The Tory government’s plan to deport refugees to Rwanda has been criticised for many things – not least of all the policy’s abject lack of humanity. Looking at Labour’s response, however, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the issue is that the Tories haven’t deported anyone yet:
Before we get into this, there’s a couple of points to be made about the government/media focus on immigration, both in terms of refugees and people who – for some unimaginable reason – want to live in Britain – a.k.a. ‘dog shit island’ – a.k.a. the birthplace of the world’s most moaniest cunts.
While immigration and refugees are distinct issues, they’re treated as being the same thing in the media because the people who get het up see the as the same thing – i.e. foreign invaders who want to steal the culture we barely have.
Point one is that the worse the cost of living crisis becomes, the more immigration in all its forms becomes an issue. Rarely do you look at the newspaper front pages without it being among the biggest stories of the day. Despite this – in my own experience – I’ve heard a lot less from people about immigration in real life.
At the same time, I can’t remember the last time I had a conversation in which the cost of living didn’t come up. In other words, it seems quite clear that the noise over immigration is to some degree an effort to distract people from the abysmal state of their lives. Don’t believe me? Then explain the next point.
The Tories have been in power for nearly 14 years, and despite their constant, public criticism of immigration, the figures have reached their highest point ever. Given that the Tories could have cut immigration at any point, the only realistic conclusion is that they haven’t wanted to.
Even the Tories need immigration
There are good reasons why they wouldn’t want to cut immigration under our current economic system – chiefly the reliance businesses have on people who’ll work for cheap, and the pension systems’ inability to function if the number of retired people falls out of balance with the number of working aged adults.
While refugees are a different thing to immigration, the visibility of people entering the UK on dinghies is more pronounced, and the Tories have seemingly focussed on it to distract from the ‘legal’ migration they’ve failed to align with their supposed ambitions.
The problem the Tories have made for themselves is that they’ve made immigration such an issue that they can’t get away with talking out of both sides of their mouth any longer. For those who care, nothing less than walling the entire country off will do, and so the Tories are becoming increasingly extreme in their public displays of anti-immigration rhetoric – whether its deporting refugees to Rwanda or putting a hard cap on authorised migration.
What the opposition should be doing is explaining the reality of the situation – namely that refugees are human beings who deserve care, and that if this country wants to continue with all this capitalism malarkey then we need to keep feeding working aged people into the system (that or implement an economic system which isn’t reliant on the majority of adults working themselves to the bone).
Instead, Labour are following the Starmer strategy of agreeing with everything the Tories say besides their ability to deliver on their horrible policy platform.
Backlash
People had broadly similar criticisms of Labour’s stance (‘stance’ might be too strong a word, to be fair – it’s more a case of ‘fence-sitting with vaguely insinuated purpose’):
The problem is that it’s a morally abject policy not that the tories are bad at doing it????? https://t.co/O6eprkdyPG
Is this Labour referring to asylum seekers as deliveries?
Like some kind of Amazon gift, or food parcel from Hello Fresh?
Labour has fallen so far into the gutter that it's hard to distinguish them from the rats#VoteGreen, please, end this nightmare https://t.co/t1dEXfojaT
The problem with questions is that the Labour Party are seldom willing to answer them:
NEW: Labour have DUMPED their promise to scrap the Tories' Rwanda deportation policy.
Asked three times by ITV's Shehab Khan if Labour would scrap the policy, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper REFUSED to answer. pic.twitter.com/xw7ec4zZjc
Labour keen to emphasise that – when pressed – Yvette Cooper uses the word "replace" to emphasise Labour won't just get rid of the Rwanda policy but they intend on replacing with something else altogether
So, Labour will replace the policy with something else, but they won’t say what – only that their priority is on efficiency. In a sensible world, this would mean replacing it with a policy with some humanity to it; the worry is that Labour will instead find a way of cramming twice as many refugees on to every deportation plane.
Senior Tories from across the party are warning that Rishi Sunak’s emergency Rwanda plan will never become law in its current form, ahead of the most critical vote of his premiership.
Liberal Tories confirmed last night that, despite their desire to back the PM against the right, “serious concerns” remain about the plan and more reassurances will be required. Meanwhile, a self-styled “star chamber” of legal figures examining the proposals for the Tory right is understood to have found problems that are “extremely difficult to resolve”.
Seventeen groups issue statement sounding alarm at migration laws agreed by most EU members
The EU risks opening the door to increased discrimination and racial profiling in what is being described as a “potentially irreversible attack” on the international system offering asylum and refugee protection, human rights organisations have said.
Seventeen NGOs have together sounded the alarm before what is expected to be one of the final meetings on the text of a package of controversial new migration laws already agreed by most EU leaders.
Across the globe, refugees, always treated as the pox of public policy, continue to feature in news reports describing anguish, despair and persistent persecution. If they are not facing barbed wire barriers in Europe, they are being conveyed, where possible, to third countries to be processed in lengthy fashion. Policy makers fiddle and cook the legal record to justify such measures, finding fault with instruments of international protection such as the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951.
A very dramatic example of roughing up and violence is taking place against Afghans in Pakistan, a country that, despite having a lengthy association with hosting refugees, has yet to ratify the primary Convention. Yet in March 2023, the UNHCR noted that Pakistan hosted 1.35 million registered refugees. The organisation praised Pakistan for its “long and commendable tradition of providing protection to refugees and asylum-seekers”, noting that the current number comprised “mainly Afghan refugees holding Proof of Registration (PoR), as well as a small number of non-Afghan refugees and asylum seekers from other countries such as Myanmar, Yemen, Somalia and Syria.”
Such a rosy assessment detracts from the complex nature of the status of Afghans in that country, characterised by, in some cases, the absence of visas and passports, the expiration of visas and the long wait for renewals. Then comes the tense, heavy mix of domestic politics.
On September 15, the federal government ordered all individual Afghans residing in the country illegally to leave the country by November 1 or face deportation. The order affects some 1.7 million Afghans residing in the country, though the figures on the undocumented vary with dizzy fluctuations.
It is proving disastrous for those vulnerable individuals who fled a country where the Taliban has returned to power. To date, 400,000 are said to have left Pakistan via border crossings in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan, with one estimate from the International Rescue Committee suggesting that 10,000 are being returned to Afghanistan each day. These include the whole spectrum of vulnerable persons: women, girls, human rights activists, journalists and those formerly in the employ of the previous Western-backed government.
The picture is an ugly one indeed, complicated by Pakistan’s own domestic ills and complex relationship with Kabul. During the course of the vacuously named Global War on Terror, Afghanistan came to be seen as a problem for Pakistani security, its refugee camps accused as being incubators for fractious Afghan militants. Kabul, at that point yet to return to Taliban control, accused Islamabad of destabilising its own security by providing sanctuary for those very same militants. In the aftermath of the killing of former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani in September 2011, the victim of a daring suicide attack on his residency, Pakistan’s then Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, proved roundly dismissive: “We are not responsible if Afghan refugees crossed the border and entered Kabul, stayed in a guest house and attacked Professor Rabbani.”
The latest chapter of demonisation comes on the coattails of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. Brutal night raids by police, featuring beatings, ominous threats and detention, have become the hallmarks of the expulsion campaign. The police forces, themselves spoiled by corruption and opportunism, are prone to pilfering property, including jewellery and livestock.
In October, Mir Ahmad Rauf, who heads the Afghan Refugees’ Council in Pakistan reported “widespread destruction of Afghan homes in Islamabad’s B-17, Karachi, and other parts of Pakistan.” Last month, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a statement expressing concern at “reports of increased detainment, violence, and intimidation against the Ahmadiyya and Afghan refugee communities” in the country.
To add to this failure of protection is the status of many who, despite being Afghan, were born in Pakistan and never set foot in Afghanistan. In 2018, Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Imran Khan announced that his government would be amenable to granting citizenship to Afghans born in the country. The promise (amenability is always contingent) was never enacted into law, and Khan is now persona non grata with Pakistan’s usurpers.
The protective, humanitarian burden for processing claims by Afghans in other countries has also been reluctantly shared. To return to Afghanistan spells potential repression and persecution; but to find a country in the European Union, or to seek sanctuary in the United States, Australia and others, has been nigh impossible for most.
When asylum has been considered, it has often been done with an emphasis on prioritising the contributions of men who had performed military and security roles in the previous Western-backed Kabul administration. There is a delicious irony to this, given the evangelical promises of US President George W. Bush to liberate the country’s women from the clutches of obscurantist fundamentalism.
On December 1, a three-member bench of the Pakistani Supreme Court sought responses from the various arms of the government, including the apex committee led by the Prime Minister, foreign office, and army chief on their decision to expel Afghan nationals. Given the caretaker status of the current government, which has all but outsourced foreign policy to the military, including the “Afghan issue”, legal questions can be asked.
