radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • An eye-opening protest is urging leaders to see the dangers of climate change

    A group of international scientists has launched a coordinated action to highlight the dangers of climate change. The protesters have blindfolded statues around the world. And according to the action’s organisers, these statues are now “just as blind as today’s leaders”.

    Seeing the truth

    Scientists Rebellion is supported by Extinction Rebellion and has been running the protest since 26 March. The group is calling the action calling “Statue Sunday”. It describes itself as “an international movement of scientists and academics across more than 32 countries who are extremely concerned about the climate and ecological crisis”, adding:

    We are putting pressure on governments — with peaceful, creative, and disruptive actions — to ensure that they take action to secure a livable and sustainable future for all. The Climate Emergency Fund supports Scientist Rebellion’s recruitment, training, capacity-building, and educational efforts.

    Spokesperson Spencer Heijnen said the protest on 2 April was the group’s second Sunday action, with more to follow. Heijnen said “Statues are iconic symbols that you can find all over the world”. And he added that world leaders “must radically change their course of action” if they wish to be commemorated with a statue of their own one day.

    Additionally, a press release from the group said:

    At dawn, scientists and concerned citizens blindfolded over a hundred statues worldwide in more than ten countries. The blindfolds are accompanied by signs reading “Tell the Truth”, “Face the Facts”, and “Earn a Statue”. The statues include the composer Beethoven in Bonn, Germany, the philosopher Erasmus in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and the former president, Jaques Chirac, in Nice, France. The scientists and citizens demand that those in power do not look away from science.

    Moreover, the press release referenced the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2022 report. It said the report “makes it painfully clear that the climate crisis and ecological disaster threaten our very existence, and require immediate action”.

    Climate crisis: sounding the alarm

    Scientists Rebellion notes that scientists and academics “have been sounding the alarm about the climate crisis for decades”. The group said it has written letters, delivered lectures and signed petitions, but governments haven’t taken notice:

    year after year, global emissions continued to rise. In the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator”.

    In its press release, the group cited the synthesis of IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report which was released last week. The group said this synthesis report summarises “the best available science related to climate change”:

    The report drew extremely alarming conclusions. Millions are already suffering greatly today, and our current trajectory would lead to about 3°C of heating by the end of the century. It is unclear whether this extent of heating is compatible with organized human society. The report also detailed numerous climate solutions that are available today, yet noted that far too little is currently being done to reduce emissions. It stated that “[t]here is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all”.

    Featured image via Scientists Rebellion

    By The Canary

  • While food prices skyrocket, the minister responsible refuses to intervene

    Thérèse Coffey has come under fire for her cavalier attitude over rocketing food prices. The rising prices have left people malnourished, starving, or dependent on charity. But Coffey, the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, rejects responsibility.

    Exploiting inflation

    Back in January, it was reported how some food producers could be exploiting inflation to hike up prices. In this respect, when Tesco CEO John Allan was asked if food producers were taking advantage of the poorest in society, he answered “entirely possible”.

    At a parliamentary select committee, Barry Gardiner MP questioned Coffey about what Allan said. Gardiner pointed out that post-pandemic profit levels were a massive 97% higher than pre-pandemic.

    There followed an argument over whose responsibility it was to provide the evidence regarding Allan’s assertion. Gardiner argued that it was Coffey’s, because she was ultimately responsible for regulating the market:

    Ignoring malnourishment

    In the same select committee, Geraint Davies MP raised a point to Coffey about malnutrition. He argued that ensuring people are not malnourished in the first place, rather than simply leaving the consequences to the NHS, would mean lower costs all round:

    When pressed further about what she was doing about food poverty, Coffey failed to answer fully. Instead, she told Davies he was being “pathetic”.

    Disagreements over price increases

    Meanwhile, Reuters has reported that food prices were 15% higher than at the same point last year, according to the British Retail Consortium. Consortium chief executive Helen Dickinson added that shop price inflation is “yet to peak”.

    The Office for National Statistics (OBR) worked out that the inflation rate for food and non-alcoholic beverages was 18.2% in February. This was the fastest rise in 45 years. It quoted one survey that showed 50% of adults were buying less food. The OBR added that around “one in six adults in Great Britain (16%) were classed as food insecure”.

    One Twitter user came up with different figures. They listed the prices for food items they had purchased over a slightly different 12 month period. The results were startling, with one item costing 70% more:

    The ‘B’ word

    The cost of food is only one element in the economy. Secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities Michael Gove blames problems facing the UK economy partly on the war in Ukraine and partly on the pandemic.

    Meanwhile Richard Hughes, chair of the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), argued that Brexit was:

    a shock to the UK economy of the order of magnitude to other shocks that we’ve seen from the pandemic, from the energy crisis.

    Hughes blamed Brexit for supply constraints.

    Also, the Centre for Economic Performance found that Brexit cost households more than £5.8bn in higher supermarket bills. Moreover, it’s claimed that Brexit cost the average UK household £1,000.

    Food prices: Sunak disinterested

    On Brexit and the single market, prime minister Rishi Sunak appears to be in denial. He was asked by Angus MacNeil MP why, like the north of Ireland, the rest of the UK can’t access the EU single market and its benefits. But instead of answering the question, Sunak waffled on about trade deals, free ports, and gene editing:

    In contrast, Liz Webster, chair of campaign group Save British Farming, is clear that the main cause of problems with food supplies is Brexit. She added that the shortage in Labour supply post-Brexit was another factor. She concluded the solution is simple: that Britain returns to the single market and customs union:

    Government is criminal

    In February, the Canary reported on the problem of food shortages and the arguments over what was to blame. Such shortages, and the related rising cost of food, worsen poverty in general.

    Indeed, 29% of children in the UK for the period 2021-22 were already living in poverty, says the Child Poverty Action Group. For Black and minority ethnic groups, the figure for the same period was 48%. Nor is this about lack of work, as 71% of children in poverty are in a household where at least one person is working.

    Poverty is about the huge disparity between income and expenses: it is avoidable and a crime. No one should have to go without food or depend on food banks.

    But the government isn’t listening. Perhaps another Jarrow Crusade, that saw 200 jobless men march from Jarrow to London, is needed. This time, maybe it should be a march on parliament from every corner of the UK. Enough is enough.

    Featured image via Wikimedia – Chris McAndrew cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Lawyers warn that Tory anti-strikes bill will make UK an ‘international outlier’

    Several British lawyers have warned that the government’s anti-strikes bill will give ministers “unfettered power” to restrict the right to strike. They’ve added that it will force unions to “undermine” their own strikes, and the bill will make Britain an international “outlier” on union laws.

    The statement reads in part:

    In Great Britain the right to strike is already heavily limited. The statutory regime places significant requirements on trade unions contemplating industrial action including the need to conduct a postal ballot under highly complex rules, the need to clear high thresholds of support (even higher in ‘important public services’), and to give 14 days’ notice of action.

    The Strikes Bill as drafted would remove none of these requirements while placing a hugely onerous new set of requirements on unions and union members.

    ‘Unfettered power’

    According to the lawyers, the sweeping new powers afforded by the bill will give a secretary of state “largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service”. This will include the power to decide when and to what extent workers can exercise their right to strike.

    Moreover, the lawyers add:

    The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016.

    It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.

    They also argue that this anti-strikes bill will create undue strain on industrial relations. It will enable employers “acting with the authority of the state” to force trade unions to undermine their own strikes. And trade unions will be forced to do so even if these are strikes which have been voted on with a very high threshold of support. The lawyers add:

    Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.

    The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.

    ‘International outlier’

    Those adding their names to the statement include:

    • Alan Bogg (professor of labour law, University of Bristol).
    • Keith Ewing (professor of public law, King’s College London).
    • Ruth Dukes (professor of labour law, University of Glasgow).

    Alan Bogg said:

    This Bill would risk leaving Britain an international outlier in its restrictive laws on trade unions. When combined with existing legislation, these proposals constitute a further departure from established norms and international treaty obligations.

    Rather than bringing Britain into line with other European countries, it deviates significantly from the legal traditions of our neighbours where the right to strike is often given explicit constitutional protection.

    Ruth Dukes said:

    These minimum service requirements will do nothing to help workers and employers reach agreement. But they might well prolong and inflame disputes.

    Anti-strikes bill: making matters worse

    In a press release, the Trades Union Congress has argued that the government is “ducking scrutiny over the Bill”. It adds:

    If passed, the Strikes Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply. The Bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation. But consultations on how these regulations will work in specific services have not been completed, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.

    It says that the new legislation will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and will “only make matters worse”.

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    This is a damning assessment of the government’s Strikes Bill. Make no mistake – these new laws are a naked power grab that will allow ministers to severely restrict the right to strike.

    This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply. Compulsory work notices during strikes will place a huge strain on employer and union relations and will do nothing to help resolve disputes.

    If this nasty legislation gets on to the statute book, the TUC will fight it all the way – including through the courts. The Conservatives cannot legislate away worker dissatisfaction.

    Featured image via YouTube (TUC) and YouTube (Telegraph)

    By The Canary

  • Jeremy Vine’s ‘brain dribbles out of his ears’ as he exposes his own racism live on TV

    On Friday 31 March, former BBC host and now C5 presenter Jeremy Vine did little to dispel the notion that old, white, middle-class men are a scourge on society. He inanely mansplained to a woman, while indirectly arguing with the dictionary as well – all live on his TV show. Vine also showed a clear whiff of racism, too – unsurprisingly. It was all over the word ‘woke’.

    Vine: schooled in the word ‘woke’

    During 31 March’s episode of Jeremy Vine On 5, author and broadcaster Natasha Devon was on. The discussion turned to wokeness. Devon asked Vine to “define what woke is”. The host floundered, spouting something about:

    Woke is basically when you sort of, y’know, you kind-of read the Guardian and this and that…

    It literally isn’t that, Vine – as Devon went onto explain:

    Woke is actually and African-American term. It means to be awake to injustice in society. If you’re woke it just means you’re not racist, homophobic or misogynist.

    As Vox wrote, the use of woke in this context dates back to the 1920s:

    In 1923, a collection of aphorisms and ideas by the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey included the summons “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” as a call to global Black citizens to become more socially and politically conscious. A few years later, the phrase “stay woke” turned up as part of a spoken afterword in the 1938 song “Scottsboro Boys,” a protest song by Blues musician Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly. The song describes the 1931 saga of a group of nine Black teenagers in Scottsboro, Arkansas, who were accused of raping two white women.

    So, woke comes from Black people resisting colonialism, white supremacy, and slavery. It’s entered more widespread use since the Black Lives Matter movement rose to prominence in the previous decade. Naturally, the right wing and liberals have jumped on the term with their usual racist and classist shithousery – and intentionally weaponised it to mean something its not.

    So, you’d think as an experienced broadcaster, Vine would know the etymology of the word woke – and therefore accept Devon’s correct explanation. But Vine is an old, middle-class white man – so of course he didn’t.

    Exposing your own racism and misogyny, Jeremy Vine-style

    The host said in response to Devon’s explanation:

    In YOUR [his accent, not the Canary’s] definition it means that, but not to everyone.

    Devon seemed to want to try and tell him that her definition was literally the dictionary’s one. Because it actually is. But even then, Vine still wouldn’t have it, saying:

    No, no – not to everyone. It’s come to mean something else.

    No, it fucking hasn’t Vine. Racist, homophobic and misogynistic people have hijacked it to mean something else. The rest of us are very clear on the definition – as people on social media pointed out:

    Vine gave the distinct impression he’s a bit racist and misogynistic, too. Black people couldn’t possibly have their own words, and a woman couldn’t possibly be right on what they mean – could they, Jeremy?

    However, old white men exposing their extremely unpleasant underbellies via the corporate media is hardly new:

    Herein lies the problem.

    Devon was articulate, accurate, and measured in her response. Vine was ignorant, racist and misogynistic in his. Clearly, his bosses realised his behaviour was rancid – or they were trying to silence people’s anger. The tweet from the official Jeremy Vine On 5 Twitter account that had the clip of the exchange in it had been deleted by 4pm on Friday 31 March.

    Yet despite all this, he is the one whose name is on the TV show, and it’s his old white ass that’s sat in the host’s chair. Colonialism, where white people (driven by white supremist patriarchy) still hold the keys of power, remains rampant across society – and TV is a microcosm of this. While Vine’s pathetic performance on his show may seem inconsequential, it actually sums up the colonialist mess we’re living in.

    Feature image via Jeremy Vine On 5 – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Government adds expansive third prong to the badger cull, while claiming a ‘phase out’

    The Conservative government has quietly added numerous extensions to existing badger cull areas since 2017. These extensions have snowballed since 2021, the year that the government announced that it was ‘phasing out’ the killing of badgers.

    Freedom of Information (FOI) requests shared with the Canary have spotlighted the existence and scale of the extensions. In total, they cover hundreds of kilometres of land. So in other words, the badger killing fields are expanding in certain respects, not winding down, despite the government’s ‘phase-out’.

    The badger cull ‘phase out’

    Amid enduring public opposition to the badger cull – ongoing since 2013 – the government announced in 2021 that it would only continue the killing for the next five years. But the FOI revelations suggest that as the government entered this ‘phase-out’ period of the cull, it started to ramp up a phase-in of extension areas.

    The badger cull policy has been two-pronged in terms of lethal measures. Each year, Natural England licenses new intensive cull areas which run for four years. Additionally, it adds supplementary cull areas. These are areas that have already had four-year-long culls. Supplementary cull licenses essentially permit these areas to keep killing for years more.

    Typically, the government permits the killing to roll out to 10 or 11 new intensive areas each year. Its ‘phase-out’ plan set 2022 as the last year for the licensing of new intensive areas.

    The information contained within the FOIs, however, spotlights a third prong to the cull. Namely, Natural England has approved extensions to existing cull areas since 2017. In other words, it’s been revising the size of some already approved cull areas upwards since then.

    Extension approvals snowball

    The FOIs show that Natural England approved 10 extensions in 2022. This amounted to badger killing on an additional 327km2 of land. In 2021, it greenlit eight extension areas totalling 342km2 in all. The number of extensions in both these years is a significant increase compared to earlier ones. Between 2017 and 2020, Natural England approved only 10 extensions overall. In one of the areas, it then subsequently reduced the size to lower than its original scale.

    Typically, although not exclusively, the body approved extensions for areas in their second year of culling. The frequency of approvals in the latest years mean that all but three areas that started culling in 2020 were extended in 2021/22. Meanwhile, all but one area that started culling in 2021 subsequently added an extension in 2022.

    Natural England has also approved more than one extension in some areas, meaning that they extended in 2021, and then further in 2022.

    New badger cull zones

    Although the vast majority of the extensions are small, some are clearly large enough to qualify as cull zones in their own right. For instance, a cull zone in Avon added a 136km2 extension in 2021. The following year, another zone in Shropshire added a massive 173km2.

