radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Vigils and rage: Brits react to hike in energy prices amid sky high corporate profits

    Average households in Britain will face up to a 40% increase in already excessive energy prices in April, according to the Guardian. This is despite the fact that wholesale energy prices are falling. At the same time, fossil fuels giants and energy suppliers such as BP are announcing obscene profits.

    There’s obviously something deeply wrong with this picture, as people have been pointing out.

    Rinsing the people

    BP is the latest fossil fuel giant to reveal its 2022 haul. The company’s profits were over double those of 2021, at a record £23bn. The announcement followed one from Shell on 2 February. That energy giant made more profit in 2022 than it has done in any other year of its 115-year history, raking in a staggering £32.2bn.

    Electricity and gas prices in the UK increased by 65.4% and 128.9%, respectively, over the course of 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics. With this in mind, people have been enraged by the profiteering:

    Worse still, chancellor Jeremy Hunt appears set on raising the energy price guarantee (EPG) in April. The EPG limits the amount that suppliers can charge consumers. With the EPG likely going up and the government’s energy bills support scheme ending, the Guardian reported that, come Spring:

    the effective rise [in energy costs] for all but those on the lowest incomes will be about 40%.

    As the Resolution Foundation has detailed, wholesale gas prices have fallen from their peak in August 2022. That could mean – depending on what happens in the ‘extremely volatile’ energy markets – that energy prices are lower than previously feared. Even so, it explained that energy bills are on course to be 20% higher in 2023-4 than they were 2022-3.

    In the wake of all this, there have been fresh calls for a meaningful tax on fossil fuel companies, including through a stronger tax on windfall profits and a higher permanent tax:

    Killing the planet

    On the same day it revealed its exorbitant profits, BP also announced a reduction in its ambitions to limit its impact on the climate. According to the BBC, the company is dropping its target for emissions cuts from 35-40% to 20-30% by the end of the decade.

    Meanwhile, another giant in the energy world – Equinor – is due to reveal its 2022 profits on 8 February. Equinor, which counts the Norwegian government as its biggest shareholder, is the UK’s largest supplier of gas and plans to develop the Rosebank oil field, off the coast of Shetland.

    According to the clean-energy-focused organisation Uplift, burning Rosebank’s oil and gas would create a vast amount of carbon emissions. They would be equal to the emissions of the world’s 28 lowest-income countries combined.

    Uplift also says that a loophole in the current windfall tax, which gives tax relief for new investment in fossil fuels, means that companies behind the Rosebank project will receive £500m in tax breaks.

    In protest of the proposed development, and Equinor’s role in the cost of living crisis, campaigners are holding a candle-lit vigil on the evening of 7 February outside the Norwegian Embassy. Further protests will take place on 8 February at the company’s offices in London and Aberdeen.

    The Stop Rosebank campaign’s Lauren MacDonald said:

    Equinor is literally making billions while vulnerable people in the UK, struggling with soaring energy costs, are being forced into debt or worse, having their energy supply cut off in winter.

    MacDonald also spoke out about BP’s profits on Twitter:

    The campaigner described the situation, whereby corporations rake in excessive profits at the expense of people and the planet, as “utterly disgraceful”. That sums up the situation perfectly.

    Featured image via Michael Coghlan / Wikimedia, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • CWU says Royal Mail will not ‘demoralise’ workers after postal strike cancelled

    Royal Mail has used yet more legal shenanigans to try to stop the Communication Workers Union (CWU) taking action. It’s using a legal technicality to stop the CWU postal strike which the union announced on 2 February. It’s not the first time the company has done this to workers. However, the CWU told the Canary it will not allow Royal Mail’s “blatant intimidatory tactics” to “demoralise” its members.

    CWU: another postal strike

    As the Canary previously reported, the CWU had announced another postal strike. Workers were going to walk out from 12.30pm on Thursday 16 February until Friday 17 February. The trade union said this strike action was going to be over:

    unagreed changes related to the structure of work at offices across the country.

    These decisions have been taken in direct contravention of the Industrial Relations (IR) Framework established between the union and the employer

    Crucially, this CWU strike was legally based on its first ballot of members in 2022. However, Royal Mail was clearly rattled. So, it got the lawyers in to look at the postal strike – and after a backwards and forwards between them and the CWU’s legal team, the union was forced to call the strike off.

    Royal Mail: legal shenanigans

    As the union said in an internal memo:

    Over the weekend we received correspondence from Royal Mail Group’s legal representatives challenging the strike action we have called across the 16th/17th February. Having discussed this with our lawyers they have advised that we could defend our position in court.

    However, they have also advised that given the laws in this country are heavily weighted against working people, the risks of losing in court may potentially impact on the re-ballot – we simply cannot allow this happen.

    The CWU told the Canary that its lawyers “strongly dispute” Royal Mail’s assertion that there was a “legal error” with the postal strike. However, the union is clear that under the circumstances, it must protect the ability of its members to strike in the future. Currently, the union is running a second ballot for a fresh six-month wave of strike action:

    It is this the union wants to focus on – but it is also furious with Royal Mail.

    Workers: do not falter

    The CWU told the Canary:

    The most important thing for postal workers is securing the biggest possible ‘yes’ vote and turnout in the re-ballot, to demonstrate that they aren’t demoralised by blatant intimidatory tactics such as these, and are still determined to defend their livelihoods.

    Royal Mail’s tactics are indeed blatant. It previously used a legal loophole to stop strikes in November 2022 – showing that the bosses were being petulant, at best. However, the company and its bosses‘ behaviour is also shameful. For example, a parliamentary committee is dragging CEO Simon Thompson back before it, after he previously misled the committee while giving evidence – or lied, if you prefer. All this is without the bosses’ dire pay offers, worsening working conditions, and gross mismanagement of Royal Mail.

    So, the CWU may have pulled one strike. However, the union and its members are rightly focusing on the second ballot. And a strong result in that, with more postal strikes to hopefully follow, will show Royal Mail that no amount of intimidation will make the workers’ resolve falter.

    Featured image via CWU Live – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK Athletics is going a step further in its trans exclusion by seeking to change government policy

    UK Athletics (UKA) has issued a statement asking the government to change the law relating to transgender athletes. It’s asking to exclude any competitors who were not registered female at birth from women’s competitions at the level of government policy. This goes beyond its current purview.

    By contrast, World Athletics has proposed to continue to allow transgender women to compete in the female category at international events. World Athletics’ preferred option is to tighten the sport’s eligibility rules, but still use testosterone limits as the key determining factor. A consultation process is under way with member federations, with a vote taking place in March.

    UK Athletics

    UK Athletics rejects testosterone suppression as a marker for transgender women’s participation. Instead, it seeks to reserve the female category exclusively for cis women. Further than this, it has argued that the ‘sporting exemption’ introduced in the Equalities Act of 2010 doesn’t fully allow the lawful exclusion of trans women.

    UKA chairman Ian Beattie said:

    It’s specifically the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which states that people with gender recognition certificates have to be treated as female for all purposes. And there’s not an exemption for that for sporting purposes.

    It’s fair to say that if we didn’t get a legal change, it would be very difficult for us to go ahead with this policy.

    He went on to say that:

    Ultimately, we’re very keen we all recognise what we’ve got responsibility for – and the government are the only ones who can change legislation.

    That’s where we would look for that focus to be set. Certainly I think they’re sympathetic to the approach that we want to take. That has been the feedback that we’ve had.

    Overreach

    The ‘sporting exemption’ in the Equality Act (EA) specifically:

     makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise.

    On top of this, the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) also affirms that:

    A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) [fair competition and safety] is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act.

    Essentially, both the EA and GRA specifically state that it is lawful to exclude trans women, and this is the decision of the governing bodies of the sports. As such, it seems difficult to pinpoint what exactly Beattie is talking about. Indeed, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was swift to intervene, stating:

    We reached out to UK Athletics and offered to discuss the legal advice underpinning their statement. We are disappointed that they have chosen to publicise their inaccurate advice and we would urge all organisations to consult our website which explains equality law and how it relates to these issues.

    It is down to the individual sporting bodies to regulate whether trans women’s participation in their given sports is deemed safe and fair. This is already well within their power. Instead, UKA wants to reach beyond its current rights to govern its own events and change UK policy wholesale.

    Where are the elite trans athletes?

    There is no denying that transgender participation in sport is in the public eye right now. Swimming and rugby governing bodies have recently introduced their own de-facto bans on trans participation. Notably, this comes against a backdrop of a transphobic backlash in wider politics and society.

    We might ask whether UKA is acting proportionally in its efforts to change UK law. We can also consider the authenticity of the broader vitriol against transgender athletes as a whole. It seems suspicious, at the least, that these questions come alongside rapidly increasing hatred toward to trans community in general.

    There is a simple problem we might consider. The Olympic Games is a good example, as it is the world’s foremost sporting competition. Trans people were first permitted to compete in the Olympics in 2004, provided they’d undergone gender-confirming surgeries. This was later recognised as discriminatory, as it essentially required sterilisation in order to compete. The guidelines were changed in 2015 to instead require testosterone suppression in trans women. This is the same test that UKA argues is unfit for purpose.

    At the Tokyo 2020 Games, 11,656 athletes competed. According to the UK government’s most recent survey, around 0.5% of the UK population is transgender. Assuming, for the moment, that the same is roughly true for the rest of the world, we have a glaring issue. Over 50 – that is, 0.5% of 11,656 – elite transgender athletes are missing. Instead, three trans athletes competed, and just one medalled.

    Under-represented

    UKA clearly believes the threat of trans women’s participation is so great that it requires the government to change the law to prevent it. However, when we look closer, the opposite is true. Trans people are already under-represented in elite sport, and UKA’s proposed ban can only exacerbate the situation.

    Featured image via William Warby/Wikimedia Commons, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Less than half of Muslim women report a positive experience within the Muslim community, report finds

    According to a new report, only 45% of Muslim women reported having an overall positive experience within their community. A Muslim Woman’s Faith Experience is a joint effort by Muslim Census and the Ta Collective. The report examines Muslim women’s accessibility within physical religious spaces like mosques. But it also tells us about their spiritual well-being and relationship with faith.

    Prior to this report, limited research existed that explored the challenges Muslim women face in navigating their faith in the UK. However, research has been undertaken to determine women’s accessibility to religious spaces. For instance, the latest statistics (2017) found that there are approximately 1,795 mosques across the UK. Of these, 28% do not offer space for women. In most cases, when mosques do offer space, women are met with restricted access and substandard conditions.

    Inaccessibility of mosques impacts spirituality

    The report finds that 61% of Muslim women believe that:

    the limited access to Masjids [prayer spaces for Muslims] that they experience has a negative impact on their spirituality and their relationship with faith.

    Shahida Rahman, trustee of Cambridge Central Mosque, notes how male allies must step up to improve the spiritual well-being of Muslim women. She told the Canary:

    It needs to start from within our own communities. And with a lot of mosques being male-dominated, as you know, it is very, very difficult. But the doors do need to be opened for sisters who want to be in these leadership roles.

    Rahman, who is in a mosque leadership role herself, adds that male leaders are generally reluctant to bring in new faces:

    Most of the mosques are run by men, where the committee have been in their roles for many years, it’s very difficult for them to sort of move aside and say, ‘Okay, let’s bring on new people or, women even’.

    It’s not only leadership at the grassroots level that’s proving difficult; sometimes access to the physical space proves to be an obstacle too.

    Being denied entry to mosques

    The report added that 20% of Muslim women in the UK have been denied entry to a masjid. In fact, almost a third of them have been denied on the basis that “there was no dedicated space for women or that it was better for women to pray at home”. Other reasons for refusing entry include Muslim women being inappropriately dressed. 

    In some cases, denying entry means Muslim women had no choice but to pray in unsafe spaces.

    One respondent noted that:

    The males go to the masjid and we are forced to pray in changing rooms, car parks etc. It becomes so that Salah is a box to check off – there is no ease, no Khushoo [sense of tranquillity or focus], no community.

    As a result, Muslim women are turning to alternative sources for spiritual connection and guidance.

    The report found that 39% of Muslim women solely use online sources to seek Islamic knowledge and advice. Rahman sees benefits in these digital services, but she notes that human interaction is crucial:

    We are seeing more and more services for women online. So that’s very positive. But having said that women do need to have that face-to-face interaction with other sisters in their community. When we went into lockdown, we all felt sort of isolated. There wasn’t much human interaction, so I think there are two sides to that.

