Category: “Human rights”

Wine and rights


The Wine Society (UK) is paying special attention to human rights in its supply chain

September 2023

The Wine Society was formed in 1874 and flourishes today with many thousands of members and an enviable reputation for seeking out and supplying quality wines from around the world. In its latest newsletter to members (Issue 12, Autumn 2023) it has an article Announcing the fair treatment of workers in our supply chain explaining what the Society proposes to do to ensure human rights are observed throughout the supply chain.

Globalisation has produced many advantages for consumers in the West. Products and produce from around the world have arrived on our shores and into our high street stores to enable people to enjoy cheap clothes, out of season produce and a wide range of manufactures which, if made in the UK, would be many times more expensive.

But globalisation has come with some serious disadvantages for those far away who toil in the fields or work in sweatshops for minimal pay.  They have no rights, and suffer many abuses which would be unacceptable in the UK.  For many this is out of sight and some companies like it that way.  Recently, companies – and quite respectable (?) high street names – have shown to be using cotton picked by Uyghur forced labour in China.  We can remember the Rani Plaza collapse in Bangladesh in which several thousand died working in a vast sweatshop producing cheap clothes for several well-known high street UK stores. 

Many firms now pay attention to the issue of how things are produced and the labour abuses happening far away across the world.  However, after every incident which is discovered, we see those same firms express shock at the revelations and claim in written statements (noticeably: few actually appear on screen to face interviews) that they knew nothing and state their company policy which is that they take seriously the issue of human rights. 

The Wine Society is cautious in its approach recognising that policing what growers and vignerons do in far flung parts of the world is not easy. Their requirements include no use of forced labour or children; promoting worker participation; decent standards of accommodation where this is offered; paying a living wage and recognising the rights of local communities to clean air and water. They are about to roll out an independent whistle blowing line across their entire global supply chain. They are also supporting The Sustainable Wine Roundtable a global collaborative platform. The Society’s overall aim is to have the world’s most socially and environmentally sustainable wine supply chain by 2030.

This is a welcome development and a recognition that importers in the UK have a direct responsibility to ensure, as far as they can, that those producing their wares in far away places are treated decently and their human rights observed. It is all too easy to place a contract with a supplier containing well-meaning clauses which in turn sub-contracts to someone else and so on down the chain ultimately to families living in squalor, paid a pittance – if that is they are paid at all – with children working instead of going to school, all with complete deniability.

And the Society supplies very good wine.

0

A change in the political climate for human rights


The post war human rights ideology is arguably now over and there is a need for new thinking

July 2023

The post war settlement and the introduction of a ‘rules based order’ for international affairs is arguably now in terminal decline. The creation of the United Nations and the introduction of the Universal Declaration seemed to usher in – many thought – a new way that governments would deal with each other and settle disputes through negotiation. The carnage of the Second World War in which millions of lives were lost was supposed to be a cathartic moment in world history, an event no one wanted to see repeated. Respect for human rights would be a core feature of how people lived around the world.

Recent history casts doubt on this idea and the rise of countries such as China, a post Stalinist Russia and the wealth of Saudi Arabia are beginning to show that the comforting idea of the rules based order is under considerable threat. More and more countries are showing that they can exist quite happily in the world by ignoring nearly all considerations of human rights and a democratic norms. China’s treatment of its Uighur minority has received wide coverage with nearly a million people being subject to so-called ‘re-education’ in an attempt to mould an entire population away from its beliefs and culture. They have almost eliminated any semblance of a free democracy in Hong Kong. Myanmar has brutalised its Rohingya minority forcing huge numbers out of the country. The treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the creation of what is effectively an apartheid state, shows that even a country with a powerful democratic system can behave badly towards those they wish to marginalise. We could quote other examples including Türkiye, Syria, Libya and more recently, Tunisia where in their different ways, human rights and the treatment of its citizens are a long way from the intentions of the Universal Declaration.