One of the petitioners to the court, Senator Farhatullah Babar, states that current government members are technically unelected to represent the country. “So, the court would need to decide whether a caretaker government with such a restrictive mandate can take such a major policy decision, and in my view, this is beyond the power of the caretaker government.” Those Afghans remaining in Pakistan can only wait.
With the recent outbreak of conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and Russia, the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, along with the continued conflict in Syria and Yemen, it’s clear that peace – or the lack of – is a global issue on many people’s minds.
In their latest global peace report (2023) – in which they provide a review of 163 countries – we saw the “ninth consecutive year that global peacefulness has deteriorated”.
Over the last year, peace decreased by an average of 0.42% per country, with 84 countries marked as more peaceful than in 2022, and 79 countries recording a deterioration of peace.
The global peace index (2023) (Source: Institute of Economics and Peace, 2023).
So, what lies behind the statistics?
Well, improvements and deteriorations were driven by changes a range of overlapping factors, including:
Conflict: the prevalence of internal and external conflict, along with the number of related deaths
Politics: the rate of military expenditure (% of GDP), political instability and relations with neighbouring countries
Displacement: the number of refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs)
Terrorism: current ranking on the political terror scale and the impact of terrorism
Weapons: the number of weapons imported and exported
Crime: the homicide rate and levels of violent crime and access to small arms
In this research, Iceland remained the most peaceful nation (a ranking held since 2008), followed by Denmark and Ireland.
Likewise, Afghanistan remained the “least peaceful nation” for the eighth year in a row, followed by Yemen and Syria.
These are countries that have found themselves in both groupings repeatedly. And with the outbreak of conflict, it’s no surprise.
Whilst terrorism-related deaths in the MENA region continue to decline (down by 23% in 2023), the largest increase of deaths has been in sub-Saharan Africa, with a rise of 8%.
In fact, the Sahel region of Africa has become the “epicentre of terrorism”.
In this region, 43% of deaths related to global terrorism occur.
Moreover, we’re also seeing the rise in ecological threats and the cyclical relationship to violence, including terrorism and conflict.
This is and will continue to have a monumental impact on populations, and the level of conflict:
“…without concerted international action, current levels of ecological degradation will substantially worsen, thereby intensifying a range of social issues, such as malnutrition and forced migration.
Current conflicts will escalate and multiply as a result, creating further global insecurity.
IEP estimates that by 2050, 2.8 billion people will reside in countries facing severe ecological threats, compared to 1.8 billion in 2023, with 1.1 billion of these people living in countries with low societal resilience.”
As communities are becoming increasingly displaced and lacking in critical resources, conflict and instability will inevitability increase.
The reality is this: if we want peace, we need to focus on more than ending conflict and violence (what’s known as “negative peace”).
Instead, we need a local, national and international effort towards “positive peace” – a holistic sustainable effort to prevent (rather than respond to) conflict.
To do this, we must build egalitarian resilient communities and transparent, accountable nations to collaborate on a global scale.
In short, if we want peace, we need to help communities thrive.
We have to tackle the rise of global terrorism, address the rise in climate change, promote intercommunal dialogue, address poverty and inequality – including gender inequality – and work on all levels.
This includes engaging at grassroots (community) level, with civil societies (expert organisations) and governmental and intragovernmental powers, to drive critical change.
Of course, this requires holistic change globally. And change starts with us!
Whatever our background, we can all make a difference.
How? Read on to find out!
1. Develop dialogue and human rights frameworks
Building dialogue among different communities is critical to building positive peace (Image credit: Freepik).
Inter-communal dialogue based on common shared values (our shared humanity!) is critical in building stronger relationships in our communities, regions, nations and globally.
Working across religious and cultural divides by communicating with each other and carving shared spaces, webuild a common sense of citizenship to come together and prevent conflict when disagreements and tensions rise.
By understanding individuals and communities’ diverse needs, we can better understand different lived experiences and carve more equitable spaces.
Promoting diversity and inclusion, and ensuring a broader sense of identity and citizenship, we can fight exclusion and develop the tools and understanding to prevent and respond to disagreements and larger-scale conflict:
“For decades the fields of conflict resolution, mediation and peace studies had been overlooking the positive political role that religion could play in all stages of peacebuilding.
Today there is growing attention to the contribution that religious peacebuilding can make to the stability, security, and justice of many divided societies around the world… through political application of religious ideals like reconciliation, forgiveness and mercy.”
We therefore need to amplify the role of intercommunal dialogue – including interfaith and intercultural dialogue – to unite among shared values, against (perceived) notions of difference.
These values however must lie within a framework of human rights (shared dignity and humanity).
In this way, we can build a mutual foundation of common values and unite to promote diversity (amongst all faiths and none).
We can therefore critically understand and promote the mutual rights of each and every one of us when building initiatives, policies and projects.
We can also confidently in collaboration reject harm, respecting and promoting cultural and religious diversity.
In this way, we can confidentially counteract religious extremism and harmful socio-cultural norms together, ensuring that we do not excuse harm under extreme variations of cultural relativism.
Local, regional, national or international, the sky’s your limit!
Plus, if you’re already a keen dialogue practitioner, why not apply for the KAICIID fellowship programme in intercultural and interreligious dialogue to expand your networks, resources and knowledge?
Keep an eye out on their website for submission deadlines.
Spread a counternarrative by promoting dialogue and humanism in religion, challenging dogmatism and extremism.
Create positive communities, talk with others inside and outside of the community, and speak out against hate.
Critically: report hate to relevant organisations and authorities (find out more here)
Support dialogue in peacebuilding:
Check out these great organisations working for peace in Israel-Palestineand support their crucial work through advocacy and fundraising.
Wherever your interest lies, we part of a positive solution!
Share positive stories, meet new people and promote peace not division
Promote human rights and peace education:
Promote the importance of human rights in practice, not just theory!
Expand your knowledge in human rights (perhaps by taking a course) and incorporate human rights into your work (implementing policies based on equity, inclusivity and no harm).
Dialogue is a key step to preventing conflict, with human rights building a key common framework of equality, justice and human dignity.
2. Challenge corruption and promote transparency
If we don’t tackle corruption, we can’t promote peace.
Bribery, nepotism, corruption are the anthesis to sound business, equity and well-functioning governments – and to peace:
“Corruption harms the poor and vulnerable the most, increasing costs and reducing access to basic services, such as health, education, social programs, and even justice.
It exacerbates inequality and reduces private sector investment to the detriment of markets, job opportunities, and economies.
Corruption can also undermine a country’s response to emergencies, leading to unnecessary suffering and, at worst, death.
Over time, corruption can undermine the trust and confidence that citizens have for their leaders and institutions, creating social friction and in some contexts increasing the risk of fragility, conflict, and violence.”
So, to tackle the issue of global poverty, inequity of systems and to drive real change, we need accountancy, transparency, development and growth.
This requires action across society, on all levels.
We need to call businesses to account for how they treat their employees.
We need to ensure that governments are investing money where they should be, that justice systems are fit for purpose and that grassroots communities are able to protect the most vulnerable people in our societies.
This includes people at increasing risk of modern slavery and displacement (see point #3) and gender-based violence (see points #3 and #4) as poverty and inequality meet the increasing drivers of climate change (see point #3) – amongst various other phenomenon.
It’s a task of monumental scale, but we can’t just sit back and do nothing.
Here’s how we can start.
Take action:
Call for accountability:
Report corruption wherever you see it. Call for investigations amid the misuse of power and the abuse of systems – be it locally, nationally or internationally.
Call people and systems to account. Report, fight and expose
Model the change:
Be the change in your own networks.
Whatever your work, position or line of work, ensure your systems are fair, transparent and open to feedback (as well as legally compliant!)
And this is having a monumental impact on communities worldwide – in particular the world’s most vulnerable.
In 2022 alone, a staggering 32.6 million people were displaced as a result of disasters.
98% of these were weather-related, such as floods, storms, wildfires and droughts.
And these are increasing the impact of poverty and risk of conflict.
As crops fail, livestock perish and people lose their livelihoods and homes, families and communities are left displaced – in search of food, shelter and work.
Such disasters/climatic changes aren’t a one off, they act as a “threat multiplier”:
“Not only did climate-related disasters trigger more than half of new reported displacements in 2022, but nearly 60 per cent of refugees and internally displaced people now live in countries that are among the most vulnerable to climate change.”
This will help communities to fight the effects of climate change, decreasing the rate of displacement, scarcity of resources, and ultimately conflict.
Climate change is about both the planet and people – and stemming the effects are critical to building and maintaining peace.
4. Fight global gender-based inequality
Peace requires gender equity – across the board.
Where poverty thrives and crisis hits, women are worst affected.
In any crisis (be it climate-related and/or conflict-related) – women and girls are always disproportionately affected.
At increasing risk of sexual violence, human trafficking and forced marriage (including child marriage), in times of conflict:
Teen girls are 90% more likely to be out of education
70% of women will experience gender-based violence
This however, simple falls in line with overall trends on gender inequality across the board.
