Month: October 2023

Middle East war


UN Secretary General’s statement on the conflict

October 2023

The Secretary General of the UN, António Guterres, created an international diplomatic storm when he called for a ceasefire in the Middle East. If such a ceasefire was agreed it would prevent – at least technically – Israel’s stated intention to enter Gaza and eliminate Hamas as a terror organisation. But what has roused the Israelis to considerable anger is his comments about the factors leading up to the outrage on October 7th. The actions by Hamas were appalling and have been almost universally condemned. The key passage is below:

The attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum, he noted, with the Palestinian people being subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation, during which they saw their land devoured by settlements; their economy stifled; their homes demolished; and their hopes for a political solution vanishing.  However, the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas.  “And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people,” he said, emphasizing:  “Even war has rules.”  At this critical hour, he appealed to everyone to pull back from the brink before the violence claims even more lives and spreads even farther.

Guterres clearly links the history of the post 1948 settlements to the events of today. The central argument is whether the barbaric actions of Hamas terrorists can ever be justified by what has taken place over the past 56 years? Guterres says not but clearly recognises that the treatment the Palestinians received over these decades is clearly a factor. He also says that the actions taken against the citizens of Gaza, which are ‘collective punishment’, are not justified by the Hamas attack. A copy of the full UN statement is available here.

On a purely practical level, invading Gaza is likely to be neither effective nor good politics. It will be a bloody affair with heavy losses of life on both sides. It is unlikely, not to say impossible, to achieve since although it may be possible to kill Hamas people, it is impossible to kill an idea or ideology. Around the world, there was a high degree of sympathy and shock at the awful deaths of Israelis on 7th. The death toll mounts in Gaza, including hundreds of children, some of the hospitals are closing for want of fuel and water. Only tiny amounts of aid are entering the enclave. The sympathy which the Israelis received after the terrible killings, may begin to dissipate as time goes by.

Events like these always have causes. Violence seldom if ever springs out of nowhere. Years of apartheid and persecution will have had their effects. What is clear that two wrongs don’t make a right. Palestinians have suffered great wrongs as Guterres and others have said but that does not justify the actions of Hamas. The actions of Hamas in turn do not justify the Israelis taking punitive action against an entire people. This is particularly so as Israel is a modern, heavily armed state with overwhelming military superiority. As Human Rights Watch puts it ‘Condemn the Crimes, Comprehend the Context’

One thing which has become clear is that these events have shone a light on various western nations including the UK. Neither Rishi Sunak, the British prime minister, nor Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition party, are having ‘a good war’. The former has been too partisan offering unqualified support for Israel and saying very little about human rights. The desire to score political points has swamped the need for a statesmanlike and impartial approach. Sir Keir has been particularly disappointing: as an ex human rights lawyer and director of the DPP, he must know that cutting off supplies of water, electricity and fuel to Gaza is a war crime yet he defended their actions in doing this [Update: Sir Keir denies this is an interview today]. He seems to be too desperate to shake off the anti-Semitism his party was accused of under the previous leader. This seems to have led him to refrain from saying anything which might be construed as critical of Israel. At serious moments like this when we want calm judgement and measured responses, both leaders have fallen short.

0

Israel – Palestine conflict


Statement by the head of Amnesty UK

October 2023

We enclose verbatim, a statement by the chief executive officer of Amnesty UK concerning the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

We are horrified by the escalating violence in recent days and the mounting civilian death toll in Israel and Gaza, and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Hamas’s shocking summary killings and abductions of civilians displayed a chilling disregard for life and for international law. Deliberate attacks on civilians & hostage-taking are war crimes & cannot be justified under any circumstances. Hamas and other armed groups must end deliberate attacks on civilians, the firing of indiscriminate rockets, and hostage-taking. They must release civilian hostages immediately.

Relentless Israeli air strikes are now pounding Gaza, obliterating entire families and destroying whole neighbourhoods. Once again civilians in Gaza have nowhere to seek safety. The Israeli authorities’ illegal 16-year blockade on the Gaza Strip, a key part of its system of apartheid, means 2.2 million Palestinians are trapped, plunged into darkness, and without access to essential needs.

The collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population by Israeli authorities amounts to a war crime – it is cruel and inhumane. 

Palestinian civilians are not responsible for the crimes of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, and according to international law Israeli authorities must not make them suffer for acts they have played no role in and cannot control.  

Families and survivors deserve justice.

As the situation is so fast moving, Amnesty is publishing the latest developments via publications on the press releases page of the AIUK website, which you can see here https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases. 