Sportswashing

We have discussed sportswashing in several previous posts and in particular, Saudi Arabia with its funding of Newcastle United football club for example, and hosting a Grand Prix, tennis and golf tournaments and other sporting investments. Since early 2021, they have invested at least £4.9bn ($6.3bn) in various sporting events and are currently seeking to purchase the footballer Kylian Mbappé from Paris St Germain for a reported €300m. For them it buys kudos. The sums are so large that a significant number of sports stars are willing to overlook any considerations of human rights and sign up for the various lucrative deals on offer. The extent of their denial of rights can be seen in a report by grant Liberty.

Commercial activity

It would be unfair to heap blame on sports stars alone. After a brief lull following the murder and dismemberment of Adnan Khashoggi, western firms are all too willing to get involved in the many deals and contracts on offer from the kingdom. Even architectural practices are lured to the many contracts of offer as part of the massive half a trillion dollar Neom development being proposed in south west Saudi. We have been happy to supply Saudi with a variety of weapons and personnel to enable it to carry on its war in Yemen creating what, according to the UN, is the worst humanitarian disaster in modern history. In addition to football clubs, the Saudi investment fund is being eagerly welcomed to Teesside.

The significance of the change has not really been taken on board. Saudi’s enormous wealth, China burgeoning power and the increasing post-colonial confidence of countries like South Africa, means there has been a shift away from the ‘Washington consensus’. Human rights have little if any role to play in most of the Gulf states. Opposition is banned, torture is widely practised, human rights activists harassed or arrested and media tightly controlled. A similar story exists in China which operates as a one party state and where human rights norms are largely ignored.

Countries like the UK seem almost to have given up on any pretence that human rights form part of their decision making and in our relations with these countries. In a sense, it is part of our national decline particularly economically. In a word, we can no longer afford to pick and choose. If we want investment in our country, especially in less popular areas (economically speaking) then if a country like Saudi has the money then so be it. If we want sell arms then we must hold our noses and sell to more or less anyone who needs them. Noises are made about export controls and end user certificates, but the pressure is to steer round them not to use them as a force to limit their sale. The recent loss of the court case concerning arms sales to Yemen is a case in point. It is not just the government’s failure to properly consider human rights issues and the terrible effects of bombing in Yemen, but the judges seemed also to push reason to one side in their judgement.

Post war consensus

Post war and in the half century or so which followed, was a period of hope and a belief that human rights could be encouraged around the world. It was not all plain sailing and it took a long time for oppressive states like East Germany to collapse along with other east European states to gain freedom from the Soviet Union. Many countries achieved independence from the colonial powers, France and the UK principally. The UN and its various agencies was able to pursue policies and programmes of benefit to millions of people, tackling polio for example.

In recent times, the leadership of US is coming under strain. Internally, it is struggling with the very concept of democracy. European states are far from united and although there has been some unity in the response to the invasion of Ukraine, they seem far from making the weather as far as human rights and the rule of law are concerned.

What is interesting about sport is the lack of conscience or morality among a significant number of sporting people. If the money is sufficient, they accept the gig, with seemingly no compunction. That women are treated as second class citizens, executions are carried on at an horrific rate, sometimes in public, torture is routine and LGBTQ people are punished or imprisoned, seems not to trouble them. The question is whether this reflects the zeitgeist of the population at large? Are people no longer interested in human rights considerations in our sporting and commercial actions? Have we reached a point in our history where we no longer believe in things which were always said to be a key part of the British character: decency, fair play and respect for the underdog? It would seem so. If the public is more concerned with entertainment and the success or otherwise of their team or sporting hero, who can blame the sportsmen and women taking the millions of riyals on offer?

There does need to be a rethink of our approach to human rights. The belief in largely state led approaches, through treaties, declarations, legal actions and the like, is no longer sustainable especially if the states concerned are more concerned with economic pressures than with the rights of people often far away. The centre of gravity has to a large degree shifted away from the West to countries like China, the Gulf states, Russia and non-aligned countries like Brazil. Some of these countries have a different concept of rights and see Western countries only too willing to turn a blind eye if contracts and sufficient money is on offer. It would seem a little foolish to continue pursuing the post-war ideology in a world which has substantially moved away from those ideas.

