Category: Human rights,

Human Rights lecture


Human rights lecture in Southampton with Kate Adie

April 2024

We are delighted to tell you that Southampton group’s 10th Annual Human Rights lecture will be on Tuesday 14 May.  The venue is the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the Avenue Campus of the University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ.  The journalist Kate Adie, CBE DL, Chief News Correspondent for BBC News between 1989 and 2003, will be the speaker.  The lecture is free to attend though you will be asked to book via Eventbrite.  It will begin at 6.00 p.m. and refreshments will be available beforehand.  They are still awaiting final details, including the link for booking. 

0

Jury trial protest


Protest at Salisbury Law Courts concerning freedom of juries to exercise their conscience

April 2024

A group of people from Defend our Juries staged a protest outside Salisbury law courts this week as part of their campaign to in support of a social worker Trudi Warner who was arrested for contempt of court while protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court. The issue concerns the right of a jury to exercise their conscience when taking their decision and relates to the question of defendants not being allowed to mention that they were engaged in a climate protest at the time of their arrest.

The last two posts concerning Hillsborough and the settlement by Hugh Grant of his legal case against the publishers of the Sun newspaper, NGN have mentioned the poor performance of the legal system in each. At Hillsborough, the relatives of those crushed at the disaster had to endure years of frustration and abuse not helped by the legal system and in the case of Hugh Grant, he has had to settle because the way the costs system works could lead him seriously out of pocket in the face of a publisher determined not to allow the hundreds of victims to have their day in court.

Another aspect which has surfaced recently is the passing of laws making protest harder and harder to undertake. The main motivation has been the environmental protestors who have carried out a number of eye-catching demonstrations which have highlighted the failure – in their view – of the government to take environmental matters seriously enough.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has a series of measures which make protests much more difficult and risky. The Police now have enhanced powers to limit marches and to issue fines if those involved create too much noise nuisance for example. There is no specific right to protest but there is a right to assemble and to free speech.

The Bill is part of a hugely worrying and widespread attack on human rights from across Government which will not only see basic rights reduced across the board, but will also strip people of the means to challenge or contest their treatment.

In its reports on the bill, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights said the proposals are “oppressive and wrong”. It accuses the government of trying to create “new powers in areas where the police already have access to powers and offences which are perfectly adequate”.

The issue of juries and conscience is a complex one, and it is not the case that juries can exercise their conscience if that means ignoring the evidence given in the trial. But what might be happening here is a feeling that the government, the police and CPS are out of touch with public opinion concerning protests, and the climate. Juries are a key part of our history and are a means for 12 good men (and women) and true to exercise some common sense, a fact that sometimes seems to be lacking in our legal system. There will be many who feel that it is relevant to say that a defendant was on some kind of protest. They may also be feeling that the government has become too determined to inhibit protests. As we have noted before, many of the rights we take for granted today were achieved following sometimes years of protest. The suffragists campaigned peacefully for decades for the right for women to have the vote and were ignored. The suffragettes protested more aggressively and eventually achieved success. Female ministers keen on the new laws might wish to reflect they would not have the opportunity to do so had it not been for their sisters willing to protest and who suffered grievously when imprisoned.

Sources: BBC, Salisbury Journal, Amnesty

0

Palantir and the NHS


Human rights concerns with the use of Palantir software in the NHS

February 2024

The current issue of the Amnesty magazine (Spring 2024) poses some human rights questions concerning the use by the NHS of the American firm Palantir to create a data platform. With recent revelations surrounding Fujitsu’s Horizon program used by the Post Office and which destroyed the lives and livings of nearly a thousand sub postmasters, we should take a careful look at the firms being used to do this IT and data work. 

And looking at Palantir is not a pretty sight. Founded by the CIA, its primary interest is treating people as suspects or targets. Its software is used by both NSA and GCHQ and is designed as a surveillance tool. It is used by some police forces in the US in what is called ‘predictive policing’ which has a dubious history. It was used for workplace deportation raids also in the US as part of Donald Trump’s actions against immigrants. Another troubling use is by the Israeli military to ‘help the country’s war effort’. 

A key investor is Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal who is, paradoxically, hostile to the notion of an NHS and to government aid programmes generally. He is a funder and supporter of Donald Trump.

The Amnesty article says ‘Any company linked to serious human rights abuses should be excluded from tendering for NHS contracts on grounds of ‘professional misconduct”. Essentially, the British public needs to be reassured that information gathered by Palantir won’t be harvested by them for other purposes. 

American companies have had their eyes on the NHS for many years and have spent considerable sums trying to get contracts. It was likely to be a key issue in the UK/US trade deal negotiations post Brexit, now a lost cause. Palantir offered to assist the Covid-19 response for a fee of £1 (not one million) because it gave them an ‘in’ and the ability to build a datastore. 