In solidarity, 

Sacha Deshmukh
Chief Executive Officer
Amnesty International UK
 
0

Group minutes and reports


The group’s minutes and reports for October 2023

October 2023

We are pleased to attach the minutes of the group’s meeting on 12 October 2023 thanks to group member for compiling them.

Minutes: October 2023 (Word)Download
0

Human rights: progress report


Report on the current situation with human rights legislation in the UK

October 2023

It has been distressing to see the steady erosion of rights in the UK with limits on protests, campaigning and access to judicial review all incorporated in legislation. Police powers have also been increased. The war in the Middle East has seen the Home Secretary urge the police to take action against supporters of the Palestinian position.

A disappointing lack of resistance has been seen with the introduction of these new laws and other bills in parliament. There has been opposition in the House of Lords but this has been bypassed or simply ignored. The main resistance has come from outside organisations such as Each Other and Open Britain. The Labour Party has been disappointingly quiet.

At the recent Labour Party conference in Manchester there was a fringe event Human Rights for a better Britain. An Amnesty member, Elena Auer, attended this event and reported:

“I attended a Labour Party fringe event held jointly by Amnesty and The Labour Campaign for Human Rights. It was an interesting networking event with opening remarks robustly setting out our defense of human rights. The Labour party representative set out their belief that human rights should remain at the heart of Labour’s policy and practice. We were given a copy of Amnesty’s new ‘Human Rights Manifesto which was launched this week (W/c 9th October) [we have been unable to locate this online but an older version can be accessed here]. The good news was there was a ground-breaking speech from Emily Thornberry committing the a future Labour government to review all anti-rights legislation. I am hopeful that both Amnesty and Liberty would hold the Labour party to account on this if they do form the next government”.

Whether the party – should it form a government – will do more than ‘review’ the legislation remains to be seen. Review by itself commits the party to nothing and it will have to find parliamentary time to debate and drive through alternative legislation. In view of other pledges and changes it wants to make (if the conference speeches are to be believed) then this time may be limited. These more restrictive laws are likely to be a feature for some considerable time.

As previously reported, The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, visited Washington DC recently and gave a speech in which she referred to the Human Rights Act as the Criminal’s Rights Act. Liberty has gained permission from the High Court to take criminal action against the government for introducing new anti-protest legislation which has been democratically rejected by parliament just a few months previously.

They say that the Home Secretary has acted unlawfully by using a statutory instrument to give the police more powers to impose restrictions on protests that cause ‘more than minor’ disruption. Statutory Instruments are a way to bring new laws in without having to create a whole new bill. Liberty argues the Home Secretary was not given the power by parliament to take this action, making her action a serious overreach which inviolate he constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected b parliament. By bringing in these new powers, the government has been accused of breaking the law by giving the police ‘almost unlimited’ powers to shut down protests due to the vagueness of the new language.

Status of Acts

Briefly, the current status of acts which negatively impact on human rights are:

Nationality and Borders Act 2022Royal assent: May 2022
Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022Royal Assent May 2022
Police, Crime, Sentencing Courts Act 2022Royal Assent July 2022
Public Order Act 2023Royal Assent May 2023
Anti-Strike (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023Royal Assent July 2023

We are grateful for group member Mike for the work in facilitating this post.

0

Refugee summary


The October update on the current state of refugees into the UK
October 2023

The week’s big event has been the start of the Supreme Court’s review of the legality of the Rwanda deportation plan. They are expected to take 3 days to come to a conclusion, but this will not be made known for some weeks. Also, the Mayor of Portland’s planning permission protest against the Bibby Stockholm ship was heard this week (she lost) and the Home Office have reported that claimants will be sent back to the barge from 19th October. In passing, the Home Office is refusing to state the cost of the barge, as it would not be “in the public interest”.

The government’s Illegal Migration Act is facing a court challenge from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) on the ground that it breaches the Windsor Framework. The framework is the revised post-Brexit deal for Northern Ireland, which was agreed by the UK and EU earlier this year. It deals mostly with trade issues but also includes a human rights element. It commits the UK not to water down the human rights provisions that flow from the Good Friday Agreement.

Opening up the UN Refugee Convention to reform would cause the world to “go backwards” on refugee rights, a UN leader has said. Gillian Triggs, UN Assistant Secretary-General, told the One Young World Summit in Belfast that there is a “global environment of populist rhetoric” that is damaging to refugees. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention outlines a number of protections for refugees, including basic minimum standards, and asserts they should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

Suella Braverman

In a trip to Washington DC last month, the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said it should be questioned whether the application of the UN’s Refugee Convention is “fit for our modern age”.

