Day: October 8, 2026

AI, Protest and Surveillance: Are UK Human Rights Under Threat?


Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

October 2026

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has called for a new AI Bill to address the scale and seriousness of threats posed to human rights by artificial intelligence systems.  Local MP, Sir Desmond Swayne is on the Committee. It points out that existing UK laws that could apply to AI do so primarily at the point of deployment, leaving the responsibility on its users rather than its designers. Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are released, or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks. Model developers engage with the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis and it has no statutory power.

An illustration of a balance scale with books and documents on one side and a glowing, networked brain on the other, symbolizing the balance between knowledge and intellect.

In a fast moving world with technology moving at breakneck speed, the current legal framework that applies to AI is fragmented and difficult to navigate. It relies on harm-specific and sector-specific legislation leaving gaps in protection which fails to address preventable human rights risks. 

The right of an individual to seek effective remedy against decisions made against them is endangered by the use of AI. Insufficient transparency concerning how AI systems are used in decision making and a lack of effective mechanisms to challenge those decisions threatens the rights of people in the UK, particularly those of already minoritised communities, including Black and Minority Ethnic people. The right to privacy is also under serious threat.

To address the global nature of AI harms it argues governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards and that the UK should continue to play a leading role in international AI summits and seek to be party to international declarations and agreements on AI safety. (Source – Joint Committee [accessed 7 October])

Government approach to protest

Much concern has been expressed about successive government’s introducing legislation to try and limit protests. Climate campaigns and activities by Palestinian support organisations have come in for increasing controls and abundant arrests. Egged on by the right media with its talk of ‘zealots’ and ‘fanatics’, successive home secretaries have awarded the police more and more powers to clamp down on them. We have fundamental rights of assembly and of free speech which underpin protests.

Recent home secretaries have all been women who would not have been able to be MPs, let alone a home secretary, had it not been for the concerted and violent actions of the suffragettes. Many of the improvements to life we somewhat take for granted are the result of campaigns or protest movements.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights under Lord David Alton is launching an enquiry to look at the Government’s approach to protest:  “We want to understand if the expansion of police powers relating to protest has been proportionate or if they will have a chilling effect on the right to protest. We will also examine if the new laws are effective in protecting wider society from the potential negative consequences of disruptive protest.” 

Online privacy

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is today considering how to take forward two legal challenges concerning the Government’s reported attempt to weaken end-to-end encryption for Apple users. One challenge has been brought by Apple. The other has been brought by Liberty, Privacy International and two individuals. End-to-end encryption is an essential security tool. It protects our bank details, health information, private conversations and photos, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can access the data being shared.
 

Surveillance

Between February and July this year, the British Transport Police ran a six-month live facial recognition trial across some of London’s busiest transport hubs – without making a single arrest.

The aim of the scheme was to catch offenders and people breaching court orders. More than half a million faces were scanned. The trial cost more than £320,000 and took up almost 100 hours of police time. This resulted in one alert which turned out to be incorrect. Despite this, the British Transport Police announced last month that it will be extending the trial for another four months and expanding it into London Underground stations.

Facial recognition is an essential tool used by repressive regimes such as China to control their citizens.

These two technologies, combined with a series of home secretaries keen to limit freedoms and giving police more and more powers, are a serious threat to our rights. We need to be aware of this.

Thought of subscribing?

0

Politics, Borders and the Human Cost of Refugee Underfunding


Political concerns still a factor in attitudes to immigration and refugees

October 2026

Worldwide, while the number of refugees continues to grow by contrast, the amount of support continues to fall. The UNHCR have a new report Protection Eroded: the Human Cost of Underfunding, which notes how governments are cutting back on their provisions for refugee aid. Between 2024 and 2025, the total amount of aid fell from $5.2 billion to $3.9 billion, and by July of this year only 32% of the allocated funds had been received. Some British political parties are, of course, eager to cut the aid budget even more.

The US government has attacked the UNHCR for its emphasis on protection, inclusion, durable solutions and legal pathways, on the grounds that it facilitates mass migration. In reality 65% of refugees are in states near to their origins, 70% in Lower and Middle Income countries. An article in the Swiss-based New Humanitarian notes that European and North American countries want refugees to stay nearer their bases, but cutbacks have made the problem worse – by making it someone else’s problem, they encourage more movement. They summarise “Refugee protection is not the opposite of border control… calling [legal routes] ‘open borders’ is like accusing a court of acquitting everyone simply because it gives each defendant a hearing.”

Shabana Mahmood

Closer to home, speaking to The Rest is Politics podcast, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said “sexual abusers would exploit most asylum seekers as long as traffickers continued to decide who came to the UK”. She said: “We’re not in control of this border. The sifting of the people that end up in the north of France and are about to get on a dinghy is done by criminal gangs who are also, by the way, people traffickers… You can almost guarantee that every woman that’s in the north of France has probably been raped along the journey. Some of the men too, they’ve certainly been abused and threatened. That is not the model that should decide whether somebody gets to come to the UK, make this their place of sanctuary and ultimately become one of us.”

In passing, the recent claim by a whistleblower that only 1 in a 100 claims for asylum are genuine appears to have had little purchase, and has not become a serious contention.

The “one-in-one-out” scheme for boat people between the UK and France has not been renewed; the government considered the numbers involved to be unable to be increased for practical reasons. It has been very costly.

The Home Secretary has established a legal resettlement route for women and girls from Afghanistan and Pakistan with medical needs, but this will only apply to hundreds rather than thousands of refugees. From this month, charities and local community groups can apply to be sponsors or hosts to arrivals, as from next Autumn, according to Mahmood’s speech to the Labour Party conference. The Refugee Council considers the numbers allowed in to be far too small.

For those already here, the new legislation will impose new limits. With the extended time frame for right to remain, it is calculated that in 20 years, the cost has increased from £155 to £3,226. For those receiving temporary support before a decision is made a £10,000 “refugee tax” will effectively be imposed once they are accepted. The UK has the most expensive immigration fees in Europe. It has been suggested that the extended qualifying period may be reduced, as discussions are ongoing.

A group calling itself the Coalition for Asylum Rights and Justice has opposed the planned Independent Immigration Appeals Authority as not independent, less qualified, unfair in not expediting appeals and not improving decision-making. This is still under discussion in the Bill in committee.

At a time of much disturbance centred around asylum seekers accommodation, the Chief Constable of Essex stated that the level of crime in the towns around the Wethersfield holding centre is less than 3 years ago when the site opened.

AH

Recent posts:

Thought of subscribing?

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