We also know that when women are involved in peacekeeping efforts, peace is more likely to be sustainable:
“Female participation in both conflict prevention and conflict resolutionenhances security interests.
Studies have found that a significant inclusion of women and civil society groups in a peace negotiation makes the resulting agreement 64% less likely to fail and 35% more likely to last at least fifteen years.
…full and meaningful participation of women in peace operations broadens the perspective on conflict management, allows for more inclusive political resolutions, and, in the end, improves international peacebuilding strategies…”
So, when it comes to positive peace (preventing conflict) – we need to dismantle the political, social, cultural, religious and economic barriers that discriminate women and harm society as a whole.
These are barriers that both limit women’s participation in conflict prevention/resolution and also result in a disproportionate impact on conflict on women and girls in crisis situations (pre-, mid and post-conflict).
Take action:
Support education for women and girls:
Education is crucial for fighting the duality of poverty and gender inequality.
Women with an education are less likely to fight poverty (see point #5), and have greater means to leave abusive relationships.
When girls go to school, they’re building their future and fighting illiteracy, poverty and harmful practice such as child marriage.
Differently abled girls, menstruating girls and girls in rural communities all need access to quality education – which requires not just a change in attitudes, but the right resources.
Stand up against the social, cultural, religious and cultural norms that stigmatise and exclude women and girls from education, income-generation, community building and decision making.
From period shaming, victim-blaming of survivors of assault, exclusion of women from religious spaces and unfair burden of caring/household responsibilities, women and girls are denied the right to participate and contribute equally to build safer more equal societies.
They perpetuate misogynistic attitudes harmful to women and girls and to society as a whole.
Speak out, stand up and support crucial projects, such as Grandmother Project who are critically fighting FGM and promoting girls’ education
Empower women financially:
Help women to empower themselves financially by supporting microfinance projects, enabling them to fight the effects of gender-based inequality, challenge gender-based discrimination/harmful norms and stand up in their communities and societies.
This will ultimately help develop more inclusive peaceful societies for all.
Finally, call on your MP to ensure that the UK government puts gender at the heart of crisis-responsive policies.
5. Take action against poverty
Poverty is often a major factor behind the eruption of conflict.
As we’ve already seen, if we want to build peace and prevent conflict, we need to fight corruption, to work to ensure the mutual respect of human rights and to fight gender inequality and the increasing impact of climate change.
And so, a huge factor is also: fighting poverty.
Why?
Because poverty is a major driving factor behind the prevalence of harmful gender-based norms (see point #4), ill health and the exclusion of people in decision making and civil society.
Individuals and communities living in poverty are also further disproportionally affected by the increasing effects of climate change and risk of displacement (see point #3).
Taking also these factors into account, we’re left seeing the increased risk of conflict .
And of course, the further exclusion of women (see point #4) (remembering that women are also in fact key to building inclusive sustainably peaceful environments in pre and post-conflict rebuilding processes).
Poverty is complex, yet key part of the solution:
“…extreme poverty is … increasing in countries affected by fragility, conflict and violence (FCV)…by 2030, up to two thirds of the world’s extreme poor will live in these situations.
These challenges threaten to reverse efforts to end extreme poverty, and they affect both low- and middle-income countries…
Violent conflict has spiked dramatically since 2010 — conflicts now drive 80% of all humanitarian needs and reduce gross domestic product (GDP) growth by two percentage points per year…
Social and economic exclusion, climate change, gender and other inequalities, demographic challenges, illicit financial flows and other global trends contribute to this complexity.”
It’s fundamentally clear that if we want to prevent conflict, we need to fight poverty.
And if we want to fight poverty, we need to fight conflict.
Communities need equitable, inclusive, safe and thriving societies to build and promote dialogue, stem the effects of climate change, fight corruption and ultimately prevent conflict.
Take action:
Challenge discrimination:
Speak out against the discrimination which traps people in poverty, makes them vulnerable to radicalisation and/or recruitment in armed groups, and builds tension in communities (see sections #1 and #2).
Donate towards, volunteer with or share information at projects supporting refugee children’s education to help these children get the critical education every child needs and help break the cycle of poverty.
Prevent the recruitment of child soldiers:
Poverty and lack of opportunities are major drivers behind the recruitment of child soldiers.
Help end this abuse by supporting dedicated work to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers by strengtheningchild protection systems, promoting peacebuilding and increasing access to education and work opportunities.
Tackle the attitudes behind gender-based discrimination and violence (see section #4)
Promote and support education (for children and adults) and livelihoods/business (see section #4)
Protect workers rights (see section #2)
Fund climate-resilience projects (see section #3)
In this way, we can tackle the cycle and roots causes of poverty and inequality which make individuals and communities vulnerable to conflict.
Peacebuilding is an ongoing process. A process that we need to be active in building and sustaining.
As a planet, we need to look beyond non-violence, towards wider building positive peace globally.
This means going beyond the idea of simply a “lack of violence” (known as “negative peace”).
Instead, real sustainable peace (“positive peace“) means developing and strengthening societies based on mutual dialogue, equity, diversity and inclusion.
Higher levels of peace have been proven to lead to:
Stronger resilience and adaptability
Better environmental outcomes
Higher measures of wellbeing
Better performance on development goals
Higher income per capita
Better business environments
(Source: IEP, 2023)
Most critically however, positive peace exists in societies that are more just and are fairer.
These are societies which should have the critical tools, resources and systems in place to embrace pluralism, promote equity and therefore de-escalate potential conflict.
From breaking the gender bias, supporting displaced communities and fighting for people and planet, we can all make a difference on many levels.
Whether locally, nationally or internationally, through your work, volunteering or simply in your day-to-day life, the time is now!
Plus, don’t forget we’ve got the world at our digital fingertips!
Be part of the change.Today.
Credits:
This blog was produced inline with participation requirements on the IEP Ambassador Programme (2023).
The Institute for Economics & Peace(IEP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to shifting the world’s focus to peace as a positive, achievable, and tangible measure of human well-being and progress. We aim to create a paradigm shift in the way the world thinks about peace.
Home Office contractors stationed at Manston to process small boat arrivals are being bussed to Europe’s largest immigration detention centre to plug a significant staff shortage, the Guardian has learned.
Heathrow immigration removal centre, next to the airport, has such a big shortage of guards that an agreement has been made with the outsourcing company Mitie to redeploy Home Office contractors from Manston, in Kent, on days when there are no small boat crossings. The shortages come at a time when the Home Office wants to expand detention tenfold as part of the new Illegal Migration Act.
Fears South Korean court will impose harsh penalty on Kwon Pyong to appease Beijing
The father of a Chinese dissident detained in South Korea said his son will die if he is sent back to China, a country he escaped from on a jetski in a life-threatening journey in August.
A court in South Korea will decide on Thursday the fate of Kwon Pyong, who is charged with violating the immigration control act. Kwon, 35, pleaded guilty and appealed for leniency as prosecutors requested a sentence of two and a half years, which experts say is unusually harsh.
The award ceremony took place on at the Palace Cultural Center in St. Gallen.
Paula Weremiuk from Narewka on the Polish-Belarusian border works as a teacher during the day and as a refugee aid worker in the Bialowieza forest at night. According to the Paul Grüninger Foundation, a refugee drama of enormous proportions has been taking place there since 2021.
Paula Weremiuk searches for people in need in the inaccessible areas of Bialowieza, providing them with clothing, food, sleeping bags and the most basic necessities, writes the Paul Grüninger Foundation. The Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenka is forcing thousands of refugees from the Middle East and Africa across the border to Poland, where they are met with strong political rejection.
At the border, in the primeval forest of Bialowieza, there is often brutal violence, abuse, rape and repeated deaths. The refugees, including women and small children, are helplessly abandoned to their fate in the inaccessible terrain and are chased back and forth across the border by the authorities. Refugee helpers are being harassed and criminalized, the press release continues.
Ayşe Gökkan’s award was accepted by her lawyer, Berfin Gökkan. The lawyer read out a letter from Ayşe Gökkan written in Kurdish: “I greet you with the warmth of the sun and the enthusiasm of Jin-Jiyan-Azadî. As a member of the Movement of Free Women, I accept this award on behalf of thousands of struggling Kurdish women. There are many fighting women in prison in Turkey.”
The foundation justified the awarding of the recognition prize of 10,000 francs to the Kurdish feminist and human rights defender Ayşe Gökkan for her civil society commitment and her criminalization:
“Ayşe Gökkan has particularly distinguished herself as a journalist and as an activist for women’s rights. For almost forty years, she has been writing newspaper columns against racial and gender discrimination, speaking at national and international podiums and seminars, leading workshops on the topic of gender inequality and taking part in peaceful demonstrations in this context.
