Category: Human rights,

Government signs trade deal


Sir Keir says deal with Gulf States a ‘huge win’ for British business but …

May 2026

The government proudly announced a trade deal with the Gulf States this week which will increase trade with UK firms by many millions. The fly in the ointment however is the human and worker’s rights in those countries which are dire. Take UAE as an example. The country commits a wide range of abuses against its citizens. There is little freedom of expression with a number of individuals given long sentences following mass trials which are transparently unfair.

Women have few rights and experience inequality in education, employment and legal rights. The kefala system is widely employed which ties foreign workers to one employer and effectively denies them any meaningful employment rights.

Torture and other abusive actions are frequent with prisoners kept for long periods in solitary confinement. Human rights defenders are harassed.

The country is accused of providing military equipment to the RSF in Sudan who have committed a range of atrocities. A similar range of failures could be listed among the other countries included in the agreement, Saudi Arabia for example.

Values free

None of this seems to matter. Any mention of human rights has been omitted from the agreement and the government claims these matters are best pursued outside it. The TUC has criticised it arguing that we should ‘not be doing deals with countries which abuse human rights and worker’s rights‘. It is claimed to be a ‘values free agreement’.

Any notion of limiting trade with oppressive regimes which practise a range of abuses against its citizens seems a distant prospect. We are sufficiently desperate for trade that such matters are no longer part of the political landscape. Yet ministers will often claim their belief in human rights. Sir Keir himself told his biographer “There is no version of my life that does not largely revolve around me being a human rights lawyer”. Being a lawyer is not the same as having principles and acting on them. Wouldn’t it be more honest simply to admit we will trade with anyone? There is a podcast of this and other recent posts – see below:

Sources: Amnesty, HRW, American Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrein

0

People in the Park


Salisbury group attends this event with its focus on sustainability

May 2026

This event, organised by Salisbury Transition City each year with 75 exhibitors present this year. The theme is sustainability and with this in mind the Salisbury group focused on the abuse behind the manufacture an everyday item such as a pair of jeans. Billions are made every year and millions are employed in making them. This followed the publication by Amnesty International of a report Stitched Up which details the multiple abuses of this massive industry. From health hazards, physical and sexual abuse of the mainly female workforce, wage theft and the denial of union and collective bargaining rights are all described. The failure of high street retailers to control adequately what is going on is also noted.

The results were muted and only a few of the handouts were taken (see below). Perhaps it was because people view sustainability mainly as an environmental problem. The idea that globalisation and the abuses that flow from it is perhaps not so well appreciated. Massive amounts of water are consumed in their production and of course the fuel needed to move the items from country to country during the course of their manufacture.

Clearly the idea that abuses taking place on the far side of the globe are both a human rights and a sustainable issue is not well recognised. Around a quarter of the cotton used comes from the Xinjiang region of China where the abuse of Uyghurs is taking place and their culture being systematically destroyed. Thousands are engaged in forced labour to produce the cotton. The region is closed to outsiders for obvious reasons.

There is work to do to convince people that sustainability is not just about trees – important though that is – but about the clothes we wear, where they come from and how they’re made. Retailers can continue to sell goods made with the exploitation of millions of mostly female workers, some in near slave like conditions, while claiming their humanitarian credentials on their web sites.

Jeans handoutDownload
0

Risks to our rights steadily increasing


Our monthly report on trends in the UK is worrying

May 2026

Government appeal against Palestine Action ban

Good Law Project warns that if the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud wins her appeal against the lifting of the ban on Palestine Action th the combination of the Online Safety Act 2023 and the Terrorism Act 2000 could be used to silence support for anti-genocide campaigners.

The problem lies in the very broadly drafted offences which even the police have found hard to apply. Online platforms might share this difficulty and fear heavy fines if they don’t remove references to action for Palestine. The Online Safety Act obliges platforms to remove “priority illegal content” from the internet in the UK. At the top of this list is “terrorism content” which includes posts that relate to section 12 of the Terrorism Act, such as “inviting support” for a terrorist organisation or “expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” while being “reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation”. See also a previous post on this site pointing out the risks inherent in using this firm.