    Feeling disconnected from wider Muslim community 

    Only 32% of Muslim women felt connected to the wider Muslim community due to their needs being unmet. The report goes further to say “the conflation of religious teachings and cultural practices” results in a disconnect within the Muslim community. For instance, even when they did seek guidance through religious networks, it was difficult to discuss gender-sensitive topics.

    Aasifa Usmani, programme manager for the Faith and Communities Team at Standing Together, notes that mosques should be inclusive of women’s issues:

    Women need to be made a priority and there is a lot of work to be done around that. And obviously, this is not an isolated incident just with Muslim women, this cuts across all faith institutions and how women feel excluded, and othered as well.

    Rahman believes that whilst every community is run a different way, culture can sometimes take precedence in mosques:

    I’m not surprised as a lot of this is related to cultural issues.

    The British Muslim Civil Society report, released in January 2023, made the recommendation that:

    more generally, mosques should not function, as they do in many cases, solely as spaces of prayer for men for a few minutes every few hours.

    The need for change

    Usmaani notes how religious spaces must provide more than one service such as prayer to instill community values:

    Spaces have triangularity, to connect to God, and spiritual needs. I’m glad the report mentioned importance of spirituality, because not every census captures that. It also goes to show that in our so-called secular society, actually, there are lots of women of faith

    The report’s findings were based on a survey of 1,200 Muslim women in the UK, alongside four focus groups with a total of 24 participants.

    Rahman agrees with the idea that mosques need to be more than a place just for prayer:

    It’s a place for social gatherings for sisters, a place of learning and a place or feeling where they can get away really from home and just be able to connect.

    It’s evident that Muslim women have been experiencing issues at the masjid for decades. More often than not, mosques are gendered spaces and women’s use is conditional upon the availability of space. As such, limited access to these spaces negatively impacts Muslim women’s spiritual connection. Only through male allyship and opening up doors for Muslim women in leadership positions can we collectively raise the bar.

    Follow Ta Collective, formerly My Mosque Story, to hear more about the experiences of Muslim women in UK mosques.

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

    By Uzma Gulbahar

  • The plight of a collapsed elephant in India shows why tourists should refuse to ride

    An Asian elephant named Moti has been lying collapsed on the ground since at least 22 January. The 35-year-old elephant is essentially unable to stand up after years working in India as a tourist begging elephant.

    Moti’s dire predicament illustrates why action against unethical tourism, such as elephant rides, is vital. The UK took a step closer to such action on 3 February, when a bill that should ban the promotion and sales of unethical tourism passed its second reading in parliament.

    Moti in extremely concerning condition

    Indian nonprofit Wildlife SOS has been with Moti since 22 January, when its veterinary team travelled to his location. On its website, the organisation explained that as a begging elephant, Moti would have given “countless rides” to people, i.e. tourists. Now, he’s in a “very poor condition”, including being malnourished. Blood tests have also shown potential liver and kidney issues.

    Over the last two weeks, Wildlife SOS has administered treatment on-site because Moti can’t stand up. This is partly due to the fact that one of his foot pads is detached, which must be extremely painful. Moreover, one of his legs is heavily swollen, although this has reduced somewhat with treatment.

    Wildlife SOS would ideally like to get Moti to its elephant hospital rather than giving roadside care. But this requires him being able to get to his feet. When the nonprofit attempted to lift him on 2 February with the use of a crane, Moti couldn’t bear weight on any of his legs. It explained that:

    An elephant’s movement is critical to circulation and healing, so his continued lack of movement has our team extremely concerned.

    The organisation highlighted that his appetite and drinking has improved, which is a good sign. But the longer Moti stays grounded, the more uncertain his future becomes.

    Most recently, Wildlife SOS reached out to the army for assistance. The army’s Madras Engineer Group, known as the Madras Sappers, had aided the organisation to rescue a collapsed elephant called Sidda in 2016.

    A team of Bengal Sappers arrived at Moti’s location early on 6 February. They’re building a structure, known as a kraal, that Moti can be suspended from, in a bid to get him to his feet.

    Wildlife SOS’s co-founder and CEO Kartick Satyanarayan said:

    This is such a patriotic effort to help India’s heritage animal and an endangered species. We are also grateful to the Forest Department and the custodian of Moti elephant for their cooperation and support.

    Refuse to ride

    Wildlife SOS is urging tourists to “refuse to ride” elephants, due to the suffering that individuals like Moti go through as a result:

    The injuries that tourism elephants can sustain from working in the industry make up only part of their suffering. Abuse is part and parcel of existence for many individuals. Their training for tourism, for example in places like India, can involve being beaten, crushed and starved, among other abuses.

    Due to this, a bill is currently making its way through parliament in the UK. The Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill aims to prohibit the advertising and sale of overseas activities that “involve low standards of welfare for animals”.

    On 3 February, MPs debated the bill for the first time. Although the session wasn’t well-attended, most MPs present spoke out in support of the bill. As Save the Asian Elephants (STAE) highlighted on Twitter, MPs voted the bill through at that reading:

    The bill will now progress to its committee stage, where it will face examination and possible changes.

    Self-regulation isn’t working

    As STAE has pointed out, the bill will potentially benefit many species used in tourism, such as big cats, apes, dolphins, and more.

    The organisation insists that change will not happen without legislative action, arguing that industry self-regulation has failed. STAE, for example, says that it has identified no less than 1,200 companies operating in the UK market that advertise venues implicated in brutality against elephants.

    Moreover, India and Thailand, where elephant-related tourism is common, are popular destinations among UK travellers. And as World Animal Protection’s report, titled ‘Taken for a ride’, highlighted: 36% of Thailand tourists surveyed in 2014 took elephant rides, or planned to, during their visits. In short, the UK’s involvement in elephant-related tourism, both in terms of travellers and tourism companies, is considerable.

    For the sake of elephants in and outside of tourist venues  – and other captive wild animals – a crackdown on unethical tourism in places like India can’t come soon enough.

    Featured image and embedded image via Wildlife SOS

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tenants take action to prevent evictions and rising rents

    While the UK is in the grip of a cost of living crisis, greedy landlords are continuing to increase rents, threaten people with eviction, and make people homeless if they can’t pay.

    Renters across the country can’t afford to heat their homes, yet landlords are relentlessly lining their pockets with as much income from tenants as possible. At the same time, they’re accruing value on their homes for essentially doing nothing. And in big cities such as London and Bristol, where rents are already extortionate, once-working class neighbourhoods are turning into enclaves for the affluent.

    A 66.6% increase in rent

    Tenants across the UK are supporting each other, organising together and taking collective action.

    In Bristol, ACORN community union members marched on the office of rogue letting agent and landlord Paul O’Brien on 1 February. O’Brien owns Just Lets rental agency as well as several high-profile businesses operating across Bristol and the south-west. He’s also the landlord of ACORN member Thai and has hiked her rent by 66.6%, or £300 per month. Thai faces eviction and homelessness given that she can’t afford this increase. ACORN pointed out that O’Brien is “no small-time landlord struggling to get by”. The union said that Thai has tried to negotiate a more reasonable increase, but O’Brien has refused.

    Bristol ACORN said:

    the 66.6% increase […] is extraordinary, and completely unaffordable for a renter on a fixed income. Thai now fears eviction and homelessness. To make matters worse, Just Lets have repeatedly given workmen access to the flat without giving Thai notice, and for the last four months Thai has been living with faulty fire alarms, leaving her feeling extremely unsafe in the flat.

    The union continued:

    After the landlord has refused to negotiate a more reasonable increase, Thai teamed up with members of the community union ACORN, to march on O’Brien’s offices to demand a fair rent increase that’s in line with inflation.

    ‘Countless other people in my situation’

    Standing outside O’Brien’s office, Thai said:

    I am standing here in front of you today, not just for me, but also for the people that don’t have a voice, as there are countless other people in my situation across the country right now. £300 a month is a drop in the ocean for Paul O’Brien, but it means the different between having a home or not to me.

    Thai said she has proposed a rent increase of 11% in line with inflation, but O’Brien has flatly refused any negotiation. She continued:

    I want to be heard. It’s not right for landlords with dozens of businesses and millions of pounds worth of assets like Paul O’Brien to push people around.

    A nationwide problem

    Thai’s impending homelessness is, of course, not limited to Bristol. Back in late 2022, Zoopla said:

    The imbalance in supply and demand is here to stay, and rents will continue to rise at above-average levels into 2023 across the more affordable markets.

    Meanwhile, ACORN stated:

    Rising rent has been a news story for months and is impacting renters up and down the country. The average increase in rent in 2022 was just over 12%, pushing more and more private tenants into homelessness.

    Indeed, Sky News reported in August 2022 that homelessness rates among private renters had reached record highs, “largely because landlords are choosing to sell or re-let their properties”.

    In January 2023, BBC Newsnight reported on another Bristol resident, Hayley, who was hit by a 25% rent increase. Newsnight said:

    Last year Hayley was told her rent was due to increase by over 25%. Shortly after that she was served a section 21 notice, a so called ‘no-fault’ eviction, giving her eight weeks to leave.

    Taking action for better living conditions

    It isn’t just evictions that ACORN is fighting. Across the country, tenants are fighting their landlords to provide them with more acceptable living conditions.

    As individuals, renters often feel powerless – but collectively, their voices can be heard. In Bristol, residents and ACORN members scored a huge victory when they won their campaign for fire safety in the city’s highrises. They won their demands to get sprinklers installed in tower blocks, to get public fire risk assessments for every block, and to have 24/7 fire wardens until the blocks are made safe.

    And in London, ACORN managed to reclaim £7,750 for one household in Dalston:

    ACORN Hackney said that it presented the tenants’ demands to their landlord – and the landlord paid out £7,750 to cover rent, deposit and fumigation costs. Similar actions by ACORN around the country have resulted in victory.

    Rent controls

    As we have seen, collective action can force landlords to act more decently. But it’s not likely that these actions will give landlords better morals. So, we need laws to prevent rental prices from escalating even further. Bristol ACORN said:

    After pressure from ACORN, Bristol City Council has recently called on the government to grant it powers to introduce rent controls.

    This would restrict the amount of rent that landlords could charge tenants. Moreover, renters organisations from across England have written a manifesto. It calls for, among other things, an end to Section 21 (no fault) evictions, and for:

    Rent controls which bring down rents to 30% of local income.

    The manifesto says:

    One in four private renters in England lives in poverty. Over half of the families with children living in private rented accommodation are below the poverty line. We need rent controls that bring rents down to 30% of median local income, following the accepted yardstick of affordability. Rent controls should be introduced incrementally, to prevent negative consequences for current tenants, and should be accompanied by a massive increase in public housebuilding.

    In the meantime, if you’re struggling to pay your rent, team up with people like you and take action against money-grabbing rogue landlords.

    Featured image via Acorn

    By Eliza Egret

  • Revelations about human rights abuses at Manston underscore the UK’s colonial immigration regime

    A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the Home Office ignored warnings over the Manston refugee detention centre. Specifically, the local council had told the Home Office it had concerns over conditions at the centre in Kent relating to the health of detainees. Yet the Tory government ignored the council’s warnings, leading to a man’s death. However, while shocking, this is unsurprising given that our entire immigration system has its roots in colonialism.

    Manston: disease and death

    As the Canary previously reported, the Manston detention centre encapsulates the Home Office’s racist and inhumane approach to refugees. In late 2022, it was holding around 4,000 people – when the Home Office only designed it to accommodate 1,600. The Canary‘s Sophia Purdy-Moore noted that:

    The Home Office is only supposed to hold people on the site for up to 24 hours. However, a prison watchdog warned that authorities are detaining people on the site for a much longer period, without beds, proper healthcare, or access to fresh air and exercise. The watchdog noted reports of cases of contagious diseases such as scabies, diphtheria and MRSA within the centre.

    One man, Hussein Haseeb Ahmed, eventually died after becoming ill with diphtheria at Manston. At the time, the Home Office denied refugees were catching it at the centre. We now know the opposite is true – and moreover, that the council warned the Home Office something like this could happen.