From 2009 to 2014, Ayşe Gökkan was mayor of the Kurdish city of Nusaybin, which lies on the border between Turkey and Syria. When Turkey began to build a wall against refugees between Nusaybin and the neighbouring Syrian town of Qamishlo, the mayor protested against this “wall of shame” with, among other things, a sit-in strike.
Because of her civil society commitment, Ayşe Gökkan has been arrested in Turkey more than eighty times, subjected to more than two hundred investigations and, in 2021, sentenced to more than 26 in a grotesque court case based on the statements of a single “secret witness” for membership in a “terrorist organization”.
She is a victim of the criminalization of the political opposition in Turkey. Ayşe Gökkan is in prison, her sentence has not yet been confirmed by the Turkish Court of Cassation, and proceedings are also pending before the European Court of Human Rights.”
Every Wednesday night, members of Woodbine Soccer, a collective of soccer players, haul a generator, lights and goals to a local public park in Ridgewood, Queens. About 50 regulars of varying skill levels and backgrounds trickle in and we set up the field together for a few hours’ worth of scrimmaging. Among them are friends we’ve made from Ecuador, Italy, the U.K. and Honduras — to name a few…
Downing Street says ignoring ECHR and parts of UN refugee convention could delay emergency bill
Downing Street has ruled out a proposal by rightwing Conservatives to override international law to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda, prompting threats that rebel MPs will simply seek to amend planned legislation.
Rishi Sunak has promised to introduce a bill to parliament to get around Wednesday’s supreme court ruling that flights to Rwanda could not take place because of the risk that people could be wrongly returned to their home countries.
Prime minister says he ‘will do whatever it takes’ as senior Tory criticises former home secretary’s hardline proposals
Downing Street has not ruled out asking MPs to spend some of what is meant to be their Christmas break dealing with the PM’s “emergency legislation” on Rwanda.
This is one proposal made by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in her Telegraph article this morning. (See 10.01am.)
I think we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure that we can get this in place and get flights off the ground.
I wouldn’t speculate on parliamentary process but I cannot impress [enough] the importance that the prime minister places on this necessary legislation to deliver for the public on the important priority of stopping the boats.
Sunak suggested he would blame Labour if the Lords refuses to pass his “emergency legislation” on Rwanda (see 11.40am) quickly. Asked if he would call an early election if the Lords block the law, he replied:
It doesn’t have to take a long time to get legislation through – and that is a question for the Labour party.
We’re determined to get this through as quickly as possible. So the real question is: is the Labour party going to stand in the way and stop this from happening, or are they going to work with us and support this bill so we can get it through as quickly as possible?
Sunak declined to say whether favoured holding an early election on the issue of Rwanda deportations if his bill got held up. Earlier today Sir Simon Clarke suggested this. (See 10.56am.) But, for obvious reasons, the prospect might not appeal.
Sunak claimed he was making “real progress” on stopping small boats. He said:
I think people just want the problem fixed. That’s what I’m here to do, and this year, we’ve already got the numbers down by a third.
That’s because I’ve got new deals with the French, a new deal with Albania. We’re working with Turkey and Bulgaria, multiple other countries. We’re tackling the criminal gangs, we’re cutting through the backlog.
Sunak said he would “take on” people trying to stop Rwanda flights taking over, whether it was Labour or the House of Lords. He said:
We can pass these laws in parliament that will give us the powers and the tools we need. Then we can get the flights off and whether it’s the House of Lords or the Labour party standing in our way I will take them on because I want to get this thing done and I want to stop the boats.
He said his patience was “wearing thin” with this issue. He said:
People are sick of this merry-go-round. I want to end it – my patience is wearing thin like everyone else’s.
Downing Street says legislation will make clear ‘Rwanda is safe’ and will address court’s concerns after policy ruled unlawful. This live blog is closed
At his Institute for Government Q&A Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, refused to say what he felt about Lee Anderson, the Conservative party deputy chair, declaring yesterday that ministers should just ignore the supreme court judgment saying the Rwanda police was unlawful. Asked to respond, Rowley just said:
Politicians hold me to account, I don’t hold them to account.
Starmer travelled north of the border just hours after a revolt within his party over a ceasefire in Gaza resulted in the resignation of eight of his frontbenchers.
The Labour leader highlighted what he described as the “failure” of the UK government to negotiate a trade deal with India, a key exporter for Scotch whisky.
The High Court of Australia is not known for its zealotry in protecting human rights, and certainly not when considering the persuasive pull of international law and conventions. The Australian Parliament is usually given a generous hand in making policies that tend to outrage such conventions, a freedom made that much easier by an absence of any bill of rights.
A grim example of this was the 2004 High Court decision of Al-Kateb v Godwin, which gave the Commonwealth full assurance that policies on indefinitely detaining unwanted, designated “unlawful” arrivals were entirely within its power. The case concerned the application of various provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) requiring an officer of the Commonwealth to detain those reasonably suspected to be unlawful citizens in the migration zone and held in immigration detention till their deportation or grant of a visa.
In such provisions, a pincer movement against such “unlawful citizens” had been enshrined with stunning cynicism. Once detained and having their status determined, such individuals might be found to be refugees. Accordingly, they might receive a visa, though not if they were those undesirables marooned in the offshore concentration camps of Nauru and Manus Island. Since 2013, Australian governments have proclaimed that those undocumented souls seeking refuge in Australia by boat would never be given the chance to settle in the country. Even in the event of being deemed refugees, they might still be refused a visa on character grounds or face the prospect of deportation to a third country, the latter being something of a favourite of Australian policy makers for two decades. (A gaggle of European states have also been impressed by this formula.)
What, then, of stateless citizens found to be refugees and without fault? Or those who would not be accepted by a third country? Or those who, having been convicted of an offence and served time for it, could be placed in a vicious limbo of de facto carceral administration for the rest of their natural lives, undesired by any country, and not allowed out in the Australian community for failing to meet visa requirements and deemed a threat to society?
To answer these questions, the facts of Al-Kateb are worth recounting. Ahmed Ali Al-Kateb was a stateless Palestinian born in Kuwait in 1976, having sought sanctuary in Australia in December 2000 without a passport or visa. He was duly detained under the Migration Act. Efforts to gain a protection visa proved futile. The Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court agreed with the decision makers. With Australia having ceased to be an option, Al-Kateb informed the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that he wished to be transferred to Kuwait or Gaza. Those efforts also came to naught.
Al-Kateb’s cupboard of legal options started looking increasingly threadbare. With little else possible, he resorted to that immemorial principle of Britannic common law that he be released on habeas corpus grounds. After all, the Australian authorities surely had no reason to continue detaining him. He had committed no crime, and there was “no real likelihood or prospect” of Al-Kateb’s removal outside the country in the reasonably foreseeable future, a point acknowledged by the Federal Court.
In a granite hard decision, the High Court rejected the claim. For one thing, the discretion was mandatory under the legislation, not discretionary. Nor was the exercise of such a detention power punitive, thereby violating the separation of powers. In Chief Justice Gleeson’s words: “A person in the position of the appellant might be young or old, dangerous or harmless, likely or unlikely to abscond, recently in detention or someone who had been there for years, healthy or unhealthy, badly affected by incarceration or relatively unaffected. The considerations that might bear upon the reasonableness of a discretionary decision to detain such a person do not operate.”
Justice McHugh also reiterated the view that the Migration Act required “the indefinite detention of Mr Al-Kateb, notwithstanding that it is unlikely that any country in the foreseeable future will give him entry to that country. The words of the three sections [189, 196, 198] are too clear to read them as being subject to a purposive limitation or an intention not to affect fundamental rights.” With Australia lacking any express constitutional protection of habeas corpus, Al-Kateb was doomed.
Efforts to challenge this ghastly precedent over the years faltered. In the meantime, periods of lengthy immigration detention ballooned. Currently, the average period of time individuals held in immigration detention by Australian authorities is 708 days. In May 2022, the detention period reached a dubious peak of 736 days, with 138 having spent time in detention for over five years.
All this has changed. On November 8, the High Court handed down a stunning decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, thereby archiving Al-Kateb as a dark, judicial episode.
NZYQ was a stateless Rohingya applicant who had fled Myanmar and journeyed to Australia by boat in September 2012. He received a bridging visa in September 2014. In January 2015, he was arrested and charged with a child sexual offence, his visa cancelled, and prison term imposed. Despite receiving parole in May 2018, he was immediately thrown into immigration detention. As a person regarded as stateless by Myanmar and facing a genuine risk of persecution on his return, NZYQ also faced the prospect of perennial detention for not having a visa. On character grounds, Australian authorities could continue to refuse granting it. It also seems that no third country option arose as a serious possibility, though this will only be known with certainty once the judgment is published.