As we have learned from Horizon and the Post Office, as well as other IT disasters, there are many concerns about IT firms, their actual ability to do what they claim they will do, their integrity and the security of the data they collect. Major firms like X, Facebook, WhatsApp and others have shown a cavalier attitude to online safety for the young and other vulnerable individuals. We also have British politicians and ministers openly hostile to human rights issues and some would like to see the Human Rights Act abolished. This is a toxic mix. We will have the usual platitudes and reassurances about ‘online safety is our number one concern’ and other bromides, the reality being that it is way down their lists of priorities. 

The people organising these contracts, the civil servants and the various ministers, have next to no experience of placing contracts or having anything like the expertise needed to keep an eye on this as was explained in Ian Dunt’s book How Westminster Works: and Why it Doesn’t. Twenty ministers came and went during the Post Office, Horizon scandal and did – or were able to do – nothing. 

To use a firm with the history that Palantir has, with the history of blunders surrounding IT contracts and with ministerial oversight feeble or missing altogether is to court disaster and is a huge risk for the confidentiality and security of our private medical information. 

The Salisbury and South Wiltshire group is 50 this year

1

Salisbury Group at 50!


Group is 50 this year!

February 2024

The Salisbury group was established in 1974 and has been going strong for 50 years. It took us a bit by surprise today when we realised this so we haven’t thought of any celebrations yet. But as the last active group in Wiltshire we can allow ourselves a bit of pride that we are still here and still trying to promote the human rights cause in the county.

It probably seems a little different today from 50 years ago. Human rights then were regarded as a good thing and support was largely unquestioning. The war was a living memory for many and a desire never to see a repeat of the death and destruction of the war and the horrors of the Holocaust was deeply felt. 

A long time has passed however and today, we see successive Conservative governments seeking to end or curtail the Human Rights Act. Laws have been passed making protest more difficult and the police have been given more powers to arrest those protesting. Much of the media keeps up a steady campaign denigrating human rights and suggesting they are a means for terrorists and serious criminals to escape justice because their ‘rights’ have been infringed. We are made less safe they claim because of the act rather than the precise opposite. The benefits the act has brought is seldom mentioned. The success of the Hillsborough families in overturning the various coroner and court decisions and the false narrative put out by the police was a major example. 

Some sections of the media do not like the act since it provides some protection from press intrusion and this has led them to carry on a relentless campaign often supported by exaggerated stories.

In the past few years the issue of immigration has come to the fore and immigrants crossing the Channel by boat has become a political hot potato. The government is seeking to send some immigrants to Rwanda in an attempt to discourage smugglers from sending them over from France. There has always been hostility to immigrants as each wave has come over, the Jews from Russia for example at the beginning of the last century. But the notion that we would become more sympathetic and welcoming has not worked out. The question therefore is how embedded are human rights norms and beliefs in our society? The occasional desire for a return of the death penalty, hostility to refugees as just mentioned and evidence of the UK government’s involvement in torture, clampdowns on protest suggest that human rights and human dignity is only shakily rooted in our society.

So although the group is 50 this year, our work is not done!

If you live in the South Wilshire area, we would welcome you joining us. Follow this site for details of what we are doing.

0

Attacks on UK human rights


Human Rights Watch warn of risk of authoritarianism in the UK

November 2023

The latest Daily Brief from HRW warns of a deteriorating situation with regard to human rights in the UK which they say is ‘worsening’. The right to protest peacefully is under threat as we saw recently with the Palestinian march which the then Home Secretary was keen to ban. She attempted to force the police to ban the march which they declined to do.

They say that we are beginning to move towards a place where the government feels it can undermine the integrity of the judiciary, undermine or scrap human rights laws that don’t serve the current political agenda and to create new laws that do. It is ‘beginning to look very much like authoritarianism’.

A lot of this activity has been driven by two forces: the arrival of the ‘boat people’ across the Channel and the activities of climate protestors. The Palestine marches have recently reinforced this. In all cases, there has been a major outcry from the right wing media joined recently by Talk TV and GB News and this may have led the government to respond the way they have. There is an inherent dislike of protest and the publicity it is able to generate. Despite the march being largely peaceful, it did not stop them being described as ‘hate marchers’ by some. Members of the governing party, including the deputy chair, and soon Boris Johnson, have their own programmes on these channels to promote their views.

Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, is joint leader of the ‘New’ Conservatives pressing for the abolition of the HRA and for our departure from the European Convention.

0

Jagtar Singh Johal


Jagtar Singh Johal remains in custody in India on trumped up charges

November 2023

Jagtar was abducted off the street in 2017 and held incommunicado for a number of days during which time he was subjected to brutal treatment and was almost certainly tortured into signing a confession. His ‘crime’ as far as the India government was concerned was to represent the Sikh community and because of his human rights activity and his faith according to the UN.