    Home Office: ignoring warnings

    The Guardian reported that it had obtained FOIs from Thanet district council. They revealed that the council’s public health officials repeatedly contacted the Home Office with concerns over Manston. Specifically, the Guardian reported that:

    • Handwashing was advised as a key infection control measure but there was a shortage of sinks and access to running water and some toilets had no handwashing facilities at all.
    • Some toilets were blocked and overflowing with excrement.
    • The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, became involved in the crisis and ordered UKHSA officials to produce a rapid assessment of infectious disease risk on the site.
    • [There was] confusion surrounding the release of people from Manston who may have had infectious conditions.

    The FOIs also showed that the Home Office’s claim that refugees were bringing diphtheria with them to Manston was probably not true. Officials said a “small number” of cases were likely to have been transmitted in the UK – that is, at Manston. Crucially, the Guardian also noted that:

    A risk assessment rated the risk of gastrointestinal disease, measles, diphtheria, scabies and other skin diseases as “very high”.

    Thanet district council raised all its concerns with the Home Office before Hussein died on 19 November. Yet the Home Office failed to act. Meanwhile, all this comes as the Independent and human rights organisation Liberty released an investigation into conditions at Manston.

    Human rights abuses?

    The investigation found that whistleblowing staff at the site reported:

    • Thousands of people sleeping on mats on the floor inside a makeshift marquee while being held for indefinite periods with nothing to do
    • Incidents of detainees being pinned to the ground and beaten after hitting their heads against a wall
    • Migrants being forcibly restrained after asking for food
    • A man injured in a fight receiving “unacceptable” medical care because it was assumed he was “faking it”

    The sheer level of human rights abuses at Manston perpetrated by the Home Office is shocking – but not surprising. As Purdy-Moore wrote last year:

    This goes beyond Manston. This is about challenging the entire inhumane border regime which surveils, polices, detains, deports and dehumanises people seeking safety in the UK and globally.

    However, this is also goes beyond the border regimes of states.

    Colonialism: alive and well in the UK

    Governments like the UK’s have an approach to refugees and borders that is inherently colonialist – and laws surrounding immigration have their roots in Britain’s colonial history. Those in power and, by default, society more broadly, view foreign nationals arriving in the UK as lesser human beings – barely even guests, treated with greater contempt than animals. As academic Nadine El-Enany wrote, the very fact that refugees have to ask permission to stay in the UK via our legal system sums up this colonial mindset:

    The traditional acceptance of legal categories as defined in international and domestic law… has the effect of concealing law’s role in producing racialised subjects and racial violence. It further impedes an understanding of law as racial violence.

    Moreover, El-Enany noted that:

    Legal status does not alter the way in which racialised people are cast in white spaces as undeserving guests, outsiders or intruders – as here today but always potentially gone tomorrow. Immigration law is, after all, the prop used to teach white British citizens that what Britain plundered from its colonies is theirs and theirs alone. Understanding that immigration law is an extension of colonialism enables us to question Britain’s claim to being a legitimately bordered, sovereign nation-state.

    Manston encapsulates this attitude – where the state persecutes refugees without recourse, and the staff at the centre then follow its lead. This pervades government institutions and society more broadly – and it will not change overnight. The sad yet damning likelihood is that another Manston is on the cards, somewhere in the UK.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

  • Tory health minister condemns the nurses’ strike – while being an RCN member

    As the NHS nurses’ strike started its first day of action, the government sent out a Tory health minister to do the morning TV rounds. Conservative politicians and broadcast media aren’t always a good match – and sadly for minister Maria Caulfield, her status as a former nurse made the situation even worse. This was then compounded by the fact she’s also a member of the trade union organising the strikes.

    The nurses’ strike: everybody out

    The Royal College of Nurses (RCN) is staging two days of nurses’ strike action on 6 and 7 February. On the first day, ambulance staff are also striking, and some will then walk out again on Friday 10 February. As the Canary previously wrote, the RCN has said that it’s “escalating nursing strikes on 6 and 7 February after governments refuse to seriously negotiate”. RCN general secretary and chief executive Pat Cullen added:

    It is with a heavy heart that nursing staff are striking [in January] and again in [February]

    We are doing this in a desperate bid to get ministers to rescue the NHS. The only credible solution is to address the tens of thousands of unfilled jobs – patient care is suffering like never before.

    My olive branch to governments – asking them to meet me halfway and begin negotiations – is still there. They should grab it.

    So, the Tory government clearly thought that rolling out a health minister who’s a former nurse would be a good idea. Unfortunately for it (and her) it didn’t go quite according to plan.

    A former NHS nurse defending the indefensible?

    Caulfield is a parliamentary under secretary of state at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) – a health minister. She’s not new to the DHSC, having been there under Boris Johnson. However, Caulfield is also a former nurse. As her website states:

    Upon leaving school she became an NHS nurse, later specialising in cancer treatment and becoming a Senior Sister at the Royal Marsden NHS Hospital.

    Apparently, Caulfield’s inspiration to join the Tory Party was former prime minister and NHS budget-slasher David Cameron. Little wonder, then, that she was on breakfast TV on 6 February defending the indefensible. Good Morning Britain (GMB) host Ben Shephard put it to Caulfield that Cullen had said the government hadn’t met with the RCN over pay for this financial year – hence the nurses’ strike. Caulfield waffled and deflected for well over a minute, before GMB host Susanna Reid finally managed to get her to admit that Cullen was right:

    Then over on BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme, Caulfield argued that the pay rise RCN wanted for nurses this year couldn’t happen – basically because ‘everybody else would want more money’. She said that a pay rise for this year:

    wouldn’t just be for nurses, you would have teachers saying ‘could we reopen this year’s pay settlement’; you’ve got ambulance drivers, you’ve got rail workers. There’s a range of pubic sector workers who would also want the same request. Across the board, you’re talking about billions of pounds to pay for that, and we want to put that into frontline services… but we also are accountable to the taxpayer…

    Heaven forbid that teachers, for some of whom governments have cut £6,600 off real-terms pay since 2010, would want a bit more money:

    However, as one person pointed out on Twitter, there’s a £29.5bn elephant in the room that the Tories keep forgetting about, among other things:

    Caulfield: gravy-training it all the way

    But it was over on LBC where Caulfield’s true priorities were exposed – as the public was reminded that she’s still a member of the RCN:

    As one person pointed out on Twitter:

    It’s not unexpected that a nurse might not be left-wing – there are probably plenty of Tory-voting nurses. However, one who is also currently a member of a trade union that’s striking, putting herself out on TV to actively work against her colleagues? Now that’s something else entirely.

    Caulfield has shown that she has no care for the NHS, nor the nurses’ strike and her profession more broadly. Staying on the Westminster gravy train is clearly more appealing to her.

    Featured image via NHS Workers Say No and Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Here’s a full list of this week’s national and local strikes, including the NHS

    Trade union group StrikeMap has released a list of upcoming strikes for the week beginning 6 February. Strikemap described the past week as containing “the largest education strike of a generation” with “hundreds of thousands of workers joined together on 1 February for the first mega strike of the year”. Now, NHS workers are staging huge walkouts.

    Upcoming action

    The upcoming week will include the following industrial action:

    Of these, the NHS nurses walkout in England and Wales, organised by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), will be one of the most substantial. RCN has said that it’s “escalating nursing strikes on 6 and 7 February after governments refuse to seriously negotiate”. RCN general secretary and chief executive Pat Cullen added:

    It is with a heavy heart that nursing staff are striking [in January] and again in [February]

    We are doing this in a desperate bid to get ministers to rescue the NHS. The only credible solution is to address the tens of thousands of unfilled jobs – patient care is suffering like never before.

    My olive branch to governments – asking them to meet me halfway and begin negotiations – is still there. They should grab it.

    Strikes all over

    Other notable walkouts taking place include ambulance workers on 6 February. When combined with other industrial action, it’s predicted this will be the NHS’s “biggest ever strike”. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said:

    Rather than act to protect the NHS and negotiate an end to the dispute, the Government has disgracefully chosen to demonise ambulance workers. Ministers are deliberately misleading the public about the life and limb cover and who is to blame for excessive deaths.

    Other industrial actions include:

    Meanwhile, engineering workers at “whisky giant Diageo’s plant” in Leven will walk out on 3-5 and 10-13 February. Graham said:

    Unite’s engineering members at Diageo’s Leven plant have had enough of pay cuts especially as the company’s profits are soaring. Diageo recorded £4.4bn in profits – up nearly 20 per cent – directly on the back of our members’ hard work. Yet some of our members are now facing considerable pay cuts when inflation has hit a 45-year high. This is totally unacceptable and we will stand with our members in their fight against corporate greed at Diageo.

    StrikeMap

    StrikeMap provides an interactive map of upcoming and current industrial actions in the UK. The site describes itself as:

    a ‘worker-powered’ attempt to map the industrial action taking place and relies purely on the information supplied via our submission form. We do not claim to be an official account of all action across the country, or represent all the collective action and different tactics of disruption that people are engaged in.

    The group is also trialling a new map of solidarity messages for striking workers:

    Here is how it works.

    1. Click here to go to our solidarity message page.
    2. Record a video, upload a photo or leave a message of solidarity
    3. We will then publish them for nurses to see.

    With so many workers out on strikes across the nations, StrikeMap’s organising is vital. Thanks to the group, we can all get behind our striking comrades.

    Featured image via StrikeMap – screengrab

    By The Canary

  • UK government has been spying on Palestinian people

    An independent media outlet has revealed that the UK government was “spying” on Palestinian refugees. The government was doing this under the guise of countering terrorism. The Electronic Intifada (EI) alleges that a group of people posed as academics, and didn’t disclose their ties to the British Foreign Office. Instead, these would-be spies were there to monitor the threat of so-called ‘extremism’ by looking out for “criticism of Western and Israeli foreign policy”.

    UK government: spying on Palestinian people

    On Wednesday 1 February, EI wrote:

    Revealed: British government spied on Palestinian refugees

    Whistleblowers had given journalists Asa Winstanley and Kit Klarenberg a cache of documents about a UK-government-funded project operating in the Middle East. The premise of the operation seemed fairly straightforward. Its researchers would speak with Palestinian refugees in the occupied West Bank, and in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. They would do so, as EI wrote:

    to “counter” the “violent extremism” of groups such as ISIS and al-Qaida.

    A leaked Foreign Office document setting out the requirements for the project says the findings would be used to improve targeting of subsequent “Countering Violent Extremism” (or CVE) “interventions” in the region, identifying “what types of intervention are most likely to be successful.”

    Of course, “violent extremism” depends on what the government of the time wishes to label as extremist. For example, the UK government have a history of ignoring extremism from the far right. As EI uncovered, it turns out that what this project was really doing was trying to get intelligence on Palestinians. This in itself isn’t really surprising because Israel’s hardline government has banned the Palestinian flag from flying in public, and continued their campaign of bombing Palestinians.

    Private contractors and think tanks

    You can read Winstanley, Klarenberg, and the EI‘s full investigation here. The government project ran from October 2018 to March 2019. Overall, the UK government initially gave it a budget of $120,000 from its ‘Conflict, Stability and Security Fund’. This money went to the following organisations to work on it:

    • Adam Smith International – a private intelligence contractor, which was inadvertently funding Islamic State (ISIS) affiliates in Syria.
    • The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an extremism think tank.

    Individuals involved included Charlie Winter – a former researcher for Quilliam, a right-wing, Islamophobic think tank. This toxic group was a disaster for Muslim people – not least, as Malia Bouattia wrote for Al Jazeera, because:

    it stoked up considerable hate towards Muslims and racialised communities in Britain. For example, when following the child sexual exploitation scandal in Rochdale and other cities, Quilliam published a report claiming that 84 percent of “grooming gang offenders” were Asian. This was later debunked by the Home Office’s own report that confirmed research has found that group-based offenders “are most commonly White”.

    Real aims exposed

    Meanwhile, the Palestinian project was going to work with the British consulate in Jerusalem. As EI noted:

    The consulate is an important base of operations for MI6, Britain’s overseas spy agency.

    The project’s team would then act, or use their status as academics, to effectively infiltrate Palestinian communities – while making sure they didn’t let on they were associated with the UK government. EI noted that leaked documents show that the project leads considered using:

    in-person interviews in the camps combined with “social listening” technology to monitor social media and other online discussion.

    It’s not clear if this ever happened. What the project planned to do was, as EI wrote:

    “Analysis will be conducted on which narratives are dominant,” their proposal explains. It aimed to ascertain whether “identity issues, criticism of Western and Israeli foreign policy, or ideology, receive the most engagement.”