    Moreover, Natural England said of the larger extensions in one FOI response:

    Larger extension areas are monitored separately to the rest to the area to ensure an effective cull is achieved in a reduced number of years. This includes requiring an increase in cage trapping and controlled shooting similar to that required in year 1 of a licensed area.

    This indicates that larger extension areas are operating in some respects as if they are separate badger culls. This includes apparently aiming to kill badgers more intensely than the cull areas they are attached to, due to the reduced number of years of operation.

    Meanwhile, Natural England confirmed in the FOIs that these extensions are not subject to public consultation, unlike the original badger cull areas. However, the body said that responses to consultations on the original areas “may be taken into account”.

    Natural England also said that it takes “relevant TB information” into account in its decision-making on extensions. However, one FOI showed low levels of suspected or confirmed bTB in some cow herds in areas where extensions were granted. This does not suggest that they were a significant part of the rationale for extending badger killing to most of the areas.

    Taking out the survivors

    Natural England further said its rationale for permitting badger cull boundary extension increases is:

    where it would likely lead to better disease control benefits.

    It also provided a breakdown of the criteria that it judges applications for extensions against. In addition to judging applications on their ability to “potentially [be] monitored separately”, the criteria are as follows:

    • If the area has “already been affected by the first year of culling in the existing licensed area”.
    • If badgers from the area could repopulate the existing licensed area.
    • If the area is unable to form part of a newly licensed cull area.

    The body also confirmed that the “intention” in these extended areas is the same as in existing areas. That is, namely to “reduce the badger population by at least 70%”.

    Natural England provided examples to illustrate what these criteria look like in practice:

    For example, had the additional area already been affected by badger control (due to natural badger movement) and could any remaining badgers repopulate the existing licensed area if not removed.

    This suggests that the aim of some extensions is to exterminate more badgers from existing areas, such as individuals who fled from them due to being under fire.

    More extensions on the way

    In a further example, Natural England explained that if badgers from the additional area had strayed into an existing area and already been “dispatched”, this too might qualify the area they came from for culling. It’s unclear why Natural England would consider this situation as meriting an extension. Perhaps it anticipates that badgers from elsewhere could repopulate the additional area after its original occupants are ‘dispatched’. Badgers – along with other wild species – tend to explore empty habitats. In other words, this rationale appears to favour extensions on the basis of how wild species naturally behave, i.e., their instinctive natures. In essence, it’s a very low bar to meet.

    Natural England’s criteria regarding areas not being able to form part of a newly-licensed badger cull is problematic too. With the ‘phase out’ setting 2022 as the last year for the licensing of new intensive areas, all applications for an extension could feasibly meet this criteria from this year onwards.

    In other words, the criteria overall appear to risk an abundance of further extensions in the coming years – just as the killing is meant to wind down.

    Natural England did not clarify what extensions to the badger cull it will permit in 2023. But it did effectively confirm that extensions are under consideration by indicating that these are “in course of completion”.

    The Canary contacted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for comment. It did not respond by the time of publication.

    ‘Unwarranted levels of secrecy’

    Responding to the findings, and how they came to light, conservation ecologist Tom Langton told the Canary:

    One of the hallmarks of Natural England’s work on badger culling has been unwarranted levels of secrecy, including where the cull area boundaries are positioned. Such secrecy has hampered just about every aspect of public scrutiny of efficacy and negative impacts of the cull policy and hidden operational deficiencies of many kinds.

    We learn from the FoIs that NE has been tacking on cull areas ‘here and there’ behind closed doors on a significant scale and in a manner that has effectively created a private rule book shared between NE and cull companies. This includes culling land not included in cull areas ‘in case badgers recolonise from such areas’ in unexplained procedures. There does not appear to be any written formula or rationale on how NE operate, and this now needs to be explained as more and more mostly completely healthy badgers are culled in this ad-hoc manner.

    Langton’s comments on secrecy point to the fact that, while some of the information on these extensions is publicly available, most of it is not. This secrecy was also apparent in 2022. DEFRA delayed releasing details about the intensive badger cull licenses it had approved. This was a break from its standard practice.

    Langton concluded that, until relevant bodies like Natural England explain fully their rationale on this third prong of the cull, the claim that they are:

    killing badgers by stealth and in an unscientific and unaccountable way holds veracity and the government claim to be phasing out culling looks hollow.

    Badger cull: dismantling the past, risking the future

    Charities fear that when the government releases its cull figures for 2022, they will show that it has licensed the killing of over 200,000 badgers in England to date. They have warned that the badger cull has so far likely eradicated around half of Britain’s entire badger population.

    DEFRA insists the killing is necessary to tackle bTB in cows. However, Langton and others published an in-depth peer-reviewed study of the cull in 2022. It found that killing badgers hasn’t meaningfully assisted in the eradication of bTB. Rather, it concluded that cow-based bTB measures, such as an intensification of the TB testing regime, are “the most likely explanation” for lower bTB rates in cows over time.

    Moreover, surveys of bTB levels in badgers suggest very few of them carry the disease, let alone a version of it that they could feasibly transmit to cows. DEFRA delayed publication of these survey results for two years. This is another example of the government failing to provide timely access to information on the cull.

    The Badger Trust recently put the destruction into sobering context, in relation to the past, the present and the future:

    Sadly, for the first time in history, badger setts across England now sit empty. Some of these setts are hundreds of years old and form part of our natural heritage. Already the most nature-depleted landscape of all G7 nations, Britain cannot afford to lose even more of its native species, particularly those which perform vital ecosystem functions which help to maintain biodiversity.

    In short, through this massacre of badgers in the present, the government isn’t only destroying the communities and lives of the UK’s largest remaining land predator. It’s dismantling the country’s natural heritage and risking its ecological future.

    Featured image via caroline legg / Flickr, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK’s broken asylum system sees £3.5bn in UK aid money spent internally

    The government is spending billions in aid, meant for overseas projects, here at home. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), a watchdog organisation, warned that the Home Office is spending up to a third of foreign aid within the UK. This came about because aid money can be drawn on in the first year of a refugee‘s stay.

    As the watchdog explained:

    Under international aid rules, the first year of some of the costs associated with supporting refugees and asylum seekers who arrive in a donor country qualifies as official development assistance (ODA). This category of aid is referred to as ‘in-donor refugee costs’.

    It’s housing and accommodation costs that ramp up the exorbitant figures. In 2022, up to £4.7m per day went on accommodation for Afghan refugees alone.

    Failing system

    The ICAI’s rapid review:

    examines UK aid spent on refugees and asylum-seekers in the UK, which it estimates to be around £3.5 billion in 2022, approximately one third of the UK’s total aid spend that year.

    The availability of these staggering amounts, the report adds, reduces the incentives for government departments to reduce their use of aid money. Plus, the UK’s failing asylum system makes the problem even worse:

    Soaring costs resulting from the failure to tackle the processing backlog and competition for scarce accommodation have absorbed a growing proportion of the limited budget for aid, making it an inefficient way of providing humanitarian assistance.

    Additionally, conditions for refugees in hotels are extremely poor. Asylum seekers housed in this way often lack basic necessities like clothing. They are also frequently develop mental health issues, and are harassed by the far right.

    Aid money cap

    The ICAI accused the Home Office of not overseeing aid effectively. It also warned that protections for women asylum seekers were not up to scratch:

    ICAI heard a lot of anecdotal evidence of safeguarding lapses, particularly for women and girls, who face significant risks of harassment and even gender-based violence while in hotel accommodation.

    Another reason for the wild aid spending is that there is no cap. This means departments can use aid money with little restraint. The ICAI said:

    The government should consider introducing a cap on the proportion of the aid budget that can be spent on in-donor refugee costs (as Sweden has proposed to do for 2023-24) or, alternatively, introduce a floor to FCDO’s aid spending, to avoid damage to the UK’s aid objectives and reputation.

    Gross negligence

    The government’s gross dereliction of duty over the foreign aid budget beggars belief. Its spending to support refugees should come out of domestic budgets – not be syphoned off from the aid budget at the expense of people in other countries, who are often also in desperate need.

    Moreover, it’s not even spending this money well. The Home Office leaves refugees languishing in the asylum system, invariably in squalid conditions, and under the constant threat of attacks from the far right. However, the biggest threat to refugees comes from the government itself – which is about to persecute them further by housing them in former military bases.

    It’s time that the government fixed our broken, unfair, grossly negligent, and mismanaged asylum system – and while it’s at it, fix the foreign aid budget, too.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/FCO, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under Open Government Licence

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Thousands of refugees will be packed in former military bases, Tory minister confirms

    Tory minister Robert Jenrick has confirmed plans to put thousands of asylum seekers into old military bases in Essex, Lincolnshire, and Sussex. Jenrick also said those held there would get the most basic housing possible. The move is being opposed by charities and local people.

    The Independent’s race reporter Nadine White tweeted the news on 29 March:

    Military bases

    Immigration minister Robert Jenrick deployed divisive rhetoric in his address to parliament, saying:

    We must not elevate the wellbeing of illegal migrants above those of the British people.

    This is obviously a bizarre claim considering how child poverty and homelessness have skyrocketed under the Tories.

    Typically, his report to the Commons suggested that many of the people coming to the UK were economic migrants:

    This government remains committed to meeting our legal obligations to those who would otherwise be destitute. But we are not prepared to go further. Accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more. Because we cannot risk becoming a magnet for the millions of people who are displaced and seeking better economic prospects.

    Jenrick also said that boats could be used to house asylum seekers offshore, citing other countries which did the same:

    We are continuing to explore the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels, as they are in Scotland and in the Netherlands

    Opposition

    However, some Tory MPs opposed the idea. Edward Leigh MP, whose Gainsborough constituency is home to the proposed RAF Scampton camp, said he would seek an injunction. Meanwhile, several local councils – including Tory-led councils – have said they will also seek injunctions. Concerns were raised about community safety and practicalities, and Jenrick confirmed that only single adult males would be held in the facilities.

    The Refugee Council said:

    Conditions

    It’s also essential to consider what the conditions in these bases are going to be like. The Tories have used military bases to hold asylum detainees in recent years, with some alarming reports.

    A former RAF site in Norwich temporarily housing asylum seekers has faced allegations of “poor conditions, poor food quality and mental health crises”. Moreover, the Canary has extensively documented human rights abuses at Manston in Kent, another former RAF base. And there have also been reports of appalling conditions for people living on former army barracks in Penally, Wales.

    In June 2021, a number of detainees brought a case against Napier Barracks in Kent to the high court. They won after arguing that the barracks was unfit for their needs. A judge ruled that the then-home secretary Priti Patel had acted “irrationally”. The judge also that ordered a number of asylum seekers be relocated from the squalid conditions.

    Slippery slope

    It’s likely that Jenrick is aware of these instances of the mistreatment of asylum detainees at former military barracks, yet he still chose to announce this plan. His announcement comes on top of the Illegal Migration Act and plans to deport desperate refugees to Rwanda.

    More and more, the UK’s asylum system is a playground for posturing racists playing to the very worst sections of society – and at the expense of the most vulnerable people in the world.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Harvey Milligan, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture highlights ‘inhuman’ treatment of migrants in latest report

    On 30 March, Europe’s top rights body blasted the “inhuman” treatment of migrants who were brutally turned away at its borders. This is especially true of the external borders of EU territory.

    The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture’s (CPT) annual report said that border forces had beaten migrants. They also suffered:

    punches, slaps, blows with truncheons, other hard objects… by police or border guards…

    Other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment were also deployed, such as firing bullets close to the persons’ bodies while they lay on the ground.

    It said other tactics included:

    pushing them into rivers (sometimes with their hands still tied), removal of their clothes and shoes and forcing them to walk barefoot and/or in their underwear and, in some cases, even fully naked across the border.

    The CPT said it found “increasing numbers” of people who claimed they were pushed back from the European frontier by force.

    CPT head Alan Mitchell said:

    Many European countries face very complex migration challenges at their borders, but this does not mean they can ignore their human rights obligations. Pushbacks are illegal, unacceptable and must end.

    The committee visited police, border and coastguard posts, detention centres, and transit areas on the main migratory routes to Europe.

    The CPT called on the Council of Europe’s member states to guarantee migrants’ rights. This would involve registering each individual, providing medical and vulnerability assessments, and offering people the opportunity to apply for asylum. Moreover, the CPT added that:

    Detention should only be used as a measure of last resort

    46 countries make up the Council of Europe. The watchdog excluded Russia after its invasion of Ukraine last year. However, it remains a party to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

    More than a million people arrived in Europe during the 2015-16 refugee crisis. The number of attempts by migrants to enter Europe hit 330,000 in 2022. This is up 64% from the previous year, the EU’s border agency Frontex said. And, as NGO Climate Refugees reported, this situation is only going to become more urgent:

    Every day vulnerable people are forcibly displaced due to impacts generated by climate change. This isn’t something that will happen, this is something happening now.

    Numerous studies, like The World Bank, forecast a grim picture of internal displacement in the millions, as the adverse effects of climate change induce more extreme weather, rising sea levels, threaten food security and impact livelihoods.

    As we are seeing play out now, it is the poorest and most vulnerable communities – those who contributed the least to global warming – that are paying the price and are hit hardest by this crisis.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse
    Featured image via YouTube

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • The RMT found a government-funded train company splashed £75m on dividends – so the Canary dug deeper

    This article was updated at 4:30pm on Thursday 30 March. Angel Trains originally gave the Canary an incorrect response. 

    The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) has exposed dodgy finances in the train industry to the tune of £75m. However, some digging by the Canary has uncovered a further £131m – with some of this money going to offshore tax havens. The culprits are so-called ‘ROSCOs’ (rolling stock leasing companies).

    ROSCOs: making a killing

    The Office of Road and Rail (ORR), an independent government body, states that:

    Rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs) own most of the coaches, locomotives and freight wagons on the rails, which they hire out to train and freight operating companies.

    ROSCOs have replaced many of the older trains that were being used before privatisation with modern vehicles. They are often responsible for the maintenance and rebuilding of the vehicles they hire out.

    The RMT said of ROSCOs:

    the government and the taxpayer now pay the ROSCOs directly for the rising cost of leasing trains. In the last five years, the ROSCOS have jacked up the cost of their leases by around 66 per cent so that it now represents around a quarter of TOC spending.

    However, these ROSCOs are making a further killing from the public purse via shareholder dividends – as the RMT has revealed about one of them.

    RMT: exposing dodgy dividends

    The RMT dug into the accounts of ROSCO Angel Trains. It found that its parent company, Jersey-based Willow Topco, paid out £75m in dividends. The RMT found that in September 2021 part of Willow Topco was bought by a new company, which therefore then owned a large part of Angel Trains. Not long after, Willow Topco paid out £75m in dividends to this new company, and its parent one, in the space of just three months.

    The Canary asked Angel Trains for comment. A spokesperson told us:

    Angel Trains is one of the largest investors in UK rail. We have invested £5 billion in UK rolling stock over the last ten years, helping to modernise the rail network and improve passenger journeys through the introduction of new trains and by refurbishing existing ones.

