up in a busy rail station in the capital and shows a hooded and masked dark-skinned youth alongside a white Spanish grandmother. It incorrectly suggests that refugee and migrant children in state care receive 10 times more in benefits each month than the average Spanish grandmother does in pension payments.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Home Office facing questions over refusal to reveal expenditure on aging ex-military ‘detention centre’ for refugees

    The Home Office has refused to say how much it has spent operating Napier Barracks, the controversial military site being used to house asylum seekers. Charities said the public “deserve to know the price of this inhumanity” and called for the figures to be published.

    Home secretary Priti Patel was also criticised for not having visited the site in Folkestone, Kent since it was turned into accommodation.

    Information

    The disclosures came in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by the PA news agency. A spokesperson for the home secretary declined to comment, while a Home Office spokesperson said “significant improvements” have been made to Napier Barracks but would not say what the overall expenditure has been.

    The department said that some £500,000 has been spent on the site for improvements to the accommodation and recreational activities, but declined to detail how much had been handed to contractors.

    Dating back more than 130 years, the ageing Napier Barracks was loaned to the Home Office in September 2020 and has been used to house hundreds of asylum seekers, many of whom have crossed the English Channel aboard small boats.

    The Home Office was asked to detail how much had been spent on the barracks in preparation for, and since its use for, housing asylum seekers.

    This was to include amounts paid to accommodation providers, contractors; and sub-contractors, as well as expenditure on things such as upgrades and fixes. However, that part of the FOI request was refused, with the department saying the information is considered to be “commercially sensitive”.

    It added:

    If we were to disclose the information to you, this would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of both the Home Office and those companies with whom the Home Office enters into contracts.

    The FOI also asked how many times Patel has visited Napier Barracks in that same time period, as well as minister Chris Philp. The Home Office said that Patel had not visited the site and Philp had visited once.

    Napier Barracks
    Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    “Hateful and divisive”

    Sile Reynolds, senior policy adviser at Freedom from Torture, said:

    At a time when the Government should be investing in safe, dignified and humane housing for all people in the UK, it is wasting money on this hateful and divisive strategy. The public and the people who languish in the barracks deserve to know the price of this inhumanity. What does Priti Patel have to hide?

    Reynolds called on the Home Secretary to visit the barracks so she can “see first-hand how her decisions have affected vulnerable people”. She added:

    Her absence is an affront to their suffering

    Bella Sankey, director of Detention Action, said:

    The quasi-detention of traumatised people at disused military barracks has been one of Priti Patel’s flagship policies, yet despite public outcry at the appalling conditions and criticism in the courts and in Parliament, we now learn she has failed to check for herself.

    She added that this was “shocking but not surprising” and also called for the expenditure figures to be released.

    Shadow Home Office minister Bambos Charalambous told PA:

    After a recent High Court ruling found that Napier Barracks was not fit for housing asylum seekers, it is shocking that ministers are unwilling to reveal how much they have spent on this sub-standard accommodation and how much they have paid to outside contractors.

    He said the Home Office must outline this information “immediately” so that it can be held accountable for the cost to the public purse.

    A Home Office spokesperson said:

    During the height of an unprecedented health pandemic, to ensure asylum seekers were not left destitute, additional accommodation was required at extremely short notice. These sites are a temporary measure to ease pressure on the system during these unprecedented times and reduce our reliance on hotels.

    Significant improvements have been made to the site, including improved accommodation and more outdoor and recreational activities.

    Napier Barracks
    Napier Barracks dates back more than 130 years (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    They also claimed that the department’s New Plan for Immigration will “fix the broken asylum system” that the Conservative Party has been responsible for since 2010.

    Unsuitable

    Some £500,000 has been spent on the site, including improvements to accommodation and more recreational and outdoor activities, including access to basketball, a library, prayer rooms and yoga, according to the Home Office.

    The use of Napier Barracks for accommodation came despite the Home Office being warned by Public Health England that it was unsuitable, the High Court previously heard. Patel previously said the site was “Covid-compliant” and “has been from day one”.

    A major outbreak ripped through the barracks, with nearly 200 people contracting the virus in the first months of 2021.

    In June 2021, six asylum seekers previously housed at Napier Barracks won their legal challenge against the government after a High Court judge found the accommodation failed to meet a minimum standard.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Biden Starts to Hit Stride on Asylum Protections

    World Refugee Day (June 20) marked six months of the Biden Administration.  In that time, The Advocates and other organizations have been extremely disappointed with the President’s failure to deliver on promises for swift and bold action on immigration and human rights.  While we celebrated the first days of Administration with executive orders ending the Muslim and African Bans, laying-out plans for asylum protections, stopping harmful Trump-era regulations, pausing funding for the Border Wall, and sending comprehensive immigration reform to Congress, enthusiasm had given way to concerns as months passed with the Biden Administration failing to take decisive action, continuing the status quo, and waffling on crucial rights issues.   