Much to the surprise of those present, NZYQ’s legal team received the news after two days of oral argument that it was unconstitutional to detain a person where there was no real prospect of being removed from Australia. As a consequence, the court held that provisions under the Migration Act obliging the authorities to detain “unlawful non-citizens” for such inordinate periods should be read as beyond the immigration power of the Commonwealth. NZYQ’s administrative detention, being deemed unlawful, necessitated his release.
The decision immediately affects 92 people in immigration detention. But as the Australian Human Rights Commission reminds us, the perverse cruelties of Australia’s detention system has, over the last two decades, affected “the lives of tens of thousands of people, most of whom came to this country seeking protection as refugees.”
Panicked, the Albanese government has tried dousing the fires of concern, though some of these have been lit by a few parliamentarians prone to pyromania. Public safety, it has been suggested, might be compromised by these reprobates newly found with their freedom in the Australian community. Instead of acknowledging the human rights dimension of the case, the Home Secretary Claire O’Neil came close to slighting the High Court. “If I had any legal power to do it, I would keep every one of those people in detention.” This was irrespective of the fact that they had served time for any offences they had committed.
A government spokesperson was also quick to point out in the immediate aftermath of the High Court decision that, “Individuals released into the community from immigration detention may be subject to certain visa conditions.” But instead of waiting for the decision’s full publication, the government has cobbled a mash of legislative measures in a paroxysm of populism.
On November 16, Immigration Minister Andrew Giles introduced laws applicable to 83 released detainees, among them three murderers and a number of unspecified sex offenders. “The Australian community reasonably expects that all non-citizens in Australia will obey Australian laws.” Some would, for instance, be electronically tagged. Curfews could also be imposed. Attached visa conditions could also include notification requirements for changes of address, any illegal activities or change of address. “These measures,” Giles stated, “are consistent with the legitimate objective of community safety and the rights and interests of the public.” How these objectives square with such savage punishments as five-year prison terms in violation is hard to see.
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, was left unsatisfied by the proposals. As a proud, demagogic hater of civil liberties, he feels that prolonged punishment is the preferred formula. How this will be done constitutionally is not something that bothers his minute, vengeful imagination. But he proved enough of a fantasist to link the release of the detainees to the threat of rising antisemitism in Australia, a cavalier effort verging on the imbecilic.
In responding to Dutton’s conflating resolution, Prime Minister Albanese thundered that linking “antisemitism with the decision of the high court, is beyond contempt.” But the entire chapter had been beyond contempt. Instead of respecting the central tenets of a fair judicial system, the major parties have heaped scorn upon it. It affirms the penological fixation Australian politicians continue to suffer from when considering the plight of refugees and asylum seekers who dare arrive via unconventional channels. They are the pseudo-criminals who pay people traffickers, the indecent queue jumpers, the unprincipled, cashed up opportunists.
Given that Australia already has a suppressive regime of post-release control measures that effectively mock and caricature sentences served by prolonging state surveillance and control of society’s “most dangerous”, another set of legal measures seeking to achieve precisely the same purpose serves to deaden liberty that bit more.
The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content, after we reached our 20,000th article. Here, in May 2017 we looked at the then-PM breaking the law when she was home secretary. This article was read by nearly 400,000 people.
On 25 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that Theresa May acted unlawfully when she was Home Secretary. And with just over two weeks to go until the general election, these findings are another blow to the Prime Minister. But despite the ruling, the media are barely reporting the story.
The case
In 1998, 75 people (including children) were washed up on the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) in Cyprus, after their boat got into difficulty off the coast. Initially detained for some months, they were granted refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
But since then, they have been living in increasingly deteriorating conditions. According to a press release from the families’ solicitors Leigh Day:
For the last 18 years the six refugee claimants and their nineteen children have had to endure deteriorating living conditions on the SBA where they are housed in ex-military accommodation which was due to be demolished in 1997. Many of the children have spent their whole lives on the SBA.
Theresa May became involved in 2014 when, as Home Secretary, she refused to take legal responsibility for the families. And despite the fact that the families were granted refugee status, May argued that did not extend to the SBA. She therefore argued that the families had no right to resettlement in the UK.
Acted illegally
The case was taken to the High Court in 2016, where the government lost. And although the court agreed that the SBA was not technically covered by the convention, the UK was obliged to act in the spirit of that convention.
But May wasn’t happy with this decision and appealed. And the Court of Appeal went further. It found that the SBA was indeed covered by the convention and that the UK had a direct responsibility for the families there. Leigh Day explains:
In a unanimous decision the Court of Appeal has today (25 May 2017) found that Theresa May acted unlawfully by refusing to consider allowing entry to the UK to a group of refugee families stranded on the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) in Cyprus.
There can be no justification for any future decision which leaves these Claimants’ position unresolved for any further length of time. As the Judge made clear, their present conditions are quite unacceptable. That appears to be common ground… I would regard it as unreasonable and a failure of the obligations to the refugees if resettlement was not achieved rapidly.
Awful conditions
The lead claimant in the case, Tag Bashir, stated:
We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has found in our favour and confirmed what we have always known: that we are the responsibility of the UK Government. For the last eighteen years the UK Government has sought to ignore us and has left us stranded on the SBA living in awful conditions. All we have ever wanted is an opportunity to work and make a future for our children. We hope that the Home Secretary will now allow us entry to the UK. We will keep fighting until she does.
And Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, quoted May’s own words back at her:
Our clients have been in legal limbo for 18 years living in wholly unacceptable conditions on a British military base. They have suffered enough. Now is the time for the Government to show compassion and a ‘strong and stable’ resolve to address this situation which has festered for far too long. We hope the UK Government will not seek to pursue further costly legal proceedings and will face up to its responsibilities by allowing this small group of recognised refugees entry to the UK.
Lack of compassion
May acted without compassion in denying these families their right to live in the UK. And in doing so, she has forced adults and children to live in appalling conditions. May not only broke international law to deny them the right to live in the UK, she condemned them to live in accommodation that was due to be demolished some twenty years ago.
It is a damning indictment of the Prime Minister that she was prepared to act in this way. And it is a damning indictment of the way her government treats refugees.
Meanwhile, the BBC and other media outlets appear to be ignoring the story. And this is massively beneficial to May, as she would prefer that stories of her breaking the law didn’t make headline news.
But on 8 June, we do have a chance to vote for compassion. To vote to do things differently and build a kinder, more compassionate society.
Get Involved!
– Vote on 8 June!
– Discuss the key policy issues with family members, colleagues and neighbours. And organise! Join (and participate in the activities of) a union, an activist group, and/or a political party.
– Also read more Canary articles on the 2017 general election.
A victory for the immigration and asylum policy on Wednesday will come with headaches, but a defeat could split the Conservative party
Wednesday marks a potentially pivotal moment in the government’s fortunes when the supreme court rules whether its plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful.
The decision could have significant implications not just for immigration and asylum policy, but also for the future direction of Rishi Sunak’s government, and the Conservative party more widely. Here is what could follow from a government win or loss.
More than half of the 92 people in immigration detention the Australian government warned it would have to release if it lost a landmark high court decision had their visas cancelled by ministers due to serious concerns about criminality.
A document tendered in the high court, seen by Guardian Australia, reveals the majority (78) are owed protection, including citizens of war-torn or authoritarian countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Sudan. Half a dozen have been in detention for over a decade.
More than half of the 92 people in immigration detention the Australian government warned it would have to release if it lost a landmark high court decision had their visas cancelled by ministers due to serious concerns about criminality.
A document tendered in the high court, seen by Guardian Australia, reveals the majority (78) are owed protection, including citizens of war-torn or authoritarian countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Sudan. Half a dozen have been in detention for over a decade.
Security Force Monitor finds 64% of senior army officers led units allegedly committing killings, rapes, torture and disappearances
New research into alleged war crimes in Myanmar has concluded that the majority of senior commanders in the Myanmar military, many of whom hold powerful political positions in the country, were responsible for crimes including rape, torture, killings and forced disappearances carried out by units under their command between 2011 and 2023.
The research, by the Security Force Monitor (SFM), a project run by Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, states that 64% – 51 of 79 – of all Myanmar’s senior military commanders are responsible for war crimes. It claims that the most serious perpetrator of human rights violations is Gen Mya Tun Oo, Myanmar’s deputy prime minister, former defence minister and a member of the ruling military council.
A document released by Dorset Council has revealed that it and the Home Office are actively discouraging refugees they’re holding on the Bibby Stockholm from leaving. Campaign group One Life To Live has said that this amounts to “quasi-detention”.
Bibby Stockholm: refugees effectively stuck on board
Dorset Council, which is responsible for health and safety on board the Bibby Stockholm barge and which is a member of the multi-agency forum (MAF) for the site, released the latest joint MAF update on 7 November. This revealed that asylum-seekers accommodated there are being confined to the barge as much as possible, and should be deterred from getting off the bus which is provided to take them into local towns.