    We invested £53 million in maintenance alone in 2021, which directly supports skilled and semi-skilled jobs across the UK.

    We are working hard to support innovation in UK rail. We are self-funding multi-million pound trials in low carbon rail solutions, including hydrogen and battery power. These projects not only support the drive to net zero, but provide an opportunity to reduce the cost of electrifying the rail network as a whole.

    Our investments are made with private capital, which remains off the government’s balance sheet, and represent a genuine risk transfer from the public to the private sector.

    Widespread practice

    Angel Trains’ parent company wasn’t the only ROSCO to pay out dividends. The Canary dug into the issue, and found via published accounts that:

    So, if we add the above figures to the £75m at Angel Trains, that means ROSCOs paid out at least £206m in dividends in the past two years – while the pubic paid these companies for providing trains.

    Other companies like Rock Rail and Lombard North Central had multiple subsidiaries and holding companies. It was unclear exactly what dividends were paid, if any, and if so from which company the money was extracted.

    However, the practice of ROSCOs paying dividends from their huge profits isn’t new. As the website Leasing Life reported, the RMT previously found that in 2020, the three main ROSCOs (Angel, Eversholt, and Porterbrook) paid out nearly £950m in dividends. And overall, between 2012 and 2020, these three companies splashed out over £2.6bn in dividend payments.

    RMT: a scandal that needs to stop

    RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said of Angel Trains:

    Our railways are every day the subject of a shadowy heist pulled by the well-heeled parasites who lease out our trains.

    The rolling stock companies continue their shabby dealings untouched by government, shuffling taxpayers’ money out of the railways, through Jersey and in the case of Angel, into the hands of a Canadian pension fund. This is a scandal that gets far too little attention and it’s got to stop

    ROSCOs paying out dividends to parent companies is widespread practice. Put simply, dividends are paid out of profits, but the profits are coming from government subsidies – so, that’s your money being skimmed. Unfortunately, this corrupt and shady business clearly won’t stop under the Tories.

    Feature image via pxfuel

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ‘Disgraceful’ Royal Mail bosses’ latest CWU threat exposes them as shower of self-serving sh*ts

    The dispute between the Communication Workers Union (CWU) and Royal Mail has entered a bizarre parallel universe. The company has threatened that it might have to make itself bust if the CWU’s industrial action doesn’t stop, and a deal with the union isn’t reached. Predictably, people have slammed the move as “disgraceful” and “appalling”, and said that it’s now time the government renationalises Royal Mail.

    Royal Mail: utterly desperate move against the CWU

    The Canary has extensively covered the ongoing dispute between the CWU workers and Royal Mail bosses. The company has already acted pretty badly – like its boss Simon Thompson telling a load of untruths while giving evidence to a parliamentary committee. However, Royal Mail’s latest move takes the biscuit.

    The Guardian reported that bosses have threatened to declare the company insolvent. It noted that:

    Royal Mail is on course to make operating losses of £350m-£400m this year, its parent – the recently renamed International Distributions Systems (IDS) – has previously said.

    Bear in mind these losses come after several years of profits, as well as hefty dividend payments to shareholders – as Labour MP Cat Smith pointed out in parliament:

    Yet still, Royal Mail bosses are now threatening the nuclear option. As the Guardian noted:

    It is thought the boards of Royal Mail and IDS still regard a negotiated settlement as the preferred way out of crisis, but a special administration under the Postal Act has been explored. This would mean declaring the business insolvent and unable to pay its dues, raising the possibility of more job losses among its 140,000 employees. Approval would be needed from the government.

    So, the CWU has responded – and it and its general secretary Dave Ward are furious.

    ‘Appalling’? Maybe it’s time to renationalise the postal service

    Ward said in a video statement that:

    The position that we’ve reached on their finances is down to the company and the way that they’ve dealt with this dispute right from the start

    For example, as the Canary previously reported that Royal Mail bosses have rolled out redundancies during the course of the dispute,  taken legal action to try to stop strikes, and tabled derisory pay offers.

    Meanwhile, people reacted angrily to the news on social media.

    Labour MP Kate Osborne branded Royal Mail’s actions “appalling” and “disgraceful”:

    Journalist Mary O’Hara pointed out that this is what happens when governments’ privatise key industries:

    Meanwhile, other people were saying it was time for the government to renationalise the Royal Mail (an unlikely scenario):

    A shower of self-serving shits

    Ward summed up by saying:

    the greatest risk of all is that we actually let them destroy this industry and destroy these jobs.

    And went on:

    at the moment it’s important that that pressure goes back onto Royal Mail

    It beggars belief that the bosses at Royal Mail would literally threaten to let the company go bust just so they didn’t have to pay workers fairly. However, that is exactly where the dispute with the CWU is at.

    This shows, in part, just how effective the union’s campaign has been: bosses, like the cornered rats they are, are so entrenched in their position that they’d prefer to see the company collapse than give in to workers.

    Moreover, though, and it shows that those at the top of Royal Mail have no idea how to run a business – nor how to manage a workforce.

    Crucially, it also shows what a shower of self-serving shits these odious capitalists really are.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube and CWU Live – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

  • The UK’s education system is failing neurodiverse people from start to finish

    Autistic and other neurodiverse people’s experiences at university can often be marred by the institution and its faculty’s lack of support and understanding. So, one young autistic man is calling on the government to change that. He spoke to the Canary to express his concerns – and also to call on those involved in delivering university education to bring about change. However, there’s a broader issue here – it’s that the UK’s education system routinely fails neurodiverse people overall.

    Autistic and neurodiverse people: let down by universities?

    There are major challenges for autistic and neurodiverse students in UK universities. As one autistic woman wrote for the University of Bristol:

    2.4% of the UK student population are diagnosed with autism, and less than 40% of these people complete their university education – meaning that they are 10 times more likely to drop out (60% vs 6.3% overall dropout rate). To put this into context, the student population of Bristol University was 20,304 for the 2019/20 year. That means 487 students have an autism diagnosis, but only 195 of us will complete our degree courses. That’s not many.

    Anecdotally, autistic people’s stories of university life paint a mixed picture. Some have a positive experience. However, others tell of lack of resources, ignorance among staff, and being ostracised from “student life”. Elliot is an autistic student. He is a University College London (UCL) alumnus with an MRes in Biodiversity, Evolution & Conservation and a BSc in Biological Sciences from the University of Liverpool. Elliot discussed his experience at UCL with the Tab. He said:

    The default baseline for the support they offer is just two weeks extra time for thesis writing and access to the SEN computer room. My specific needs or the course’s structure weren’t really considered in much depth.

    But in order to justify why I needed longer, I had to provide evidence of how I was also switching medications around the same time.

    I think UCL probably has good facilities for supporting disabled students, so long as your disability is neat and predictable. Otherwise, you need to persevere and be proactive in pushing for support beyond what they think you need

    So, how universities support neurodiverse students can be a postcode lottery. Now, a petition is calling for change.

    A petition on autism

    The petition is calling for “mandatory training for university staff at all universities” in how to support autistic students. You can sign it here. It was started by Thomas Howard. He told the Canary:

    I am an autistic man living in the East of England. I struggled a lot during my time in education and struggled to access the help and support I required. I remember a member of staff not knowing anything about autism or reasonable adjustments. This caused me a great deal of anxiety. However, this petition isn’t about my own experiences. My time in education has ended. Instead, I am fighting for future generations.

    His experiences do chime with other autistic people’s. One participant told a study from 2019 that one of the biggest academic challenges was:

    Knowing what’s expected of you. Lecturers take it for granted that you’ll understand what they’ve said or what they want, or that you’ll do something without being told to.

    This isn’t an isolated issue. Over 15% of the population are neurodiverse – that’s one in seven people. Neurodiversity is an umbrella term that covers a range of conditions such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dyspraxia. Many neurodiverse people will experience challenges at university – if they even get to go to one. For example, one study found that “combined-type ADHD participants achieved significantly lower GCSE scores than their non-ADHD peers”. Dyslexics have a similar experience – with only 35% passing their GCSEs with grades 9-4. Then, only around 15% of autistic people in the UK are in employment. So, at all levels of education, the system is failing many neurodiverse people.

    Is education failing more broadly?

    Howard says that at universities, all this has to change. He told the Canary:

    Some universities are doing a fantastic job at training staff and even students on neurodiversity in education. However, some are still failing to provide specialist training to all staff, and this inevitably causes problems for neurodiverse students.

    So, he did his own research, speaking with university staff and students. Howard said:

    I recently spoke to a lecturer who had to complete mandatory diversity and inclusion training as part of the onboarding process. They noted that neurodiversity only featured in one chapter and that the training hadn’t been comprehensive. In fact, 90% of those that I surveyed said that they want more training and support regarding neurodiversity. So, there is clearly an appetite for regular and specialist training.

    However, the broader picture for neurodiverse people is that the education system from primary school upward is often not designed for them.

    The rigidity of dress codes, break times and rules up to GCSE and sometimes A-Levels does not always work for neurodiverse people. Contrary to popular belief, routine is not always a good thing. Independent learning can play a crucial role in neurodiverse people’s education – but is not often allowed for. There is also still a lack of focus on support around emotional wellbeing. However, pandemic lockdowns changed a lot of this – and one study found that they actually improved the learning experience for many neurodiverse people.

    ‘Mass education’: failing neurodiverse people

    As Dr Jill Pluquailec, senior lecturer in autism at Sheffield Hallam University, noted:

    in circumstances where young people and families thrived, it was where previously restrictive features of education had changed or disappeared.

    There is a lesson to be learned about how the logistics of mass education impose restrictions on young people being able to learn in the ways most conducive to their natural rhythms. It should not take a public health crisis to enable an education system to be more responsive to the needs of young people.

    So, education for neurodiverse people needs to change drastically. However, Howard’s first steps are ones in the right direction. He told the Canary:

    I don’t believe this is a radical step, but I do believe it is a progressive step. I’d like to see more people talking about neurodiversity in education, and I’d like to see more help and support for neurodiverse students across the UK.

    The UK’s education system needs root and branch change, to make itself fit for the 21st century. How it accommodates neurodiverse people is one part of it, and a major one. Currently, it fails too many people – but Howard’s petition is a positive step in the right direction.

    Featured image via Grace Media Travel – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • How much is Universal Credit going up by in April 2024? And is it actually a cut?

    Universal Credit is now the main social security that people on benefits claim from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). At the minute, a lot of people want to know how much is Universal Credit going up by.

    However, more importantly what is it? How do you claim it? How much do you get? Where did Universal Credit come from? And what are the problems with it you’re not hearing about? Here, the Canary explains all.

    What is Universal Credit?

    It’s the main benefit that people can claim from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) now. Universal Credit has been replacing six old-style benefits like Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) since 2013. The DWP has gradually rolled it out across the UK. More and more people have been claiming it as time has gone on.

    The DWP designed Universal Credit so that all types of claimants are entitled to it. Generally, it’s for people over the age of 18. This includes jobseekers, chronically ill and disabled people, and people who have caring responsibilities. They would have previously claimed ESA or JSA.  Also, people who don’t earn much money because of their job can claim it as well. They would have previously claimed Working Tax Credits.

    How much is Universal Credit?

    How much Universal Credit will I get?

    That really depends on your circumstances. The DWP has made it quite complicated in terms of different payment rates. It breaks the benefit down into different parts (elements). However, the basic amounts (“standard allowance“) Universal Credit gives you are as follows.

    If you’re aged under 25, from 1 April 2023 you’ll get:

    • £292.11 a month if you’re single.
    • £458.51 a month for couples (“joint claimants”).

    If you’re aged over 25, you’ll get:

    • £368.74 a month if you’re single.
    • £578.82 a month for couples.

    Then, you may be entitled to other parts of Universal Credit.

    Kids, health and disability, and housing

    If you have children, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) might give you more money to help you with their costs. However, it will only pay for up to two children. This is called the two-child limit. Under Universal Credit, you might get:

    • £315 a month for your first or only child. However, they need to have been born before 6 April 2017.
    • £269.58 a month for a second child, or for one child born after 6 April 2017.

    If you have a child/children, the DWP might say you should be working when you’re not, or that you’re not working enough. It will then force you to do certain things to get Universal Credit. What these are depends on the age of your child:

    Age of youngest child Your responsibilities Under 1 You do not need to look for work in order to receive Universal Credit. Age 1 If you are not already working, you do not need to look for work in order to receive Universal Credit. You will be asked to attend work-focused interviews with your work coach to discuss plans for a future move into work and will need to report any changes of circumstances. Age 2 You will be expected to take active steps to prepare for work. This will involve having regular work-focused interviews with your work coach, and agreeing a programme of activities tailored to your individual circumstances which might include some training and work preparation activities (for example, writing your CV). Age 3 or 4 You will be expected to work a maximum of 16 hours a week, or spend 16 hours a week looking for work. This might include some training and work-focused interviews. Age between 5 and 12 You will be expected to work a maximum of 25 hours a week, or spend 25 hours a week looking for work. This might include some training and work-focused interviews. Age 13 and above You will be expected to work a maximum of 35 hours a week, or spend 35 hours a week looking for work. This might include some training and work-focused interviews. Universal Credit, DWP, Department for Work and Pensions, Benefits

    If you are a chronically ill or disabled person, you might get the Limited Capability for Work or Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) element. This means the DWP shouldn’t make you do anything regarding getting a job. It will give you:

    However, to get this, you have to pass an assessment. There’s more on that further down this page.

    If you’re an unpaid carer, the DWP may give you:

    • £185.86 a month.

    The DWP might also give you the housing element. How much it will give you depends on a lot of things. So, it’s best to read the DWP’s guide on this here.

    Man spends last day alive at a Jobcentre being told he's fit for work he dies on the way home DWP, Department for Work and Pensions, Benefits

    Working, and work-related groups

    You can work and claim Universal Credit as well.

    How much can you earn and still get Universal Credit?

    This depends on your circumstances. It also depends on whether you are part of a couple, and what the other person’s circumstances are. However, as a rough guide – if you have a child, or you have Limited Capability For Work, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will give you a Work Allowance. This is an amount you can earn before the DWP starts reducing your Universal Credit payments. The DWP will give you a Work Allowance of:

    • £379 a month if it also gives you the housing element.
    • £631 a month if it doesn’t give you the housing element.

    After these amounts, the DWP starts deducting money off your Universal Credit. For every pound you earn, it takes 55p back from your benefits payment.

    If you’re self-employed, the DWP also has rules around how much it thinks you should be earning. This is called the Minimum Income Floor. The DWP expects all self-employed claimants who can work full time to be earning the same as someone who does 35 hours a week at a minimum wage job. If the DWP doesn’t expect you to work full time, then the Minimum Income Floor is based on the number of hours it does expect you to do.

    How many hours can you work on Universal Credit?

    If you’re just working, and not claiming disability or health elements, then the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) doesn’t base your payments on how many hours you work. It bases them on how much you earn.