    Yet, almost as if it’s awoken and decided to meet the moment, there have recently been some  exciting actions on immigration from President Biden.  The Advocates views these steps as crucial, positive, and exciting, but remains cautions that the Administration must maintain its commitment, energy and resolve in not only undoing harmful Trump-era immigration policy but leading bold and visionary change that eschews political decisions to ensure our immigration system is safe, orderly, transparent, just and protects the dignity and rights of all people.   

    The changes The Administration has recently announced  include:   

    1. Vacating harmful and illegal Attorney General decisions on asylum issued under the Trump Administration to dismantle protections for victims of gender-based, family and gang violence. 

    Attorney General Garland announced on June 16 that the Department of Justice would vacate several Trump-era decisions that resulted in the denial of thousands of claims.  Attorney General Sessions and Attorney General Barr referred the cases of Matter of A- B- and Matter of L- E- A- to themselves.  Not only is such a move by an Attorney General highly unusual, but the move made it nearly impossible for an asylum seeker to prevail on fears of persecution based on gender and family violence (Matter of A- B-) or gang violence targeted at family members (Matter of L- E- A-).  This, despite the fact that international law is clear that such claims can be sufficient to trigger obligations against removal under the Refugee Convention to which the U.S. is a party.   

    Immigration advocacy groups, including The Advocates, have been calling for the Biden Administration to vacate these decisions as well as Matter of A- C- A- A- for months, including in a recent letter signed by more than 300 organizations.  The Attorney General’s announcement, therefore, is a welcome step toward bringing U.S. asylum law in-line with international obligations and best practices.  Yet, more remains to be done not just to undo the harms of the Trump Administration but to more wholistically reform the asylum system to meet international standards and ensure protections are not eroded in the future.  The Advocates will be continuing our work to advocate for Congressional reform as well as regulations from President Biden to this effect.          

    1. Plans for a regulation  on asylum processing  

    The Advocates supports the plan to allow asylum seekers who present themselves at the U.S. border or ports and show a credible fear of persecution or torture to process their claims with the U.S. Asylum Office instead of going through immigration court. Under the current system, people presenting themselves at U.S. ports of entry (such as the border) to seek asylum must present their case in immigration court upon a showing of a credible fear of persecution.  This, despite the fact that immigration courts are facing years-long backlogs and also present an adversarial system that is inappropriate for vulnerable and trauma-impacted people.  The proposed change would increase efficiency and uphold our commitment to protecting the rights of asylum seekers. The Advocates is awaiting the text of this regulation and hopes that it reflects the newer, bolder vision the Administration has hinted.  We will look forward to submitting comments on the proposed rule. 

    1. Plans for a regulation on Particular Social Groups in asylum applications 

    The Advocates welcomes plans for rulemaking that would clarify and codify the proper standard for asylum claims based on Particular Social Group (PSG).  Under the UN Refugee Convention, parties such as the U.S. must provide asylum protections to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of their membership in a PSG.  The drafters purposely left definition of PSG undefined in recognition of the fact that the ways in which humans do harm to each other is always evolving and must be left vague so as not to foreclose valid claims in the future.  The U.S. has long used the Matter of Acosta standard, which broadly defined PSG as members sharing a characteristic that a person either cannot change or should not have to change.  Yet, under the Trump Administration, we saw attempts to severely narrow these protections—something they were able to do because of the lack of controlling guidance in legislation or precedent codifying Acosta at a higher level.  A regulatory action that codifies this standard would protect bona fide claims while increasing administrative efficiency by ensuring immigration judges and asylum officers are not left to ping pong between standards with each change of administration.  

    The Advocates further calls for ensuring that any such regulation specifically include gender-based and sex-based claims as meeting the PSG definition.  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Guidelines on implementation and interpretation of the Refugee Convention is clear that persecution on account of someone’s gender (such as domestic violence, Female Genital Mutilation, and more) falls within the Convention’s protections.  Yet, the Trump Administration attempted to erode and foreclose those protections through the Attorneys General decisions in a number of appealed cases—decisions that must be overruled and clarified through regulation to keep US law in-line with international standards and our obligations.   

    1. Plans for regulations rescinding or modifying numerous Trump-era regulations that sought to gut asylum protections and due process in immigration proceedings 

    The Advocates welcomes the plan to rescind or modify numerous harmful Trump-era regulations on immigration.  In 2020 alone, the Administration issued more than 20 proposed regulations, which is hastily finalized before leaving office, aimed at eroding immigrant rights, and asylum in particular.  The Advocates fought against these actions by submitting extensive comments in opposition to the changes.  And, the courts agreed with the challenges, issuing injunctions in litigation brought by other groups on nearly every regulation finalized.   