    What is also clear is that the project’s organisers knew that they were effectively spying.

    Covert operations for the West

    EI reported that the project’s documents indicated the groups and individuals involved knew that they needed to keep its activities under wraps:

    the contractors emphasized “the importance of ensuring confidentiality around the sources of funding and the aims of the program.”

    They did so to mitigate the risk Palestinians in the refugee camps would “become suspicious,” or camp leaders would “obstruct and hamper” the project, the risk assessment states.

    One of the project’s former researchers, Dutch-Palestinian Samar Batrawi, spoke to EI. She said that:

    I believed that – as a Palestinian – my perspective on these issues could change these discourses/policies from within. This is no longer something I believe.

    Political games

    As EI wrote:

    Was the true purpose of this British government project more about spying on Palestinians, and manipulating public opinion about Israel, as part of its so-called “interventions”?

    In the ongoing propaganda war to prop up the apartheid, far-right Israeli state, the UK government likely wouldn’t think twice about manipulating Palestinian refugees for its own ends – even going so far as to spy on them.

    Moreover, once again we’re seeing the manipulation of “extremism” for political ends. As the Canary‘s Maryam Jameela recently wrote about the review of the UK government’s Prevent programme:

    by purely being critical of the Prevent strategy, individuals or organisations can be seen to be spreading “extremism”.

    People already view Muslims, especially Palestinians living in the occupied territories, as terrorists and criminals. The UK government project uncovered by EI would not only have furthered that racist, Islamophobic sentiment but also have done it via cowardly, covert tactics. The UK government has no shame – nor do the think tanks nor the individuals involved with the project in the first place.

    You can read the full EI investigation here.

    Featured image via Ömer Yıldız – Unsplash 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Leaked documents suggest Qatar bribed US-backed Afghan leaders to avoid resisting Taliban

    Leaked documents suggest that Qatar paid hundreds of millions of dollars to key Afghan government officials – including a former president – to not resist the Taliban.

    The documents reportedly show that Qatar paid $110m to ex-president Ashraf Ghani to stop the Afghan military fighting the Taliban a month before the 2021 collapse of the US-backed government. The Khaama Press alleges that payments of $51m and $61m were made to Marshal Dostum and Atta Mohammad Noor respectively – both powerful figures in Afghan politics. Dostum was a senior military officer. and major player in successive Afghan governments. Noor was similarly highly ranked, as former governor of Balkh province.

    The documents were first reported by Italian media outlet Tg1 following an investigation by journalist Filippo Rossi:

    The story was subsequently reported in English by the Afghan-based Khaama Press News Agency.

    Corruption

    The investigation found three documents which appear to show corruption at the highest levels. One claims that Ajmal Ahmadi, former head of an Afghan bank and a close advisor to Ghani, received $110m from Qatar on Ghani’s behalf. 

    Ghani was previously accused of fleeing Afghanistan with millions of dollars during the 2021 collapse:

    He denied reports that he escaped the Islamist militants with over $150 million in cash belonging to the Afghan people, calling the claims “completely and categorically false.”

    One document reportedly shows Dostum received $51m from Qatar. Khaama reported :

    The document praised Dostum’s sincere cooperation in retreating from the northern provinces’ battlefields, such as Fariyab and Jawzjan provinces.

    On top of this, one Mohammad Farhad Azimi – a representative of Atta Mohammad Noor – received $61m from a Qatari representative in Kabul. Noor is former anti-Taliban commander. Both Noor and Dostum reportedly fled to Uzbekistan as Afghanistan collapsed in August 2021.

    Meetings and conspiracies

    This conspiracy, then, would have taken place at the very highest levels of leadership. Khaama reported that :

    The documents also revealed that all three representatives of the former Afghan leaders received money from the Qatar representative after signing the documents on July 7, 2021.

    The documents also detailed a meeting between a Qatari official and Ghani in July 2021, around a month before the occupation and the US-backed government collapsed.

    The Khaama report claims the documents indicate a conspiracy among powerful Afghan figures to sell out for Qatari cash:

    The letters also further highlight that the money was granted to all three prominent leaders to avoid resisting the Taliban fighters.

    And that:

    The documents allegedly show that Ashraf Ghani received money to avoid resistance. In contrast, Dostum and Noor received money from the Qatar government not to fight against the Taliban in Northern Afghanistan.

    2021 Collapse

    The speed of the 2021 collapse of the Afghan government – and with it the 20-year US occupation – shocked many. Since then, the people in Afghanistan have continued to suffer great hardships, much as they did under foreign occupation.

    It remains to be seen how concrete these claims are. Clearly, more information is needed. However, the possibility that Afghanistan’s own leaders sold out the country to the Taliban adds another layer of bitterness to what is already one of the great human tragedies of our times.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Voice of America News, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • British ex-soldier avoids jail over killing of Aidan McAnespie

    A former British soldier on Thursday avoided a prison sentence over the killing of a man at a border checkpoint during the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as “The Troubles“. David Holden received a three-year suspended sentence at a Belfast court after being convicted of manslaughter over the 1988 killing of Aidan McAnespie.

    The conviction was the first successful prosecution of former UK military personnel for historic offences during the decades-spanning conflict in Northern Ireland. However, further such cases could be blocked under controversial draft legislation unveiled by the UK government in London last year. As the Canary’s Joe Glenton reported:

    Titled the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, the proposed law is meant to reduce criminal investigations. It would also replace proper legal processes with reconciliation committees. These would hear stories and grievances but have no legal standing.

    Glenton concluded that:

    The British state is intent on escaping scrutiny and challenge in relations to its wars. The danger is that its victims, whether in Ireland, Iraq or Afghanistan, become victims not once but twice.

    Devastating effect of McAnespie’s death

    During the sentencing, judge John O’Hara drew attention to the “devastating effect” McAnespie’s death had had on his family. He said:

    When I consider the sentence, I bear in mind everything which is put before me by counsel and the McAnespie family.

    The defendant gave a dishonest explanation to the police and then to the court, to some limited degree that is an aggravating feature.

    He acknowledged the family’s sense of “injustice”, saying:

    I have no doubt this was made worse by the family’s sense of injustice that Mr Holden was not brought to trial at the time.

    This is something the family shares with far too many other families in our society who have not seen anyone held to account for all manner of killings, bombings and shootings.

    McAnespie was shot in the back and killed in Aughnacloy in County Tyrone on his way to a sports club. Holden, who was 18 years old at the time, admitted the shooting but said his gun had fired by accident because his hands were wet.

    The judge retold statements from the family describing how Aidan McAnespie’s mother had, every night, walked past the checkpoint where her son had been killed “in tears saying the rosary”, a Catholic prayer.

    Truth and justice

    Responding to the decision, Aidan McAnespie’s brother Sean McAnespie said the non-custodial sentence was:

    disappointing, but the most important point is that David Holden was found guilty.

    Sean McAnespie said his family had not looked for a “pound of flesh”, but rather “truth and justice”. He explained that his brother had faced “extensive harassment” from the security services, and added:

    David Holden could have given an honest account of what happened that day but didn’t.

    Not a day passes when we don’t miss Aidan.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Sky News

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By The Canary

  • Royal Mail just shamed itself twice on the same day the CWU announced a postal strike

    The Communication Workers Union (CWU) has announced its first strike of 2023. The walkout against Royal Mail will be on 16 February, just after Valentine’s Day. However, the trade union’s move to launch another postal strike after a series of them last year came on the same day as Royal Mail disgraced itself not once, but twice.

    CWU: another postal strike against Royal Mail is on

    In 2022, the CWU carried out numerous strikes – the last one being on Christmas Eve. The actions were over pay, working conditions and Royal Mail bosses’ plans for the company, as well as what CWU general secretary Dave Ward called their “gross mismanagement”. Currently, the union is balloting members again for strike action. However, out of nowhere on Thursday 2 February the CWU announced another strike. It said in a press release:

    Postal workers have announced their first postal strike of the year.

    From 12.30pm on Thursday 16th February until before 12.30pm on Friday 17th February, over 115,000 members of the… [union] will be taking strike action.

    The strike is actually from the previous ballot of members. CWU members will walk out just as that vote legally expires on 17 February. So, it’s a bold move by the union. However, the reason for this last-minute postal strike is quite dramatic. The CWU said:

    The union’s national elected leadership called the strike after Royal Mail have begun forcing through unagreed changes related to the structure of work at offices across the country.

    These decisions have been taken in direct contravention of the Industrial Relations (IR) Framework established between the union and the employer, the validity of which was re-committed to by Royal Mail CEO Simon Thompson in a letter dated 6th January.

    In effect, the changes represent the removal of the right of the CWU to negotiate at a local level, and must be viewed as a real step towards the derecognition of the union.

    So, Royal Mail has been ignoring its legal agreement with the CWU – and bosses have been forcing through changes to working conditions anyway. This is hardly unsurprising, though. On the same day the CWU announced the strike, two bits of news about Royal Mail showed just what a shitshow the company has become.

    What a shitshow

    First, and the CWU tweeted that Royal Mail is re-hiring managers it made redundant. Plus, it’s paying them a salary which would make a postal worker’s eyes water:

    Then, a parliamentary committee announced it was hauling Royal Mail boss Simon Thompson back before it – basically because it looks like he lied:

    Sky News reported that people sent “hundreds of complaints” to the committee over Thompson’s previous evidence to the committee. For example, Sky News noted that:

    MPs had asked why Royal Mail was tracking how fast employees were making deliveries using their handheld computers [“PDAs”] and whether they were disciplined based on that data.

    Mr Thompson said in his initial evidence: “No. I am not aware of technology we have in place that tells people to work more quickly. I am not aware of that at all.”

    However, that seems to be untrue. The business, energy and industrial strategy (BEIS) committee said it had:

    received evidence that suggests this is not correct.

    The CWU shared an example via Facebook of Royal Mail bosses spying on staff through their handheld computers:

    CWU evidence against Royal Mail postal strike

    And that’s just one day’s worth of Royal Mail bosses’ entrenched shithousery.

    Royal Mail bosses: a ‘complete lack of integrity’

    Ward said in a press release:

    This action is down to the conduct of Royal Mail management, who have displayed a complete lack of integrity. Our members will not just sit back and watch as their working lives are destroyed by a company leadership hell-bent on ripping up historic arrangements that protect their rights and give them a voice through their union.

    It’s highly likely that workers will vote for more strikes in the current CWU ballot. Given bosses’ ongoing attitudes towards their staff and the company, it’s of little wonder that another postal strike is happening – with more on the cards, too.

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

    By Steve Topple

  • Why UK government might be overreaching with its veto on Scottish gender bill: Part 3

    On 17 January, the UK government released its list of stated reasons for using veto powers against the Scottish parliament. The unprecedented move blocked the new Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill. Had the bill passed, it would have removed the need for gender dysphoria diagnosis to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

    Part two of the Canary’s analysis examined the arguments that the GRR bill would create confusion for IT systems, and that people might choose to self-exclude from single-sex spaces. Here, we’ll continue in the same manner before drawing final conclusions.

    New issues

    The final section of the policy paper focuses on potential adverse interactions between the GRR Bill and the 2010 Equality Act (EA). The section begins by reiterating concerns on single-sex spaces, equalities monitoring, and equal pay. These are named as “existing issues” with the 2010 EA, which were already complicated by the existence of transgender people. Westminster now claims that these would be exacerbated by the legal recognition of more transgender people.

    We then move on to new potential problems created by the GRR Bill. In particular, the paper focuses on the fact that the GRR Bill lowers the age requirement from 18 to 16. It states that:

    enabling a new cohort of transgender pupils aged 16 to 17 to change their legal sex in Scotland will mean that single-sex schools will not be able to deny them admission on the grounds of their sex.

    Surely this is a good thing – schools would no longer be able to discriminate against trans pupils aged 16 and over. The move to frame this as a negative, therefore, is necessarily convoluted. The paper speculates that:

    It is possible that such constraints arising from the Bill on single-sex schools in Scotland could contribute to individual schools deciding to become co-educational. That would have an adverse effect for current and future parents and students who would prefer a single-sex school, perhaps in particular where they consider that such a setting is less likely than a co-educational school to generate problems with sexual harassment.

    Essentially, the paper suggests that a single-sex school’s inability to exclude trans pupils might lead to it giving up on being single-sex altogether. This would then lower the number of single-sex schools available for parents to choose from.

    Why, exactly?