Sources include: Amnesty International; New Statesman; Guardian; CAAT, Grant Liberty

0

Reform of Human Rights Act scrapped


Government confirms plans to scrap the HRA will not now go ahead

June 2023

It seems to have been a permanent fixture of Conservative party manifestos and in ministerial statements, a desire to rid the country of the Human Rights Act, an act brought into being as a result of cross-party consensus. It is also a fixture of tabloid rage with hundreds, possibly even thousands of articles, referring to the act as a ‘terrorists’ charter’ and a means for criminals of all kinds to escape their just deserts.

But when it came to it, defining quite what was to be abolished and, more particularly, what it would be replaced with, seemed to defeat party legislators and the announcement that it was to be shelved appeared almost to put them out of their self-imposed agony. The Justice Minister, Alex Chalk, said “[it] was committed to a human rights framework which is up to date and fit for purpose and works for the British people“. The implication is that the current act does not work for the British people yet little or no evidence is put forward to this effect. It is also interesting to note that the government itself relied on the act when it came to the matter of releasing information to the Covid enquiry. Another organisation which routinely rails against the Act, the Daily Mail, relied on its provisions to prevent its journalists being identified in the Prince Harry libel trial.

The core problem is the people crossing the channel in small boats. Only this week, a report has been published which estimates that the cost of sending one individual to Rwanda could be in the region of £170,000 and hardly shows value for money. They also doubt the claim that it would have a deterrent effect.

It is good to note that the plan to abolish the act is now no longer an immediate threat. But the thinking behind it and the ceaseless criticism of it as being a cause of problems in our society is regrettable. The Act gives protections to ordinary people and enables them to seek justice from the state’s actions. Without it the victims of the Hillsborough disaster for example would not have succeeded against the state, the police and the media who all in their various ways, blamed the victims for the tragedy.

0

Human Rights and poverty


June 2023

Poverty a key element in depriving people of their rights

One of the criticisms of human rights and those who seek to promote them is the proliferation of what is regarded as a ‘right’. One such critic is Prof Eric Posner who has argued that the numbers and proliferation of rights makes them less and less effective. Others have joined in including the current Home Secretary who cites Posner in her various criticisms of human rights and how they are applied in the UK. On examination, much of what is termed ‘proliferation’ is in reality a refinement of a basic right often in the light of current circumstances. The world of social media and electronic communications with its contingent threat to the rights of individuals due to increased surveillance by states and others, would not have been anticipated by the drafters of the UN Declaration after the war. Increasing corporate power and globalisation has enable firms to move or outsource their manufacturing operations to countries with limited or no regard to the rights of their workers.

In its summer 2023 magazine, Amnesty International focuses on poverty as a key human rights issue. As James Griffin notes in his book On Human Rights (OUP, 2008) rights have little value unless people have the means to exercise them. Article 17 gives people the right to own property for example which is of little significance to those unable to get a mortgage, increasingly a concern for young people today. The government’s own statistics on poverty paint a dire situation in what, after all, one of the richest countries in the world. 11 million are in relative poverty before housing costs and 14.4 million after housing costs and there are 2.9 million children in poverty according to the report. We can argue about definitions (and these are explained in the report) but the fact remains that those who cannot afford to eat three meals a day and have to resort to food banks, who live precarious lives with low paid, uncertain jobs, or on zero hours contracts, are not going to be able to exercise many of their rights. Poverty is thus a key underlying factor.

It is one of the problems of a legally based system of rights. The law is only of comfort to those who can afford to gain access to it. For the vast majority it is expensive, extremely uncertain and of little direct value. Tackling poverty means addressing the ideas and politics which are the root causes of the problem.

Amnesty is part of a group ‘The Growing Rights Instead of Poverty Partnership‘ GRIPP. In a report it says ‘[It] reveals how the UK government has created a system that keeps communities poor, ill, divided and isolated then blames them for the conditions they are living in.’ It was submitted to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). The government would argue that they have introduced a variety of schemes to tackle poverty but fact remains that very large numbers of people are struggling. Recent rises in food prices – which hit the poorest the hardest as they spend a large proportion of their budget on food – rising interest rates and energy prices will have made matters worse for many. Article 25 of the UN Declaration says that ‘everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing.’