The provision of the bus is a requirement of the contract between CTM and the Home Office. However, the latest MAF update states:
There have also been concerns that [the bus] service means that asylum seekers are just being dropped-off and left to ‘hang out’ in Weymouth and Portland. This is not happening, nor is it in anyone’s interest for it to happen… There are also be [sic] exercise, recreational and multi-faith facilities on board to minimise the need to leave the site.”
The update was signed off as usual by Paul Beecroft of the communications team at Dorset Council, with the words “Sent on behalf of the MAF group” – indicating the agreement of all MAF members. Besides Dorset Council these include the Home Office, Portland Port, Dorset NHS, and Dorset Police. MAF meetings are held regularly, and invitees include elected members from the local authorities (town, district and county), MPs, voluntary and community sector partners, and local businesses.
Now, a campaign group has said this amounts to quasi-detention.
What is quasi-detention?
The Home Office factsheet for the Bibby Stockholm site says that it provides “non-detained accommodation”. However, many campaigners, NGOs, and immigration lawyers have long maintained that the barge represents quasi-detention.
According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention (whose members are cross-party MPs and peers), asylum accommodation sites can be ‘accurately described’ as quasi-detention if they include:
Visible security measures.
Shared living quarters.
Reduced levels of privacy.
Isolation from the wider community.
All of these apply at the Bibby Stockholm site.
(1): visible security measures
Security on board is provided by ICSA, a private contractor, which has assigned a team of “18 guards trained to military standard”. There are security cameras in all communal spaces and along the corridors on each floor. Whenever leaving or returning to the Bibby Stockholm, asylum-seekers undergo airport-style security, including x-rays of their possessions. They cannot walk to anywhere other than the small compound at the head of the barge, which is surrounded by 20-foot-high spiked metal fences and heavy metal gates. To get out of the compound, they must take a scheduled shuttle bus.
(2) and (3): shared living quarters and reduced levels of privacy
To leave the port, asylum-seekers must take a shuttle bus out of the compound, across the port and out of its gates. The bus is arranged by Portland Port and paid for out of CTM’s £1.6bn contract with the Home Office. According to page 18 of Annex A to that contract, the Home Office must approve the timetables and destinations for the bus. It is understood that there are two stops on the bus route: Victoria Square on the island of Portland, and Commercial Road in Weymouth (on the mainland).
The MAF update comment about the shuttle bus service is at odds with the way buses are generally understood to operate – which is that passengers may dismount at the appointed stops, and are then free to do as they wish (including ‘hanging around’).
Furthermore, ‘exercise and recreational’ facilities onboard are extremely limited. Many public spaces have been converted to cabins; the gym contains just two treadmills (for an eventual cohort of 425 men); and even the basketball is not freely available but must be signed in and out – apparently because it could be used as a weapon.
As a result, the men feel demoralised about this and rarely sign the basketball out.
Nicola David of One Life To Live, which campaigns against the large-scale asylum containment sites, commented:
Placing asylum-seekers away from communities, and attempting to contain them there while restricting their freedom to move about, drives a public perception that they have done something very wrong or even criminal, which inevitably and unfairly tarnishes public sentiment towards them. In fact, these asylum-seekers have done exactly what we would all do if we faced war, conflict or persecution – flee for our lives.
The Bibby Stockholm residents are here legally and they are not criminals. Therefore there is no legal or ethical reason to segregate and contain these asylum-seekers, or to restrict their freedom. This is quasi-detention, pure and simple.
Discrimination and segregation
Under Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and specifically Section 149 (the public-sector equality duty), segregation on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic/national origin or religion is unlawfully discriminatory. Nevertheless, residents of the Bibby Stockholm have been sent to live in a contained space away from local amenities and segregated from the local population – which is overwhelmingly White British.
Attempting to prevent them from leaving the barge, and preferring that they do not dismount from the shuttle bus contractually provided for their exclusive use, would appear discriminatory.
Only asylum-seekers who have been in the UK since 7 March 2023, and whose asylum claims are already being processed, are eligible to be sent to the Bibby Stockholm. A high proportion of the cohort came here by plane; they also claimed asylum immediately on arrival in the UK, exactly as required. They should not be treated as if they are here illegally or as if they have committed a crime.
In a Guardian report on 29 October, one barge resident said:
We have exactly the feeling of being in prison. It is true that they say that this is not a prison and you can go outside at any time, but you can only go to specific stops at certain times by bus, and this does not give me a good feeling. Even to use the fresh air, you have to go through the inspection every time and go to the small yard with high fences and go through the X-ray machine again. And this is not good for our health. In short, this is a prison whose prisoners are not criminals, they are people who have fled their country just to save their lives and have taken shelter here to live.
One of the Israeli military’s air raids on a residential area of Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza this week caused nearly the area of an entire football field of destruction, a new analysis finds. On Tuesday, Israeli forces launched the first of what would be a series of attacks on Jabalia, the largest refugee camp in Gaza. The military dropped five or six bombs on the area (reports vary)…
Israeli forces carried out yet another assault on Gaza’s largest refugee camp on Wednesday, just hours after the Israeli military dropped six bombs on a residential area of the camp on Tuesday. Al Jazeera reporters say that buildings in a heavily populated residential area of Jabalia refugee camp have been leveled and that hundreds of people are feared to be trapped under the wreckage.
The Israeli military bombed Gaza’s largest refugee camp on Tuesday, killing dozens, if not hundreds, of Palestinians. The Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza has been “completely destroyed,” Gaza’s interior ministry has reported. An Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman has confirmed that the strike was orchestrated by Israeli forces. The death count varies depending on the source and will…
A Nigerian man attempted suicide after finding his name on a list of people being sent to the Bibby Stockholm. The case exposes the traumatic impact that the barge is having on asylum seekers in the UK.
Bibby Stockholm transfer list
An asylum seeker attempted to hang himself in a Colchester car park on 26 October. According to a press release by Colchester-based Refugee, Asylum Seeker and Migrant Action (RAMA), the man had just discovered he was being sent to the Bibby Stockholm. Another refugee at the hotel found him and alerted a security guard. They cut the Nigerian man down and an air ambulance later took him to Colchester Hospital, where doctors put him on life support.
RAMA said this isn’t an isolated case, however:
Eight other asylum-seekers at the hotel are also due to be transferred to the Bibby Stockholm. Six of them said they would rather kill themselves than be sent there, and RAMA believes that four of them are serious about intending to take their own lives.
Moreover, one refugee attempted suicide while on the Bibby Stockholm. A letter written by some of those housed on the barge and published by Portland Global Friendship Group on Facebook on 25 August said:
Also, in a tragic incident, one of the asylum seekers attempted suicide, but we acted promptly and prevented this unfortunate event.
Some friends even said they wished they had the courage to commit suicide, and our personal belief is that many of these individuals might resort to this foolishness to escape from problems in the future.
‘Strongest possible protest against inhumanity’
The Nigerian man who attempted to hang himself wasn’t a new arrival to the UK. RAMA said he had arrived as an unaccompanied child and lived in foster care until the age of 18. Five years later, the Home Office wanted him moved to the Bibby Stockholm.
According to Maria Wilby of RAMA, the unnamed man’s reaction reflects anxieties widespread amongst Colchester’s asylum seekers:
They are grieving the fact that the Home Office is closing the hotel down. While it may not be perfect, it’s been their home for up to a year. They’ve planted trees in Colchester, attended therapy here, volunteered here, made friends here. They are no problem to anyone; local police have confirmed there have been no criminal incidents arising either from the men at the hotel or from other asylum-seekers dispersed in the community. And yet they’ve been treated in a way that is beyond inhumane, and which disregards all the efforts which they have made to find community here. This suicide attempt is the strongest possible protest against that inhumanity, and also shows just how much the Bibby Stockholm is feared.
Meanwhile, the Guardian said it had confirmed two other suicides of refugees in hotels. Afroze Fatima Zaidi recently reported for the Canary on the “inhumane” conditions that many refugees find themselves in at hotels.
Cost of racist policies
The Canary has repeatedlyreported on the racism of the Bibby Stockholm and what it represents. This case highlights the deeply personal cost of that racism. Nicola David of refugee support group One Life To Live emphasised this in RAMA’s press release:
This has been a horrific incident – a tragedy which was entirely preventable. Before COVID, asylum-seekers lived among us in the community. Now, they are ‘othered’: segregated away into ghettoes and deprived of respect and dignity. It never ceases to amaze me that major hotel brands and their franchisees are willing to take the government shilling and turn the other cheek to what goes on in their properties.
Here is a young man, with his whole life ahead of him, who was treated as a number and not a human being, and for whom the prospect of the Bibby Stockholm was simply too much. The Home Office should feel deep shame – if it knows how.
The Bibby Stockholm is little more than a prison ship for people that haven’t committed a crime. And its existence alone is enough to drive already vulnerable people to the brink.
