Tag: Boris Johnson

Nazanin talk at Cathedral


Talk by Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe inspiring for those who heard it

March 2025

UPDATE, 12 March: For those who would like to revisit the talk, the Cathedral has produced a recording, available until 17th March. 19 March: now removed.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was interviewed in Salisbury Cathedral by the Rt Revd Bishop of Sherborne, Karen Gorham, about her experiences of being imprisoned in Iran and life after her release. Unfortunately, the sound system was such that many could not hear large chunks of what was said, some claiming only being able to hear a quarter of the discussion.

The local group was pleased that the Bishop, Nazanin and her husband all mentioned the role played by Amnesty and the introducer mentioned the local group in particular.

The event was a sell-out with nearly 1,000 people in attendance. It took place on International Women’s Day.

Nazanin made the point that there was a difference between being political prisoner and a hostage.

Being a hostage brought with it a different set of rules since what the legal case was did not matter. She also said you only appreciate freedom when you don’t have it for a long time. After release she found ‘adjustment quite difficult’. For a long time she said ‘my body was free but my mind was in prison’. Even meals were difficult because she found the rush of having to eat in prison was difficult to shake off.

She discussed the Boris Johnson affair. Johnson blurted out that Nazanin was in Iran to ‘train journalists’ which was untrue: she was there on holiday. This was used by the Iranian authorities against her. It took a long time for Johnson to meet her and he failed explicitly to apologise for his error despite the effect it had on her confinement. Both have been extremely critical of the British government during her ordeal.

Richard, her husband spoke about the ‘of the kindness of strangers’ . He also spoke of the role of Amnesty and of the symbolic nature of the Amnesty logo of a candle in a coil of barbed wire.

We apologise for the partial nature of this post for reasons outside our control. Image, Amnesty International.

BlueSky

1

Rwanda: the morality question


How moral is the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda?

July 2023

The wish by the government to deport asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda has consumed considerable political capital and is a topic rarely out of the news. It is the flip side of the problem of people arriving by small boats across the Channel which causes so much fury in sections of the media. The extreme difficulty in applying for asylum from outside the UK is only occasionally mentioned. Legal routes have all but been closed off forcing those seeking asylum to engage in perilous journeys. According to ex prime minister Boris Johnson however, writing for the Daily Mail in his new job, said there are ‘numerous safe and legal routes for people to come to Britain’. His argument is that once word gets round the ‘camp fires’ of northern France that there is a chance of being sent to Rwanda, the business model of the smugglers will be broken (We must take radical action to get Rwanda done!) 30 June*.

This raises a moral question which is that the idea of deportation and treating them badly is to use people as a matter of policy. It is using deportation as a kind of punishment for a class of people no matter what the legitimacy of their claim might be. It is also logically unsound since it will be the refugees who will suffer and end up in Rwanda, not the people smugglers. The likelihood of the policy deterring the smugglers has been challenged recently in an impact assessment report which notes that the Home Office had little evidence to show that it might work. Academics say that it is issue of culture, kinship and language which are important factors and changing the rules has little effect.

Stopping the boats – assuming that to be possible – does not stop the problem. War, persecution, climate and poverty are among the factors which force people to leave their homes and embark on long, perilous journeys to seek asylum.

It has been pointed out that Rwanda is not the best of countries as far as human rights are concerned. There is little freedom of expression. Journalists are harassed and intimidated and opposition leaders find it hard to make headway. Bloggers and lawyers are intimidated and sometimes unlawfully detained. What has not been commented on however is that the deportation policy crucially depends on Rwanda being a safe place for us to send refugees and it will be extremely difficult for the UK government to stop the deportations if evidence of mistreatment by police or security forces in Rwanda subsequently emerges. It will also be difficult and embarrassing for the government to criticise President Kagame for any infringements of evidence of bad treatment. Having invested so much political capital in the policy, to admit the country is not in fact safe will be extremely awkward.

Refugees will find it hard to settle in the country as did those who went their as part of the – now abandoned – Israeli scheme. Perhaps the enthusiasm for the schemes owes something to several Australians who act in advisory roles in Downing Street. The Australians sent their asylum seekers to islands in the Pacific in a much criticised scheme.