Palantir Data Privacy Concerns continue

The Good Law Project is supporting Democracy for Sale to raise a challenge about the information commissioner’s decision to keep secret documents sent to Wes Streeting Health Secretary and Health and Social Care Minister Karin Smyth that will reveal truths about the risks of Palantir’s data platform. The British Medical Association has expressed concern about handing sensitive health data to the company which has ties with the Israeli Military and ICE. See our previous post about the threats to our rights from this firm. Statements by the firm’s chief executive are illuminating.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Following the Good Law challenge in the Supreme Court, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been obliged by Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to revise its guidance on the application of the Sex definition in order to provide ‘legally accurate, practical guidance’ and ensure ‘all service users are treated with dignity and respect’. Parliamentary approval will be sought in May. Recent testimonies from trans patients suggest that their health concerns are sidelined by some doctors.

Democratic decline

Amnesty International warns the UK is increasingly reflecting, rather than resisting, global trends towards weakening of democratic norms. The 2026 report can be accessed here and download the full report which is divided into countries.

In 2025 – 2026 the UK has:

– used counterterrorism powers to restrict peaceful protest

– overseen the mass arrest of peaceful protesters, with courts ruling aspects unlawful

– intensified hostile policies towards migrants and people seeking asylum

– increased surveillance and policing powers

– continued arms transfers to Israel despite clear risks of use in serious violations of international law

– cut international aid amid escalating global humanitarian need

– defended the use of national security vetoes in legacy Troubles cases, undermining truth, accountability and justice for victims and families

– pursued economic and social policies that risk pushing more people into poverty, weakening protections for economic and social rights.

As we have noted on several occasions before, successive governments have got themselves ensnared with various unpleasant regimes because of their desire to maintain arms exports. We continue to arm UAE despite their support for the rebels in Sudan and other destabilising actions in Libya and Yemen for example, and as noted, we continue to arm and support Israel despite the genocide in Gaza.

1

Clothing and the abuse of rights


We will be at the People in the Park event this Saturday to highlight this issue

Past event – report soon 16/05

At this event in Salisbury on Saturday 16th May, we shall be focusing on the human rights abuses involved in the manufacture of a pair of jeans. An everyday item of clothing, no less than 5 billion pairs are made every year mostly in factories in Far East countries. From the production of the cotton to the manufacture of the jeans themselves, millions of – mostly women – are subject to massive levels of abuse. Amnesty has produced a report called Stitched Up which provides background to this industry.

The numbers involved are quite staggering. There are something like 100 million garment workers worldwide the vast majority of whom suffer various kinds of abuse to enable us to buy cheap clothes (not just jeans).

The abuses

The abuses take place at every stage in the manufacture:

  • Around a quarter of the cotton comes from the Xinjiang region of China where the abuse of the Uyghurs is a massive issue. The treatment by the Chinese of these people is a story of itself and involves mass arbitrary detention and so-called ‘re-education’, unjust imprisonment, intrusive surveillance and forced labour. The treatment of the Uyghurs has been described as genocide.
  • To produce the faded look a dangerous process is used and the workers are in danger of contracting silicosis. Numbers die of this each year.
  • Low wages and levels below even minimum wage levels in their own country. This is linked to ‘wage theft‘. Workers are allegedly paid the minimum wage but do not if fact receive them. So inspectors carrying out cursory checks for the retailers see appropriate wages being paid.
  • Overwork. Overtime is compulsory if a big order arrives and workers may work very long shifts with no choice.
  • No collective bargaining and trade unions largely banned. It can involve working 99 hour weeks. Only 5 unions exist among Marks and Spencer’s 172 suppliers for example.
  • Abuses, physical and sexual, is widespread. With a mostly female workforce this is a serious problem.
The brands

The major brands on our high streets and on line are complicit in these abuses. It is important to stress the massive scale of the abuse involving millions of people. Virtually all the major brands are complicit in whole or in part, in these abuses largely due to inaction. If you read the Amnesty Stitched Up report linked above, you will see nearly all the familiar high street names mentioned. The supply chains are long so factories may be largely invisible to any inspection activity.

This post is to raise your awareness. It is almost certain that among the clothes you are wearing are garments produced which are the product of abuse, violence, forced labour about which the retailer you bought them from has likely done little to tackle. Cheap clothing comes at a cost. It is not costless because making clothes in the UK is extremely difficult if retailers are freely able to source from countries where regulations are ignored, wages are not always paid in full and there are no trade unions.