The Guardian said prime minister Rishi Sunak “ignored” a question about the suicide attempt mentioned in the asylum seekers’ letter. No doubt he’d ignore questions about the latest attempt too. And that, of course, about sums up the government’s attitude to the harm it is causing asylum seekers.
A migrant rights group has launched another legal challenge against the Tories’ racist asylum accommodation. This time, the non-profit has targeted the government’s abhorrent and prison-like military housing estate.
It comes as a parliamentary committee published a report on the Home Office’s abysmal handling of asylum claims.
Racist and inhumane asylum accommodation
On 26 October, migrant rights and support group Care4Calais issued legal proceedings against the Home Office. Specifically, the group are bringing the challenge against its asylum accommodation at Wethersfield – a former military base in Essex.
The asylum scheme at Wethersfield is key to the Home Office’s broader approach to holding refugees. This is designed to host migrants while they await a decision on their claims. In particular, the former military site is part of its bid to shift away from hotel accommodation.
Hotel accommodation has presented a host of problems and bad press for the government. For one, as the Canary’s Afroze Zaidi explained in September, refugees have experienced:
cramped living conditions, damp, mould, pest infestations, and broken or missing furniture.
Moreover, the spiralling costs of the Home Office’s hotel stock have repeatedly hit headlines.
RAF bases to barges
So, the Tories have predictably responded to the mounting problems at these hotels with even less humane alternatives. Primarily, this has centred around imprisoning asylum seekers at refurbished former military bases and on repurposed barges.
Naturally, these sites have posed a number of similar issues. Both the Bibby Stockholm and Wethersfield have been the centre of viral outbreaks. What’s more, criticisms of the poor housing conditions and safety concerns have dogged the government’s flagship asylum housing plans. Much like the use of hotels, local councils have also had little say over these schemes.
As a result, these asylum accommodation sites have also faced a stream of legal action. Local councils and a resident have launched cases against both RAF Scampton and RAF Wethersfield, both of which hold asylum seekers. Hearings are due to take place on 31 October to 1 November respectively.
Meanwhile, after a failed judicial review against the Home Office earlier this month, Portland’s town mayor has issued a follow-up challenge against the local authority over the de facto prison barge, the Bibby Stockholm.
Now, Care4Calais has added its case against the RAF base-turned-asylum accommodation at Wethersfield to this growing list of legal challenges.
Legal proceedings against racist asylum accommodation
In a press release, the campaign group announced it had initiated legal proceedings against the Home Office. The group has called out the site’s “quasi-detention” prison-like conditions and said the surveillance, restrictions, and location amounted to “segregating” refugees from the local community. In particular, it underscored that:
they are segregated from the mainstream population in ways that and stigmatise and degrade them, and eat away at their dignity
It echoed accusations that Portland’s town mayor levied at the government in a recent failed legal bid over the Bibby Stockholm.
On top of this, Care4Calais highlighted that the Home Office should not be placing survivors of torture or modern slavery, or those suffering from serious mental health conditions at the site. However, it pointed out that they are “routinely being sent to Wethersfield.”
Ultimately, the group noted that:
Falsely imprisoning asylum seekers behind barbed wire fences, placing them under 24/7 surveillance, restricting their liberty and separating them from any semblance of community, is now the chosen policy of this Government.
Committee calls out government failings
The new legal challenge comes as a House of Commons parliamentary committee released a new damning report. Specifically, the Public Accounts Committee conducted an inquiry into the government’s progress in processing asylum claims.
The report said that, by the end of June 2023, the government had a backlog of over 175,000 unprocessed claims. The committee were told that over half of these people (91,000) had waited for at least a year for a decision.
Notably, the report revealed that the government is failing to find appropriate housing. In particular, it detailed how the government has found less than 10% of its aimed 500 beds a week of ‘dispersal’ accommodation in local communities.
Given this, the report stated that the government:
seemingly has no plan for how it will acquire enough accommodation in local areas to end its reliance on hotels.
Moreover, it criticised the government’s plans to force asylum seekers into room sharing. The committee said that they were:
not convinced that the Home Office has considered the trauma some people seeking asylum will have faced, or the protections required to ensure it is implementing room-sharing safely.
On 24 October, the Home Office announced its plans to move refugees out of 50 of these hotels by the end of January. It stated that it would refugees living in the hotels into:
other parts of the UK’s asylum estate, including the Bibby Stockholm barge.
Profits over people
Of course, this is all part of the government’s deliberate efforts to criminalise people seeking asylum. As I previously wrote on the Bibby Stockholm, these types of carceral asylum-holding sites embody:
the government’s hostile rhetoric, which seeks to sever asylum seekers’ connection with the surrounding community and support groups.
In other words, the shoddy accommodation is one of the latest incarnations of the Tories ‘hostile environment’. It stems from the ever-colonial pomp that pervades the UK political class. This is exercised through a capitalist system which puts profits over people – and especially racialised communities. Because, of course, there’s big money to be made in caging human beings. Naturally, the Tories’ rancid refugee scapegoating has provided the perfect cover to do just that.
Under the guise of purportedly sparing the taxpayer the burgeoning hotel bill, the Tories have funnelled cash into company coffers. For example, new analysis by the Labour Party found that the Bibby Stockholm is currently costing £800 per person, per night. Bibby Marine – the company leasing the barge – therefore stands to make stonking profits.
far from being about saving public cash, the policy of warehousing refugees in terrible accommodation is a function of the Tories‘ brutal anti-refugee ideology.
Legal challenges mount against immoral asylum plans
Moreover, alongside its infamous Rwanda policy, these sites are a core pillar of the government’s racist Illegal Migration Act. Yet communities, campaign groups, and councils are foiling both this hostile accommodation and its racist deportation plans. Repeated legal bids have exposed the racist motivations at the heart of these schemes – and sometimes proved them illegal.
For example, in July, the High Court ruled that the Home Office was unlawfully housing unaccompanied minors in hotels. Also in July, a group of asylum seekers won a separate case against the home secretary and her department. It found that the Home Office had breached its duty to provide adequate housing and financial support to prevent destitution.
Meanwhile, on 13 October, Right to Remain initiated a challenge against the government’s lack of legal aid for asylum seekers.
As such, the Tories’ racist carceral asylum accommodation system looks to be rapidly coming undone. It’s high time the UK government put the lives and rights of people seeking safety – wherever they’re from – above corporate greed.
World leaders are warning of the risk of a wider war in the Middle East as Israel’s assault on Gaza could spill over to other parts of the region. We speak to independent journalist Sharif Abdel Kouddous about the negligible amount of aid that Israel is allowing to trickle into Gaza from the Rafah border crossing. He also discusses Egypt’s response to Israel’s attempts to ethnically cleanse Gaza…
A report by detention centre monitoring body the Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB) has underscored the inhumane treatment refugees faced at facilities in Kent. It described conditions at the Manston location as “insanitary and unacceptable”, and criticised a lack of provisions across all three of the county’s sites.
Manston centre: ‘insanitary and unacceptable’ conditions
The IMB published its report on three of Kent’s short-term holding facilities on 23 October. These locations hold asylum seekers for up to 24 hours after they reach the UK, though this can be lengthened by the secretary of state. The IMB’s report covered inspections made during 2022 in the Kent Intake Unit, Western Jet Foil, and Manston.
All three facilities have faced numerous condemnations and controversies. Manston in particular faced high-profile public condemnation in the latter half of 2022. This included a series of protests outside the facility. The outrage came after government decisions led to Manston housing more than 4000 people at one time. This is despite the facility being designed for a capacity of 1000-1600 individuals.
The IMB’s new report said that accommodation at Manston was unfit for those held there:
detained individuals were accommodated in marquees which we would describe as at best basic, at worst insanitary and unacceptable.
It went on the state that:
there were no proper sleeping facilities: there were no sleeping mats, and during monitoring visits in November we noted that some individuals were sleeping on flattened cardboard boxes, whilst others simply had a blanket…. During one monitoring visit, one set of these portaloos had overflowed and, due to torrential rain, the overflow had seeped under the wooden flooring of one of the marquees. On other occasions, the toilet and shower areas were wet underfoot and smelt.
Moreover, refugees in Manston had to share clothing such as coats. This practice led the IMB to raise concerns over the “spread of infections such as scabies”.
The Guardian also reported in February that local authorities had also warned the Home Office of a series of public health incidents at Manston from September to November 2022. The IMB noted that even some staff at the facilities expressed such concerns.
However, the government’s slow response led to a public health crisis. Increasing cases of diseases led to an outbreak of diphtheria, with 50 cases recorded at Manston by the end of November. The disease appeared to have led to the death of detainee Hussein Haseeb Ahmed on 19 November that year.
‘Stale, unpleasant atmosphere’
Manston wasn’t the only facility that the IMB criticised, either. The body said refugees at Western Jet Foil and Kent Intake Unit also faced difficult conditions.