Public attitudes toward refugees seems slowly to be changing and a recent IPSOS poll showed the UK to have one of the most positive attitudes towards immigrants at 56%. The numbers wanting our borders closed totally has declined. 54% wanted immigrants to stay. This despite the relentless rhetoric in the tabloid press.

Government attitudes seem to have hardened by contrast and ‘stopping the boats’ is one of the prime minister’s five pledges. In the i newspaper on Saturday (2 July) there was speculation that the government is considering leaving the European Court of Human Rights to enable it to overcome the courts’ objections to the deportations.

In all the commentary, the political jousting in the Commons and the seemingly relentless articles in the media, the moral argument seems seldom to emerge. The boat people are treated as though they are almost criminal and there is even an attempt to besmirch the RNLI for rescuing them in the Channel: RNLI a Migrant taxi service claims the Daily Mail (1 July*). Deportation is to be used as an instrument of deterrence.

Some indeed might be economic migrants and not ‘real’ asylum seekers. But a large proportion are desperate people fleeing desperate circumstances and need our help. We have a moral and legal obligation to hear their appeals. It is a great shame that the voices of intolerance have such salience in our media and in some members of the government.

*Articles accessed 3 July

0

Migrants to be sent to Rwanda under new scheme


Priti Patel launches new scheme to transfer migrants to Rwanda

The government is caught in pincer movement as far as immigration and asylum seekers are concerned. On the one hand are those seeking to cross the Channel in small boats or dinghies, who are to be deterred at all costs, and on the other are those fleeing the war in Ukraine who the public want to be treated sympathetically.

The Home Secretary Priti Patel announced today (14 April 2022) a scheme with an initial cost of £120m to fly immigrants to Rwanda where they will be ‘supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest growing economies recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants’. Home Office press release 14 April 2022.

Perhaps there are two Rwanda’s: one in the imagination of the Home Secretary and the other which exists in the real world. The real world version is a long, long way from the idyllic country Ms Patel and the prime minister seem to imagine. The Amnesty country report in 2021/22 has a long list of human rights abuses which include disappearances and the use of torture. The case of Paul Rusesabingina has attracted some international attention. He was abducted from Dubai, tortured for 4 days, held incommunicado for a further 3 days and denied access to his lawyers for 6 weeks. Confidential documents from his lawyers were illegally confiscated.

The country has failed to ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearance and there has been a lack of independent investigation into a number of deaths in custody.

There has been extensive use of the Israeli firm’s Pegasus Spyware which has been used against activists, journalists, political opponents, foreign politicians and diplomats.

Human Rights Watch report a lack of credible investigations into enforced disappearances or suspicious deaths in custody. They report the use of arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and torture in official and unofficial detention facilities and fair trial standards are regularly flouted.

The Conservative MP Rory Stewart, interviewed on the BBC’s PM programme, doubts if anyone will be sent to the country. The idea is intended, he believes, to be a stunt to detract attention from the government’s woes at present with both the prime minister and the chancellor having been issued fines by the Metropolitan Police as part of the ‘partygate’ scandal. Let us hope he is right although it is reported Priti Patel flew to Rwanda yesterday (13 April) to seal the deal. The long term costs are not known.

It is not clear who will administer the places where the migrants will be housed: the UK or Rwandan authorities. If it is the latter, then there is a high risk that they will be subject to abuse and mistreatment if their record with their own population is repeated.

The policy is reprehensible on many fronts and panders to popular opinion. The Daily Mail online has a number of below the line comments including ‘I think this is a great policy’ and ‘Great idea, well done government, its (sic) time to do something about it.’ The most popular, attracting 13,362 likes [accessed circa 18:15] from Jaygee in Bucks UK: ‘Let’s put it to a referendum. Probably 75% in favour, snowflakes 25%’. The overwhelming level of comments was favourable for the policy. Several comments refer approvingly of the Danish scheme to send people to Rwanda – which is no doubt where the Home Office got its ideas from – but whether the Danes have actually sent anyone is not at present clear. A similar scheme where Israel sent migrants to Rwanda was abandoned.