    Note, however, that this belief lacks logic in itself. It hinges on the belief, for example, that an all-girls school would wish to exclude a trans girl. This, presumably, is predicated on the belief that she is a boy, the class that the school seeks to exclude. Upon having to admit said trans girl, the all-girls school then declares itself no longer an all-girls school.

    Instead, it becomes co-educational and admits more boys – the exact eventuality it was trying to avoid. There is no requirement for it to do so. If the school’s stated aim is to minimise the number of students who are seen as boys, then the move to admit more boys makes no sense.

    Likewise, there’s no requirement for the school to become co-educational. It only needs to admit the trans girl. The inverse is also true for the admission of trans boys to all-boys schools. There is no valid reason for the school to become co-educational, nor does the policy paper provide one.

    This hypothetical eventuality seems like, at best, an odd example. At worst, however, it exposes an implicit thread that runs throughout the S35 policy paper.

    Cis preferences matter more

    What is left implicit by the policy paper, and indeed by the Section 35 order itself, is an assumption. It is the assumption that cis preferences matter more than trans preferences – and more than trans lives. More specifically, it is the assumption that transphobic cis preferences matter more than inclusive beliefs, either cis or trans.

    This can be seen in the argument that sex-segregated clubs might be required to admit trans people, and this would be a bad thing. We already have provisions to exclude trans people when “objectively justified”, which would remain unaffected. This only leaves situations where the exclusion is unjust – and the only reasons to protect these are transphobic preferences.

    This implicit bias is present in the argument that the inconvenience of updating an IT system outweighs a trans person’s ability to get married and die with dignity. It is seen in the weight given to a person’s potential, voluntary refusal to use a sex-segregated space in case they encounter someone who was not meant to be there.

    In this same article, we’ve seen the prominence given to the example of a single-sex school that wishes to discriminate against trans pupils. The policy paper never questioned why a school would want to do this. The assumption is that the institution might want to be transphobic, and this should be protected and enshrined in the law.

    Outright discrimination

    This is what the use of Section 35 in this instance boils down to. Gender recognition reform in Scotland may make it that much more difficult to discriminate against a transgender individual. As we have seen, Westminster tacitly assumes throughout its policy paper that this ability to perpetuate transphobia at the state level deserves protection. Moreover, it deserves protection at the cost of freeing trans lives of the traumatic bureaucracy they face.

    The UK government discriminates against trans people more openly by the day. Only last week, Dominic Raab announced that trans women would be sent to men’s prisons by default. The veto of Scotland’s GRR Bill is merely an extension of Westminster’s policy of outright discrimination against trans people. And it will not stop here.

    Featured image by Flickr/Jorge Franganillo – via CC 2.0, resized to 770×403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK schools fight misogyny peddled by online influencer Andrew Tate

    Andrew Tate, a 36-year-old former kick boxer, is being investigated along with his brother on accusations of “forming an organised criminal group, human trafficking and rape”. Both men deny the charges. When this news broke, many adults learned for the first time of this British man’s existence. However, for many teenagers he was a familiar name.

    When Nick Hewlett, head of London school St. Dunstan’s College, was told about controversial online influencer Andrew Tate by a parent, he’d never heard of him. However, it soon emerged that many of his students were familiar with Tate’s misogynist posts on social media. Hewlett’s solution, and that of some other schools, is to talk openly to students about Tate’s rhetoric.

    Tate’s name was one of the most-searched-for terms on Google in 2022. He is known for his ‘motivational’ videos, in which he lays out his vision of masculinity and success. For him, success is synonymous with wealth, domination, and possessing women and luxury cars. In one of his most disturbing messages, he talks about women being “the property” of men.

    In a tweet, he wrote:

    A man without struggle is never going to be a powerful man… If you’re going to be a hero, you’re going to suffer.

    He also said:

    Masculine life is war.

    ‘Talks about women like objects’

    Just mentioning Tate’s name is enough to set off a heated debate among teenagers. 17-year-old Kieran told Agence France-Presse (AFP):

    At one point, I thought his message was good. He was encouraging men to go the gym. He talked about masculinity while a lot of men are lost. They are asked to behave in a certain way.

    After Tate’s arrest Kieran reconsidered:

    After his arrest, I talked with my mother and my sister and I realised how serious it was.

    Tate has been banned from a number of social media sites but that has not been enough to stop him reaching minors. Kieran said he has tried to block Tate from his social media but keeps seeing the content popping up anyway. Kieran’s friend Jon said he likes some of Tate’s messages, but has noticed that he “talks about women like objects”.

    “I’ve never liked him,” said Lilly, the only girl in the group.

    Toxic masculinity

    To deal with the problem, St. Dunstan’s has added Tate’s story to a lesson topic already being taught.

    From the age of 11, students learn about gender stereotypes and equality. At the age of around 13, they cover toxic masculinity. Hewlett said:

    We have 1,200 children here. So, inevitably, some are going to be falling under his influence – or his spell.

    If schools don’t respond to that, who is going to challenge their views? (…) You’ll create a generation of young people who have a completely distorted view of what success looks like.

    Natasha Eeles heads Bold Voices, a social enterprise she founded in 2018 that visits schools and universities to teach students about gender inequality. She said she first heard of Tate in May 2022. Currently, 70% of schools that contact her want her to talk about him. Last autumn, Bold Voices put together a toolkit to help parents start a conversation with children about Tate. The advice includes asking open questions such as “What do you think of him?” and explaining what misogyny and homophobia mean.

    Michael Conroy, founder of Men at Work – a social enterprise that helps teachers and social workers talk to young men – said:

    There’s a panic and fear among lots of parents, carers, teachers about Andrew Tate.

    Teachers say young men are frequently bringing him into the classroom by quoting him, whatever the context.

    For example, in a business studies class some will give him as an example, saying: “he’s the greatest businessman in the world”.

    While Tate is being held in detention pending investigation, his videos are still going viral, and he and his close allies are still tweeting. Asked whether a jail term would reduce Tate’s influence, Conroy was skeptical:

    If he stays in jail, let’s not be naive. Others will fill the space.

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Sky News

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By The Canary

  • Firms like British Gas have been breaking into people’s homes since the 1950s

    The media and politicians are shocked to find out British Gas has been breaking into customers’ homes to install prepayment meters. Of course, if they’d bothered to listen to poor people they would have realised that energy firms have been doing this since 1954.

    British Gas: corporate breaking and entering

    As Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported, energy supplier British Gas has announced that it would no longer “force-fit” prepayment meters in the homes of customers who are behind on their bills. Energy companies in the UK can obtain court warrants that allow them to enter people’s homes and fit the pay-as-you-go meters. Customers are then at risk of companies cutting their gas supply off if they fail to top them up.

    However, an undercover investigation by the Times newspaper looked into this. It found that contractors working for British Gas sent debt collectors to “break into” homes and “force-fit” meters. Some of the customers the report identified had “extreme vulnerabilities”. Journalist Paul Morgan-Bentley went undercover with British Gas and exposed its practice. He noted that the company was breaking into the homes of disabled people:

    British Gas’s parent company Centrica was clearly rattled by the story. It said on 2 February it was suspending “all warrant activity” as a result. Centrica will also launch an investigation. Politicians, meanwhile, were outraged:

    However, energy firms breaking into people’s homes to fit prepayment meters is hardly news if you’re poor. This is because the government has let energy firms do it since 1954.

    Nothing new – if you’re poor

    As the website Dealing with Bailiffs wrote, energy firms like British Gas can force entry into people’s homes to either fit prepayment meters or cut them off. They can do this under:

    Section 2 of the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954.

    The energy firm has to have a “Warrant of Entry” notice from a magistrate. Dealing with Bailiffs noted that this:

    allows a utility company warrant officer access to gas and electricity services in a property on application to a magistrate to lawfully break entry.

    It is normally used when contact with the occupants has been unsuccessful and a utility service remains unpaid. A warrant of entry is used to either disconnect services or fit a pre-payment meter to the supply.

    iNews reported on this in December 2022. It found that magistrates had granted nearly 500,000 Warrants of Entry since July 2021. iNews noted then that magistrates often signed off on the warrants without even asking if the customers were vulnerable. One magistrate reportedly did a batch-signing of “496 utility warrants in just three minutes and 51 seconds”.

    Woe are the middle classes

    Of course, if the Times and iNews had asked poor people in the first place then they wouldn’t have needed to investigate. However, why would they? Previously, fuel poverty, which would often lead to energy firms installing prepayment meters, was mostly confined to the poorest people. As the Resolution Foundation previously predicted, the cost of living crisis would change all this – and more middle-class people would be hit by fuel poverty:

    A graph from the Resolution Foundation showing the extent of fuel poverty for rich and poor

    So now British Gas are raiding slightly richer people’s houses, and suddenly the corporate media are interested – and politicians like Rishi Sunak call it “deeply shocking and concerning”. What’s really concerning is that no-one was interested in how energy firms were treating poor people – until now.

    Featured image via Annasmith1986 – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY-SA 3.0

    By Steve Topple

  • Why UK government might be overreaching with its veto on Scottish gender bill: Part 2

    On 17 January, the UK government released the list of its stated reasons for using veto powers against the Scottish parliament. The unprecedented move blocked the new Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill. Had the bill passed, it would have removed the need for gender dysphoria diagnosis to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

    Part one of the Canary’s analysis examined the nature of Section 35 as a veto power and the conditions needed to trigger it. It also looked at the foundations of the argument set out by the UK government, as well as potential counterarguments Holyrood could make.

    In part one, we touched on the potential problems created by Westminster’s refusal to recognise GRCs issued according to the proposed GRR Bill. Here, we’ll continue in the same manner.

    IT infrastructure

    Somewhat unexpectedly, IT infrastructure requirements featured prominently in the UK government’s argument. Again, it worked on the assumption that the rest of the UK wouldn’t recognise Scottish GRCs – which is itself a choice on Westminster’s part.

    The policy document pointed out that taxes, benefits, and state pensions are managed by IT systems that encompass reserved and devolved functions. It then stated that:

    Existing IT infrastructure only allows one legal sex on any record and cannot change the marker for 16 to 17 year olds. Those responsible for these systems consider that it may be unmanageable, even with considerable time and expense… to build system capability to manage a dual identity for the same individual if someone’s legal sex could be different in Scots law and the law for England and Wales.

    Of course, this is not the first that the government has used its creaking IT systems as an excuse. Even Westminster’s own footnote to this statement indicates that it has not adequately considered this potential issue either way:

    If the Bill were enacted, HMRC would need to explore whether consequential changes to IT infrastructure were possible. Changes to HMRC IT can have consequential impacts on other departments due to integrated systems.

    The wording here suggests that one of the reasons for triggering the veto is that it might cause problems for IT infrastructure, but that this is as yet uncertain. However, Section 35 is the so-called “nuclear option” of devolution law. So its use for the prevention of a potential IT problem seems disproportionate at the very best.  

    Fraudulent applications

    The policy paper also goes into detail about the risk of people making fraudulent applications for a GRC in Scotland. This essentially means someone changing their legal sex without sincerity. For example, they are legally a man whilst believing themselves to be a woman, or vice versa. In particular, the paper speculates on adverse impacts for “sex-segregated spaces, services, competitive sports and occupational requirements”. It states that:

    The Secretary of State does not believe that the Bill retains or creates sufficient safeguards to mitigate the risk of fraudulent and/or malign applications and believes that the reformed system will be open to abuse and malicious actors.

    It’s important to note that the GRR Bill states explicitly that there are repercussions for false submissions. These “insufficient safeguards”, according to Westminster, include “up to 2 years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine”.

    Likewise, the GRR Bill also makes specific provision for a GRC to be revoked. For example, interested parties (such as the spouse, partner or child of an individual who has applied for a GRC) can still ask that the certificate be withdrawn. The example grounds are that:

    the wrong type of GRC was issued, the application for it was fraudulent, the applicant was incapable of understanding the effect of it, or the applicant was incapable of validly making the application.

    As such, the GRR Bill is not without mechanisms or repercussions for fraudulent application. Instead, it simply removes the often-arduous and opaque panel system currently in place in the UK. Charlie Falconer – a Labour peer of the House of Lords – has also pointed out that authorities are still at liberty to monitor applications. He went on to say that “the risk of fraud does not possibly justify” the use of Section 35.