Channel crossings

The mild Autumn has kept the small boats coming, the total people arriving for the year so far being just over 25,000. This is down by about 20% on last year, mostly because of the absence of arrivals from Albania. There have been two major reports this month: Safe Passage has been looking at safe routes for prospective refugees and the Refugee Council have looked at the data on arrivals, and discuss the impact of the new Illegal Migration Act. The Refugee Council’s analysis of new Home Office statistics shows that three in every four of the people who have crossed the channel so far this year would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications. This is higher than the Refugee’s Council previous analysis of those who made the journey in 2022, which found it was almost two-thirds. The statistics also show that:

More than half (54 per cent) of those who have made the perilous crossing come from just five countries – Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan.

With the exception of Albanians, the number of people crossing the channel is higher in 2023 compared to 2022.

Analysis based on the data shows that once the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes into force:

 • Each year, over 27,000 refugees who cross the channel will be denied status in the UK.

 • As few as 3.5 per cent of those people arriving by small boat, 1,297 people, will be removed from the UK to their own country.

 • 35,409 people who arrive in the UK by small boat could be left in limbo each year, having had their asylum claim deemed permanently inadmissible but not having been removed.

• Even with a safe third country agreement in place with Rwanda which allows for up to 10,000 people to be removed there annually at least 25,409 people will be left in a state of permanent limbo each year.

(The Illegal Migration Act The Illegal Migration Act became law on 20 July. The main elements of the Act include the creation of a duty for the Home Secretary to arrange for the removal of anyone who arrives irregularly into the UK – including, but not limited to, those who arrive by small boat. Anyone who is covered by the duty to remove will also have any asylum application or relevant human rights claim deemed automatically inadmissible. )

The Safe Passage report concentrates on devising a better system of dealing with new arrivals. It recommends developing safe routes, not least to end the control of the smugglers, an organized Europe-wide system to share the responsibility, and a recommitment to the UN-based regulations under international law.

The Migration Advisory Committee has recommended that the shortage occupation list is abolished and that people in the asylum system with permission to work are allowed to work in any role. These are some of the recommendations in the full review of the shortage occupation list, published this week.

With thanks to group member Andrew for the work in producing this report.

AH

0

Death penalty report


October 2023

We are pleased to attach the death penalty report for mid-September to mid-October 2023 thanks to group member Lesley for the work in compiling the information. The report mentions the World Day Against the Death Penalty in which several group members took part sending an email and/or an email to Singapore concerning its use of the penalty for drugs offences. Note as ever that China does not feature as the details are a state secret. The country is believed to execute more of its citizens than the rest of the world combined.

Report: September – October (Word)Download
0

Reminder! Today!


Today is World Day Against the Death Penalty

October 2023

Past event

A reminder that today, 10th October, is the World Day Against the Death Penalty and there is an action for you to take please, details on a previous post. If you can write or email that would be appreciated.

0

Refugees and Rwanda


Government still in difficulty with refugees and its Rwanda policy

October 2023

Immigration remains a key issue for both the government and the opposition and the focus is on the large number of Channel crossings from France. The prime minister has pledged to end the crossings, however they continue to come in large numbers. The government spent considerable time trying to find countries willing to take migrants and eventually found Rwanda to which £145m was paid to set up the necessary reception facilities. The planned first flight ended when the European Court found against the deportations because under article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, there is an absolute ban on the use of torture and other serious mistreatment of which there is considerable evidence that it takes place in that country.

In a Country Report by the US Department of State in 2022, there is an extremely long list of problems with human rights in Rwanda. They include: unlawful or arbitrary killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment by the government; harsh and life threatening prison conditions and arbitrary detentions. Their activities also extend overseas and in particular in the Democratic Republic of the Congo which include killings, kidnapping and violence. The report also lists a range of activities against the media and journalists. There are similar reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty. Altogether it paints a picture of a country which is a stranger to human rights and where violence and repression are a way of life.

Daniel Trilling in his ‘long read’ in today’s Guardian newspaper (5 October) Inside the Rwanda deportation plan: there were so many warnings it would fail. How did it get this far? traces the whole story of where the idea came from and how it got stuck after the European Court ended it at least temporarily. The proposal was meant to act as a deterrent to further Channel crossings. This was never likely to have been the case since people willing to risk their lives in a rubber dingy having paid considerable sums to a smuggler are sufficiently desperate not to heed any such threat even if they were aware of it.

He reveals that the Foreign Office said ‘no’ to Rwanda largely because of the sort of reasons listed above. They were aware of the UN putting pressure on Rwanda to stop its troops engaging in mass killings and rape in DRC. Officials from the Foreign Office were preparing Country Policy and Information Notes CPIN, which were unfinished at the time the decision was taken.