The migrant problem is greatly exaggerated. Britain receives many fewer refugees and asylum seekers – around 0.02% of the global total – than other comparable countries. We make it almost impossible to come here legally (hence the fuss over difficulties for Ukrainians) which leads to desperate measures in the Channel. Overall, migrants are a net benefit to the country as a number of Home Office studies have shown. As a wealthy country we have a moral obligation to ‘do our bit’ for the international crisis of people fleeing conflict, war or persecution. The government has allowed itself to be driven by tabloid stories which are often exaggerated and overtly hostile to those seeking to come here.

A shameful policy, of doubtful legality, expensive and very unlikely to work in practice. It is very revealing of a mindset however and is unworthy of a country which aspires to be an influence for good in the world.

CORRECTION: Rory Stewart is no longer an MP.

Sources: BBC; Amnesty International; HRW; Home Office; Daily Mail

1

Death Penalty report: March – April


We are pleased to attach our monthly death penalty report for March – April 2022 thanks to group member Lesley for the work in compiling it. Singapore features quite strongly this month. Note that Chiana, which is believed to execute more of its citizens than the rest of the world combined, does not feature as details are a state secret.

Report (Word)Download
1

Saudi executes 81 in one day


News that Saudi Arabia has executed 81 people in one day has shocked the world. Where or how is not known but the usual method is beheading. It surpasses the 63 executed in one day in 1979. So much for the reforms Mohammed bin Salman was supposed to be introducing.

The dead were unlikely to have received a fair trial. They would almost certainly have been tortured into providing confessions. Saudi television said that those executed had ‘followed the footsteps of Satan’.

The executions brings into sharp focus UK relations with the regime. Saudi is our biggest overseas buyer of weapons many of which are being used in the war in Yemen. While our news media is giving wall to wall coverage of the war in Ukraine, the bombing of Yemen hospitals, clinics, weddings and other communal events gets scant coverage. Tens of thousands have been killed, including many children, and cholera is endemic.

The prime minister, Boris Johnson, is due to visit the kingdom in the next few days to try and increase the supply of oil. One wonders if the executions and the outrage they have caused will feature in the discussions. A Reprieve action urging Johnson to cancel his trip is here. Saudi Arabia has invested in Newcastle Football Club.

A report by the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights report on this can be accessed here. This organisation has been added to our list of contacts to be found at the bottom of the page.

0

Brexit: threat to human rights


Amnesty issues warning on the threat to human rights with Brexit

September 2019

Amnesty has issued a press release setting out serious concerns with respect to Brexit.  Amnesty has no position on Brexit itself but it is pointing out some of the implications if we leave.  The issue of the border in Ireland is receiving a great deal of attention at present and the threat to the Good Friday Agreement is a concern.

An additional worry is that the attitudes of most of the cabinet and our prime minister concerning human rights is to say the least, ambivalent.

For example, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the Chancellor Sajid Javid and the Salisbury MP John Glen have all, according to the ‘They Work for You‘ web site, generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.  They have voted against largely retaining the EU ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’ and the Chancellor and Mr Glen have voted for the abolition of the Human Rights Act.  Being part of the EU combined with all the attention being devoted to the arguments about leaving, has limited the government’s ability to repeal the Act.  If and when we leave, one of these constraints will largely disappear.

1

UN action on Yemen


The UN to send a team of experts to the Yemen
UK government tried to frustrate this

The United Nations has just announced in the last few days, that it is to send a team of ’eminent international and regional experts with knowledge of human rights law and the context Yemen for a period of at least one year’.  (HRC 36)  They will conduct a ‘comprehensive examination of all alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law.’

Readers of this blog and elsewhere will be aware by now of the dire situation in that country.  The latest figures, reported by the BBC, show that over 8,500 have been killed, mostly in air strikes, and around 48,000 injured.  A cholera epidemic has hit the country and over 700,000 are affected by that.  Matters are made worse because hospitals are bombed and there is a blockade hindering or preventing medical supplies getting through.  About 20 million citizens are in need of aid of some kind.

