Tag: Labour Party

Human Rights report


New report the group is launching

April 2025

Amnesty began by focusing on human rights in other countries. This was probably based on the belief that rights in the UK were secure, we had after all, the Magna Carta, a justice system and things like torture ended several centuries ago. The UK was a key player in introducing the Universal Declaration in 1948. With the arrival of the European Court, it soon became clear that not everything in the UK human rights garden was rosy. The Birmingham Six case was a classic example of a failure to treat the six defendants fairly. The police fabricated evidence, the six were badly beaten in custody, the courts and judges manifestly failed, the forensic evidence was a nonsense. Eventually they were released – not because the justice system worked to correct its mistakes – but because of the dogged work of Chris Mullins, an MP and journalist.

In the recent decade and a half, there has been a long-lasting campaign, largely led by some newspaper groups, to denigrate the Human Rights Act and to claim that it is a ‘terrorist’s charter’ and allows serious criminals to escape justice because of allegedly spurious arguments provided by their human rights. This has been echoed by the Conservative party who have variously claimed to want to abolish or reform the act. We can remember the nonsense claim by Theresa May that a Chilean man could not be deported because of his cat.

Human rights therefore are by no means secure in the UK. Legislation introduced by the last Conservative government limiting the right to protest and increasing police powers, together with the remorseless increase in the use of surveillance technology, shows no sign of being annulled by the current Labour government.

Hence we feel the need to focus on our rights here in the UK and the slow but steady attempts to limit or curtail them.

Funding for victims of trafficking

The High Court has declared that denial of Exceptional Case Funding to four victims of trafficking to access legal advice to prepare an application for criminal injuries compensation breached their rights under Article 6 ECHR.

Military Misogyny 

A coroner has concluded that the UK government may have breached a young soldier’s right to life by failing to protect Jaysley Beck from a sexual assault by a more senior colleague and from sustained unwelcome sexual attention from her line manager.

Deaths in custody

More than 100 relatives of people who have died after contact with the police in the UK since 1971 have joined plans for a class action lawsuit in pursuit of compensation and justice.  At the People’s Tribunal on Police Killings, bereaved families presented evidence to a panel of international experts on how their relatives died and the long-term impact this has had on them.  The findings and conclusions of the event will form the basis of a first-of-its-kind legal action directed at police officers, police chiefs and government departments involved in the deaths.         

Economic, Social, Cultural Rights

Claims by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch state that the UK faces a cost-of-living crisis which has yet to be addressed by policies that safeguard the economic, social and cultural rights of people from low-income households, particularly their rights to food, housing and social security.

Freedom of Expression 

Following last year’s criticism of the UK by the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, the High Court concluded that anti-protest measures introduced in 2023 – allowing authorities to clamp down on any protests deemed ‘more than minor’ disruptions – unlawfully restricted protest.  The Labour Government has yet to repeal these repressive laws and is choosing to continue the legal challenge against the High Court ruling brought by the previous government.

Environmental Protest Sentencing 

Gaie Delap (pictured), retired teacher, Quaker and climate protester has finally finished her sentence. 

Her detention was notoriously extended when prison authorities could not equip her with a curfew tag bracelet.  She said: “I think around 80% of the women I met should not have been in prison.  Help with problems such as mental health, addiction and housing would have been more useful.” 

This week the Court announced its ruling to uphold most of the harsh sentences of the ‘Walney 16’, jailing the group for a combined total of 35 years (originally 41) for peaceful protest.  Global Witness say that the UK is at risk of becoming one of the world’s most repressive governments when it comes to policing climate protest, arresting campaigners at three times the global average. Lawyers for the protesters, backed by campaign groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, argued that the sentences were disproportionate and violate the UK’s obligations under human rights law, including articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 3(8) of the Aarhus Convention.

On 25 March prescriptive policing led to the arrest of six Youth Demand members as they met in a London Quaker House.  The civil disobedience group has protested new oil expansion and UK arms to Israel.  Quakers (not allied with the group) have protested at the police raid on their premises. 

Open Justice 

Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool from customers in the UK, after the government demanded access to user data, citing powers given to it under the Investigatory Powers Act.  After reluctantly pulling ADP from the UK, Apple has now launched legal proceedings against the government who argued it would damage national security if the nature of the legal action and the parties to it were made public.  However a judge has sided with a coalition of civil liberties groups and news organisations – including the BBC – and ruled a legal row between the UK government and Apple over data privacy cannot be held in secret. 

Sources: BBC News; The Guardian; Global Witness News; Doughty Street Chambers; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty.