    The Biden Administration must rescind these regulations to both uphold court findings on the illegality of the rules and to ensure US law meets international standards.  Further, however, The Advocates believes the Biden Administration must work to not only restore protections in U.S. law, but to push beyond them.  U.S. immigration law is outdated, unjust, and harmful.  Rooted in old concepts of nationalism and exclusion, rather than human rights and a globalized world, U.S. immigration law creates harsh lines and bars that do not allow people to move with dignity.  The law also harshly intertwines the immigration system and criminal justice systems, barring immigration options for criminal issues, including even where there is no conviction.  The Biden Administration—and the 117th Congress—have an opportunity to take bold steps on immigration reform to ensure our system fits the realities of the 21st century, adequately protects human rights in-line with our international treaty obligations and US law, and build a robust immigration system that reflects the benefits of safe, orderly and clear migration.    

    1. Plans for regulations to comprehensively address asylum  

    We look forward to seeing President Biden issue a broad, visionary and protective regulation making important changes to further—not narrow—asylum.  This is anticipated in late 2021 or early 2022.  The Advocates will be vigorously advocating to ensure any comprehensive regulation meets or exceeds international standards.   

    1. An announcement on plans for cancelling and revising use of Border Wall funding 

    President Biden issued a plan to cancel any border wall projects that involved diverted funds; end expansion to the extent permitted by law; and address safety and environmental issues resulting from construction under the Trump Administration.  Instead, it plans to use funds to address root causes of migration from Central America ($861 million), support the immigration courts and US Citizenship and Immigration Services to more fairly and effectively run ($345 million), and advance modern solutions for border management ($1.2 billion). 

    While we welcome these changes, we caution the Administration not to use these funds as an excuse to expand surveillance and harmful technologies.  The Administration has stated that it “calls on Congress to cancel any border barrier funds that remain at the end of the year so that these resources can instead be used for modern, privacy-protective, and effective border management measures like enhanced technology between points of entry and improved infrastructure at Land Ports of Entry.”  We welcome the recognition that technological approaches to border security must be “privacy-protective,” but remain concern about the proliferation of technology and enhanced surveillance in President Biden’s immigration policies.  Rather than taking a more humane and logical approach to immigration and border security, which recognizes the nature of human movement, Biden appears to be replacing the Trump-era physical barriers with technological ones.  While the Biden Administration’s more inclusive and human rights-based rhetoric is welcome, these efforts threaten to sidestep human rights around privacy, present continued barriers to meaningful access to asylum, and raise equity issues given the overwhelmingly negative impact of surveillance on BIPOC communities who are victim to technology’s failure to distinguish certain races.   

     The Advocates has also welcomed the Administration’s moves on protections for victims of crimes as well as some steps toward reducing detention and restoring immigration judicial independence.  In the past few months, President Biden issued new policies restoring Prosecutorial Discretion by DHS attorneys to dismiss, decline to prosecute, or agree to terminate certain cases in immigration proceedings.  This is welcome news as many of The Advocates clients will benefit from these actions which will allow trafficking victims and immigrant youth who have experienced abuse, abandonment or neglect—among others—time to pursue protections outside of immigration court.  Earlier, we also welcomed news that the Administration would revoke the harmful Trump-era policy of sending people to immigration court who were denied immigration benefit applications.  In addition, the new Enforcement Priorities memo should reduce backlog in immigration courts, decrease the number of people detained, and conserve government resources by targeting a narrower group of people for immigration enforcement rather than the broad groups of undocumented people sought after under President Trump.   

    While these moves and others signal intentions from President Biden to take a more humane and logical approach to migration, The Advocates is concerned about the effect in practice.  We continue to see people held in detention despite the guidance against such.  While the new prosecutorial discretion memo should help many of our clients, it may take time for the local actors to implement it without clear directives from the Administration.  And, despite the many positive actions promised on asylum and victim’s protections, we remain concerned about the expulsions under Title 42 and strong rhetoric against seeking asylum coming from the Biden Administration as it appears to remain concerned about political expediencies. 

    The Advocates has worked on immigration policy for nearly 40 years.  We fought vigorously against the harmful policies of the Trump Administration, and looked forward to the Biden Administration delivering on promises around immigration and human rights.  Yet, the first six months have been a very slow start, raising concerns about the fulfillment of those promises and any likelihood of visionary action.  The announcements last week do present some glimmers that President Biden may meet the moment, eschew political gamesmanship, and do the right thing on immigration.   

    By Lindsey Greising, Staff Attorney with The Advocates for Human Rights 

    This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.