The crisis has come about because of Houthi rebels fighting government forces.  What has made matters worse is the aid the UK and other governments have provided to the Saudis.  In the past these have included cluster munitions – now banned but allegedly still being used – and Paveway bombs to replace them.  RAF personnel are involved in the control room but it is claimed they are not involved with the actual bombing.  The involvement of British military personnel was kept secret and was only known when it was revealed by the Saudis themselves.  Targets have included weddings, funerals, schools, markets and medical facilities.  Only recently, Amnesty reported on residential building hit by a US made bomb killing 16 civilians.  This was due to a ‘technical error’ it was claimed.

The establishment of a team to look into human rights violations is to be welcomed and in a statement, Amnesty International said:

A resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council today, authorising the establishment of group of international experts to investigate abuses by all parties to the conflict in Yemen, is a momentous breakthrough that will pave the way for justice for countless victims of human rights abuses and grave violations of international law, including war crimes.

The resolution was passed in Geneva today by consensus, after intensive negotiations.  It is the result of years of campaigning and lobbying by Yemeni human rights organisations as well as Amnesty and other international human rights and humanitarian organisations.  30 September 2017

Negotiations have been intense reportedly and it was the Canadian and Netherlands governments holding firm which secured a result.  The US, UK and French governments were dragging their feet.  This is because these governments have significant and lucrative weapons sales to the Saudis.  Only a few days ago, success did not look promising with the Daily Mail reporting a stalemate.  The actions by our government, the US and France prevented a proper commission of enquiry.

The Guardian reported on 24 September the UK’s role in seeking to block the enquiry:

Foreign secretary Boris Johnson last week rejected the need for such an inquiry, arguing that the UK was “using a very, very wide variety of information sources about what is happening to acquaint ourselves with the details” about Yemen.

But the revelation that the UK neutered EU attempts to bring about such an investigation is likely to raise questions about its motives.  Since the conflict began, the UK has sold more than £3bn worth of weapons and military equipment to the Saudis and defence contractors hope more deals are in the pipeline.

“Blocking attempts to create an international inquiry is a betrayal of the people of Yemen who have suffered so much during this conflict,” said Polly Truscott of Amnesty International.  “It’s shocking. The UK ought to be standing up for justice and accountability, not acting as a cheerleader for arms companies.”

Human Rights Watch has also spoken out about the role of our arms sales in worsening the conflict.  With Brexit on the horizon, the need to secure such arms sales will only increase and indeed, the Trade Secretary Liam Fox is off to Saudi soon to try and secure more sales of aircraft.

UPDATE: 2 October

A number of stars wrote to the Observer on 1 October calling for a ban on arms sales to Saudi.  Names include: Ian McEwan; Bill Nighy; Phillip Pullman.

 

Sources: Amnesty; BBC; The Daily Mail; Human rights Watch; Middle East Monitor; UN; Observer; Guardian

Maybe you feel shocked at the shameful role our government has played in this war and would like to do something about it.  If you would like to join us you would be very welcome.  Come along to one of our events which are listed at the end of our minutes or keep an eye on Facebook and Twitter or this site (Salisburyai).  It is free to join the local group

 

 

 

 

 

0

Saudi arms sales


The Campaign Against the Arms Trade CAAT, has finally managed to get the problem of our massive sale of arms to the Saudi regime into court – a process which has taken a considerable degree of legal wrangling.

At issue is our arms sales, put at £3.3bn to the Saudis, and the use of these weapons to bomb a wide range of civilian targets in Yemen.  This has caused untold distress with thousands killed and injured, and there are distressing scenes of malnutrition and dying children.  The Saudis have bombed schools, hospitals, weddings and funerals, sometimes returning to bomb the rescue workers causing further mayhem.  An estimated 6,000 have been killed.

They have also been shown to use cluster weapons which have been banned.

In today’s hearings correspondence was revealed from the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson in which he says:

The issue is extremely finely balanced, but I judge at present the Saudis appear committed both to improve processes and to taking action to address failures/individual incidents.