What is clear about poverty in the UK is how regionally disbursed it is. There are extremely prosperous areas and by contrast, large areas and numbers of communities where there is widespread deprivation. No one can argue that all those in such areas are somehow deficient or are responsible for their collective disadvantage. Clearly it is a systemic issue and a matter of political will or lack of it. Politicians have spoken about the problem and action has been promised, most recently with the levelling up programme. It does not seem to make a difference. The result is a significant number of people and shamefully, young people, who for no fault of their own, have significantly reduced life chances, health outcomes and opportunities mostly to do with poverty.

Poverty is thus a key factor in individual’s ability to secure a range of rights which, for the more prosperous, is taken for granted.

1

Minutes of November group meeting


We are pleased to attach the minutes of the group’s November meeting with thanks to group member Lesley for the work in compiling them. They contain a lot of interesting material including information about future events, planned or actual, as well as reports on refugees and the death penalty.

Note that the next meeting is December 8th at 2pm. We welcome new members and we hope to see returning ones now that we have shifted to an afternoon slot. We remain concerned about the range of bills and laws the government is planning to pass which will limit our rights to protest and its increasingly authoritarian tone. Refugees remain a live issue receiving much coverage in the media particularly about the boat crossings but who fail to mention the full facts.

November minutes (Word)Download
0

Arms firms’ staff employed in the Ministry of Defence


Report reveals the extent of arms firms’ staff employed in the MoD

28 September 2022

A report by Open Democracy reveals the extent of penetration of the Ministry of Defence by individuals employed by the arms companies. This raises immediate issues of conflict of interest, national security and the awarding of millions of pounds of contracts to those same firms as well as the question of licences allowing arms sales to proceed. Open Democracy report that the government would not say whether such secondments represented a conflict of interest.

There has been a long running campaign by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade CAAT, to hold the government to account for sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia. These weapons have been used in the war in Yemen causing untold misery and destruction and the deaths of at least 8,983 people. CAAT had some success and there was a brief moratorium. The government resumed offering licences claiming that violations of international human rights were ‘isolated incidents’. CAAT reports that an appeal is to be heard on 31 January 2023.

Firms include BAE, Leonardo and Qinetiq which has a large presence near Salisbury. The numbers are not small and around 50 individuals are involved. It has been confirmed that they were largely concentrated in the UK Defence and Export directorate which is involved in helping firms sell arms overseas. CAAT points out that it shows that the secondments are deeply embedded in the ministry. The government should be keeping a close eye on what arms are exported to which regime with proper attention to the human rights of the people involved in conflicts. This does not seem to have happened in the case of Yemen and free reign has been offered to companies to sell weapons to Saudi which have been used to bomb schools, hospitals, weddings and other targets. RAF personnel were also revealed to be involved in the activity.

An additional factor is what is called the ‘revolving door’. Senior civil servants, some ex-ministers and senior forces personnel – such as Generals and Admirals – leave or retire from their jobs and take lucrative positions in arms companies with only cursory checks. ACOBA is the government body charged with overseeing this is but has been widely criticised as ‘toothless’. A Private Eye report describes in detail the extent of the corruption. CAAT comments that staff leaving the forces or the MoD take with them extensive contacts and a deep knowledge of how the ministry works. Existing staff are reluctant to upset the arms companies for fear of jeopardising a lucrative consultancy or board appointment when it is their turn to retire. Transparency International have also reported on this problem in a report.

The sale of arms is a profoundly sensitive issue. What arms are sold to which regime is a matter of considerable importance. Films of conflicts around the world always show the various groups armed to the teeth with a wide range of weapons sold to them by overseas firms including those from the UK. These weapons cause untold misery, death or maiming of thousands of people and children. We surely have the right and expectation that the MoD is adopting the highest of standards in deciding on these matters and that decisions are taken with the greatest of integrity.

Yet what we find is that ministers are pusillanimous over the issuing of licences, that large numbers of staff from arms companies are involved in the decisions being made and that senior staff and military people are working in the expectation of being employed by the very companies they are supposed to be in control of.

The result of their actions is the death and suffering of people subject to bombing, drone attacks, cluster munitions, shelling and other outrages courtesy of UK arms firms aided and abetted by a deeply compromised Ministry of Defence. Is the Ministry working on our behalf, or to serve the interests of the arms firms?