0

UK Refugee Report: Political Issues and Policy Changes


This month’s refugee report on this vexed problem focuses on political issues in the UK

February 2025                                                        

This month the concentration will be on the continuing situation in the UK, with legislation going through and much pressure from certain political parties on the issue.

The Government’s Border Security Asylum and Immigration Bill passed its second reading this month. This Bill repeals the previous government’s Safety of Rwanda Act and some of its Illegal Migration Act. As presented, the Bill has received a cautious response from refugee and asylum organisations, most taking the view that it could have been worse.  The new offence of “supplying or handling ‘articles for use in immigration crime’” is expected to only be rarely used, despite the draconian punishment.  The other main provision concerns applying anti-terrorist legislation to smuggling gang leaders when caught.  Most organisations in the field point out that gang leaders rarely have assets in the UK and the National Crime Agency have said that most crime gangs are based in France, Belgium, Germany or Turkey, the success of this initiative is therefore to be doubted.

Blanket denial of citizenship

As of this week, the Home Office has been accused of a policy of denying citizenship to anyone who arrived by irregular means, however long ago, and despite being given leave to remain.  This would appear to be in breach of Article 34 of the Refugee Convention.  The issue is continuing.

Among the boat arrivals, the number of deaths recorded in transit was 78 in 2024, three times higher than the previous year. Pressure on the boat suppliers has led to more overcrowding, among other causes.

Within the European Union, irregular migration figures are down by 38% from 2023 to 2024, according to Frontex.  Migration routes from Tunisia, Libya and the Western Balkans have been made more difficult, but the policy of the government of Belarus in pushing migrants to the west has added to the numbers from that source.  Frontex are developing the use of AI on the borders.

The UK government has been publicising its deportation programme for unsuccessful claimants. Between 5 July 2024 and 31 January 2025, a total of 18,987 returns were recorded – an increase of 24%, the Home Office said.  Removals of foreign national offenders were up by 21% and illegal working raids – on such places as nail bars and car washes – are up by 38% compared with the same period 12 months previously.  Videos of people being put on planes* (for unknown destinations) have been put in the public arena.  Of the total returns since 5 July 2024, 2,925 were of foreign national offenders – an increase of 21%.

The backlog of asylum cases continues to be a concern.  In the last year, the proportion of asylum claims that have been accepted has dropped from 75% to 52% with a resulting increase in the number of appeals.  So, although the initial backlog built up over years has fallen, it is constantly being topped up. The last available figure, for September, was 97,000, but the Home Office say it is reducing.

Criticism of language used

A report by the Runnymede Trust has noted the language of the immigration debate, particularly the widespread use of the word “illegal”, although governments have tended to avoid the word as immigration is not illegal, though it may be “irregular”.  It blames media reporting for encouraging hostility towards migrants. In parliamentary debates and media reporting, negative terms like “illegal”, “flood” and “influx” are persistently used in association with migrants, posing them as a threat, dangerous and outsiders. The word “illegal” is in the top five most strongly associated words with ‘migrant’.

The pause in accepting Syrian refugees since the revolution is continuing despite urging from Damascus to process ongoing claims.

The Migration Advisory Committee has called for a change in the rules on working, asking for claimants to have the right to work after six months in the country.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees issued a report this month on the working of the immigration system, and made some recommendations for improvement. Overall, the inquiry found that the current processes for safe and legal routes are overly complex, restrictive, and slow, leading to prolonged family separations and increased irregular migration. The report says UK governments since 2019 have adopted a “scattergun” approach to safe and legal routes.

“They have failed to effectively utilise the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS) and cooperate with the UNHCR to provide quotas for arrivals on this scheme. Instead, nationality specific schemes, each conferring differing entitlements, have been adopted, meaning that access to family reunion, immigration status and integration prospects are dependent on the scheme you arrived on which is unfair and inefficient.

“The refugee family reunion route was also highlighted as not operating effectively. Despite the number of visas issued increasing significantly in 2024, two-thirds of cases are failing to meet the Home Office’s own service standard of processing within 60 days. A backlog of family reunion cases has risen to at least 11,000 cases. The UK also operates one of the most restrictive refugee family reunion policies in Europe.“

The APPG makes three main recommendations. Firstly, it calls for improvements to refugee family reunion by processing cases within 60 days, allowing refugee children to sponsor their family members, and removing financial restrictions on UK-based sponsors. Secondly, it recommends restoring the UK Resettlement Scheme as the primary resettlement route and reaffirming the commitment to resettle 20,000 Afghans under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme. Thirdly, the report proposes introducing a pilot refugee visa scheme targeted at high grant rate countries, with a cap of 10,000 visas during the pilot period.

Finally, Amnesty are offering small grants for actions during Refugee Week in June details are available on the Local Groups email (but the final date is Monday!)