    Self-exclusion

    The conclusion to this section of the paper brings up the risk of some people choosing to ‘self-exclude’ from sex-segregated spaces. This is essentially an individual’s choice to evade single-sex spaces altogether. It reasons that:

    Given the significantly increased possibility of someone with malicious intent being able to obtain a GRC and, as this risk will be widely known, there is a related risk of people no longer feeling safe in any sex-segregated setting and self-excluding from such settings even though they could significantly benefit from them.

    This is despite the fact that repercussions for fraudulent applications remain in place. The policy paper’s anxiety rests on the hypothetical that a woman might choose not to use a single-sex space. This would be on the basis that a man might have used a fraudulent GRC to gain access.

    However, the paper is also forced to acknowledge that it is already fully legal to exclude trans women with a GRC. The fraudulent possession would make no difference – both the trans woman and the fraudulent GRC holder would be excluded anyway.

    As such, the policy paper is placing emphasis on the fact that an individual might not understand the law as it already exists, and so voluntarily exclude herself. It offers no argument as to why the law could not simply be made clearer, rather than using Section 35 powers to prevent it.

    To be continued

    So, we’ve now examined Westminster’s argument from the difficulty for IT systems. We’ve also looked at the potential for fraudulent applications, and the safeguards that remain in place, along with the potential for self-exclusion. Next, part three of this analysis will deal with the remainder of the policy document. This focuses on the fact that lowering the age requirement for a GRC to 16 raises the question of trans pupils in single-sex schools.

    Meanwhile, one thing remains clear – there is a fast growing list of openly trans-hostile actions taken by the UK government.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Matthew Ross, licensed under Public Domain use, resized to 770*403.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Shell Oil makes highest profit in 115 years while pensioners freeze in their homes

    Shell’s net profit surged to a record $42.3b in 2022, the British energy firm revealed on 2 January. The post-tax figure was more than double that of 2021, according to the group’s earnings statement.

    The oil giant’s revenue rocketed 45% to a dizzying $381b in 2022. The BBC reported that this was “double last year’s total and the highest in its 115-year history”.

    Colossal profits for energy companies have provoked public fury amid a cost-of-living crisis fuelled by sky-high energy bills.

    Outrage

    Critics and anti-capitalists expressed outrage at the level of profit going to CEOs and shareholders while normal people struggled.

    The Enough is Enough campaign said the title of “greedy” belonged to executives rather than ordinary workers, many of whom have been striking for fair pay just this week :

    Journalist and satirist David Osland spoke up for elderly people facing fuel poverty under the current economic system:

    And comedian Jolyon Rubenstein pointed out that the Tories had failed to impose a windfall tax on Shell’s past mega-profits. However, he didn’t mention that Shell also received a tax rebate in 2022:

    Start paying!

    Meanwhile, Greenpeace staged a protest this morning outside Shell’s UK HQ. Protesters demanded that the global corporation stop drilling and start paying their taxes:

    Activist group Just Stop Oil said the government had ignored the evidence of the dangers of fossil fuel to allow Shell’s outrageous profits:

    Meanwhile, anthropologist and activist Philip Proudfoot also referred to the wave of strikes currently taking place in the UK. He suggested that – just maybe – there was a connection between out-of-control capitalism and militant workers:

    Class war

    The Tories have made it very clear which side they’re on. Fossil fuel firms are ruining the planet while raking in obscene amounts of money for a handful of bosses and shareholders, while Sunak’s government just looks on.

    And while that is the case, Tories and their supporters have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say about teachers, rail workers, postal workers, university staff, and healthcare staff going out on strike. While their CEO pals are lining their pockets, the rest of us are fighting for our lives.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Steven Lek, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC By-SA

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Joe Glenton

  • Consequences of Brexit Are Surfacing as UK Faces Severe Labor Shortages

    In November, the Office for National Statistics reported that more than 13 percent of businesses in the U.K. were experiencing labor shortages. That number has been something of a constant since the fall of 2021, when much of the economy began reopening after the extended pandemic lockdowns. In some industries, however, the numbers were far, far worse: more than one-third of restaurants and hotels…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Prevent campaigners threaten to sue Home Office for libel

    The Prevent review, already beset with boycotts, could be in for more troubles. Prevent Watch, a community group that supports victims of the programme, is now warning the Home Office of a defamation action. The group sent a formal letter to the Home Office expressing its concern at having been named in the review.

    Prevent is a policy from the Home Office that forms part of their counter-terrorism strategy:

    The aim of the Prevent strategy is to reduce the threat to the UK from terrorism by stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

    Human rights organisation Liberty explained how the ‘Prevent duty’ fails to tackle so-called ‘extremism’:

    The definition of extremism under Prevent is so wide that thousands of people are being swept up by it – including children engaging in innocuous conduct, people protesting climate change, and a nurse who began wearing a hijab.

    In fact, more than nine out of ten Prevent referrals in 2017/18 didn’t require any de-radicalisation action.

    The upcoming review of the strategy is a commitment from the government. However, as the Canary has previously reported this review is being led by William Shawcross. As we’ve noted before, when he was the director of the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society, Shawcross said:

    Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future. I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly growing Islamic populations.

    Why do Prevent Watch think they’re mentioned?

    It’s been repeatedly documented that Muslims have been targeted and surveilled by this racist strategy. So, Prevent Watch has very good reason to think it might be mentioned in this government review. Back in the summer of 2022, the Guardian got its hands on a leak of the review. One of the things that came up was:

    In Shawcross’s draft review of the Prevent programme, he argues that its purpose must be refocused and says its first objective, to tackle the causes of radicalisation and respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism, “is not being sufficiently met”.

    It argues that the programme must re-engage with individuals who are not yet posing a terror threat but who can “create an environment conducive to terrorism”.

    In plain language, Shawcross continues to shift government and policing strategy towards “pre-crime.” That’s when groups considered ‘likely’ to commit a crime are targeted before any such crime has even happened. Also amongst the leaks was Shawcross’s view that:

    Prevent is too focused on rightwing extremism and instead should focus more on Islamic extremism.

    Now, the Guardian reported that director of Prevent Watch Dr. Layla Aitlhadj:

    believes it is likely their organisation has been named in Shawcross’s review as one of those critical of the Prevent programme who are responsible for spreading Islamic extremism, a claim which, if it is made in Shawcross’s review, she says is seriously defamatory.

    Dangers ahead

    The danger, as Aitlhadj alluded to, is that by purely being critical of the Prevent strategy, individuals or organisations can be seen to be spreading “extremism”. Given that Prevent Watch exists to support people who’ve been harmed by the strategy, it would be difficult for it to do its vital work without being critical of Prevent. Aitlhadj insists that the group won’t let its work be halted:

    Our important civil society work, based on hundreds of cases of people adversely and unfairly targeted by Prevent, will not be silenced in this way.

    The report was initially due to be published in 2021, but has yet to materialise. Aitlhadj made it clear what the Home Office needs to do next:

    They should not only remove any defamatory statements in the Shawcross report, but they must ensure the contents are within the stated purpose of the independent review, and publish their report without further delay, to avoid liability and allow for public scrutiny.

    Prevent Watch’s letter to the Home Office is a test for this government. Will it be open and honest about what’s in the review? Will it avoid attempts to punish critics of the Prevent strategy? However, it’s not going to do any of those things because it’s simply the latest in a line of decades-long policies that have targeted Muslims in Britain. Muslims are still demonised and seen as potential extremists, no matter what. Prevent Watch’s brave stance against the Home Office deserves to be applauded and amplified.

    Featured image by Wikimedia Commons/Lorie Shaull via CC 2.0, resized to 770×403

    By Maryam Jameela

  • DWP in denial over benefit deaths – despite overwhelming evidence of systemic failures

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is still failing to deal with flaws in its systems that are leading to claimant deaths. That’s the verdict of the department’s own civil servants – based on previously secret reports that an independent media outlet forced the DWP to release. This won’t be news to many claimants. However, it does show that both DWP benefits and how the department deals with claimants are flawed – fatally, at times.

    DWP: secret benefits deaths reviews

    When a claimant dies by suicide, or a vulnerable claimant complains, the DWP is supposed to perform an Internal Process Review (IPR). It started doing these in 2012, but does not publish the reviews. However, thanks to John Pring at independent media outlet Disability News Service (DNS), the DWP has had to publish some of them – albeit only after Pring forced them to. As he wrote, some of the reports showed that:

    a series of suicides between 2014 and 2019 were linked to the failure of DWP staff to follow basic rules that had been introduced in 2009.

    Sadly, this negligence from the DWP and its staff is not new. As the Canary previously wrote, Jodey Whiting took her own life after the DWP stopped her benefits. Her mother Joy Dove is currently back in court, fighting for a new inquest into her daughter’s death. However, at a previous court case the DWP denied that the problems which led to claimant deaths were systemic. At the time, figures showed this was clearly untrue. Now, the reviews the DWP has released to Pring show even more clearly that the department does have systemic – and in some cases life-threatening – issues.

    Failure after failure

    As DNS reported, the DWP has given Pring a list of recommendations from IPRs that the department completed between 1 September 2020 and 14 November 2022. The DWP performed these reviews after the deaths of 46 claimants. These recommendations showed numerous failures in how the DWP and its staff deal with claimants. Pring highlighted the following:

    • Two recommendations that DWP failures to correct “factual inaccuracies” were linked to claimants’ deaths.
    • A suggestion that there were “still flaws in the system for visiting claimants in their own homes” – problems which have led to claimant deaths, like that of Errol Graham in 2018.
    • Problems with “the correct gathering of information prior to claim closure” linked to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
    • Around 20 cases involving Universal Credit – many involving staff not dealing with claimant messages in their journals properly.

    However, as Pring noted, one case in particular stood out.

    No compassion

    DNS wrote that:

    One of the most concerning recommendations – made in an IPR examined in January 2022 – is a call for DWP’s PIP department to assure the team overseeing IPRs that “they will explore opportunities for improving compassionate call handling techniques for telephony agents”.

    This is crucial – because we already know that a lack of compassion from DWP staff was noted during the inquest in the death of claimant Phillipa Day. DNS wrote that:

    a DWP “telephony agent” had listened to Philippa sobbing as she described how she was “literally starving and cold”, “genuinely can’t survive like this for much longer”, was “in so much debt”, “literally cannot leave the house”, and needed “a reason to live”.

    But the agent offered no reassurance or acknowledgement of Philippa’s distress, and made no attempt – during the call in the summer of 2019 – to “escalate” any concerns to senior colleagues.

    Phillipa’s case and the information contained in the IPRs clearly point to systemic problems. Yet the DWP is still denying there’s an issue.

    DWP: doing what it’s supposed to

    As the department told DNS after refusing to answer Pring’s questions around systemic problems and the IPRs:

    We support millions of people every year and our priority is they get the benefits they are entitled to as soon as possible and they receive a supportive and compassionate service.

    In the minority of instances where this does not happen, we have established procedures to investigate and learn lessons through, for instance, the serious case panel and internal process reviews.

    The problem is that the DWP is not learning lessons because it is simply not supposed to.

    Benefits in the UK are not administered as compassionate ‘social security’ – something the state provides for people who, for whatever reason, are unable to work. Successive governments have made benefits highly stigmatised – something only ‘scroungers’ get, and at a rate of pay sometimes barely enough to keep people alive. They have intentionally decimated the welfare state, in a bid to save as much money as possible while forcing as many people into work as they can. The end result has been at least 35,000 people dying on the DWP’s watch – people like Jodey. There is nothing compassionate about that – so why would the department and its staff behave any differently? Governments and capitalism want the DWP to be repressive, punitive and malicious – even if this ends up in claimant’s dying. Compassion doesn’t enter into it.

    Featured image via the Guardian – YouTube and UK Government/Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK economy the only one in G7 expected to shrink

    The UK is expected to be the only major economy to shrink in 2023. That’s according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which released data in its latest health check. The IMF said that the UK economy will contract by 0.6% and, as the BBC explained:

    The UK is expected be the only country to shrink next year across all the advanced and emerging economies. Even sanctions-hit Russia is now forecast to grow this year.

    If a country’s economy shrinks, typically this means companies make less money and the number of people unemployed rises.

    The Guardian also drew a distinction between the UK’s outlook and other G7 countries:

    The IMF said that while the prospects for every other member of the G7 group of leading developed nations had improved or remained unchanged since October, rising interest rates and higher taxes had made the outlook for the UK gloomier.