  • UK foreign policy link to nine times increase in asylum queues

    UK asylum queues have grown massively since 2010. New figures obtained by the Refugee Council say that waiting lists are nine times longer than they were a decade ago. But a quick look at where asylum seekers are coming from tells a very important story. Thousands are fleeing countries where the UK and its major allies have waged literal or economic wars.

    The Refugee Council’s new report, titled Living in Limbo, warns that as of March 2021 there were over 66,000 asylum seeker awaiting “an initial decision from the Home Office“. This is nine times the number of people waiting in 2010.

    Interventions

    When countries of origin are taken into account, the long list of asylum seekers starts to make sense. For instance, a 2019 House of Commons report lists Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia and Venezuela, as the top five asylum seeking nationalities in the EU. Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran all made the top ten. These are counties which have suffered, or are suffering, occupation or intervention by the UK and its allies.

    UN figures for 2020 on UK asylum put Iraq and Iran in the top four. The same document highlights that Iraqi and Iranian children were very prominent among Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) figures.

    Right-wing claims

    Despite right-wing claims, UN figures show that the UK takes few refugees relative to other countries. The vast majority stay in their “region of displacement”. Turkey and Pakistan had the most as of 2019, with 3.6 million and 1.4 million respectively.

    The UK also doesn’t have a high number of asylum seekers overall. Again, according to UN figures, Germany, France, Spain, and Greece all have tens of thousands more.

    Offshoring

    This hasn’t stopped UK officials pushing for hardline policies to deal with asylum seekers and refugees.

    On 28 June, it was reported that the UK was again considering ‘offshoring’ asylums seekers like Australia, whose refugee policies have been widely criticised.

    UK officials are in talks with Denmark, Al Jazeera reported. In June, the Danes passed a law to deport refugee outside the EU And Rwanda was mentioned as a possible destination for asylum seekers.

    Accountability?

    Bashing poor and desperate people is what UK governments are all about. But the figures tell a story. A majority of displaced people in the EU, and many who make it to the UK, are victims of UK foreign policy. There are reasons that places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria are so well represented in refugee statistics and the UK’s ever-growing asylum-seeker backlog.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Takver.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Win for families as High Court rules Home Office asylum guidance is unlawful

    Part of the Home Office’s guidance on reuniting unaccompanied child asylum seekers (UAMs) with their families in the UK is unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

    Legal action

    Safe Passage, a charity that supports child refugees, took legal action against the Home Office over how caseworkers are told to process requests for UAMs to be reunited with family members in the UK. Under European legislation, child refugees can have their asylum claims transferred to another country if they have family there. A “take charge request” can be issued so they can travel to that country to be with their family and the claim is assessed there instead.

    At a hearing in May, lawyers representing Safe Passage said the Home Office’s guidance on how officials process these requests is “causing delay and misery” for UAMs abroad and is unlawful.

    In a ruling on 2 July, the High Court found that part of the guidance requiring caseworkers to reject a request after two months “even where inquiries had not yet established whether a family link existed and/or whether it would be in the UAM’s best interests to have their claim decided in the UK” was unlawful.

    Lord justice Dingemans also ruled that previous guidance which said that “information should be obtained from a local authority only once the family link had been established was erroneous in law”.

    The judge, sitting with justice Dove, said that that guidance, which has since been replaced, “mis-stated the law” when it said that local authorities would only be asked to undertake an assessment with the UAM’s family “once the family link has been established”.

    Dingemans said:

    This advice established a bright line that the local authority should not undertake an assessment with the family or relative until the family link had been established.

    He added:

    The fact that guidance directed to caseworkers gives advice which is erroneous in law may lead to unlawful decisions. This does not assist UAMs, who may have been wrongly denied the right to re-join family members while the claim for asylum was being processed.

    It does not assist the Secretary of State, who may have acted in breach of obligations and may have made decisions which were unlawful and which are liable to be set aside.

    Unlawful

    The High Court made a declaration that “specific parts of the guidance” are unlawful, but did not overturn the guidance as a whole as “there are substantial parts of the policy guidance which are not erroneous in law”.

    In a statement after the ruling, Jennine Walker, head of UK legal and arrivals at Safe Passage, said:

    Our success in this legal challenge will offer hope to many child refugees desperate to safely reunite with their families in the UK, who were wrongly turned away by the Home Office.

    It should never have taken court action for the Home Office to decide applications fairly and lawfully, and we urge the Government to put these wrongs right by swiftly reuniting those refugee families whose applications were refused.

    Featured image by John Ranson for The Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Afghanistan Evacuation

    The Biden administration announced that it will accelerate plans to relocate Afghans who worked with the U.S. military. Their situation demands the most urgent response possible.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.