    Once the DWP has decided what you’re entitled to, it puts you into a group. These are based on what it expects you to do regarding work. The DWP makes this decision based on your circumstances. For example, if it says you have LCWRA then it will put you in the “no work-related requirements group”:

    Group What you'll need to do No work-related requirements group You don’t have to do anything to prepare or look for work Work-focused interview group You have to go to regular meetings with your work coach Work preparation group You have to meet your work coach regularly and also prepare for work. This includes things like writing a CV and going on training or work experience All work-related activity group You have to do all you can to find a job or earn more. This includes looking for jobs, applying for jobs and going to interviews Universal Credit, DWP, Department for Work and Pensions, Benefits

    How much is Universal Credit going up by in April 2024?

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) increased Universal Credit by 10.1% from 1 April 2023. However, benefit claimants didn’t actually see an increase in April, overall. In reality, the DWP took people’s benefits back up to the rate they were at in April 2022. This is because the rising cost of everything (‘inflation’) was been more than the DWP’s 10.1% increase. This is called a ‘real-terms cut’.

    So, while the DWP may be giving claimants more money, it’s not giving them enough to make up for the fact everything is more expensive now.

    New Universal Credit rates April 2024

    From April 2024, the DWP will put Universal Credit up again. The rates will change to the following:

    Standard allowance
    Single under 25 292.11 311.68
    Single 25 or over 368.74 393.45
    Couple – joint claimants both under 25 458.51 489.23
    Couple – joint claimants, one or both 25 or over 578.82 617.60
    Child amounts
    First child (born prior to 6 April 2017) 315.00 333.33
    First child (born on or after 6 April 2017)/ second child and subsequent child (where an exception or transitional provision applies) 269.58 287.92
    Disabled child additions
    Lower rate addition 146.31 156.11
    Higher rate addition 456.89 487.58
    Limited capability for work amount 146.31 156.11
    Limited capability for work and work-related activity amount 390.06 416.19
    Carer amount 185.86 198.31
    Childcare costs amount
    Maximum for one child 950.92 1014.63
    Maximum for two or more children 1630.15 1739.37
    Non-dependants’ housing cost contributions 85.73 91.47
    Work allowances
    Higher work allowance (no housing amount) one or more dependent children or limited capability for work 631.00 673.00
    Lower work allowance – one or more dependent children or limited capability for work 379.00 404.00

    However, most people will still be worse off because of inflation. For example, think tank the New Economics Foundation says that:

    • An out-of-work single person over 25 on Universal Credit would be £670 a year worse off than in April 2023.
    • A a lone parent with one child would be £350 worse off.
    • A couple over 25 with two children would only be £35 a year better off.

    How to apply for Universal Credit

    You can make an application here:

    Apply for Universal Credit

    If you are a disabled or chronically ill person, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will make you wait three months before it will pay you extra money for your condition. It may make you do a Work Capability Assessment (WCA). This is where the DWP will assess whether you’re entitled to extra financial support.

    You need to prepare for the WCA. Make sure you have as much evidence from doctors about your condition as you can get. Be prepared to explain to, and show, the DWP why you cannot do much work, or work at all. And if the department says you’re not entitled to extra money, always challenge this with a Mandatory Reconsideration – if you have the capacity to.

    More advice on the WCA is available here.

    Universal Credit login

    If you already claim Universal Credit, or have done recently, you can access your account here:

    Universal Credit Login

    Does PIP affect Universal Credit?

    No, Personal Independence Payment (PIP) does not affect Universal Credit at all. Its predecessor – Disability Living Allowance (DLA) – doesn’t, either.

    PIP is not a means-tested benefit. That is, it doesn’t matter if you’re rich, poor, or just ‘doing OK’. The DWP will give you PIP if it says you’re chronically ill or disabled enough to get it. So, because PIP is not means tested, it has nothing to do with Universal Credit.

    Breaking the government just lost a major court case giving 164000 disabled people the best Christmas present ever Universal Credit

    Where did Universal Credit come from?

    It was the idea of the Conservative Party – specifically Iain Duncan Smith MP and his think tank the Centre for Social Justice.

    When the Tories were in opposition in the noughties, then-leader David Cameron asked Duncan Smith to come up with an idea to change the benefits system. He wanted to make the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cost less for the government, and also to stop poor people claiming benefits.

    The Tories believe that poverty is partly the fault of poor people, due to things like education and addiction. So, Duncan Smith designed Universal Credit with the belief that people could get a job to get out of poverty. However, he also thought that Universal Credit should use punishments like sanctions and cutting people’s money to try to force them to stop claiming benefits and get into work.

    Is poverty people’s fault?

    So, the Tories think that if you’re poor, it’s probably your own fault – and that work is the best thing you can do to not be poor.

    However, a lot of evidence shows this is not true. For example, bosses have been paying people really low wages for years. People are not earning as much (in real terms) now as they were in 2008. This is also the Conservative Party’s fault, as it’s been in government for most of that time.

    For example, it has never set the rate of the national minimum wage at the level of the so-called “Real Living Wage“. So, bosses have always been able to get away with paying people really low wages.

    DWP court case could see millions get £1500 Universal Credit, DWP, Department for Work and Pensions, Benefits

    What are the problems with it?

    Universal Credit has been controversial since it was launched. Here are some of its biggest scandals:

    The Un is preparing to investigate the UK government again Universal Credit, Department for Work and Pensions, Benefits

    Canary thoughts on Universal Credit

    Victorian thinking

    Steve Topple previously wrote for the Canary:

    What drove all this thinking seems to me to be Victorian-era, Christian fundamentalist values. Essentially, the notion of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor.

    All of the contemporaneous… work pushes the idea that it’s poor people’s behaviours and attitudes that must change, not capitalism. It, of course, ignores the fact that its five “pathways to poverty” are all symptoms of capitalism itself; not of people’s bad behaviour.

    But… [its architects] couldn’t acknowledge this, as it would naturally render them, and the capitalist-driven Conservative Party, null and void.

    So essentially, their thinking was if you’re poor, you made yourself that way; shown in the “pathways to poverty”. To stop poor people being stupid and making themselves destitute, the government needed to shake up the benefits system; to nudge everyone possible into work, and those in work into more work; making welfare reliance impossible. And anyone left? It’s their own, stupid fault.

    So to do this, the… [Tories] created Universal Credit.

    But it would also put all those unwilling to help themselves out of poverty and welfare into one place. Sick, disabled, unemployed and low earning people would no longer be different, distinct benefit groups. They would become one, homogeneous ‘underclass’ of people. And, as the… [Tories’] early thinking shows, the state would give minimal support to these people. Instead, charities and communities should carry the burden of this workless/underemployed group.

    A dystopian nightmare

    Topple continued:

    Universal Credit is the perfect vehicle for the 21st-century ‘Victorian mindset’. It sanctions low paid workers who aren’t doing enough to get more work; penalises lone parents; cuts free school meals; reduces support for disabled people with severe impairments. And, by design, it encourages people’s reliance on charity – note the rise of food banks.

    Universal Credit’s history shows why… it cannot be ‘fixed’.

    Its architects designed it to marginalise whole sections of society; to create a dystopian world where an underclass of people exists on its fringes.

    Couple this with the government cutting public services left, right and centre; homelessness rocketing; social housing decimated –  and we are seeing a nightmarish vision, once reserved for science fiction, becoming a reality. Universal Credit needs to be stopped and scrapped.

    Sadiq Khan just attacked the DWP. He should have saved his breath.

    What can you do to change Universal Credit for the better?

    You can get involved with grassroots campaign groups to protest and take action over Universal Credit. These include:

    Got a story about your experience of Universal Credit? Email us via editors(at)thecanary.co

    Featured image via the Canary and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Oil spill at largest onshore oilfield in Western Europe was a disaster waiting to happen

    An oil spill incident just occurred at the largest onshore oilfield in Western Europe. But it wasn’t the first pollution incident at the site – and it likely won’t be the last. On Sunday 26 March, fossil fuel company Perenco spilled 200 barrels of ‘reservoir fluid’ into a natural harbour at Wytch Farm in the South of England.

    Perenco estimated that the fluid is a mixture of 80-85% water and 15-20% oil. It leaked from a pipeline situated under Poole Harbour in Dorset. The spill occured at the company’s Wytch Farm oilfield. The harbour is adjacent to multiple biodiverse protected sites. For example, Poole Rocks Marine Conservation Zone lies just east of the harbour entrance, and is home to more than 360 marine species.

    Perenco shut down the pipeline in response to the incident. The company mobilised the local harbour commissioners and the oil spill response teams to contain the leak. They also advised the public to avoid the local beaches.

    This is the first major incident declared at the site. However, Perenco has reported a number of pollution events at the ageing oilfield since it took over operations from British Petroleum (BP) in 2011.

    From Deepwater to local oil spills

    The Wytch Farm oilfield started operating in 1979. In 1984, fossil fuel major BP bought the site. However, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the company decided to sell a number of their UK assets to fund the clean up costs. This included their majority stake in the Dorset oilfield operations.

    A leak at Wytch Farm in the same year as the disaster in the Gulf may have also prompted the company to ditch the site. The spill was small, but BP shut down operations for two months. During this period, the company investigated the cause of the leak and implemented necessary maintenance. The closure cost BP millions in lost revenue. Moreover, they told the Telegraph at the time of the leak that they shut down the field due to “extreme caution”. A BP spokesperson told the paper that they were being extra careful over “pipeline integrity issues” after the Deepwater spill.

    French oil and gas company Perenco took over operations at Wytch Farm in 2011. Since then, local campaigners and an investigative journalist made a series of Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests to monitor its operations. They reveal that Perenco have caused at least ten other pollution events at the oilfield.

    Spills and pollution a disaster waiting to happen

    In 2018, investigative journalist Russell Scott found that Perenco had caused five pollution events at the site between 2013 and 2017:

    As Scott pointed out, this included four leaks. Furthermore, two of these leaks equated to approximately 85 barrels and 94 US barrels of oil respectively. However, the spills in these instances were both comprised mostly of water. For example, as the documents explain, Perenco estimated that crude oil accounted for 9% of the leak in the first incident.

    Nonetheless, local Green Party Councillor and anti-fossi fuel campaigner Chris Rigby tweeted that these previous spills showed that the current major incident was a “disaster waiting to happen”:

    Further information reported by iNews revealed that between 2011 and 2020, at least ten pollution events occurred. These include incidents where the operator exceeded safe levels of harmful gas emissions like carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. On one occasion, Perenco went three times over the permitted limit of carbon monoxide. Additionally, in another case they caused a leak of 40 barrels worth of hydrochloric acid.

    Not the first scandal

    Moreover, this isn’t first time Perenco has made the news over their polluting operations in Dorset.

    In 2017, local campaigner Stuart Lane from Fossil Free Dorset found that an oil well at Kimmeridge, was venting nearly 300 tonnes of methane into the atmosphere. And it was doing so by design – reduction measures were labelled “not cost effective”. The campaign group estimated that over its lifetime, this would be equivalent to the annual carbon dioxide emissions for approximately 112,500 people.

    The Kimmeridge well site is just along the Dorset coast from Perenco’s main operations at Wytch Farm. Since the revelation, Perenco have continued to vent methane at the location. The company did not suspend operations at the site. Instead, the Environment Agency issued the company a variation to its permit, allowing it to continue to vent up to 350 tonnes of methane per year.

    For example, in 2019 it emitted 333 tonnes of methane. The new permit did, however, also require that the company produce a plan for containing the vented gas to be used for generating electricity. However, Drill or Drop reported that the company instead installed a flare to burn the waste emissions. They did this without initially receiving approval from the local council.

    Record of UK-wide problems

    The well at Kimmeridge, known as a ‘nodding donkey’, has been operating since 1959. It is believed to be the oldest continually producing well site in the UK. But it was this old-style well design that resulted in Perenco venting climate-wrecking pollutants into the atmosphere. In addition, as the documents from Scott and campaigners show, Perenco caused the spills as a result of corroded equipment. It might suggest that Perenco is failing to maintain this ageing infrastructure.

    The UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has also issued Perenco a large number of notices at other operations throughout the UK.

    In the last five years, HSE has given the company eight notices to improve the safety of its operations. It also issued Perenco with a ‘Prohibition Notice’ for its gas terminals in the East Riding of Yorkshire. This pertains to a more serious breach of health and safety guidelines. HSE issue this notice when operations may put a person at “a risk of serious personal injury”.

    Yet despite this list of UK-wide health and safety issues and the recent oil spill at Wytch Farm, the company will continue to operate the ageing site.

    In 2013, Dorset Council extended Perenco’s permits for the Wytch Farm oilfield and Kimmeridge well site. These permits had been originally set to expire in 2016. However, the council agreed to grant Perenco a further 21 years of oil and gas extraction until 2037.

    A wake-up call

    This should be a wake-up call. With the government poised to make a decision on the Rosebank oilfield and new oil blocks in the North Sea, this most recent spill could not issue a clearer warning. Not only is continuing to extract oil incompatible with meeting the Paris Climate target of 1.5C, but there will also continue to be huge environmental cost and risk to human health. In short, the only safe fossil fuels are the ones kept in the ground.

    Feature image via Petr Kratochvil/Public Domain Pictures under CC0 1.0 license

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Humza Yousaf elected Scotland’s first minister amid gender recognition and independence rows

    Scotland’s parliament is set to confirm Humza Yousaf as its new first minister on 28 March. He narrowly won the contest to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as Scottish National Party (SNP) leader. Yousaf beat rival Kate Forbes in the final run-off with 52% of members’ preferentially ranked votes.

    Yousaf’s election is responsible for a number of ‘firsts’ for Scottish politics. At 37, he is the youngest first minister since devolution reforms created the Scottish parliament in 1999. Moreover, he is the first leader of a national UK party from a Muslim background. Yousaf took pride in these achievements, saying in his victory speech:

    We should all take pride in the fact that today we have sent a clear message that your colour of skin, or your faith, is not a barrier to leading the country we all call home

    However, as PA journalist Lauren Gilmour pointed out, Yousaf is also the first leader of Scotland to have attended private school since Donald Dewar in 2000. Yousaf attended Hutchesons’ Grammar, one of Glasgow’s most exclusive private schools.

    Yousaf a relief to trans and queer communities

    Yousaf’s election follows Sturgeon’s surprise resignation announcement in January after more than eight years at the helm. Sturgeon said she was quitting because she felt unable to give “every ounce of energy” to the job. The decision came after a difficult period for her government. In particular, there was backlash against the Gender Recognition Act Reform. This would have enabled anyone over 16 to obtain a gender recognition certificate without a medical diagnosis.

    As the Canary previously reported, Westminster used an unprecedented veto to block the legislation. Yousaf previously publicly stated that he will challenge Westminster’s obstruction of the bill. Subsequently, the news of his election was warmly welcomed:

    The reactions emerge from the threat of a potential win by Yousaf’s rival. Forbes, Scotland’s finance minister, is a member of the strictly conservative Free Church of Scotland. The church itself opposes gay and trans rights, abortion, and sex outside marriage – and Forbes followed suit. As the Canary previously reported:

    Hours after announcing her candidacy on 21 February, the 32-year-old Forbes revealed that she would have voted against same-sex marriage, had she been a member of the Scottish Parliament when the reform passed in 2014. She defended the stance as a matter of personal conscience.