    Reaction to IMF projections

    Commentators reacted to the stark outlook from the IMF. Sky News‘s Ed Conway called the data “grisly”:

    Byline Times political editor Adam Bienkov reminded us of the spectre of Brexit:

    AJ+ noted that it’s been three years since Brexit, and things still look bleak:

    Weasel words

    Typically, the response from the Tories was defensive bluster. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt insisted that the IMF’s forecast didn’t necessarily mean the UK economy would continue to under-perform:

    Short-term challenges should not obscure our long-term prospects – the UK outperformed many forecasts last year, and if we stick to our plan to halve inflation, the UK is still predicted to grow faster than Germany and Japan over the coming years.

    Even the Guardian live-blog’s response to Hunt’s reaction was scathing:

    The IMF’s message, though, is that the UK is an exception to the brightening global prospects this year.

    Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said:

    The UK is the only major economy forecast to shrink this year.

    Weaker growth compared to our competitors for both of the next two years.

    The World upgraded. The UK downgraded.

    Orchestrated recession

    Meanwhile, economic justice campaigner Richard Murphy had much to say on the subject. He argued that the looming recession was a choice from the UK government:

    Murphy argued that there a number of reasons why the UK is facing recession this year, including that energy price hikes favour companies instead of people:

    The policy of believing monopolies should be allowed to price as if they are competitive enterprises (albeit, ones not ultimately allowed to fail) is the recession we have got. The government engineered this failure.

    Murphy also set out how the government’s approach to striking workers is left wanting:

    the government is imposing pay austerity to break public sector workers and destroy public services.

    The Tories have resisted strike action wherever they can. It should be a scandal that the UK is the only country in the G7 whose economy is projected to shrink. However, it’s business as usual for a government that chooses big business over people every time.

    Featured image by Unsplash/John McArthur

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Corbyn defends teachers’ strike – workers have “had enough”

    As teachers strike around England and Wales, Jeremy Corbyn has nailed just why they’re taking action – and why we should support them. The former Labour Party leader didn’t mess around, either. He delivered a robust defence of trade unions‘ actions, saying that workers have “had enough” – while throwing shade at the current Labour front bench, too.

    Teachers’ strike: education is “falling down”

    National Education Union (NEU) members walked out of schools on Wednesday 1 February. As the union wrote on its website, the industrial action is over pay, working conditions, and students‘ education:

    We do not want to go on strike – we want to be in the classroom, teaching and supporting our amazing children and young people.

    But with one in four teachers leaving the profession within two years of qualifying the education system is falling down around our pupils.

    The NEU also noted that:

    teachers have been offered a pay increase of just 5 per cent – with inflation soaring, this adds up to a 7 per cent pay cut.

    On top of this, schools aren’t being given enough additional money to fund the 5 per cent on offer – meaning the Government expects your child’s school to pay for it out of its already overstretched budget.

    The Government missed its target for recruitment of new secondary school teachers by a simply staggering 41 per cent this year and by 11 per cent for primary school teachers…

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) agrees. It stated that the government has cut the real-terms pay of experienced and senior teachers by around £6,600 – or 13% – since 2010. On top of this, the NEU also said that:

    Nearly one third of the teachers who qualified in the last decade have quit.

    13 per cent of teachers who qualified in 2019 have already gone.

    It’s hard to argue with the NEU that the Conservative Party has put our education system in a dire state. Of course, some right-wingers will, though – including the Labour front bench. Shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson was on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg on 29 January. As the National reported, the host repeatedly pushed her on whether she supported the teachers’ strike. Phillipson didn’t really answer. Instead, she spouted some centrist dross in response to Kuenssberg’s questions:

    I want to be the next Education Secretary and I’d be a party to that discussion sat around the table trying to get a settlement, it’s not for me to insert myself into it in that way.

    So, while Labour cannot allow frontbenchers to go to a picket line, leave it to Corbyn to step-up on teachers’ behalf.

    Corbyn: doing the business

    The now-independent MP appeared on BBC Politics Live on Tuesday 31 January. When probed by host Jo Coburn over the teachers’ strike, Corbyn said:

    The teachers have a very strong case. They are grossly overworked, and they have lost a lot in pay, and many young teachers are leaving the profession. I think we [MPs] should be there with them.

    He also took an indirect swipe at Phillipson not joining a picket line or overtly supporting the teachers strike, saying:

    you know what, when you go into a picket line or demonstration of teachers, or ambulance workers, or any other group, you actually learn a lot. You learn a lot about their lives and their working conditions, and the stress that they go through. So, I don’t see it as impossible to go on a picket line and then become a minister who’s going to negotiate for better conditions in the future.

    Ouch. It seems like Corbyn currently has no desire to curry favour with the Labour leadership – and rightly so. Keir Starmer and his frontbench have shown their true colours once again. Their lack of support for the teachers’ strike, as well as the other industrial action happening, is a damning indictment of the party now – and Corbyn is well out of it.

    Featured image via the NEU and BBC iPlayer – screengrab 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Blockaders delay work at a megaprison construction site

    Comrades of Elliot Cuciurean – also known as Jellytot – blockaded one of the government’s new megaprisons on Tuesday 31 January. Jellytot has been in prison since last year for breaching an injunction against protest at the High Speed 2 (HS2) train line.

    In the early hours of Tuesday 31 January, protesters erected tripods to block the entrances of the megaprison construction site at Full Sutton in East Yorkshire. The government has awarded private company Kier £400m for the construction.

    The protesters said they were:

    shutting down construction as an act of solidarity with the increasing numbers of protestors being sent to prison

    They explained that the action was in solidarity with their friend, and against the government’s prison expansion programme:

    Today, our friend Jellytot serves his 131st day in prison.

    He is 1 amongst 82,000 people in prison in England and Wales right now. Within the next few years, the government plans to create 20,000 new prison places as they ‘crack down on crime’.

    He is one of many campaigners who have been imprisoned for resisting HS2. Last year Dave Buchan was sentenced to 100 days in prison for breaching an injunction at an HS2 site. He was released after an appeal in September. Another protester was sentenced to 15 weeks this week, although he had already served the time on remand.

    A new prison at Full Sutton will only lead to more violence

    The new prison will sit opposite the existing HMP Full Sutton. The Canary has reported several allegations of racism and violence by prison officers at Full Sutton.

    It is part of a government scheme to build six new megaprisons – as well as expanding existing ones – to create 20,000 new prison places.

    If completed, Full Sutton will be the third new prison to be built as part of the New Prisons Programme.

     

    full sutton protest

    ‘No-one should be incarcerated’

    The campaigners released a statement which gave a strident abolitionist message:

    We are not making the case that our friend is less or more deserving of prison than anyone else – we believe that no-one should be incarcerated.
    Prisons are oppressive institutions which perpetuate a racist and colonial ideology. They have no place in the just futures we are trying to build

    ‘An authoritarian government tightening its grip’

    Jellytot’s friends pointed out that the government’s repressive policies mean that more people are likely to be imprisoned in future. They called them signs of “an authoritarian government tightening its grip”:
    The Government’s idea of ‘cracking down on crime’ is introducing a tidal-wave of authoritarian bills to make it illegal to protest, to strike, and to be an asylum seeker – ensuring that these prison places will be filled in no time.
    Bradley, one of the campaigners – who said he has experienced firsthand the effects of recent policing policy – argued:
    The government is introducing more and more draconian legislation. The PCSC Act, the Public Order Bill, the Anti-Strikes Bill, the Elections Act, the Judicial Review and Courts Act are all signs of a government sliding into authoritarianism, and attempting to silence ordinary people.

    ‘The carceral system perpetuates harm’

    The campaigners’ statement was clear that we need to build alternatives to the prison system:

    As abolitionists, we understand that harm in society needs to be dealt with. However, we strongly feel the carceral system perpetuates harm for both perpetrators and victims and doesn’t deal with societal problems. Prisons ‘disappear’ people, and discriminate amongst the most marginalised people in our society.
    They concluded with a call for an end to all aspects of the carceral system:
    No-one should be in prison. And no one should profit from the conditions which make prisons profitable. We are calling for an end to incarceration in all its forms – whether that be prisons, psychiatric wards, detention centres or factory farms. ABOLITION, NOW.
    If the government is successful in creating 20,000 new prison places, it will greatly increase the state’s capacity to lock up those who resist, and to use prison as a weapon against the most marginalised in society. We need to stop these plans in their tracks.
    Featured images via the campaigners, with permission

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Climate activists take action as Bristol airport expansion gets the go-ahead

    A High Court judge has ruled that the expansion of Bristol airport can go ahead, despite mass opposition to the plans. The expansion will see the airport handling up to 12 million passengers, an increase from the 10 million it is currently capped to handle.

    Planning permission to expand the airport had already been refused by North Somerset Council in 2020, but Bristol airport appealed the decision, requesting an inquiry. In early 2022, the inquiry upheld the airport’s appeal, so campaigners from Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN) launched a bid to take the Inspectorate to court.

    The High Court ruling means that there will be an extra 23,800 flights, including 4,000 night flights, per year at Bristol airport.

    Protests

    Responding to the news, activists poured fake blood over themselves outside the court:

    Others listened to speeches outside the court. Green councillor Emma Edwards tweeted:

    Meanwhile, people expressed their outrage at the news on social media:

    Jobs, jobs, jobs

    Dave Lees, CEO of Bristol airport, released a statement saying:

    The decision is excellent news for our region’s economy, allowing us to create up to 5,000 new jobs, deliver more international destinations for the South West and South Wales, and invest hundreds of millions of pounds improving the customer experience. We will do this while working towards our ambitious target of net zero carbon operations by 2030. We look forward to working with stakeholders and the community to deliver our vision to be everyone’s favourite airport.

    It’s perhaps unsurprising that Lees plugged the fact that the airport expansion will create thousands of jobs. This argument is used to justify the growth of every industry, even the killer arms trade. But what use are jobs on a dying planet? According to Greenpeace, 15% of the UK’s climate impact already comes from aviation. Meanwhile, the government predicts that passenger numbers will rise to 313 million in 2030. The increase in the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases doesn’t bear thinking about.

    The fight isn’t over

    Campaigners have vowed to fight on. BAAN tweeted:

    The group is asking for people to join them in Bristol city centre to protest the decision. BAAN said:

    Join us on College Green on Sat 4th Feb at 12 noon to show your continued opposition to @BristolAirport’s expansion & the inadequate planning policy that allows the aviation industry to exacerbate the climate emergency with plans for unbridled growth.

    Featured image via The Bristol Activist /Twitter screenshot

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UCL security staff are fundraising for their strike fund

    Outsourced security staff at University College London (UCL) have voted to join fellow workers on a day of action on 1 February, alongside the University and College Union (UCU), teachers, rail staff, and civil servants. The day of action has been dubbed a “megastrike“, with more than half a million workers set to take part.

    The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) tweeted:

    UCL’s outsourced security staff are low-paid workers, and need funds to sustain their strike. They said in their fundraising call:

    We are low-wage workers and it can be hard for us to be able to take multiple days of strike without any pay from their employer. Our union – the IWGB – is a small (but fierce) union and it does not have large strike funds to support this sort of action. That is why we are asking the public for support.

    IWGB is a grassroots radical union, established by poorly paid migrant workers in 2012.

    Stop outsourcing now

    UCL runs a massive £90m yearly surplus, but last year it brought in a subcontracted workforce employed by Bidvest-Noonan. The new workers were paid a lower wage than their directly-employed colleagues.

    Now the workers are demanding that their outsourced jobs are brought in-house by UCL. They also want a pay rise to £15 an hour and for the bosses to recognise their union.

    According to Henry Chango Lopez of IWGB:

    UCL’s use of outsourcing is outdated and exploitative. Workers face systemic discrimination in the form of poor pay and treatment from their subcontractors, and are ignored and belittled when they demand change. UCL has a £90 million yearly surplus which could be used to improve conditions for these workers, yet they chose to leave them struggling in poverty.

    Matteo Tiratelli, who is the UCU anti-casualisation officer at UCL, argued:

    Outsourcing creates terrible working conditions for workers on the lowest grades at UCL, yet UCL management is determined to keep up this discriminatory practice. It is one of several ways in which working conditions are being worsened across the board. All staff at UCL are seeing our pay fall behind inflation, our jobs casualised and rights stripped away, and it is sadly not just staff, but students who are paying the price.