He has now been in custody for 6 years and concerned lawyers have written to the UK Foreign Office minister Lord Ahmad, asking him to retract his comments saying that Jagtar will receive ‘due process’ in India. Manifestly he has not.

Many MPs were disappointed that the prime minister Rishi Sunak did not do more at the recent G20 summit when he met the India prime minister on the fringes of the meeting. Shockingly, it was revealed that the British security services MI5 and MI6 gave their Indian counterparts a tip-off which led to his arrest and torture. MPs and human rights organisations have criticised the UK government repeatedly over this affair and arrest of a British citizen. They have said the the government has been reluctant to press the Indian government over his arrest and mistreatment and have repeatedly failed to call for his release. The latest claim that he will be subject to due process flies in the face of all the evidence.

There is the suggestion that the ‘government’s timidity and reluctance to press his case too strongly relates to the desire to secure various arms deals with India. A Foreign Office spokesman is quoted as saying that it was committed to resolving his case ‘as soon as possible’.

Sources: Reprieve; Guardian; Independent; Amnesty International

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

Arrests prior to the coronation


Graham Smith, the leader of Republic, was arrested prior to the coronation and held for 16 hours

May 2023

UPDATE: 8 May: Police express ‘regret’ at the arrest of Graham Smith. No charges will be brought under the new Public Order Act against any of those arrested. The only charges brought are for drugs related offences. Questions remain concerning why the arrests were made in the first place and what, if any, pressure had been put on the police to make them.

We have been warning for some time in previous posts – along with other organisations – that the desire by the present government and Home Secretary Suella Braverman, to limit the ability of individuals and organisations to protest by passing a series of laws to limit such activity and to give the police yet more powers to carry them out. The new Public Order Act was rushed into law and signed by King Charles just days before his coronation took place.

Using the act (it seems), Graham Smith the leader of Republic, an organisation which believes we should be run as a democracy and not have an inherited royal family at the head of the country, was arrested before the coronation took place. It is unclear on what the grounds the arrest was made and he was released after 16 hours. He was not the only one to be arrested and others included volunteers from Night Stars which prompted Westminster Council to say it was ‘deeply concerned’ by their arrest.

The new legislation arose because of the activities of the climate protestors who used a variety of methods to disrupt the capital including gluing themselves to pavements. Their protests did seem to shine a light on the poor performance by the government to tackle the climate emergency. They were not popular however and the disruption caused to commuters and others led the government to pass a range of laws to limit the ability to protest. The Home Secretary famously said in parliament that such people were “Guardian-reading, tofu eating, dare I say the anti-growth coalition”.

There is a tension when it comes to protesting. There are many who are in support of peaceful protests but are angry about those which are disruptive in some way or even where there is some violence. The problem with peaceful protests is that they are almost always ignored. It is the more violent type which become news and where the cause is thereby recognised. There were many decades of peaceful protests for women to have the vote for example which yielded nothing. Once more violent methods were employed by the suffragettes, change eventually occurred although there were other factors at play.

The Salisbury Amnesty group neither supports nor condemns the campaign for the country to be a Republic. The issue at stake is the right to campaign on the matter. There is no specific right of protest. We do have the right to free speech and we do have a right of assembly under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention. Giving the police yet more powers to arrest on the pretext that the person might be disruptive is a worrying development. Another worrying development is the alleged use of facial recognition during the coronation. This technology has been widely used by repressive regimes such as China where the ability of people to move almost anywhere is tracked by the police.

Sources: Evening Standard, CNN, The Times, Amnesty International, and yes, the Guardian

0

Conservatives and the ECHR


Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, wants to take the UK out of the ECHR

December 2022

This post is based on an interesting article in yesterday’s Guardian newspaper, written by Martin Kettle, concerning the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman’s desire to take the UK out of the European Court of Human Rights. Some of the piece concerned his thoughts of the future of Rishi Sunak which is a political discussion upon which we do not comment. Our concerns focus on human rights implications of Braverman’s wishes to take the UK out of the purview of the ECHR.

Kettle notes that the proposed withdrawal is not Conservative Party policy, nor was is it in the latest manifesto in 2019. This indicates that Ms Braverman is operating on her own. The Home Secretary is one of a number of Conservatives (but by no means all) who see the ECHR as a kind of constraint to their ability to manage the nation’s affairs most particularly in connection with refugees and immigration.

This erupted a few months ago with the last minute abandonment of the flight to Rwanda (which was to take place a stones throw from where this post is written), in which the European Court played a key part. Immigrants crossing the Channel in small boats has been a regular news feature over many months and has caused considerable anger among many. As was noted in our last post, by denying safe and legal means to apply to come here, those desperate to escape war or persecution are more or less forced to use these means. When Suella Braverman was questioned about this last week in front of a select committee, neither she nor her PPS, were able to able to provide a convincing answer.