Previous year’s stall. Photo Salisbury Amnesty

Latest posts:

0

Foreign Office to close monitoring unit

Office desk with multiple labeled stacks of documents, computer monitors, and office chair near window showing cityscape

Unit responsible for collecting information on conflict incidents is to close

April 2026

The news is variously described as ‘unbelievable’ or ‘incredible’ but is reported to be true: the Labour government is to close the Conflict and Security Monitoring Unit which collects, verifies and analyses human rights incidents in Israel and in the occupied territories. It hardly needs saying that the necessity for such a unit is essential at the present time with significant human rights violations taking place in Gaza, the West Bank and now in south Lebanon.

But it is to close. One of the Unit’s functions was to advise on the supply of arms to Israel so one wonders where that advice is to come from in future. The decision is reported to have been taken by Sir Oliver Robbins who was sacked by the prime minister last week over the Peter Mandelson affair.

Only on 9th of this month, the Foreign Secretary was delivering a speech in the Mansion House extolling her and her government’s belief in the rule of law and human rights. Part of her speech is:

“But for a Labour government it is a fundamental part of our moral purpose to stand up against global disease and hunger, and help those trapped in crises caused by conflict or climate breakdown. We know that supporting development is not just about our party’s values but about our national interests: tackling insecurity and building partnerships abroad helps our security and economy back home.

“The role that rules-based frameworks play is vital, and respect for the rule of law is a core British value that supports our national interest, underpins our economic stability, makes us a reliable place for international investment, while the whole world spins around us and underpins our security and prosperity.” (our italics)

Pious words. Yvette Copper is another MP who is a member of Labour Friends of Israel.

It is vital that the FCDO has accurate information both for any future war crimes and to advise on the sale of arms to the IDF. The decision has been criticised by Human Rights Watch and by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. Katie Fallon, the advocacy manager at CAAT said:

“Closing the IHL cell would protect ministers and senior Foreign Office officials “who know that they have been manipulating the data on potential violations of International Human Rights Law, beyond any logical interpretation, to obscure unimaginable violations and crimes committed against the most vulnerable people in conflict and sustain arms sales at any cost.

“The timing of this closure is notable. As Olly Robbins explained to a parliamentary committee this week, the civil service is under pressure to give the government the answers that they want. Nowhere is this more clear than on ensuring arms sales to ‘allies’ continue, despite the risks of war crimes.”

Sources: Guardian, Middle East Eye, Human Rights Watch, FCDO, Wales Herald

0

Palantir and the threats to our rights


Palantir’s increasing penetration a real concern

March 2026

During a presentation on increasing authoritarianism at the Exeter conference, the firm Palantir was mentioned and its potential, and part in, the worrying trend of authoritarianism on both sides of the Atlantic. The first question is what does the firm do? This is normally a straightforward enough question to answer by looking at the firm’s website and other sources. But in this case there seem to be doubts even from people who work there.

Essentially they handle information and data – colossal amounts of it. They are able to meld a wide range of data sets to provide answers to customers who include commercial firms, the military and a variety of government agencies. One of their senior employees chillingly said ‘we help with killing people and saving lives’. In this essay we want to explain why we should be concerned about the firm and its likely effects on our rights and freedoms. Information is power. As we are seeing in the current wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Iran, information is crucial to the successful targeting of munitions and to military operations generally.

The firm is in the news again with a contract with the Financial Conduct Authority which gives it access to sensitive financial information. The Guardian reports (23 March) it will enable the firm to monitor case intelligence files, financial ombudsman complaints, problem firms, emails and social media posts. There are concerns from within the FCA that the firm will gain access to their methods and how trustworthy are they with that information. Will Palantir ‘tip off’ its friends they ask? The owner of Palantir, Peter Thiel frequently featured in the Epstein files.

As the quote above illustrates, information is not neutral. It can be used to analyse the masses of information held by the NHS to make improvements in clinical outcomes and in improving efficiency. It has been used to help in crime detection by matching large and disparate quantities of information on international criminal networks. But it has been used by ICE in its activities in the US which have drawn a lot of criticism. The essential point therefore is being able effectively to control the data and the companies like Palantir who have it. It is this which is the root of concerns.

Concerns

1. The first concern is that it is a profit based corporation. Its prime focus is on returns to shareholders and making a profit. There is no crime in that but when it comes to data and millions of files of information about individuals, moral issues and matters of security and confidentiality are crucially important. In common with all corporations these days, it has a series of reassuring policy statements about human rights for example. History doesn’t support these statements. When it is profit v. morals, which will win out?