    Yousaf’s election has therefore brought a sigh of relief to many.

    Not widely backed by the public

    The former health minister doesn’t have plain sailing ahead, though. Yousaf has vowed to rejuvenate its signature policy of pursuing Scottish independence. However, polls suggest that support for independence has stalled, with recent surveys showing around 45% of Scots supporting leaving the United Kingdom – the same tally recorded in the 2014 referendum.

    Yousaf has also attracted criticism over his record in several roles in government, and faces a bigger challenge to win over the wider Scottish electorate. According to Ipsos polling, Yousaf enjoys a favourable opinion among just 22% of Scottish voters. Another Ipsos poll conducted shortly before he was announced as SNP leader showed that half of Scots feel that the country is heading in the wrong direction, while just a quarter feel it is heading in the right direction.

    Featured image via STV News/YouTube

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Aukus ‘going against’ Pacific nuclear free treaty – Cook Islands leader

    US President Joe Biden (R) meets with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (L) during the AUKUS summit at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego California on March 13, 2023. - AUKUS is a trilateral security pact announced on September 15, 2021, for the Indo-Pacific region. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP)
    US President Joe Biden (right) meets with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (left) during the AUKUS summit at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego California on 13 March 2023. Image: RNZ Pacific/Jim Watson/AFP

    “But it is what it is,” he said of the tripartite arrangement.

    ‘Escalation of tension’
    “We’ve already seen it will lead to an escalation of tension, and we’re not happy with that as a region.”

    Other regional leaders who have publicly expressed concerns about the deal include Solomon Islands PM Manasseh Sogavare, Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe and Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu.

    With Cook Islands set to host this year’s PIF meeting in October, Brown has hinted that the “conflicting” nuclear submarine deal is expected to be a big part of the agenda.

    “The name Pacific means ‘peace’, so to have this increase of naval nuclear vessels coming through the region is in direct contrast with that,” he said.

    “I think there will be opportunities where we will individually and collectively as a forum voice our concern about the increase in nuclear vessels.”

    Brown said “a good result” at the leaders gathering “would be the larger countries respecting the wishes of Pacific countries.”

    “Many are in opposition of nuclear weapons and nuclear vessels,” he said.

    “The whole intention of the Treaty of Rarotonga was to try to de-escalate what were at the time Cold War tensions between the major superpowers.”

    “This Aukus arrangement seems to be going against it,” he added.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Citizens in the UK and Israel protest against Netanyahu as his government veers further right

    Citizens in the UK and Israel are protesting Israel’s prime minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu and the actions of his government. It’s all happening as Netanyahu finds himself in the middle of an ongoing corruption trial. The Israeli state is also facing increasing allegations of apartheid against Palestinians.

    Netanyahu: “war crimes”

    Netanyahu has been in the UK visiting PM Rishi Sunak. Protesters in London turned up on 24 March to make their feelings on the man clear – accusing Netanyahu of being a ‘war criminal’:

    People protesting Israel PM Netanyahu's visit to the UK

    It comes after the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) called on the UK government to refer Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in Palestine. The Canary has reported extensively on Netanyahu’s time in office and the many war crimes that the Israeli government has allegedly committed.

    NGO Friends of Al Aqsa sent out a press release to coincide with Netanyahu’s visit. In it, the group’s head of public affairs Samiul Joarder said:

    For 15 years Netanyahu has personally overseen the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian towns and villages and the targeted killing of Palestinian men, women and children living under illegal Israeli occupation… today we are holding him to account for these war crimes

    The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, but what about Netanyahu? Sunak should be holding Netanyahu to account, not signing agreements to strengthen ties with an apartheid state and welcoming a war criminal to Downing Street.

    A man holds a sign saying "Wanted Netanyahu for war crimes" at a protest in London as Israel's PM visited

    The press release added:

    Netanyahu’s visit comes after a ‘2030 roadmap for UK-Israel relations’ was signed earlier this week. Yet the first 3 months of 2023 have seen some of the worst Israeli violence against Palestinians in decades. Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed at least 89 Palestinians including 15 children.

    On the matter of war crimes, Friends of Al Aqsa has said:

    Israel’s inhumane attacks on residential buildings in Gaza under Netanyahu’s premiership in the summer of 2021 (and 2022) were widely condemned as war crimes. These brutal bombardments killed 66 Palestinian children and on 16 May 2021 Israel deliberately targeted two residential buildings of the Abu al-Ouf and al-Kolaq families, killing 30 family members including 11 children. Israel’s use of live ammunition against Palestinians who posed no imminent threat to life at the Great March of Return protests in 2018 and 2019 – including medics and journalists – has also been widely condemned as a war crime under international law. Netanyahu also oversaw Israel’s attacks on Gaza in 2014 which left 1000 Palestinian children permanently disabled.

    “Shame”

    At home, Netanyahu is facing protests over his planned reforms to the legal system:

    These reforms would limit the power of Israel’s Supreme Court to hold the government in check. According to Al Jazeera:

    The government has been pushing for changes that would limit the Supreme Court’s powers to rule against the legislature and the executive, giving the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat Knesset.

    A second proposal would take away the Supreme Court’s authority to review the legality of Israel’s Basic Laws, which function as the country’s constitution. Protesters fear the legal reforms may diminish the checks and balances within the Israeli state.

    The reforms would also change how Supreme Court justices are selected, giving politicians decisive powers in appointing judges.

    Netanyahu’s coalition government is also facing criticism for passing a law which many say is designed to protect the Israeli PM from being deposed if he’s found guilty of corruption. CNN reported on 24 March:

    By a 61-to-47 final vote, the Knesset approved the bill that states that only the prime minister himself or the cabinet, with a two-thirds majority, can declare the leader unfit. The cabinet vote would then need to be ratified by a super majority in the parliament.

    Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid called the move a “disgraceful and corrupt personalized law” and said Netanyahu is “looking out only for himself.”

    Apartheid allegations increase under Netanyahu

    Netanyahu’s visit to the UK coincided with increasing condemnation of Israel’s alleged apartheid against Palestinians. As the Canary previously reported:

    On 1 March, a terrifying new bill passed its first reading in the Israeli parliament. It would allow Israeli courts to impose the death penalty on Palestinians. However, it would not impose the same sentence on Israeli colonists.

    The extreme right-wing Zionist Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Homeland) party proposed the Bill. Parliament passed it 55 votes for, 9 against.

    The Canary also noted that:

    The far right in Israel has long wanted to impose the death penalty on Palestinians. However, their efforts have so far been successfully opposed by those who think that the death sentence will only stoke Palestinian anger against the occupation. But this could change, as Israel’s current government is – as the Times of Israel said – the most right-wing ever.

    Sunak: an ironic statement

    During the Israeli PM’s visit, Sunak raised the reforms with Netanyahu. Sunak remarked on “the importance of upholding the democratic values that underpin our relationship, including in the proposed judicial reforms in Israel”. However, there’s an irony here. Critics of Sunak have accused the PM himself of pursuing an anti-democratic agenda. On 5 January, Canary writer Joe Glenton wrote:

    Unelected British prime minister and billionaire Rishi Sunak wants to take away your right to strike. At least, that’s what he seemed to be getting at when he floated the idea of a new anti-worker law this week.

    The proposed legislation could see public sector workers who refuse to come in and provide a ‘minimum’ service during industrial action sacked. The laws may also allow employers to take legal action against trade unions.

    Glenton summed up by saying:

    Under the Tories, a range of authoritarian bills have passed into law. And they have brought with them the sense of democratic space narrowing before our eyes.

    Irony isn’t limited to rhetoric on democracy, though. In August 2022, the Guardian revealed Dominic Raab was considering judicial reforms that would “make it harder to bring successful legal challenges against the government”.

    Amongst changes mentioned in the leaked Ministry of Justice document was simply letting government ministers exclude judges from hearing cases on certain decisions it had made. In a comment echoing those levelled at Netanyahu, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, Charlie Welton, told the Guardian that the proposed changes would make the government “even less accountable to the public”.

    Featured image and additional images via Friends of Al Aqsa

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Post Office workers should be ‘proud’ following big pay dispute development with CWU

    Trade union the Communication Workers Union (CWU) has been fighting on behalf of Post Office workers in an ongoing pay dispute. Following a significantly improved offer from Post Office management, CWU general secretary Dave Ward has said that striking workers should be “proud” of what they’ve achieved. It comes after a series of strikes in 2022.

    The offer for Post Office workers

    The CWU announced that a deal had been reached on 24 March. Key aspects include:

    • A “consolidated” pay rise of 9%, starting on 1 April 2023.
    • Lump sum payments “for all workers”. These will be between £1,925 and £3,000.
    • Giving workers 30 days annual leave after seven years’ service. Previously, workers were only entitled to it after 10 years’.

    The agreement has been unanimously endorsed by the union’s postal executive.

    The battle

    Post Office workers have been fighting a management-imposed pay freeze since Spring 2022. The CWU noted:

    A series of eight strikes and various other forms of industrial action from May to December led to stoppages at all 114 Crown Post Offices, as well as huge disruption in supply chain work.

    The CWU and its Post Office workers have been in an ongoing dispute with bosses for most of 2022 over pay offers from the company. The dispute centres around workers rejecting a pay freeze for 2021/22. They also dismissed a pay offer of 5% with effect from 1 April 2022, plus a £500 one-off lump sum. Strikes took place in May 2022, followed by more actions over the summer. The last strike was at the end of September 2022. 

    At the time, CWU’s postal deputy general secretary Andy Furey said:

    This dispute has always been about a company having respect for dedicated public servants who, as key workers, provided unprecedented customer service during the pandemic. The determination of these people hasn’t swayed, and nor has their sense of betrayal. They won’t accept their living standards being smashed by people running a service that generated tens of millions of pounds in profit out of our members’ efforts. There is more than enough money for a reasonable pay rise – implementing this real-terms pay cut has always been a management choice, not a necessity. We urge management to see sense, get into real negotiations and cut a fair deal to avert these strikes.

    Making their voices heard

    CWU Post Office Area Rep Alan Robertson has said of the new offer:

    It looks like a very good deal – it’s been a long time coming, but it’s definitely come on a lot further than what we were first offered… It’s down to the membership staying strong and taking solid action – in the strikes and in the action short of strike. For once we’ve got some good news. I will of course be voting YES and urging members to do the same.

    Meanwhile, Furey said:

    We would like to thank our Post Office members for their support throughout the dispute. This agreement could not have been reached without their unwavering commitment.

    We would also like to thank our representatives for their valuable assistance. This agreement is the best that can be achieved via these negotiations and as such, the Postal Executive is recommending our members support the agreement by voting yes in the forthcoming ballot.

    CWU general secretary Dave Ward added:

    This deal simply would not have happened without the bravery shown by striking Post Office workers all through last year. Without their clear determination, this dispute couldn’t have moved on to where we are now. They should be proud of themselves, and I hope they let their voices be heard in this upcoming ballot.

    The dispute is unrelated to the Royal Mail Group dispute, which remains unresolved.

    Featured image via smartC – YouTube

    By The Canary

  • Protesters dressed as chickens mimic battery farm in a Morrisons foyer

    Animal rights group Open Cages has staged an in-store protest at a Morrisons in Wood Green, London. The protest was the largest of its kind for the group.

    It was aimed at “eliminating cruelty from the UK’s chicken industry”. Open Cages claims that the supermarket chain’s chickens are not being kept in cruelty-free conditions.

    Morrisons: activists squeezed in like chickens

    Referring to it as a protest of “unprecedented scale”, Open Cages said:

    Shutting down the store’s entrance, the activists have ‘squeezed’ into the narrow lobby to highlight how chickens sold in Morrisons are typically raised in overcrowded sheds with less than an A4 sheet of space each in their final weeks of life

    People dressed in chicken costumes against a Morrisons sign

    The protest took place on Saturday 25 March and involved 60 activists. In a press release, Open Cages said a number of animal rights groups are calling on Morrisons to sign the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC):

    Open Cages, the RSPCA, Compassion In World Farming, The Humane League UK and many other leading animal protection charities want Morrisons to sign the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) in order to address the ‘extreme suffering‘ faced by the retailer’s basic label chickens.

    People in chicken costumes protesting inside a Morrisons store

    The group added:

    More than 300 companies in Britain have already signed the BCC, including retailers Marks and Spencer & Waitrose and major fast food players such as KFC, Subway and Domino’s Pizza.

    Morrisons’ animal welfare policy permits chickens to be kept in conditions of up to 19 birds per square metre.

    It said that according to the RSPCA, “a lack of space for chickens” can cause:

    higher rates of death, skin infections, heat stress and ammonia burns from the birds laying in their own waste. The restricted movement exacerbates welfare problems associated with breeding chickens for fast growth. Known as ‘Frankenchicken’, the RSPCA calls this practice ‘unacceptable‘ Morrisons is yet to announce any plans to end either of these practices.

    People in chicken costumes protesting inside a Morrisons store

    Open Cages also notes that:

    over 300,000 people have signed Chris Packham’s petition asking Morrisons to sign the Better Chicken Commitment.

    You can sign the petition here.

    Opposing cruelty

    This is not the first time Open Cages has taken action against Morrisons – but it is its biggest demo yet. On 7 February, the group staged protests in London, Glasgow and Cornwall:

    Open Cages has also been doing some ‘brandalism’, adding campaign slogans to Morrisons posters:

    It also has a dedicated website where people can read about the extent of Morrisons’ alleged animal cruelty. You can visit the website here.

    Morrisons has defended itself. It told London News Online:

    We care deeply about animal welfare. All our regular chicken is raised to above Red Tractor standards; we are also the only retailer in Europe to ask our fresh chicken suppliers to require chicken to be born into the barn in which it will be raised by 2025. 80% of our fresh chicken meets this standard already. We also actively monitor for any malpractice in our supply chain; we will never tolerate it or look the other way and if we ever find it, we will act swiftly and decisively.

    Profiting from “ruthlessly intensive chicken farming”

    The group has claimed that “Morrisons deceives customers on animal welfare“. It adds:

    Morrisons claims to offer a range of chicken that adheres to the Better Chicken Commitment. However, to adhere to the BCC a company must commit to switch 100% of its chicken supply to higher standards. Morrisons’ range is speculated to form as little as 1% of its total chicken offering. This approach has been branded as ‘superficial’ when as much as 95% of Morrisons’ chickens still remain in the same intensive conditions as before.