Picture: MSF

We will of course have to see what the judges decide in this case but in the debate in the House of Commons, one of the key matters discussed was what was described as ‘glacial’ progress by the Saudi government.  Although there are disagreements about the number of incidents, they number around 100 and yet the number investigations have been eight.  A wide range of agencies have criticised the government and the Saudis for the raids including Oxfam, Amnesty, WWF and MSF.

It seems clear that the arms sales tail is wagging the ministerial dog.  It is a real stretch to say ‘the issue is finely balanced.’  If we did not have so much tied up in these arms sales with money, jobs and local economies in the UK dependent on them, it is doubtful we would continue with such clear breaches of international humanitarian law.

We shall no doubt be returning to this topic in due course.

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook – salisburyai

2

UK government and Bahrain


UK government’s role in the abuse of people in Bahrain revealed

The Observer newspaper on 14 August 2016 contained revelations about the UK government’s role in training the police force in Bahrain which has a reputation for ruthlessly suppressing public protest and dissent.  The newspaper has been able to obtain a confidential agreement signed on 14 June this year, by the UK’s College of Policing and Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior.

It is alleged that this is a commercial arrangement between the two organisations which somehow omits any mention of human rights.  The College of Policing’s site is full of stuff about ethics and integrity and says:

We are committed to ensuring that the Code of Ethics is not simply another piece of paper, poster or laminate, but is at the heart of every policy, procedure, decision and action in policing.

The code itself is 23 pages long.  The College has earned £8.5m from its international word since its formation in 2012.  The Home Affairs Select Committee has criticised the College for its ‘opaque’ affairs and it has taken a leak to enable us to see some of the details of what was agreed.

At one level there is an argument that encouraging police officers to work in the country to raise standards is perfectly acceptable.  If by a combination of training and encouragement they are able over time to reduce the incidence of poor treatment, people denied lawyers and all the other things the Bahrain government is accused of, so much the better.  This is indeed the Foreign Office’s line.  However, there is much to improve – in the words of Human Rights Watch:

Bahrain’s human rights climate remains highly problematic. The country’s courts convict and imprison peaceful dissenters and have failed to hold officials accountable for torture and other serious rights violations. There is evidence that the security forces continue to use disproportionate force to quell unrest.  Human rights activists and members of the political opposition face arrest and prosecution and dozens have been stripped of their citizenship. Bahrain restricts freedom of speech, and has jailed and fined Bahraini photographers. Migrant workers in Bahrain endure serious abuses such as unpaid wages, passport confiscation, unsafe housing, excessive work hours, physical abuse and forced labor.

If on the other hand, the College is helping the security services in their various activities (with surveiilance and intercept techniques for example) then this is not an appropriate thing for them to do.  Their legitimacy has also been queried as they are set up as a company limited by guarantee.  DPG Law has queried whether the Home Office can outsource this kind of activity anyway.  Certainly, the trend recently by the UK government is to encourage business activities and to play down human rights concerns as it may offend countries which regularly violate them.  The absence of a human rights clause or statement in the contract is in line with this commercial approach.

The Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy has today [15 August] written to Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary:

NGO’s today sent an open letter to Boris Johnson, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, raising urgent concerns over the poor human rights record of Bahrain’s ambassador to the UK, and asking him to raise their concerns.

[They point out that] The ambassador, Sheikh Fawaz bin Mohammad Al Khalifa, is a member of the Bahraini royal family and formerly the president of the Information Affairs Authority (IAA), the state’s media regulator and home of state media channels and websites, including Bahrain TV and the Bahrain News Agency.

The full letter can be read here.

Al Khalifa, picture Wikipedia

This is a country where violence against peaceful protest, torture and other forms of mistreatment is the norm.  It appears a British agency is assisting the Bahrainis in their activities rather than seeking to help them reform since the human rights situation there is getting worse rather than better.  Even though the activity was commenced when our current Prime Minister Theresa May was the Home Secretary, let us hope that with the new broom in place, this dubious contract is ended.

Sources: Observer; Reuters

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