The government was embarrassed when an undercover report secretly filmed Johnson Busingye, the high commissioner for Rwanda saying disobliging things about the UK government such as it was “immoral for the British to claim to be a compassionate country”. Asked about the shooting of twelve refugees he replied “so what”.

The Supreme Court is due to rule at the end of the year and it is likely that the prime minister Rishi Sunack will ignore the European Court if it rules in the government’s favour.

It is hard to fathom the reasoning behind the government’s position on this policy. It was designed to be a deterrent but it was advised by its own officials that this was unlikely to be effective. The numbers of immigrants who would be sent is a matter of a few thousand which, in the face of the many thousands crossing the Channel and the tens of thousands languishing in immigration centres and hotels, will be a tiny proportion. They must have been aware of the copious evidence that the country was entirely unsuitable as a place to send vulnerable people. They must also have known that Israel abandoned the very same policy and the Danish government had put its policy on hold.

At the Conservative conference this week, the prime minister cancelled the next leg of the HS2 rail project claiming that ‘the facts had changed’ and this prompted a change in policy. Yet in the case of Rwanda, the facts haven’t exactly changed but have been visible all the while. It is though the policy – described as ‘shameful’ by Amnesty International’ chief executive – has become totemic existing in a space beyond reason and facts, a kind of belief system which defies rational thinking. Partly it is because the prime minister has made stopping the boats a key policy aim and Rwanda is central to that, a policy which cannot be cancelled for fear of looking weak. If flights take place at the end of the year it will cause considerable suffering to those sent there.

1

Salisbury group member appears in national paper


Salisbury group member Lesley appears in a montage on the front page of the Long Read in the Guardian, 5 October

October 2023

An article in the Long Read section of the Guardian newspaper entitled Inside the Rwanda deportation plan has a photo montage in which group member Lesley features holding two banners.

The article is by Daniel Trilling and is a detailed review of the muddle, confusion and dissembling behind the government’s desire to send unwanted migrants to Rwanda.

We received word that the first deportation flight in June was to take off from Boscombe Down, a secure airfield near Amesbury in Wiltshire. It had been moved from Stanstead at the last moment to ward off potential protests and because it is surrounded by barbed wire fencing. Two Salisbury group members were able to make it to the airfield where there was a large contingent of police officers and a bevy of cameras. The photo was taken by one of the photographers. As you know, while we waited for the take-off, a final appeal to Europe meant the flight was cancelled hence the fury about the European Court and threats to take us out of the jurisdiction of the Court to enable future deportations to take place.

1

Suella Braverman’s speech


Home Secretary, Suella Braverman’s speech to the Tory party conference in Manchester

October 2023

Suella Braverman made a speech on the fringe of the Conservative Party conference on 3 October in which she said the Human Rights Act should be renamed the ‘Criminal’s Rights Act’. The speech as a whole – covering areas such as immigration and the threat that Britain will ‘go properly woke’ under Labour – received a standing ovation by a packed auditorium. She said that Britain was ‘enmeshed in a dense of set of rules designed for another era’ and that these rules acted against the interests of the country. The speech was dubbed a ‘red meat address’ by the Daily Mail.

Hostility to the HRA has a long history in the Conservative Party and many of its members would like to see it abolished and for us to come out of the European Convention. Plans to reform the act seem to have been shelved for the moment but may well reappear in the manifesto for the next election.

Commentators have seen the speech, together with one given in Washington on 26 September, as part of her leadership campaign ahead of a possible Conservative defeat and an election for a new party leader. But an attack on the HRA and the reception given to her remarks on this and other topics are of concern. A standing ovation suggests an element of the party still wish to see the legislation abolished. In some ways it is hardly surprising such has been the remorseless denigration of the act and its supposed iniquities by the right wing press. The impression has been firmly planted that the act is a criminal’s charter and enables such people to escape justice. This despite our gaols being crammed full to bursting and news that foreign prisons may have to be rented to house yet more.

People’s rights need protection like never before. We have witnessed example after example of wrong convictions, unarmed people shot by the police, criminal activities by the police themselves and a steady trail of mistrials and overturned convictions that to argue that we need less protection by abolishing our rights is perverse. The positive effects of the act seldom gain a hearing. In the coverage of the Hillsborough disaster for example, that it was the Human Rights Act which enabled families to gain justice scarcely got a mention in reporting by the right wing press.

Miscarriages of justice, police errors and overturned convictions, all weaken the public’s faith in the justice system. It is therefore depressing to see the Home Secretary make these remarks and receive a standing ovation for them. She seems to ignore the fact that terrorists and criminals are only alleged terrorists and alleged criminals until due process has found them guilty (or not) a fact which, as a barrister, she well knows.

Sources: APnews, Times, Guardian, Daily Mail, Evening Standard

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