    Open Cages co-founder Connor Jackson has said of the most recent protest:

    The idea of this action is to illustrate how chickens live before arriving on a Morrisons shelf. 78% of Brits oppose cruel farming practices. And the shocking truth is that Morrisons, a company that boasts about its high animal welfare credentials, is secretly profiting from some of the most ruthlessly intensive chicken farming practices available. So we feel forced to take drastic measures in order to warn consumers about what they’re really buying… Morrisons must stop ignoring the cruelty in its supply chain and sign the Better Chicken Commitment.

    Featured image and additional images via Tom Woollard

    By The Canary

  • Putin to Station Russian Nukes in Belarus in “Dangerous Escalation”

    Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on state television Saturday plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus — an escalation anti-war campaigners had been warning about and that alarmed disarmament advocates and experts. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) “condemns this extremely dangerous escalation which makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A Glasgow bar has been accused of sacking workers for union organising

    The radical union Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) has accused a Glasgow bar of union busting.

    Saramago Bar, which is located inside Glasgow’s Centre for Contemporary Arts (CCA) has reportedly sacked several IWW members.

    Three workers were initially dismissed by Saramago. The union says they were fired for pressuring management to improve working conditions.

    According to IWW:

    The fired workers… were organising to increase the number of staff rota’d on in the kitchen and front of house to stop themselves being over-worked. A simple request for a business as popular as Saramago.

    Supporters of the workers had written a petition to Saramago’s managers, backing up their demands.

    Solidarity

    Clydeside IWW demonstrated in support of the sacked workers on Tuesday 21 March. The group had support from the University and College Union (UCU) and Unite the Union‘s hospitality branch:

    Glasgow Short Film Festival has cancelled several events due to be held at the Saramago bar. The festival issued a statement saying that the cancellations were in solidarity with the workers. They also asked their customers not to buy refreshments from Saramago during the festival.

    Earlier this week, the IWW said it was braced for further dismissals:

    Fellow workers at Saramago and the IWW are concerned that these unjust, cruel, and downright cynical rafts of firings are just the beginning. Both staff and the union are bracing for more firings and mobilising to provide support to those who have already been summarily dismissed.

    Sadly, their fears proved justified. On Thursday 23 March, the union announced that more workers had been sacked. That evening they held another protest in solidarity with those dismissed.

    ‘Accept precarity or starve’

    IWW says that the dismissals at Saramago Bar are a result of backlash from the bosses. Workers at Saramago have successfully organised for better wages and conditions, and it seems like the management isn’t happy about it.

    A union statement says that the bosses message is all too clear: “accept precarity or starve”.

    Saramago has a reputation as a left-wing venue, but IWW argues that this shouldn’t give them a free pass to mistreat their workers:

    We will not let Saramago hide behind its historic association with a liberal, left-wing crowd or its location in an arts venue that only a week ago screened films about the importance of trade-unionism. We call on all union members and workers in hospitality to show solidarity with the fired workers by joining us on the support pickets which will soon be organised

    The Canary tried to call Saramago for a comment, but they didn’t answer the phone. We also contacted CCA on Thursday 23 March. It said:

    CCA is aware of a demonstration scheduled for later today outside of our venue, relating to a staff dispute within Saramago Cafe Bar. Saramago is a business tenant within CCA, owned and managed separately from our organisation.

    Fair working is an organisational priority for CCA, and we therefore express concern and are communicating directly with Saramago Cafe Bar, our programme partners and our own staff as developments unfold.

    IWW is planning to demonstrate against Saramago again on Friday 24 March. The union is asking people to donate to a solidarity fund for the sacked workers, and to send messages of support via Clydeside IWW

    Featured image via Clydeside IWW (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

  • Ramadan lights in London are a win for diversity, but maybe not much beyond that

    Ramadan, a month of fasting and spiritual purification, began on 23 March for many Muslims in the UK and around the world. This year, though, Muslims in London celebrated the start of the month with a first-of-its-kind display of lights in Piccadilly Circus.

    On one level, in a country plagued with Islamophobia, the Ramadan lights in London are a welcome bit of positive news. However, it’s still important to carefully consider what this gesture means in the grand scheme of things – in a social sense as well as a spiritual one.

    Sure, some might argue that it’s important to celebrate the wins. My main reservation, however, is whether a fancy display of lights inspired by Christmas decorations is a win at all.

    Ramadan lights: ‘Celebrating diversity’

    London mayor Sadiq Khan switched on the lights in a formal ceremony on Tuesday 21 March. The following day, Khan tweeted:

     

    People like Khan are hailing the lights as a landmark moment in history. But while these lights are an opportunity to ‘celebrate diversity’, it begs the question: are they anything more than that?

    There is indeed a fundamental difference between ‘diversity and inclusion’ work and anti-racism. The former, in effect, allows institutions to appear to be doing something about racism without actually addressing it in a way that might cause those in power any great discomfort. Surface-level diversity or representation doesn’t necessarily, or maybe even frequently, lead to greater social justice.

    Ultimately, the lights are a gesture that is both pretty and politically safe. While they may rile up some overtly Islamophobic people, they don’t punch up in any way. They don’t call for accountability from a ruling party that’s institutionally Islamophobic.

    Their depoliticised nature is the very reason for their appeal. Meanwhile, if Muslims were to put up banners calling on the UK to stop enabling war in Yemen in the same Piccadilly square, the reaction would be very different. That’s despite the fact that this would be a valid expression of their faith, and more aligned with the spirit of Ramadan.

    The magic of Ramadan

    Middle East Eye shared its coverage on Twitter of the Ramadan lights coming on. This included interviews with some of the initiative’s main organisers and funders:

    One prominent theme from the organisers and supporters seems to be that these lights are an opportunity to ‘bring the magic of Ramadan’ to Muslims in London. Having grown up in Dubai, and witnessing these lights year on year, maybe I’ve become desensitised to this interpretation of the magic Ramadan has to offer.

    For decades, gulf countries have put up extravagant light displays during Ramadan. I’m old enough now to realise that these aren’t an expression of faith so much as an ostentatious display of wealth. You won’t find anything at the same level in poor Muslim countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. – and it’s not a reflection of their appreciation for Ramadan.

    Growing closer to God

    That’s not to say that I don’t miss observing Ramadan in a Muslim country. I miss the calls to prayer resounding from multiple mosques in the same vicinity at iftar time. I miss the accommodations in schools and workplaces for people who were fasting. The core aim for Muslims during Ramadan should be to grow closer to God. We strive to re-orient our lives towards a centring of God in everything we do, and observing it in a Muslim country made this that much easier.

    But that doesn’t require ‘spectacular displays’ or any sort of outward performance. Yes, there is space for joy as a community in the shared observance of Ramadan, especially as the world turns increasingly dark. But we must also be mindful of what our expressions of joy reflect (Christmas lights and oil wealth?) as well as who they might exclude.

    On the bright side, the lights in Piccadilly Circus will hopefully ensure people stop calling it ‘Ramadam’ henceforth. And they show a space for British Muslims in a way that possibly hasn’t been seen before. If we want to eliminate British Islamophobia at the highest levels, though, we still have a long, long way to go.

    .Featured image via Middle East Eye/Twitter

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK’s depleted uranium plan shows no lessons have been learned from the Iraq war

    The UK plans to give tank-busting depleted uranium (DU) ammunition to Ukraine. This shows, once again, that nothing has been learned from the Iraq war. The plan to send the radioactive arms came to light as the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion passed. Fallujah in Iraq still records high rates of birth deformities and cancer years after the munitions were used there.

    Russian president Vladimir Putin slammed the decision. He said Russia would:

    respond accordingly given that the collective West is starting to use weapons with a ‘nuclear component’.

    Meanwhile, US sources said the munitions were in common use. Effectively, the US is suggesting that the use of this form of weapon is unremarkable. However, the dangers are undeniable.

    Radioactive weapons

    The West used DU ammunition in the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars. The effects of DU became most evident in Fallujah. As the NGO Nuclear Risks has it:

    The use of depleted uranium in the war on Iraq in 2003 has led to expo­sure of the local population to radioactive uranium dust. This could potentially explain the significant rise in cancer and congenital malformations documented in Fallujah after 2003. In addition, soldiers who were in contact with the radioactive ammunition also have increased morbidity rates.

    But there is another aspect to British DU munitions. The 2016 Chilcot Inquiry into Iraq drew on an important military report. It detailed that the UK sees no need clean up its deadly remnants. As a 2016 report in The Ecologist outlined:

    In other words, the UK’s stance is that chemically toxic and radioactive DU ‘ash’ from spent munitions is strictly the problem of the country in which the munitions were used, in this case Iraq – and that the UK, which fired the DU shells, has no formal responsibility of cleaning up the mess.

    The key point here is that DU takes a deadly toll long after a war ends:

    Vehicles contaminated by DU – for example destroyed tanks, armoured personnel carriers – pose a particular risk to civilians, both to workers in the scrap metal industry and to children who may play on them. Levels of contamination can be high and, because the interiors are not exposed to the elements, DU may remain in the vehicles for long periods.

    Toxic waste

    Deadly waste is a major concern in modern warfare. Ukraine’s vast farmland is already being poisoned, as revealed on NPR:

    Soil tests performed by scientists found high concentrations of toxins like mercury, arsenic and other pollutants that, you know, we assume are byproducts of the war in Ukraine. It’s my understanding that these tests show that these toxins are in millions of acres of farmland and forests.

    Indeed, other forms of toxic war waste also endanger people in Iraq and Afghanistan even after military withdrawal. Burn pits, where all manner of toxic material was torched daily during the occupations, are a prime example. The Centre for Cultural Anthropology warned:

    Pollution and toxification are central to US military violence. The burn pits both exemplify and render in microcosm the way such violence fosters some privileged lifeworlds by destroying others.

    Wasteland

    Modern warfare turns the battlefield toxic. Ukraine’s vast farmlands – the ‘breadbasket of Europe’ are already showing these effects. To add more radioactive munitions to the chaos is highly irresponsible.

    On top of this, the UK still maintains that it has no duty to clear up its toxic war waste. The world desperately needs a commitment by all countries to step away from these kinds of lethal materials.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Boris Johnson’s truth-twisting shows how divorced from reality he is

    Boris Johnson got a hammering before the Privileges Committee on 22 March. As usual, he did his level best to squirm, twist, and blame everyone else. He may yet be damned for attending Whitehall parties at at the height of the pandemic. Only time will tell, even if large sections of the public seem to have made their minds up.

    But Johnson was not alone in his failures. Some are saying a compliant media helped him along the way. It’s hardly surprising that there doesn’t seem to be much public support for Johnson. After all, the care homes scandal, PPE cronyism, and the general mismanagement of the pandemic aren’t far from anyone’s mind.

    Bewildering Boris Johnson

    Author Paul Illett said he was bewildered at claims Johnson had been stitched up given so much of the media was itself right-wing:

    Some pointed to the Daily Mail‘s bizarre front page, which suggested that Johnson had run rings around Labour’s Harriet Harman during his grilling:

    A bit too cosy

    There have long been suggestions that the Tories and political journalists tend to be a bit too cosy with each other. One angry commenter clearly felt there were no levels to which client-journalists would not stoop to defend Johnson:

    Others felt, perfectly correctly, that using first names with politicians was bad practice for any serious journalist:

    But there’s a bigger picture here. For years Johnson’s buffoonish public persona lulled journalists and producers into a false sense of security. For example, his long list of appearances on comedy shows like Have I Got News For You made him appear a bumbling but harmless fool. Likewise, his entire brand was built with the complicity of reporters and editors who failed to look closely at the man himself:

    Client press

    Boris Johnson is many things: charlatan, liar, bully, toff chancer. But he didn’t appear in a vacuum. For decades his worst features were laughed off because ruling class hacks found him entertaining. He isn’t, and he never was. He is a man who should never have been allowed near power.

    Beyond that, he is a product of the same posh-boy production line that runs through public school and Oxbridge into positions of great power – be they in politics, industry or, for that matter, the press itself.

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

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Met Police are beyond reform – they need to be abolished

    A review into the Metropolitan police has found the force to be institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic. The report, written by government official Louise Casey, was commissioned after serving Met police officer Wayne Couzens was charged with the kidnap, rape, and murder of Sarah Everard. Since then another officer, David Carrick, has also been jailed for life for dozens of rapes and sexual assaults stretching back two decades. Furthermore, many other Met scandals have emerged.

    Casey found a pervasive culture of “deep-seated homophobia” and predatory behaviour, in which female officers and staff “routinely face sexism and misogyny”. She also warned that the force could still be employing rapists and murderers. Additionally, Casey found that violence against women and girls has not been treated seriously enough by the majority white and male force.

    ‘Upsetting’

    Casey’s conclusions come nearly 25 years after the Macpherson Report. That report was triggered by the murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993. Even a quarter of a century ago the force was found to be institutionally racist, with dozens of reforms recommended.

    Lawrence’s mother Doreen said the report showed the force was “rotten to the core,” saying:

    It is not, and has never been, a case of a few ‘bad apples’.

    It is rotten to the core. Discrimination is institutionalised within the Metropolitan Police and it needs changing from top to bottom.

    London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who has responsibility for the force and initiated the review, said he expected all of those recommendations to be fully implemented quickly. He described Tuesday as “one of the darkest days” in the Met’s history. But, is it? We’ve been here so many times before, as many people pointed out on Twitter.

    Academic Kehinde Andrews said:

    Journalist Lorraine King questioned if anything would even change:

    Author Kelechi Okafor mentioned ex-commissioner Cressida Dick and called for the Met to be taken apart:

    Human rights organisation Liberty called for a broader conversation about how to keep communities safe:

    MP Claudia Webbe called for widespread change:

    However, trade unionist Howard Beckett said that the Met was beyond reform:

    Broken up?

    Indeed, Casey herself warned that failure to reform could mean the Met is dismantled. She told BBC Radio:

    The bottom line is this: if an organisation can’t fix itself then there has to be change

    Casey also noted that “it may need to be broken up”. Home secretary Suella Braverman, who is responsible for policing, said “I don’t agree that we must abolish” the force. She added that instead “a wide-ranging and profound programme of reform” is required.

    However, as Melissa Céspedes Del Sur wrote in Open Democracy:

    You cannot reform a system that is working exactly as it is intended to: in the interests of the capital of the ruling elite, at the cost of the rest of us. The system relies on crises such as these to prove itself and individualise issues – one could say it is always in a state of crisis, but how many crises will it take before we are finally done with it?

    Here at the Canary we’ve reported time and time again when Met police officers strip search children, further criminalise Black and Brown communities, have officers that rape and murder, and are placed in special measures. All of these incidents are not evidence that the Met needs reform. They’re evidence that the Met is functioning exactly as intended – criminalising vulnerable communities.

    As Sur concluded, there is an alternative to this corrupt policing:

    This change is already happening – every time someone intervenes in a police interaction, organises a strike, offers mutual aid, or resists an eviction or an immigration raid. We are changing the system when we talk to our neighbours instead of calling the police, or organise CopWatch meetings, or take to the streets to demand accountability for our murdered sisters and siblings.