Kettle goes on to say that the arguments around human rights law “encapsulates and stimulates the Tory party’s haphazard retreat into a bubble of English exceptionalism. Whether it is expressed by Braverman or Dominic Raab, the common threads of this are a bogus sense of victimhood (exemplified by the delusion that Britain is uniquely affected by migration) and belief in greatness frustrated (the lies of Brexit) and an impatience with conventional wisdom in favour of reckless contrarianism”.

One of the party’s electoral strengths over many decades was that it claimed to be the party of law and order. Tougher and longer sentencing, crackdowns on this or that crime, support for the police and other actions enabled it to claim that they were the party to vote for if you wanted to sleep safely in your bed at night. Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, has noted that today’s ministers seem to display ‘a persistent and almost endemic frustration with legal constraints‘. A combination of rage by some sections of the media about the Channel crossings, combined with their large majority, seems to lead them to believe they can ignore domestic law, international laws and treaties. Laws which stand in the way of ministers pursuing a particular goal are fit only to be ignored or discarded.

In his recent talk to the Judicial Institute (6 December 2022) he refers to the ‘novel constitutional position: that governments are enjoying the confidence of a parliamentary majority have essentially a popular mandate to do whatever they like and that any obstruction of this is unacceptable’ (p10). He points out that this is not the monopoly of the Conservatives – Labour when in power went cold on the HRA and secretly aided American renditions post 9/11. This idea that the law is of value only if it suits the policy position of the government in power is a dangerous one. It goes against the Common Law principle which is key our unwritten constitution. Combined with a belief that a large majority means the public at large are at one with this is also an assumption too far. When there was a Daily Mail assault on the judges putting their photos on the front page under a headline ‘Enemies of the People’ (4 December 2016), because they took a decision their editor did not like, it was noticeable that the then Attorney General, Liz Truss, did not condemn this.

1

Qatar, world cup and human rights


Things have not gone all Qatar’s way in the World Cup

November 2022

Qatar has spent huge sums of money on building stadia and in attempts to promote its image around the world. It was perhaps the most expensive example of sports washing there has been. How successful is it?

Not going to plan

What is obvious is that it has not gone according to plan. Previous nation’s attempts to sanitise their image using sport have, from their point of view, been reasonably successful, one thinks of China. This has been because the sporting community: the sports people themselves, the managers and promoters, the media and many of the supporters – have cared little for the human rights of the countries where competition has taken place. So tennis, golf, boxing, cycling, horse racing, motor sport and other competitions have happily taken place in countries where torture is still practised, opposition is repressed, women have few rights and the death penalty is still a fact of life. Why let a stoning or public amputation spoil a game of tennis? No matter, the money is good and the sports pages of our media do not sully their pages with the sordid goings on outside the field of play. Sport has existed in a kind of bubble making it supremely suitable to be used by autocratic regimes to launder their image.

Qatar has been different. People have noticed and suddenly, some of the sports pages have moved away from sports reporting and are talking about arm bands, protests and footballers not singing the national anthem. The wearing of arm bands has become politically charged. There are pictures of people holding up posters particularly about women’s rights (or should we say, the absence of them). Yesterday, it was the German team covering their mouths. David Beckham who, up till now, has been able to promote himself as the honest Essex boy done good, is now seen in as a somewhat dubious light having accepted a reported £120m fee to be an ambassador for the Qataris. It is said he will not now get his knighthood. When reporters approach him for interview, he is silent. Not yet hero to zero but certainly a damaged brand.

FIFA want us to focus just on the football. Never mind the 6,500 worker deaths, the near absence of women’s rights, the silencing of opposition people and the anti LGBQI+ actions and laws. Where once football was to be the means by which nations came together and mutual understanding increased, now we are enjoined not to look outside the stadium itself. FIFA’s Infantino tells us that he understands prejudice because he has freckles and red hair which was a problem for him at school.

Sports washing may not be the same again

One positive thing may emerge from this World Cup and that is the days of sports washing may not be numbered but it will make countries and despots think twice in future. Instead of hundreds of thousands of supporters and spectators arriving to marvel at the spectacle no questions asked, some of them are asking questions. Some might even be a little uncomfortable at being there at all. The sports pages now mention the uncomfortable truths about the regime where the event is held and do not simply report on the sport as though wearing blinkers. Sport has been a willing captive, happy to take the millions and all too ready to claim ignorance of what happens outside the stadium or arena. The media has also followed the money. Perhaps those days are over and future events will bring a greater readiness to question and take account of the human rights situation in the host country.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