    Poverty pay

    Yusuf Nur, who is one of the strikers, explained that he doesn’t get paid enough to support his kids:

    I have young children and on the poverty pay I receive as an outsourced worker I am struggling to support them. I’ve been left with no choice but to strike – it’s the only way we can make our voices heard. After bullying, mistreatment and consistent basic errors with paying us our wages and pensions from Bidvest Noonan and neglect from UCL, we must fight for better conditions for each other and our families.

    We need to show up for each other

    In the words of Yusuf:

    Striking is a vital tool, and we’re going to use it no matter what.

    The outsourced UCL staff are calling for support to help them succeed in their struggle. They say:

    Any money you can give to support this strike fund will make a huge difference to our ability to win.

    If this latest wave of strikes is going to be successful we need to show up for each other. Its important that those who can afford it donate to the striking security staff. You can support their crowdfunder here.

    Featured image via IWGB (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia are back on trial

    On Tuesday 31 January, London’s High Court will examine the legality of a UK government decision to renew selling arms to Saudi Arabia that could be used in the war in Yemen.

    Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has brought the legal action. It’s accusing the government of contributing to breaches of international law and the world’s largest humanitarian disaster, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. While many have been killed by the conflict itself, hundreds of thousands of others have died from disease and hunger caused by Yemen’s humanitarian crisis. Millions are living in extreme poverty, and a United Nations 2021 report stated that 1.3 million people would die by 2030.

    The judicial review is expected to last until the end of the week. CAAT brought the legal challenge after Britain announced in summer 2020 that it was resuming arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

    Profit over lives

    Ahead of the hearing, CAAT’s media coordinator Emily Apple accused London of being a

    government that cares more about profit than war crimes and the deaths of civilians.

    CAAT initially won its case against the government in 2019, when the Court of Appeal ruled that the UK’s licensing of arms sales was unlawful. The court said the government had failed to assess properly whether the arms sales violated its human rights commitments and ordered it to “reconsider the matter”.

    While serving as international trade minister, Liz Truss then conducted a review and announced in 2020 that export licences would restart. She insisted Riyadh “has a genuine intent” to comply with international humanitarian law, despite “isolated incidents”.

    CAAT accused Truss of “paying lip service” to the need to review sales. It condemned Truss’s reference to “isolated incidents”, saying it was:

    total nonsense and deeply offensive to all the Yemeni people who’ve had their lives destroyed by UK weapons.

    Licensing billions of pounds worth of weapons

    The UK is one of the world’s leading arms suppliers to Saudi Arabia. CAAT argued:

    The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of fighter jets, bombs and missiles to the Saudi-led coalition for use in Yemen. At least 8,983 civilians have been killed in attacks by the coalition, which has targeted homes and farms, schools and hospitals, weddings and funerals.

    There is plentiful evidence that the Saudi-led coalition has broken humanitarian law. CAAT argues that UK rules ban arms sales:

    where there is a “clear risk” that a weapon “might” be used in a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law.

    CAAT estimates that the UK has supplied arms worth over £23 billion to Saudi Arabia since the war in Yemen began.

    Weapons manufacturing is a massive industry in the UK. Britain is the world’s second largest arms exporter in the world, behind the US. The sector had a turnover of £25.3 billion in 2020.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Fahd Sadi / Wikimedia Commons, resized to 770 x 403

    By Eliza Egret

  • Here’s an easy way to join Wednesday’s strikes as the Tories attack our rights

    Parliament passed the third reading of the Tories’ anti-strike bill on Monday 30 January, meaning that only the House of Lords can stop it now. But workers around the country are unfazed. A “megastrike” of half a million workers will take place on 1 February, which includes the National Education Union (NEU) strike. All the details are below, including an easy way of finding out where your nearest picket or protest is so you can support our trade unions.

    Tories: clamping down on strikes

    As LabourList reported, MPs passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill by 315 votes to 246, with no amendments – meaning the bill got through in its original form. As the Canary previously reported, the bill:

    will force trade unions in certain industries to make sure some people work during strikes – defeating the object of industrial action entirely… The law will force unions to give in to what the government and/or employers say minimum service levels should be – depending on the sector. Business secretary Grant Shapps will be deciding what a minimum service level looks like for emergency and transport services.

    The Trade Union Congress (TUC) has slammed the Tories. Its general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    Rishi Sunak’s government has launched a full-frontal assault on the right to strike. This draconian legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply. And crucially it will likely poison industrial relations and exacerbate disputes, rather than help resolve them.

    Ministers know this bill is undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal. That’s why they are ducking proper scrutiny and consultation – and it’s why this bill was steamrollered through the Commons so quickly.

    However, people aren’t taking the Tories’ attacks on strikes lying down, and 1 February will see the biggest fightback yet.

    The NEU and other walk-outs

    StrikeMap is a voluntary group that logs all strikes in the UK and on the island of Ireland. It has an interactive map of where industrial action is taking place. StrikeMap logs national strikes from the likes of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), the Communication Workers Union (CWU), the University and College Union (UCU), as well as localised actions. Now, the group is geared up for 1 February’s megastrike.

    It’s partly focusing on the NEU strike in schools across England and Wales. StrikeMap is encouraging people to go to an NEU picket or demonstration, as well as posting a video message or picture online, in support of the union. The union has an interactive map of its pickets and demonstrations here and a page to upload video content here.

    Of course, it’s not just the NEU strike happening on 1 February. The RMT, as well as ASLEF, are striking; the UCU is taking industrial action, and the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union is also getting its civil service members to walk out. Around half a million workers will be taking part in strikes.

    Support trade unions. They’re about all of us.

    Given that the anti-strike bill has passed its third reading, it’s all the more important that these workers have all our support. After all, the unions are fighting for services we all use.

    However, the UK government’s authoritarian approach to trade union rights isn’t just about workers. It’s about the Tories’ attitude to all of us who aren’t rich and powerful. The anti-strikes legislation sums up this classism. So, get out or get online on 1 February and support the strikes. You need the trade unions – and the trade unions need you.

    Featured image via StrikeMap

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • MPs to debate bee-killing pesticides as government greenlights their use yet again

    MPs will debate the use of bee-killing pesticides in agriculture on 1 February. The debate follows the government authorising the use of such pesticides for the third year in a row.

    Harmful pesticides

    As the Canary previously reported, the UK greenlit the use of thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid, on sugar beet crops in 2021. Neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinators. The government’s decision came after lobbying from the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) and British Sugar. It approved the pesticide’s use through an “emergency authorisation”.

    Bees, along with other pollinators, are among the insects that appear to be facing dramatic declines in Britain and various other parts of the world.

    Pollinators are vital to the ecosystems that all life depends on, with around 80% of wild plants and 75% of crops dependent on them. As the US Forest Service puts it:

    Without pollinators, the human race and all of earth’s terrestrial ecosystems would not survive.

    Nonetheless, the UK government again authorised the pesticide’s use on sugar beet in 2022. At the time, the Wildlife Trusts chief executive Craig Bennett said:

    We’re faced with the shocking prospect that bee-killing pesticides will become the new norm with bans lifted every year.

    The government authorisations related to the possible danger that beet yellows virus, which is spread by aphids, posed to sugar beet crops. Each year, the expected level of the virus had to meet a certain threshold in order for the planned use to go ahead.

    The new norm

    Bennett’s concern about the pesticide’s approval becoming the norm was warranted. On 23 January, news emerged that the government has given thiamethoxam the green light for the third time running.

    As BBC News reported, while the NFU welcomed the decision, the government’s own independent panel of pesticide experts warned against it. The expert panel provided advice to the government on the issue. It said it agreed with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) evaluation that an emergency authorisation lacks the necessary justification. Moreover, the panel said it agreed with the following point from HSE:

    Based on the information currently available, it is considered that the potential adverse effects to honey bees and other pollinators cannot be excluded to a satisfactory level if an authorisation were to be granted and this outweighs any likely benefits.

    The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs minister Mark Spencer, who has a farming background and maintains interests in the sector, considered this advice but ultimately appeared to conclude the opposite. He said that the emergency authorisation criteria is met and the benefits outweigh the risks.

    Environmental vandalism

    The UK’s underlying ban on neonicotinoids comes from its time as an EU member. There’s a bloc-wide ban on outdoor use of neonicotinoids. Until recently, this ban also had a mechanism for emergency authorisations. But the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a ruling on 19 January which means the EU will no longer allow such authorisations.

    The Pesticide Collaboration is asking the public to write to their MPs, asking them to attend the parliamentary debate on 1 February. The group is a coalition of academics, farmers and organisations working towards the reduction of pesticide-related harms.

    Labour’s Luke Pollard, who secured the debate, labelled the government’s decision to greenlight use yet again as “environmental vandalism”.

    The Wildlife Trusts also pointed out that the government itself pressed for action to reduce pesticide use at the UN biodiversity conference – COP15 – in December 2022.

    In other words, the government is talking the talk on pesticides but failing to follow it up with action.

    Featured image via Ian Kirk / Wikimedia, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New laws coming into effect today will target victims of modern slavery

    New measures to accelerate the deportation of ‘foreign criminals’, enacted by the Tories through the Nationality and Borders Act, begin on Monday 30 January. Included in Suella Braverman’s legislation are laws clamping down on some people who have claimed protection under UK law as victims of modern slavery – including victims of trafficking:

    ‘Criminalising victims’ of modern slavery

    The measures taking effect under Section 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act mean that Home Office caseworkers can now demand evidence of modern slavery, rather than taking a victim’s word. That could include evidence from a charity worker or police officer who has helped rescue the victim.

    Rights groups have criticised the changes for undermining protections for genuine victims. Anti-Slavery International described the legislation as “dangerous and regressive” but singled out sections related to modern slavery as of “particular concern”:

    Survivors of modern slavery could be denied access to the support that will enable them to access safety and recover and rebuild due to an unreasonable evidence burden.

    The Bill introduces cruel ‘trauma deadlines’ by putting a time limit on when survivors must disclose their experiences, after which they are assumed to be lying and their credibility is damaged.

    The Bill would therefore block access to support and criminalise victims and survivors who have criminal records, despite 49% of potential trafficking victims last year being forced to commit crimes.

    Anti-Slavery International criticised the act for conflating modern slavery with immigration issues, with enforcement priority given to the latter. As a result, the organisation said this will harm victims of modern slavery. Actors throughout the anti-modern slavery sector are “unified” in this belief, it said.

    Offending doesn’t displace the right to safety

    Home secretary Braverman said in a statement that it’s “totally unfair” that alleged abuses of the modern slavery system left “genuine victims… waiting longer to receive the protections they need”. As a result, Braverman said the legislation coming into force on 30 January will:

    mean if you’ve committed an offence, [the government has] the power to refuse your protections and kick you out of our country

    This includes offences committed outside of the UK. The government cited a fringe case of one convicted rapist who appealed against a decision by the Home Office to expel him from the UK by claiming he was a victim of criminal gangs engaged in human trafficking.

    The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner called this part of the bill out when it was progressing through parliament. Dame Sara Thornton wrote in February 2022 that:

    We know that many victims of trafficking will have committed criminal offences – some will have done so under duress and others will have been specifically targeted owing to their offending history. Historic, minor offending does not amount to circumstances where a disqualification from the duty to protect and support victims may be justified.

    Nonetheless, the bill passed through parliament without amendment.

    Low figures for false claims

    Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) reported in November that Albanian crime groups in particular were manipulating the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) which is being reformed under the new act. NCA’s report said crime groups coached Albanian migrants to claim they’re modern slavery victims and apply to the NRM if they get caught working in cannabis farms or other criminal enterprises.

    However, the number of false claims made through the NRM appears low. Unseen UK is a charity supporting trafficking and modern slavery victims. It said in October that figures for 2021 and 2022 showed:

    the vast majority of people claiming to be victims of modern slavery are found to be genuine – 91% in 2021 and currently 97% in 2022. And that is after the claimants have been investigated by the Home Office itself. 

    That means only 3% of claims [in 2022] were refused – and this doesn’t necessarily mean they were abusing the system.

    Moreover, as openDemocracy reported in October 2022, the government has refused to release figures on the number of ‘serious’ criminals “passing through the NRM”. With such low rates of false claims, and with mechanisms already in place to handle them, the new law is taking a sledgehammer to a drawing pin. It will inevitably – and cruelly – affect some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

    Featured image via Guardian News/YouTube

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.