*the video is embedded in this LBC post.

AH

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

Apartheid in Israel


The group hosted a talk on the Apartheid state established by Israel against the Palestinians

June 2023

UPDATE: 17th June. British parliament to debate the UK/Israel trade agreement in which there is a risk that illegal settlements will be recognised to be Israeli

On 13th June, the Salisbury group and Salisbury Concern for Israel Palestine (SCIP) hosted a talk on the apartheid state established by Israel against its Palestinian citizens. The talk, with slides and film clips, was given by Garry Ettle who is the voluntary coordinator for Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. It was mostly built around the report Amnesty prepared last year.

The speaker went through the main thrust of the report’s conclusions and the evidence compiled by Amnesty over a three or four year period. It is some 280 pages in length and together with similar reports by Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem in Israel (who first used the apartheid term) and the UN, represents a compelling case of how the Israel authorities have created a two state solution where the Palestinians are deprived of land and housing, denied economic and social rights, suffer from the segregation of their communities and they are subject to illegal acts against them including the arrest and mistreatment of Palestinian children.

The denial of rights for Palestinians is enshrined in the 2018 Nation State Law which says that the ‘State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people’. This follows years of oppression which started in 1948 with the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction hundreds of their villages. Since 1948, 700 new Jewish settlements have been created but no Palestinian ones have been allowed. Palestinians are caught in a kind of Catch 22: their properties are demolished because they do not have permits but permits are almost never given.

The policy of fragmentation means travel around Israel is almost impossible. Gaza is essentially an open prison, with travel out of it almost impossible and there is a 3 mile limit from the coast. It is surrounded by a buffer zone. The most distressing evidence during the presentation was the arrest of children in the middle of the night who are then held, sometimes in solitary confinement and there is evidence of rough treatment.

Response

Despite the huge weight of evidence from several agencies compiled over several years, the Israeli government has not sought to refute it. They have simply accused the agencies, and Amnesty in particular, of being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. There has been no point by point rebuttal of the evidence.

UK Government

The response by UK governments over many decades has been shameful and continues today even after the compelling evidence of the various reports mentioned above. Rishi Sunak, now the prime minister of the UK in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle in August 2022, praised Israel as “a beacon of hope“. When asked about the Amnesty report in particular said “[it] could only make a solution to the Israel, Palestine conflict more elusive“. He then made the outrageous claim that “those who label Israel an apartheid state also deny Israel’s right to exist”. But arguably the most egregious remark in the interview was “the Amnesty claim is not only factually incorrect but frankly, offensive“. No evidence is provided for these remarks and it simply seems to be an echo of the Israeli government’s own propaganda.

The Foreign Office simply says it is “aware of these reports and does not agree with the terminology used within them” (August 2022). Again, no evidence is provided. The full statement of UK government which follows is considerably one-sided. It is in response to a petition following the various reports.

“[…] As a friend of Israel, we have a regular dialogue with the Government of Israel. This includes encouraging the Israeli government to do all it can to uphold the values of equality for all. Minister for the Middle East, Amanda Milling, emphasised this point in her recent meeting with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Roll during her visit to Israel and the OPTs“.

The response simply does not address the huge imbalance of power between the Israeli’s and Palestinians. It is blind to the fragmentation of territories which make travel for Palestinians almost impossible. To read the weight of evidence in the three reports and compare it with the FCO’s response is to wonder if it is the same country being described.

Labour Party

Labour has had its own problems concerned with alleged anti-Semitism within the party in the Corbyn years. In a video interview a year ago with Sir Keir Starmer by the Jewish Chronicle, Sir Keir was asked about the Amnesty report and did he agree with the apartheid claim made by Amnesty? His response was “No, I’m very clear about that. It is not the Labour party position”. Once again, a simple denial with no explanation. He was very insistent earlier in the interview about his desire to ‘root out anti-Semitism’ within the party.

The accusation of anti-Semitism against anyone who criticises the actions, over many decades, by the Israeli government against its Palestinian citizens seems to have struck terror into our politicians. Terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups against Israeli settlements are rightly condemned. But the numbers of Israelis who have died is but a tiny proportion of the numbers of Palestinians who have died at the hands of Israeli forces.

To criticise Israel and to provide copious evidence of its policy of apartheid, is not anti-Semitic. The evidence shows that it is and it is up to the Israeli government to rebut the evidence presented in the reports.

0

Starmer denies apartheid report


Sir Keir Starmer – leader of the UK Labour Party – does not accept the Amnesty report on Apartheid in Isreal

Sir Keir is quoted today* saying that ‘he did not accept the findings of the Amnesty report that Israel is an apartheid state’. This was said in connection with a visit by representatives of the Israeli Labor party in London.