0

Amnesty webinar: Bill of Rights


Amnesty webinar on the suspended Bill of Rights

21 September 2022

Amnesty ran a webinar on the Bill of Rights on 21st September having planned it when the bill was still a real option on the political calendar. Following the election of Liz Truss as the new prime minister, the bill was dropped. A spokesman said it was ‘unlikely to progress in its current form’.

The webinar was quick to point out that this is probably only a temporary suspension: a new bill was likely to see the light of day at some time in the future. The Conservative party has been hostile to the Human Rights Act for some time and abolishing it was a promise in its last manifesto. One of the problems with the bill one of the speakers noted, was it was rushed following the Rwanda decision by the European Court. It has been described as a ‘mess’ by several critics. One point which came through strongly was that the intention to do something in the way of a new bill if only to assuage the anti-European sentiment by a section of the Conservative party.

Another key element the webinar noted were attitudes to immigration and its related problem, deportation. This has posed severe problems for the government most particularly with people crossing the Channel in small boats the numbers of which have reached record levels. The government has felt itself vulnerable both from those coming in and its inability to deport those who make it to our shores. The desire for more draconian action, which brings us into conflict with the European Court, has been a key driver behind the proposed bill of rights.

Liz Truss has suggested that we may leave the Court which was described as ‘seismic’ in the webinar. The only two countries to leave the jurisdiction have been Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and Greece for its coup. For Britain to leave on the pretext of immigration problems was described as ‘extraordinary’.

A key figure is Dominic Raab MP who as Justice Secretary introduced the bill. Raab is the author of a book called The Assault on Liberty (Harper Collins, 2009) in which he sets out his objections to what is called the ‘rights culture’. A key passage gives an insight into his thinking:

On a daily basis, we read about the steady stream of human rights rulings undermining law enforcement, criminal justice and national security. Common sense turned on its head – warped the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and magnified by Labour’s feckless Human Rights Act – allows human rights to be wielded to protect and compensate serious criminals rather than their victims.

The Assault on Liberty, ibid

There is also the familiar canard of the police unable to rescue a child drowning in a pond because of a health and safety culture. The book provides a useful background to his thinking and possibly, other of his colleagues. The book goes on to argue that the human rights culture is fundamentally at odds with the British notion of liberty. The notion of liberty, which spawns ideas of deregulation, is an important backdrop to the proposed new legislation. The combination of a ‘rights culture’ and an alleged loss of liberty is one of the causes of our decline as a nation.

The government may be tempted to introduce a new immigration bill to get round the Rwanda problem. It is also subject to a constant demand to limit rights which are seen as economically damaging. Although the bill of rights is suspended, the danger is not over. Politicians such as Suella Braverman and Liz Truss are in important positions are firmly wedded to the notion of a reduction in our rights.

0

Bill of Rights shelved


September 2022

The Bill of Rights, which was a key feature of the Conservative Party’s manifesto, was shelved today as it was about to receive its second reading in parliament. It is unlikely to mean it will disappear altogether as the new government is keen to rid itself of the European Court and needs new legislation to carry out its policy of flying some immigrants to Rwanda. We await more details.

0

Further threats to our human rights proposed


Suella Braverman, the attorney general, proposes further action to counter the influence of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR

August 2022

The onslaught on the UK’s human rights continues apace. In a recent speech to the Policy Exchange thinktank, Ms Braverman argues for radical action to counter the influence of ECHR rules on UK legal affairs. This latest attack is almost certainly triggered by the decision of the European Court to prevent the deportation to Rwanda of a number of immigrants. This occurred almost minutes before the plane was due to take off from Boscombe Down airfield, a mile or two from where this is being written.

The government is evidently determined to reduce several key rights enjoyed by British people sometimes for centuries. A new act will make it harder to protest and gives the police and ministers greater powers to carry curtail them. The ability to seek judicial review is also to be curtailed. The ability to strike is to be subject to yet further restrictions. The Human Rights Act itself is to be abolished and replaced with a Bill of Rights which will be weaker. The weight of legislation, current or proposed, will together amount to a significant reduction in the ability of ordinary people to hold the government to account. We must also add sustained attacks on the BBC, its journalists and its funding, and the intention to sell off Channel 4 which are both seen as irritants.