    Now, we can keep churning out the same reports about how deeply racist and misogynist the Met are, all whilst nothing changes. Or, we can acknowledge that police do not keep communities safe. People keep communities safe, and we can all do more to change a system that is undoubtedly harming marginalised communities.

    Featured image by John Cameron/Unsplash

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A man was set on fire after leaving a mosque, as a new report lays out scale of Islamophobia

    A man was set on fire after leaving a mosque in Edgbaston, Birmingham on 20 March. Police said counter-terrorism officers are investigating the attempted murder, and they have arrested one man. This comes after a different incident where somebody set an 82-year-old man on fire outside a mosque in West London in February.

    In the latest attack, police believe the suspect sprayed the victim with an unknown substance before setting his jacket on fire. The fire burned his face, and he was taken to hospital with serious but not life-threatening injuries.

    Terrifying scenes

    BBC News reported that the victim’s nephew, Tayyab Riaz, said everyone was “very upset,” and added:

    For 35 years he’s been going to that mosque to pray and there’s never been a problem.

    Suddenly this happens. His hair, beard and eyebrows are badly burnt. We’re praying he’s OK.

    Meanwhile, Monsur Alam – who lives on the road where the attack happened – said:

    I heard screaming and my daughter was screaming as well… My wife ran outside with a bucket of water and a man poured over [the victim].

    It was very scary.

    Sahir Aziz Adam, secretary general of Dudley Road Mosque told Channel 4 News that he spotted a man behaving suspiciously in the mosque:

    As I came inside, I spotted the gentleman who was sitting on the side, and I thought he was a worshipper whose actually come to worship. But he was just sitting there, he wasn’t doing nothing… he wasn’t praying and he was sitting in the wrong direction.

    Adam greeted the man, who didn’t respond and left the mosque. Adam then called the police. With Ramadan approaching, Adam emphasised:

    It’s the beginning of Ramadan, and this makes an effect not just here in this mosque. It makes an effect nationwide. Now the whole of England will be shaking. Wherever they hear about this, they will be frightened now this is what’s happening.

    Islamophobia

    A recently released European Islamophobia Report set out the scale of the problem across Europe. Aristotle Kallis, who wrote the chapter on Islamophobia in the UK, wrote:

    Government hate crime statistics for England and Wales recorded a 42% rise in religiously motivated offences against Muslims in 2021-22. Half of the UK’s places of worship for Muslims have experienced some form of vandalism in recent years, while more than a third have been facing this reality every year.

    Attacks on Muslim places of worship are a racist intrusion. They are intended to show how unwelcome Muslims are in the fabric of Britain. The very fact that, when reporting on a story about a man being set fire outside a mosque, we had to distinguish from a similar incident earlier in the year says much about Britain’s attitude towards Islamophobia.

    The motivations of this particular attacker are not yet clear, but what is clear is that Britain is violently Islamophobic. Whilst it may be tempting to attribute blame for the problem of Islamophobia on a handful of wrong-headed individuals, this would be a mistake. In fact, as Kallis argued:

    New research has confirmed that anti-Muslim prejudice – religious and racial/ethnic – has become normalised and that this trend is even more evident among people of higher socioeconomic status – a ‘dinner table prejudice’ indeed.

    Too often, those discussing racism will cast racists as uneducated, working class, and uninformed. That’s simply not the case, though. Islamophobia, and racism more broadly, are so normalised that you can’t conceive of Britain without them. However, racism is not an offshoot of ignorance. It’s a choice – a worldview that casts Muslims as inferior and dangerous subjects that don’t belong. Attacks like this one at a mosque in Birmingham are horrific, but commonplace.

    Look up

    Racism transcends class backgrounds. However, it’s worth mentioning that if we want to cast blame, we’d do well to look at elites. Kallis identified the role of the media in enabling the government’s Islamophobia:

    The current government and its friendly press are determined to exaggerate the ‘Islamist’ danger while playing down the threat from the far right.

    That they also demand government strategy to ‘refocus’ on the former while continuing to concede space to the latter to carry on their divisive local and online activities highlights the enormity of the challenge that lies ahead.

    The Shawcross review of Prevent urged the government to focus more on Muslim “extremism,” and to turn away from right-wing extremism. That’s entirely in line with a pattern of behaviour from the government which seeks to minimise far-right elements. They’re determined to continue their persecution of Muslims, and we must be determined to fight back. A core part of that fight back has to be recognising all the levels of Islamophobia that are rotting British society.

    Featured image by Felton Davis/Wikimedia Commons via CC 2.0, resized to 770×403

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UN Rapporteur on Iran comes with devastating assessment

    Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic editor of the Guardian, reported on Monday 20 March 2023 that the he UN rapporteur on Iran, Javaid Rehman, has said the scale and gravity of Iran’s violations of human rights amount to a crime against humanity. Javaid Rehman, a special rapporteur on Iran, told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday the country was experiencing the most serious violations in four decades.

    Rehman warned Iran was experiencing the most serious violations in four decades. He also claimed the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman, in September 2022 resulted from beatings by the “morality police”. Iran has said she died from a pre-existing neurological disorder, but Rahman said reliable medical sources pointed to state culpability. He said Iran had refused to conduct an impartial or transparent inquiry into her death, including the allegations that she was beaten up and tortured.

    “The scale and gravity of the violations committed by Iranian authorities, especially since the death of Ms Amini, points to the possible commission of international crimes, notably the crimes against humanity of murder, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, torture, rape and sexual violence, and persecution,” he said.

    Drawing on evidence, including eyewitness testimony and comments from reliable medical sources, the report said it was clear she had died on 16 September “as a result of beatings by the state “morality police”.

    “I would like to stress that her death was not an isolated event but the latest in a long series of extreme violence against women and girls committed by the Iranian authorities,” Rehman said. He said “the responsibility of top senior officials in instigating this violence can … not be ignored.”

    The UN human rights council decided last November – despite protests from Beijing and Tehran itself – to launch a fact-finding mission into the repression of peaceful demonstrators after protests erupted around Iran. A fact-finding team has been appointed but has been denied access to Iran. See: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/11/23/un-human-rights-council-holds-special-session-on-iran-on-24-november/

    “Protesters including children were beaten to death,” Rehman said, adding that “at least 527 people, including 71 children were killed, and hundreds of protesters severely injured.”He also said dozens of protesters “have lost their eyes because of direct shots to the head”, while Iranian doctors had reported that women and girls participating in the demonstrations “were targeted with shotgun fire to their faces, breasts and genitals”.

    He said: “Children released have described sexual abuses, threats of rape, floggings, administration of electric shocks and how their heads were maintained underwater, how they were suspended from their arms or from scarves wrapped around their necks.”

    The EU says it has now imposed sanctions on 204 individuals and 34 entities in six waves of sanctions. The UK announced it was putting sanctions on five members of the board of directors of the IRGC Co-operative Foundation. This organisation funnels money into the Iranian regime’s repression, the UK Foreign Office said.

    He voiced outrage at the executions of at least four people associated with the protests “after arbitrary, summary, and sham trials marred by torture allegations”. He added: “These summary executions are the symbols of a state ready to use all means to instil fear and quash protests,” pointing out that at least 17 other protesters have so far been sentenced to death and more than 100 others face charges that carry the death penalty.

    See also: //humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/03/13/women-human-rights-defenders-from-iran-and-pakistan-explain-why-women-resisting-are-a-force-to-be-reckoned-with/

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/20/iran-rights-violations-crime-against-humanity-un-expert

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

  • A debate in parliament over the government’s treatment of disabled people wants your input

    Parliament is set to debate whether the government has adequately supported chronically ill and disabled people during the cost of living crisis. It’s come about thanks to two petitions, which secured the session in the House of Commons. The campaigners behind the petitions believe the government still hasn’t done enough to support people. So, they’re hoping the debate in parliament will prompt further action. However, it needs people affected by the government’s lack of support to submit evidence for it.

    Cost of living support: excluding over one million people

    Rachel Curtis is a campaigner for disability and carer rights. In 2022, she joined forces with unpaid carer organisation We Care Campaign to launch a parliamentary petition. It was around the government’s first response to the cost of living crisis. At the time, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was giving additional payments to people on means-tested benefits like Universal Credit. However, as the Canary reported in July 2022, these payments weren’t reaching everyone. The DWP was excluding around:

    Specifically, the department excluded PIP/DLA claimants who weren’t also on means-tested benefits – instead giving them just £150. Meanwhile, it gave people on Carer’s Allowance nothing. As Katy Styles from the We Care Campaign told the Canary:

    Government support simply didn’t go far enough. For people on non means-tested benefits they received an extra £150. For those on means tested benefits they received an extra £650. For carers on Carer’s Allowance there was no additional support. It was a drop in the ocean in terms of paying the increased energy costs for disabled families. For those families facing higher energy bills it meant cutting back on basic essentials and making impossible choices to keep vital equipment running as their energy bills rose.

    DWP: ‘grossly unjust’

    So, Curtis and the We Care Campaign launched a petition. It called on the government to provide an “energy grant” for chronically ill and disabled people, and their carers. The petition stated:

    Many people need to use a ventilator 24/7. People use electric pumps to feed through […] tubes. People need to charge their mobility equipment, such as electric wheelchairs, stair lifts, bath seats.

    The Government needs to provide a grant, so that people with a disability or serious medical condition can afford to run the equipment, or heating, they need to stay alive. It is not right that people living with conditions that require energy, should be punished for it, and sometimes face unmanageable debts with energy companies. What a horrendous situation to face. If some people don’t run their ventilator, CPAP machine or feeding pump they will die.

    Curtis told the Canary that she launched the petition because:

    I run a community association, Northern Lights, that supports families who have a child with additional needs, or a disability, in Northumberland.

    As the energy prices rose I began to see everyone struggling to afford to pay their bills. Families with a disabled member use more electricity, whether that be for electric wheelchairs, hoists, lifts, CPAP machines or having to run heating constantly for chronic lung conditions. I feel it is grossly unjust that families like mine are being taken advantage of by energy companies. We have to use more energy. We have no choice.

    Usually, petitions need to reach 100,000 signatures for the committee in charge of them to consider a parliamentary debate. However, on this occasion it made an exception – seemingly because there was also another petition on top of Curtis’s which made a similar point.

    Chronically ill and disabled people, and carers: get involved

    So, there will now be a debate in parliament at 4:30pm on Monday 22 May. For this, the Petitions Committee wants to hear from people affected by government policy. It stated that it:

    would like to hear from you about your experiences of and views on the cost of living and financial support for disabled people.

    Share your views with by completing our survey, by 31 March:

    Survey without British Sign Language
    Survey with British Sign Language translation
    Survey in Easy Read format

    A summary of responses will be published on the Parliament website. It will also be shared with MPs and may be referred to in the debate or within other parliamentary documents. Please don’t share anything that may identify you.

    Styles told the Canary that the We Care Campaign has a fairly straightforward action it would like the government to take:

    A social energy tariff for families like ours makes sense. We want discounted energy bills for disabled people and their carers who have higher energy costs. It’s through debates like this upcoming one, that disabled families and carers’ voices are heard and will help to explain why a social tariff is so needed.

    ‘It is criminal’

    Meanwhile, Curtis told the Canary:

    I am hoping this debate will highlight the dire situation so many families are in right now. Our government should be fighting to protect disabled citizens from being forced to hand over all our income to energy companies for electricity and gas we need to stay well, and in some cases, alive. It is criminal. It’s vitally important that disabled people are able to run the equipment we need. Energy companies must be forced to stop profiteering from us and set affordable, low tariffs for families like mine.

    Parliamentary debates from petitions have no power to make the government act. However, they can put pressure on the government to act. They also have the power to raise awareness of an issue. Moreover, they give people with lived experience of issues a chance to have their views put on record. So, if you can share your views, do – and they might be included in the debate on 22 May.

    Featured image via Maurice – Flickr, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY 2.0 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • People are ‘sickened’ by Boris Johnson’s partygate lies

    Former prime minister Boris Johnson admitted on 21 March that he misled parliament by telling MPs that parties at his Downing Street office did not break Covid lockdown rules. He claimed, however, that he did so in “good faith”. The revelation to the contrary comes from evidence submitted to a parliamentary committee probing the partygate scandal.

    ‘Made in good faith’

    Police previously fined Johnson for breaking the rules he set for the public. The MP initially insisted that the gatherings were above-board, but has since offered an apology for his presence at the party, for which the police fined him. However, as BBC News highlighted, there were at least eight events Johnson attended that the public know about.

    Johnson is due to go before a cross-party Privileges Committee of MPs on 22 March. The committee will probe his 52-page statement to determine whether Johnson was in contempt of parliament. The Privileges Committee shared the full document, in which Johnson said:

    I accept that the House of Commons was misled by my statements that the rules and guidance had been followed completely at No. 10

    But when the statements were made, they were made in good faith and on the basis of what I honestly knew and believed at the time.

    He also claimed that there’s “no evidence” that showed he “intentionally or recklessly misled” the House of Commons.

    If the Privileges Committee decide on 22 March that Johnson was in contempt, MPs will get a vote on what sanction he could face. This may include a suspension. Any suspension over 10 sitting days could trigger a by-election in his Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat.

    Johnson lied, thousands died

    Johnson’s descent into the mire of technicalities for his defence may fool some in parliament, but few in the public are falling for it. Many people recognise that, regardless of the MP’s claims, he was partying while a majority of the public were following Tory guidelines – trying to keep one another safe:

    Echoing these sentiments, campaign group Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK described Johnson’s self-serving “good faith” partygate claim as “sickening”:

    The group went on to voice how Johnson’s two-faced behaviour is “disrespect” that it’ll “never forgive”.

    Partygate was someone else’s fault

    It isn’t only his claims of “good faith” that show Johnson’s attempts to minimise his responsibility, though. The Guardian shared an excerpt from the statement in which Johnson appears to throw his former communications director under the bus.

    In it, Johnson said that his communications director Jack Doyle told him that one party he attended “was within the rules”. And as journalist Lewis Goodall pointed out, Johnson repeatedly rolled over on others to save himself:

    Johnson even doubled down in paragraph 100 of his statement, saying:

    I have never received any warning before any event that anyone had concerns that an event might break the Rules or Guidance.

    Of course, relying on this technicality for his partygte defence isn’t the defence Johnson claims it is. As cross-party group Best for Britain highlighted, Johnson’s own legislative affairs director said the MP “went row by row” through lockdown legislation:

    And, more bluntly, he was at the time the prime minister. It was literally his job to know the rules, whatever they are, as another Twitter user pointed out:

    His actions cannot be undone

    In the end, the outcome of the Privileges Committee panel almost doesn’t matter. The worst that Johnson faces is the loss of his position as an MP. Meanwhile, the widespread harm his actions and partygate have caused cannot be undone.

    More than 220,000 people in the UK have died due to Covid-related issues to date. More will have died as an indirect result of the government’s response to the pandemic. Every one of those was part of a relationship, family, friendship group, or community, with their loss causing immeasurable impact. And Covid hasn’t disappeared – that number will continue growing.