2. The lack of security of the data it collects. In the case of the NHS, the government is desperate to secure savings and no doubt Palantir will offer them which could be genuine enough. The company is American based and as we have experienced with other tech giants, transparency and attention to the welfare of the people using their platforms is very low down on their list of concerns. Will the desire to save money outweigh the security of the data?

3. The government has shown itself to be inept in a wide variety of IT catastrophes and have chosen to outsource to Palantir because they have a system that works. In doing so, they will lose control to a corporation outside its jurisdiction. Like several other ‘tech bros’ its owner, Peter Thiel, has been happy enough to cosy up to President Trump. Thiel in his writings is keen on monopolies which is also a worry when we are talking about a public organisation like the NHS.

4. The organisation’s links to the military and help offered to the IDF. It developed a technology called Maven which dramatically speeds up what is termed the ‘kill chain’ and has been used in Gaza and Iran. It identifies, using AI technology, where a target is likely to be and enables rapid attacks and assassinations to take place. Palantir is not involved in the decision to allow killing of 15 or more innocent individuals by the IDF for one Hamas fighter but is nevertheless supplying the IT to enable it to take place.

No scruples

It all adds up to a fundamental concern about being associated with such a firm. It appears to have no scruples in terms of the uses put by its systems and technology. We have a government which has shown itself to be more and more authoritarian, keen to allow an American company over which it has almost no legal controls, access to a vast range of data about individuals.

It comes down to the sovereignty of the data, who owns it and what is done with it, its security and who has access legally or otherwise, and the ability of the UK government to protect our interests. Over all these there are big question marks. Defence experts have expressed deep concerns. When the New York Police Dept. cancelled its contract with Palantir, the company kept the insights it had gained. The Swiss army has cancelled its contract with them for the reasons set out here.

We should be deeply concerned by this firm’s penetration into our national life and be highly sceptical of promises by government ministers that they have adequate controls.

Become a subscriber, it’s free!

3

Threat to Jury Trials: MPs Debate New Court Bill


Threat to trial by jury

March 2026

MPs voted to allow the Courts and Tribunals Bill to proceed to the next stage after significant debate during its second reading.  This was over proposals to replace juries in England and Wales with a single judge in cases where a convicted defendant would be jailed for up to three years.  Justice Secretary David Lammy says changes to jury trials and other reforms can help turn around the Crown Court backlog, which has reached record levels of 80,000 cases. These delays mean some defendants charged today may not face trial until 2030.

However more than 3,200 lawyers including 300 top barristers and retired judges have called on the government to drop the plan to abolish some jury trials.  The letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions, says there is no evidence the “unpopular” plan will solve unprecedented delays in criminal courts.  The letter organised by the Bar Council, which represents all barristers in England and Wales, says the plan is an attempt “to force through an unpopular, untested and poorly evidenced change to our jury system”.

The bill will still have to clear the House of Lords before it can become law.  The right to jury trial – in which ordinary people decide on the guilt or innocence of defendants brought before Crown Courts – is a cornerstone of the constitution dating back more than 800 years.

Magna Carta did not specifically mention jury trials but does say ‘no free man shall be seized or imprisoned except through the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land’ (women are not mentioned). It did however plant the seed of juries and over time the idea became established in British law. The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1275 that required jury trials in certain cases, showing how these ideas from the Magna Carta were evolving into legal practice.

Recent governments have revealed a dislike of protest and have done a lot to introduce measures and restrictions making such protests more and more difficult. Police powers have been increased and thousands were arrested protesting on behalf of Palestine Action for example. Some juries have gone against judicial directions and have freed defendants. There must be a worry therefore that restricting the right to a jury trial leaves defendants at the mercy of judges alone who, some argue, can be reactionary,

1

How the New UK Bill Aims to Prevent Foreign Election Interference


New bill to tackle electoral reform

March 2026

A functioning democratic system is vital for human rights.  It is about power and how it is wielded.  Increasingly, we have witnessed powerful outside interests – whether they be states or wealthy individuals – influencing the political debate.  Electoral reform is carried out infrequently partly because political parties settle into a comfortable relationship with the status quo.  They can also be reluctant to go against the wishes of their influential patrons. 

The newly introduced Representation of the People Bill aims to keep hostile foreign states from interfering in British elections while significantly extending democratic rights to the population. As part of the biggest expansion of democratic participation in a generation it offers first the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year olds, which will give voice to millions of young people.