For example, some detainees at the Kent Intake Unit had to sleep on blankets on cold floors and benches. This was the result of the Home Office ordering the removal of the facility’s sleeping mats because they weren’t fire retardant. The IMB also said that some areas of the centre had a “stale, unpleasant atmosphere” due to a lack working shower facilities.
Meanwhile, IMB inspectors noted that Western Jet Foil also had “seemed to lack fresh air” for similar reasons. Significantly, it described this facility as the “least safe” of the three. The judgement was based on the high-profile racist petrol bomb attack on Western Jet Foil in October 2022. The attack also led to the evacuation of around 1000 refugees from Western Jet Foil to Manston. This exacerbated the latter’s existing problems.
The report also noted that, despite some attempts by staff, there were problems in providing those held at all three facilities with stimulation:
the IMB felt that the lack of stimulation for those being detained in marquees for extended periods led to frustration and in-fighting.
Part and parcel of our colonial outlook
Even whilst it was aware of the increasing problems at Manston, the government claimed the facility was “resourced and equipped” to process people. However, an HM Inspectorate of Prisons report on a visit way back in July 2022 – just 6 months after the centre opened – highlighted similar problems at Manston. Problems like people sleeping on benches and overcrowded facilities were present from the very beginning.
This isn’t a failure of the system, though – it’s working precisely as intended. Clare Moseley, who set up refugee aid group Care4Calais, wrote in October 2022 that the government chose to designate people arriving as ‘illegal immigrants’. In doing so, it intentionally fostered division and raised tensions. This political handwaving then let the government turn a blind eye to rapidly deteriorating living conditions.
The IMB’s report clearly underlined the government’s racist and colonial attitude towards refugees. This has only gotten worse since the period of the IMB’s report. Home secretary Suella Braverman went so far as to claim in September 2023 that “nobody” crossing the Channel is a refugee. But the fact is that shouldn’t even matter – all people are deserving of basic dignity and respect, no matter how they arrived on UK shores.
On 18 October climate activists from Just Stop Oil (JSO) halted the coach driving 23 asylum seekers to the Bibby Stockholm.
Activists sporting bright orange tabards emblazoned with the JSO logo blocked the sole road into Portland, where the government have docked the floating monstrosity. An extremely irresponsible coach driver appeared to push through the protesters that lined the coach’s path:
INTENT TO KILL
We are saddened to report that we were unable to halt transportation of refugees to the prison — the driver rammed through the block, risking killing those in front.
Ultimately, the activists failed to prevent the Home Office returning the migrants to the barge. However, this was still the singular most powerful and important action in the group’s history – and here’s why.
Just Stop Oil’s Pride problems
For one, the action was a laudable example of solidarity in practice. Historically, JSO hasn’t always been good at this.
For instance, JSO’s action against Pride in June laid bare some of the group’s failings on this front. It sent a letter to the organisers of Pride, calling out its corporate sponsorship. However, the letter also issued an ‘ultimatum’. It demanded that Pride must set a public meeting to galvanise its volunteers to take direct action against new oil and gas projects. The group threatened to take action at Pride if organisers failed to respond.
As the Canary’s Alex/Rose Cocker expressed, this ultimatum had the effect of, unintentionally of otherwise, acting in a way to:
co-opt what should be a queer protest space.
Moreover, Cocker highlighted the ignorance in demanding that a marginalised community take direct action:
‘Help us make your activists into our activists… or else’ is not a way to foster community – which isn’t even to mention the greater threat to queer people that accompanies being arrested as part of a climate protest or elsewhere.
Bibby Stockholm action was on the right track
This time however, the group seems to have somewhat hit the mark. JSO said that they were taking action in response to a call for support by the asylum seekers facing imprisonment on the barge. Essentially then, it listened to an oppressed community and responded to its asks.
This distinction was important. In its Pride ultimatum, JSO forced its fears about the climate crisis onto a minoritised group already facing arguably more pressing and targeted existential threats.
Rather than acknowledging climate as a threat multiplier, which exacerbates underlying inequality and injustice, JSO set out a hierarchy of crises and put climate at the very top – disregarding peoples very real experiences of discrimination and injustice. Instead, for its Bibby action JSO stood alongside a community in its fight for justice.
In addition, it appears the group is beginning to build this solidarity into its broader work. The Bibby Stockholm action in Portland wasn’t the first time JSO had turned up to fight the barge. At a recent protest in Liverpool, JSO activists stood shoulder to shoulder with migrant rights groups calling out the profiteering company leasing the vessel.
No prison ships! Taking the campaign against the Bibby Stockholm to Bibby Marine in Liverpool pic.twitter.com/b9Ug7XFxgk
Direct action against the UK’s violent border regime
Next up, for this action JSO actually had a tangible goal in mind. Specifically, it aimed to stop the Home Office from forcing 23 migrants onto the shoddy prison on floats. That’s a goal I can unreservedly get behind.
Ordinarily, JSO’s protests centre round engendering public “awareness”. From slinging soup at famous works of art, to disrupting sports events and West End shows, the group’s ostensible aim veers towards maximising media attention and reaction. It’s indisputable that their tactics hit the headlines – if only because they boil the blood of the vitriolic right-wing rags.
In so doing, the climate crisis has been all the rage in the corporate media, in more ways than one. So, even the readers of the most vile tabloid tirades have heard that we’re in a climate emergency.
Yet, as the Canary’s John Shafthauer has pointed out: “a lack of awareness isn’t the problem.” Shafthauer argued that (and I agree):
people are actually very informed about climate change, and the issue is they simply feel powerless to enact change.
By contrast, in the Bibby Stockholm’s case activists took a direct stand against a violent instrument of the UK Home Office. They married JSO’s classic traffic tactics with a specific step for migrant justice.
To some extent, I saw parallels with communities disrupting immigration raids – in a similar way, JSO were trying to halt a callous gear in the UK ‘hostile environment’. Specifically here, this is a vehicle of violence which forces people seeking safety and a new life in this country into a dilapidated and unsafe de facto floating prison, while they wait despicably long months and sometimes years for the shithole Home Office to process their asylum claims.
Climate crisis and displacement
For once however, I’m also prepared to eat my earlier words. Building “awareness” was actually a solid strategy in this instance. Specifically, the action drew vital attention to the significant intersections between the climate crisis and displacement.
In particular, the climate crisis itself is a major cause of displacement. JSO noted this in its press release on the action:
We know that our government’s plan for new oil and gas is going to lead to more people being displaced from their homes. Forced from where they have lived for generations due to the actions of our failing politicians.
In other words, the UK government greenlighting new oil and gas will generate more planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions. In turn, this will intensify the climate crisis and its extreme weather impacts, particularly on those in the Global South. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), more than 80% of refugees and internally displaced people in 2022 came from:
countries vulnerable to climate change and live in dangerous conflict situations exacerbated by droughts, monsoon rains and floods.
In this way then, the Tories’ energy nationalism – which is invariably centred round more fossil fuels – is yet another example of where it couldn’t give a shit about racialised communities, here or otherwise. JSO were therefore right to draw the connections.
More than stopping oil and gas
Evidently, JSO has taken a step in the right direction. In spite of this, I still feel it’s missing a crucial point. Its press release ended on the notion that:
The first step is stopping new oil and gas
Clearly, ending new oil and gas is an important goal. The newly licensed Rosebank is testament to the stark hypocrisy of the UK continuing its business-as-usual extraction in the midst of a global climate emergency.
Ultimately however, it isn’t only about oil and gas. JSO’s protest should have illustrated to the group exactly why that is.
Fossil fuels are the loom that weaves the tapestry of oppression into a functioning whole, systematically influencing the lives of the enslaved, imperialized, colonized, and exploited. Fossil fuels have become the bedrock of economic growth and the basis of most social reproduction.
Moreover, the racialised border system and racial capitalism intersect to deny the movement of people. Simultaneously, both buttress the process of colonial resource extraction and accumulation by the Global North. In turn, this process destroys the lands and livelihoods of people in the Global South. All the while of course, this continues to fuel the climate crisis.
Given this, the deadly cycle of dehumanisation – where bordered nations render Black and Brown lives expendable – is part and parcel of this very capitalist architecture. The Bibby Stockholm is one such example of this violent apparatus in action. Naturally, this system is underpinned by, and underpins, fossil fuels at every turn.
In short: it was never enough to just stop oil, we need to do away with the whole damn system. JSO’s action against the Bibby Stockholm should be just the start. There can be no climate justice without dismantling racial capitalism in all its callous forms.
(@Drooan) December 9, 2023
https://t.co/t1dEXfojaT
(@ZackPolanski) December 9, 2023
NEW: Labour have DUMPED their promise to scrap the Tories' Rwanda deportation policy.
(@LeftieStats) December 5, 2023
INTENT TO KILL
We are saddened to report that we were unable to halt transportation of refugees to the prison — the driver rammed through the block, risking killing those in front.
We needed more people. We can't do this alone. Join the call: 