    Now, rather than taking responsibility and letting himself be held accountable, Johnson is still weaving paper-thin excuses to defend himself. And, in doing so, he’s once again spitting in the faces of the public and laughing.

    Featured image via ITV News/YouTube

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ‘No Births Behind Bars’: the scandal of imprisoning pregnant women in the UK

    Content warning: This article contains mention of infant death. 

    Nearly every week another imprisoned pregnant woman gives birth in the UK. She will go into labour in her prison cell and call for help. If her call is answered, and the prison guard believes that she’s in labour, she will – after being body searched by an officer – be taken to hospital in handcuffs to give birth while two police guards stand over her. This is the best case scenario.

    The worst case scenario is when a pregnant woman calls for help and the prison guard doesn’t believe she is in labour. Or her calls for help are ignored altogether and her baby dies. So, a campaign group is drawing attention to the issue and calling for change. However, the wider context to the criminal justice system incarcerating pregnant women is one of gross negligence and abject failure.

    ‘No more babies in prisons’

    On Saturday 18 March, a group of mothers, babies and toddlers from the #NoBirthBehindBars campaign group marked the Mother’s Day weekend. They staged a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice. It was in solidarity with imprisoned pregnant women across the UK:

    Babies, children and their parents rallied outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London to demand an end to the imprisonment of pregnant women, London, UK Saturday, March 18, 2023 The protest was organised by No Births Behind Bars and Level Up.

    The group held up signs reading “No Babies in Prisons” and “Prison is No Place for Mums and Kids”. They also sang nursery rhymes in the London drizzle. People called for no more births behind bars – while the babies and toddlers dressed in yellow and green in honour of Mother’s Day:

    Babies, children and their parents rallied outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London to demand an end to the imprisonment of pregnant women, London, UK Saturday, March 18, 2023 The protest was organised by No Births Behind Bars and Level Up.

    The protest, organised by feminist collective Level Up, called for a statutory duty for judges and magistrates to take pregnancy and parenthood into consideration when sentencing women. However, the overarching aim of the #NoBirthBehindBars campaign is to end the practice of sending pregnant women and new mothers to prison altogether:

    Babies, children and their parents rallied outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London to demand an end to the imprisonment of pregnant women, London, UK Saturday, March 18, 2023 The protest was organised by No Births Behind Bars and Level Up.

    The seriousness of the situation is reflected in recent incidents of babies dying.

    Children are dying

    In 2019, an 18-year-old woman gave birth alone, without any medical assistance, in her prison cell in HMP Bronzefield prison in Surrey. Her calls for help were ignored, and her child – known as Baby A – died. A Prisons and Probation Ombudsman report found a series of failings in the teenager’s treatment. Prison staff working on her block were not aware that she was due to give birth imminently, and no one had a full history of her pregnancy.

    In 2020, a 31-year-old woman gave birth to a premature baby in the toilet of her prison cell in HMP Styal in Cheshire. The baby died following delays in getting medical care immediately after the birth and failure to perform CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation). The mother’s solicitor said expert evidence revealed the baby could have survived if she had received immediate medical care.

    Research from the Nuffield Trust found that one in 10 imprisoned women who give birth in prison do not make it to hospital, and give birth in their cell or in transit to the hospital. Moreover, the Ombudsman report into the death of Baby A in HMP Bronzefield in 2019 found that all pregnancies in prison are:

    high risk by virtue of the fact that the woman is locked behind a door for a significant amount of time.

    Meanwhile, several countries – including Brazil and Mexico – have specific laws to prevent the incarceration of pregnant women. Yet the UK government has failed to follow suit.

    ‘Never a safe place’

    Janey Starling, co-director of Level Up, told the Canary:

    Prison will never be a safe place for pregnant woman… [However] there’s nothing that mandates a judge to take pregnancy into consideration when sentencing a woman. We know that pregnant women in prison are five times more likely to suffer a stillbirth, and twice as likely to give birth to a premature baby that will need special care. Ultimately, sending any pregnant woman to prison is a barbaric practice.

    In 2022, Level Up, the Royal College of Midwives, Tommy’s, and other organisations wrote an open letter to then-justice secretary Brandon Lewis and the chair of the Sentencing Council. It called for an end to the imprisonment of pregnant women. However, the latest figures show that 50 pregnant women gave birth within the prison system in 2021-22. So, it seems the government is doing little to prevent these vulnerable women from entering prison in the first place.

    Research from the Prison Trust shows that 72% of women sentenced to prison are given short sentences for non-violent offences. Theft is the most common offence. It estimated that around 60% of women in prison are survivors of domestic abuse. The research said 71% of them live with a mental health condition. Moreover, 48% of the women in prison committed their offence to support someone else’s drug use.

    Starling further said:

    the stories of pregnant women in prisons are often ones of poverty and trauma and a desperate need of support, not incarceration.

    Suzy’s story

    There are also significant numbers of women in prison on remand. Suzy (we’ve changed her name to protect her identity) is a 32-year-old mother from the Southeast. The courts detained her on remand during her pregnancy. She was moved several times from one group cell to another. Suzy told the Canary:

    I remember, as I was climbing on to a top bunk another inmate telling me ‘you really shouldn’t be here’. And it was so cold in my cell. It was winter and I wasn’t allowed a duvet, just a thin sheet. The prison guards wouldn’t let me go to the gym or even read my university books. I should’ve been eating for two but they wouldn’t give me any extra food. The other women were worried about me and gave me their leftovers.

    One evening I felt this terrible abdominal pain and called for help. I had started bleeding too. The officers just treated me like I was an inconvenience. Hours passed before they finally took me to hospital. I was body searched and put in handcuffs, it was so humiliating. Everyone at the hospital was staring at me. I was scared that my baby had died. In the police van on the way back one of the officers said to me casually ‘maybe it just wasn’t meant to be’. She was so uncaring. I heard them complain that this hospital visit delayed the end of their shift.

    And then the next morning, I was lying in bed, the blood was still on my sheets and the prison guards shouted at me to get up and start cleaning or they’d sanction me. Thankfully the other women came to help me clean up. I couldn’t do it by myself, I was too tired and upset. A couple of days later I went for a scan. Thankfully the baby was fine but the sonographer had to ask the two prison guards, one male and one female, to stand outside of the curtain while I received an intimate examination. That’s how invasive they are.

    Suzy was later released and found not guilty of the crime she’d been accused of. However, her story is not uncommon.

    Prisons: a ‘terrible environment’ for pregnant women

    Dr Laura Abbott is a midwife and associate professor at Hertfordshire University. She has interviewed dozens of pregnant women in UK prisons through her academic research. Abbott was “pretty horrified” by what she discovered. She told the Canary:

    I met pregnant women who had become sick and dehydrated because they weren’t getting enough food and water. Some women were not receiving medication they’d been prescribed by a doctor before they came in.

    There can be a culture in some prisons of staff making a point of not giving pregnant women any ‘special treatment’, but this is putting their health at risk. It’s also a terrible environment for their mental health. The women I interviewed experienced high levels of shame, stress and fear during their pregnancies.

    Abbott said that around 50% of imprisoned women who give birth have their applications for a space in a Mother and Baby Unit rejected. This means their baby is taken away and put into foster or kinship care. She told the Canary:

    These women are often on suicide watch, as the separation has such a severe impact on their mental health.

    A report last year by the government’s chief social worker Isabelle Trowler found significant issues and inconsistencies with the decision-making process for Mother and Baby Unit applications. Director of charity Birth Companions, Naomi Delap, told the Canary:

    I worry there are still decisions being made where the baby should not be taken away from their mother. Any separation of mother and baby has a profound impact. Even one (wrong) decision is devastating.

    Birth Companions was set up in the 1990s. It was in the wake of a Channel Four documentary that revealed pregnant women from Holloway prison were being made to give birth in shackles at the Whittington hospital in north London. Delap said a different approach is needed for both remand and sentencing:

    Practically speaking, this means a greater commitment to funding and using community alternatives, and a specific mitigating factor (for sentencing) against imprisonment based on pregnancy. Remand and recall must be actively prohibited for pregnant and postnatal women in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

    Despite all this, the government is adamant all is well with the situation for pregnant women and their babies.

    The government says…

    The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) maintains that judges already take pregnancy into account when sentencing women. A spokesperson told the Canary:

    Independent judges already consider mitigating factors when making sentencing decisions, including pregnancy, and custody is always the last resort for women.

    We have already taken decisive action to improve the support available for women, including specialist mother and baby liaison officers in every women’s prison, additional welfare observations and better screening and social services support so that pregnant prisoners get the care they require.

    However, Starling said there have been too many cases of women losing their children after short prison sentences:

    Even three months is enough time to lose your job and home. So when a woman is then released she’s been completely uprooted and lost everything.

    And it’s such a vicious cycle because to get your baby back you need to have a home… It just sends women into a spiral and rips them out from their communities and away from their support network. And ultimately, in the bigger picture, what’s it all for? Truly, what’s it all for?

    It would be great to see the government take their poverty away, not their children.

    A ‘stain’ on the justice system

    This Mother’s Day the #NoBirthsBehindBars campaign had its first birthday. Over the past year campaigning mothers and babies held protests at Parliament Square, the Royal Courts of Justice, and even staged a breastfeeding ‘sit in’ at the MoJ. But as Aisha Dodwell, one of the campaigning mothers, told the Canary:

    It’s a stain on this country’s justice system that we need to even be protesting to demand no more babies be born in prison.

    Ultimately, the campaigners hope that next Mother’s Day there’ll be no need to protest. They hope the government sees sense and stops sending pregnant women to prison altogether. You can sign the campaign’s latest petition here.

    Featured image and additional image via Elizabeth Dalziel 

    By Kate Bermingham

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Pacific needs to sit up and pay close attention to AUKUS, says Dame Meg Taylor

    By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor, and Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    A Pacific elder and former secretary-general of the Pacific Islands Forum says Pacific leaders need to sit up and pay closer attention to AUKUS and the Indo-Pacific strategy and China’s response to them.

    Speaking from Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea, Dame Meg Taylor said Pacific leaders were being sidelined in major geopolitical decisions affecting their region and they need to start raising their voices for the sake of their citizens.

    “The issue here is that we should have paid much more attention to the Indo-Pacific strategy as it emerged,” she said.

    “And we were not ever consulted by the countries that are party to that, including some of our own members of the Pacific Island Forum. Then the emergence of AUKUS — Pacific countries were never consulted on this either,” she said.

    US President Joe Biden (C), British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (R) and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (L) hold a press conference during the AUKUS summit on March 13, 2023, at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego California. - AUKUS is a trilateral security pact announced on September 15, 2021, for the Indo-Pacific region. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP)
    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (left), US President Joe Biden (centre) and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hold a press conference during the AUKUS summit at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego California on 13 March 2023. Image: RNZ Pacific/AFP

    Last week in San Diego, the leaders of the United States, the UK and Australia — President Joe Biden, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese respectively — formally announced the AUKUS deal.

    It will see the Australian government spending nearly $US250 billion over the next three decades to acquire a fleet of US nuclear submarines with UK tech components — the majority of which will be built in Adelaide — as part of the defence and security pact.

    Its implementation will make Australia one of only seven countries in the world to have nuclear-powered submarines alongside China, France, India, Russia, the UK, and the US.

    “We believe in a world that protects freedom and respects human rights, the rule of law, the independence of sovereign states, and the rules-based international order,” the leaders said in a joint statement.

    “The steps we are announcing today will help us to advance these mutually beneficial objectives in the decades to come,” they said.

    Following the announcement, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wengbin said by going ahead with the pact the US, UK and Australia disregarded the concerns of the international community and have gone further down “the wrong path”.

    “We’ve repeatedly said that the establishment of the so-called AUKUS security partnership between the US, the UK and Australia to promote cooperation on nuclear submarines and other cutting-edge military technologies, is a typical Cold War mentality,” Wang said.

    “It will only exacerbate the arms race, undermine the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, and hurt regional peace and stability,” he said.

    The 2022 Indo-Pacific Strategy is the United States’ programme to ” advance our common vision for an Indo-Pacific region that is free and open, connected, prosperous, secure, and resilient.”

    Fiji prime minister Sitiveni Rabuka
    Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka . . . Albanese assured him the nuclear submarine deal would not undermine the Treaty of Rarotonga. Image: Fiji Parliament

    The Rarotonga Treaty
    On his return from San Diego, Australia’s Albanese stopped over in Suva where he met his Fijian counterpart Sitiveni Rabuka.

    After the meeting, Rabuka told reporters he supported AUKUS and that Albanese had assured him the nuclear submarine deal would not undermine the Treaty of Rarotonga — to which Australia is a party — that declares the South Pacific a nuclear weapon free zone.

    But an Australian academic said Pacific countries cannot take Canberra at face value when it comes to AUKUS and its committment to the Rarotonga Treaty.

    Dr Matthew Fitzpatrick, a professor in international history at Flinders University in South Australia, said Pacific leaders need to hold Australia accountable to the treaty.

    “Australia and New Zealand have always differed on what that treaty extends to in the sense that for New Zealand, that means more or less that you haven’t had US vessels with nuclear arms [or nuclear powered] permitted into the ports of New Zealand, whereas in Australia, those vessels more or less have been welcomed,” he said.

    Professor Fitzpatrick said Australia had declared that it did not breach it, or it did not breach any of those treaty commitments, but the proof of the pudding would be in the eating.

    “I think it’s something that certainly nations around the Pacific should be very careful and very cautious in taking at face value, what Australia says on those treaty requirements and should ensure that they’re rigorously enforced,” Professor Fitzpatrick said.

    Parties to the Rarotonga Treaty include Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

    Notably absent are three north Pacific countries who have compacts of free association with the United States — Palau, Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.

    Dame Meg Taylor said Sitiveni Rabuka’s signal of support for AUKUS by no means reflected the positions of other leaders in the region.

    “I think the concern for us is that we in the Pacific, particularly those of us who are signatories to the Treaty of Rarotonga, have always been committed to the fact that we wanted a place to live where there was no proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    “The debate, I think that will emerge within the Pacific is ‘are nuclear submarines weapons’?”

    Self-fulfilling prophecy
    Meanwhile, a geopolitical analyst, Geoffrey Miller who writes for political website Democracy Project, said the deal could become a “self-fulfilling prophecy” for conflict.

    “Indo-Pacific countries all around the region are re-arming and spending more on their militaries,” Miller said.

    Japan approved its biggest military buildup since the Second World War last year and Dr Miller said New Zealand was reviewing its defence policy which would likely lead to more spending.

    “I worry that the AUKUS deal will only make things worse,” he said.

    “The more of these kinds of power projections, and the less dialogue we have, the more likely it is that we are ultimately going to bring about this conflict that we’re all trying to avoid.

    “I think we do need to think about de-escalation even more and let’s not talk ourselves into World War III.”

    Miller said tensions had grown since Russia invaded Ukraine and analysts had changed their view on how likely China was to invade Taiwain.

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