Second, the capping of donations from companies towards electoral expenses will be set at two years of revenue, ensuring that companies that have no genuine business activity or UK footprint will be prevented from making donations.  The Bill means companies will need to have shown sufficient revenue made over the previous 3 years (allowing in most cases two financial years of revenue) to justify their donation.  It means foreign actors will no longer be able to use their money to interfere in the UK’s elections,

MPs will not be allowed to accept gifts of money or in-kind donations over £2,230. Legitimate gifted hospitality valued below this thresh-hold will continue to be acceptable.

The many other proposals to ensure election fairness include automatic voter registration without voters needing to apply, extending legitimate Voter ID to include bank cards digital forms of ID, increasing the time available for postal voting, ensuring candidates offer documentary proof of their identity to avoid misleading voters, and addressing issues of harassment at polling stations

It marks the beginning of a process that may reshape the practical workings of the UK’s democracy. Few governments have attempted to reform our democratic system quite so comprehensively in a single legislative package.  For once, the over-used ‘once in a generation’ tag may actually be justified.

But it does little to protect democracy from misinformation and disinformation in elections, despite the government recognising the risks.  It is this ability to ‘control the narrative’ which is a big factor in our political process.

Image: Electoral Reform Society

0

Concerns about facial recognition


The use of facial recognition technology advancing with few controls

February 2026

One of the features of the Chinese state is the massive use of facial recognition technology throughout China. It is a vast system with millions of cameras and is used to monitor every movement of its citizens. The system is used to control everyone and it means no one can move or meet someone without it being observed and logged by the state. It is the ultimate example of the panopticon in a modern setting.

Some are remarkably relaxed about its use in the UK believing claims made that it will be properly controlled and will be used to catch criminals, drug dealers and the like. So innocent people have nothing to fear. Read on …

Right to Privacy

The government’s Biometric Technology Consultation (to close on 12 February) aims to help develop a new legal framework for the use of facial recognition and similar technologies by law enforcement. Despite the landmark UK Court of Appeal ruling in 2020, that found the South Wales Police use of automated facial recognition (AFR) technology was unlawful, police forces in different parts of the country have increased their use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR).  As these systems contain the biometric data of huge numbers of people, some concerns from human rights groups, including Amnesty and Liberty, are briefly summarised here.

The first concern is to ensure that a new legal framework should apply to all use of ‘biometric technologies’ by all law enforcement and other organisations and should be transparent.  Complex mathematical processing is used to identify facial features and generate ‘similarity scores’ but the internal logic of how a match is calculated is hidden from both the police operators and the public.  The authorities cannot explain the specific basis for an intervention nor account for why or if the technology produces biased or inaccurate results.

Second, it is concerning that the use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) is becoming widespread and easily accessible, with retail outlets taking on a quasi law enforcement role, aided and supported by the police, and drawing on the same or similar databases.  It is becoming normalised in schools, in commercial and retail settings, with information flowing between sectors and under a patchwork of inconsistent laws which the public does not understand and find almost impossible to challenge.

This was demonstrated in a recent Guardian report (6th February) on the apprehension and removal from Sainsbury’s store in Elephant and Castle of a customer who had been wrongly matched by staff with a photo of a different customer flagged by their Facewatch camera.  In order to prove his innocence he had to apply to the agency using a QR code and submit a photo and a copy of his passport to them before they declared him not on their blacklist.

 The following is a list of factors of concern to human rights groups:

– Transparency – to include how and when the technology is being used and the clarity of accessible information about rights.

– Whether biometric data is acquired overtly or covertly.

– Whether it is collected voluntarily or involuntarily. Pervasive monitoring is leading to the normalisation of suspicion less surveillance.

-The subject’s status – whether or not someone is the intended subject of a police investigation or an innocent bystander walking past a camera.

– Who has access to the data and the results.

– The space, context and location of deployment. Expectations of privacy vary significantly between a quiet park and a busy thoroughfare.

– Whether the system is used to make inferences about a person’s internal state, their emotion or intent.

– Whether the interference is demonstrably ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’ to a legitimate aim, such as the prevention of serious crime.

– Whether assessments consider the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) to ensure the technology does not have a discriminatory impact.

– Algorithm bias: whether this performs differently based on race, gender, or age, which could lead to the over-policing of marginalised communities.

– Watchlist bias: whether scrutiny of criteria can ensure groups are not disproportionately targeted based on protected characteristics.

– Bias in interpretation of identification patterns claiming to provide predictive evidence.