Amnesty is not the only organisation to find that Israel is running an apartheid state. In January 2021, B’Tselem – an organisation based in Israel – produced a detailed report which concluded the same thing. This was followed by Human Rights Watch in July who also produced an extremely detailed report which also concluded that Israel was an apartheid state. Then there was the Amnesty report in February this year closely followed by the UN special rapporteur’s report in March. Four trusted organisations, all of whom producing factual and detailed reports and all concluding that Israel was indeed running an apartheid state as far as the Palestinians were concerned. Exactly as in South Africa, rights were removed, homes were demolished, movement restricted and two sets of laws created for Jews and Palestinians.

It is therefore extremely difficult for Sir Keir Starmer to deny the conclusions of the Amnesty report without also denying all the others. The Labour party was bedevilled by allegations of anti-Semitism during the Corbyn years a stain which still remains. Unfortunately, any criticism of the state is met by claims of anti-Semitism. All the above reports were so condemned.

Sir Keir is no doubt sincere in his desire to rid his party of any anti-Semitism. But he will not do that by denying the facts. If he does not accept the Amnesty report (and by extension all the others) he should rebut it item by item. It is disappointing that someone who wants to become leader of the country and import some integrity into our politics, should act so cravenly.

*Guardian 29 April 2022

Further link added 1 May 2022

0

Significance of the new Labour Party leader


Appointment of Sir Keir Starmer is an encouraging development for human rights

In previous posts, we have noted the campaign by some members of the Conservative government and  some parts of the press, against the Human Rights Act and the desire to abolish it.  The election of Sir Keir Starmer as opposition leader is an encouraging development therefore.

Sir Keir Starmer, the new Leader of the Opposition is, famously, a barrister.  He was also, famously, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a man who decided what charges should be brought and against whom. So what should we expect from a party led by someone deeply involved in human rights questions at a time when rights are under enormous pressure, not just globally but also in this country?

Once the coronavirus episode is over and normal(ish) political business returns, one of the first matters to be considered will be the increased power the government has accrued during the emergency, and what to do about it in the future.  The Labour Party has supported the emergency powers for the next 6 months, but will clearly need to review this at an early opportunity. Starmer has not expressed a view as yet, but we know that much of his previous work has been in defence of persons threatened by an overweening state.

Starmer’s career was built on work in the human rights and civil liberties field, notably in cases like the McLibel affair (environmentalists sued by McDonald’s over claims made in a factsheet) and East African and Caribbean death penalty cases.  He was named as QC of the Year in the field of human rights and public law in 2007 by the Chambers & Partners directory and in 2005 he won the Bar Council’s Sydney Elland Goldsmith award for his outstanding contribution to pro bono work in challenging the death penalty throughout the Caribbean and also in Uganda, Kenya and Malawi.  From 2003 to 2008, Starmer was the human rights adviser to the Policing Board in Northern Ireland.

Now we have (more or less) left the EU, extremists within the government may well want to detach us from the European Convention on Human Rights (nothing to do with the EU, remember), as well as rescinding the Human Rights Act.  Starmer has publicly defended the ECHR in debate (see The Lawyer 15/9/15).  In his Blackstone Lecture of 2015, he refuted the arguments against the existing HRA in considerable detail.  He has also written text books on the HRA, so is fully versed in the minutiae.

Martin Kettle has noted the change in outlook on human rights within the legal profession following the Act (see Prospect Magazine Feb 2020), and Starmer’s position at the forefront of this change.  With a liberal judiciary under pressure at the moment, his support may be important in the coming period.  Starmer will face attacks from left and right, but will be used to that.

It is notable that the Daily Mail is already leading the charge against the new man, tarring Starmer as a defender of IRA bombers (but then the Mail’s grasp of what lawyers actually do has always been rather tenuous).  The tabloid press are, of course, hostile to Starmer anyway since his decision as DPP to prosecute them over phone-hacking.

From the left, he has been criticised for – during his time as DPP – not pursuing the prosecution of the police officers accused of killing Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson (although in the latter case, he changed his mind in 2011 when new evidence came to light).  Also, he announced that MI5 and MI6 agents would not face charges of torture and extraordinary rendition during the Iraq War, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, as James A Smith has pointed out in the Indy (9/1/20).

Sir Keir has given a clue as to his approach by appointing as his chief legal colleague on the front bench, David Lammy, while Lisa Nandy will be at foreign affairs, both of them with good records on human rights issues.  Lammy has been leading in parliament on the Windrush scandal, while Nandy has been strongly supportive of making businesses report on the human rights impacts of their operations.

 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