We discussed in an earlier post, Ms Braverman’s dubious and we argued – quite inappropriate – attitude towards torture, echoing the arguments of Prof Posner of Chicago. We referenced an article in the Observer which showed that several of her claims about her career were of doubtful veracity: no record could be found for example of a supposed contribution to a legal text book. Her claims about the chambers she worked in were also questioned. She was one of the candidates to become Britain’s new prime minister.

In a review of her speech in the Guardian, she is quoted as saying:

[…] a culture where fringe campaign groups, purporting to champion rights, have claimed a moral high ground and have adopted an attitude of intolerance. Often with vastly inflated salaries and armed with a Newspeak dictionary, they have created mighty citadels of grievance across the public sector and made huge inroads into the private sector

Guardian, 11 August 20122, p5

She further claims that the UK now has a ‘rights culture’. One of the problems in discussing her comments and speeches is that few examples are given to illustrate the points she is making. She attacks the judiciary, the human rights community and is vociferous about ‘woke’ matters. She continues in office largely because of her loyalty to the outgoing prime minister, Boris Johnson. As Attorney General, she has to pursue a difficult balancing act. She is both law officer to the government and a member of the government, one of those peculiarly British positions which is fundamentally absurd but previous post holders have acquitted well. Ms Braverman has not, perhaps because of her loyalty to a prime minister who was forced to resign because of one scandal too many.

The concern is that the rhetoric and legislation which comes from it are becoming a danger. Human rights are seen as a threat. Quite how this ‘rights culture’ has damaged the interest of British citizens is never explained. She shares with Dominic Raab a dislike of protest, the judiciary and the European Court and they seek to weaken all of them, eagerly supported by the right wing press. Our system of government, imperfect as it is, is built on the notion of checks and balances. They seek to garner more power to themselves and, by more and more legislation, reduce the opportunity for challenge by protest or via the judiciary.

This post was written without using a Newspeak dictionary.

0

Human Rights and the new PM


July 2022

The likely human rights policies of the new prime minister are becoming clearer. Both are decidedly negative

In a previous post we commented on Rishi Sunak’s attitude to human rights if he becomes prime minister. At the time he looked to be the favourite as he had the most votes from his fellow Conservative MPs. His prospects look to be less clear now and there is a distinct prospect that Liz Truss will succeed when the Conservative party supporters vote. The reason is that they are largely from an older generation, mostly white and and live in the south of England. They are fearful of immigration and this may have led both contestants to ‘up the ante’ with regard to immigration and human rights.

Rishi Sunak has consistently voted against socio-economic policies which may benefit the poorest in our society. He has voted against policies which would tackle tax avoidance which in turn means the Treasury is denied billions of pounds of revenue which could be used for investing in our infrastructure.

Both Truss and Sunak are not exactly enthusiastic for environmental matters. Sunak has voted against on-shore wind turbines and Truss wants to abolish the Green Levy.

Both are against retaining the European Charter on Fundamental Human Rights and the abolition of the Human Rights Act to be replaced by a new Bill of Rights the details of which are awaited.

Both are keen on the Rwanda deportation policy and Truss is keen to extend it to other countries as well. Sunak has promised to increase the size of the Border Force and also introduce storage of immigrants in cruise ships moored around the UK.

There seems to be something of an arms race between them with daily statements by their supporters and in speeches promising to make immigration harder than ever to achieve. It seems to be to appeal to this narrow group of people who will vote for the new PM, who are thought to be anti-immigrants and want to see ever tougher action against them, particularly those arriving by boat. Some of these hostile attitudes are promoted by sections of our media, a pattern we have seen for some years. It is difficult to say whether it is the tail wagging the dog however. Whatever the outcome, it is depressing to note the desire by both candidates to express their hostility to human rights and the plight of immigrants.

In all these claims for ever tougher policies, the issue of legality has been raised. It is not just European laws but treaties we have signed over the years which make carrying out aggressive policies in this area difficult.

Rishi Sunak is supported in his bid to be PM by our local MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen. His wish to see the Human Rights Act repealed is well known and his They Work For You profile shows his general antipathy to human rights. The question is to what extent does he support these ever more aggressive attitudes to immigrants and asylum seekers? Perhaps he should be asked …

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