Human Rights groups say that any new regulation should protect privacy and limit data-sharing between public authorities, law enforcement and private companies; and that as the state gains powerful new ways to monitor citizens, a strong and resilient oversight body with true independence is needed to protect human rights and dignity.

0

Human Rights Concerns in UK Protest Laws


Concerns about latest bill and affects on right to protest

January 2026

Liberty and other human rights organisations argue that proposals in this bill, currently going through the Lords, will block countless people from exercising their fundamental right to protest, risk criminalising marginalised communities, and prevent meaningful change.

Repeat Protests 

Clause 372 of the Crime and Policing Bill would give police the power ban repeat demonstrations in a designated area. If this is voted into law, senior police officers must consider the “cumulative disruption” caused by previous – or even future – protests in the area as a reason to ban a demonstration, regardless of whether they were organised by the same people or focused on the same issues. They would also decide what area is restricted, with no clear rules on its size. This means there could be borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before. This won’t just impact frequent large-scale marches; it could restrict emergency demonstrations on issues of grave importance, or the right to organise counter protests.

Since change is rarely achieved by a one-off demonstration outside Parliament (votes for women took nearly a century to achieve, as did a two-day weekend) this clause is viewed as inhibiting persistent lawful protest.

Face coverings at protests

Sections 118-120 of the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a criminal offence to wear a face covering at designated protests, and police will have the power to arrest or fine anyone breaching this condition. The lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill will particularly impact anyone who has to wear a face covering for health, religious, or privacy reasons. This could result in Muslim women, disabled people, and political dissidents being criminalised for attending protests with face coverings. Police already have the ability to require people to remove items if they believe they’re being used to hide their identity.

Demos polling shows that 86% of people believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion and raise awareness of issues. The Crime and Policing Bill will strip this right away from those who can only protest safely with a face covering.

Protests outside places of worship 

Section 124 of the Bill also proposes giving the police powers to restrict protests ‘in the vicinity’ of places of worship. Police already have the power to restrict protests based on their intention; this prevents genuine harm or disruption to religious communities. This new clause would instead ban protests based on the fact there is a place of worship nearby, regardless of intention, with the only criteria being that these protests could be considered ‘intimidating’.

This very low threshold could capture almost any protest in towns or cities across the country. Regular demonstrations outside Parliament could now be restricted due to the numerous places of worship nearby, with no requirement to prove they are being targeted by protests.

Other amendments 382 A-D would make it harder to organise processions quickly in response to current events, and remove the vital “reasonable excuse” safeguard that helps prevent the criminalisation of peaceful protest.

CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

The British Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah will not be stripped of his citizenship as, according to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud. His ‘abhorrent’ social media posts of a decade ago do not meet the legal bar for revocation. The necessary criteria would include fraudulent acquiring of citizenship or terrorism charges or links with serious organised crime.

The British government helped secure the activist’s release from years in an Egyptian jail but after his arrival in London from Egypt on Boxing Day, opposition parties called for him to be deported and his citizenship revoked, citing tweets in which he called for Zionists to be killed. El-Fattah who was granted British citizenship while in prison in 2021 through his mother’s birth in the UK, has apologised for past social media posts.

Government sources said the bar on removing citizenship was set high to provide the necessary safeguards. There is a right of appeal against the decision to revoke citizenship. Shamima Begum’s appeal was rejected by the former home secretary Sajid Javid in 2019.

PROTESTS ON BEHALF OF HUNGER STRIKERS

A 500-strong protest was held outside Pentonville prison to express urgent concern at the government’s continued inaction in the face of the imminent death of three remaining hunger strikers of the so-called Filton 24. They have now been on strike for over 45, 59 and 66 days respectively (8 January). 800 medical personnel have signed a letter criticising the government’s handling of the hunger strikers.

Campaigners have called their treatment ‘punishment by process’ since none has yet been charged with a terrorist offence, only with burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder, relating to their entry into a factory run by Elbit Systems, the Israeli arms manufacturer.

While the CPS sets a maximum of six months on remand, the hunger strikers have already been imprisoned without trial since November 2024. Their actions took place before the banning of their pro-Gaza protest group, Palestine Action, a banning which is currently being investigated after an appeal supported by Liberty and Amnesty.

Previous posts:

On 21st January, we are hosting a talk by the author and journalist Peter Oborne about his new book ‘Complicit’. For details see the post about Britain’s role above. It is free with a parting collection.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