Saturday, September 02, 2023

‘We Need to Confront the Lie That There are ‘Safe Routes’ for Refugees to Come to the UK’

The truth is that Rishi Sunak’s Government is complicit in forcing desperate people to risk their lives in order to seek refuge in this country

Zoe Gardner
31 August 2023
BYLINE TIMES

A group of people are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, by the RNLI following a small boat incident in the Channel.
 Photo: PA Images / Alamy
 

If you listen to any of the many representatives of anti-migrant policies in the media, from the Prime Minister, to the Home Secretary, down through the pecking order to the third former Ukip leader you’ve never heard of, you could be forgiven for believing that migrants and refugees make some really strange personal choices.


Specifically, you would probably believe that the Government has made available safe, formal routes to the UK that refugees are able to access, and that many choose instead, out of some perverse thrill-seeking urge, to “jump the queue” and take incredibly dangerous, irregular journeys across the Channel facilitated by smugglers. It’s time we confront this absurdity head on: the availability of safe routes to the UK for refugees is a lie.

First of all, there is no legal pathway to the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum. While there may be ambiguity in other areas, on this there is none. There is no way to apply for asylum from a British embassy or anywhere else abroad, or to obtain a visa to enter the UK for the purpose of claiming asylum.


This is, in fact, the very reason why international law permits people who make it to the UK to request asylum, and the very reason why the Refugee Convention states that refugees must not be penalised for taking irregular routes to reach a country of asylum. The only way to legally claim asylum is to already be in the UK – and for most people that involves taking an illegal route – it’s a catch-22. 


Given this straightforward fact, one might wonder about the need for an article such as this. The lie about access to safe routes has been allowed to gain such power because it is based, as all the smartest lies are, on a kernel of truth. There are some very limited ways in which some people are able to enter the UK as refugees, that have been distorted to present a picture of available routes, which are in fact meaningless in the vast majority of cases. In recent years, available routes have been closed and reduced, bit by bit.



2R5EXMK Falmouth’s 2nd protest against the Bibby Stockholm vessel being modified by AP to hold 500 refugees

Today, if you are at risk of persecution, but not from Ukraine or a British Overseas National from Hong Kong, your options are so limited as to be functionally non-existent. The worldwide population of refugees outside of these categories that were able to benefit from a safe relocation pathway to the UK in the 12 months to June 2023 was 3,408 – this represents an 83% reduction on the year before. The Government obscures these stark figures by citing numbers for the last five years combined, or by simply citing routes that are no longer operational.


But the truth is, the pathetically small number of “good refugees” who come through these routes as they’re “supposed to” includes just 2,570 Afghans, who have benefited from a variety of routes, only one of which remains open to this day (and which it is not possible to apply for) which has so far helped just 54 people to reach us.


374 people from Syria and a mere 136 people from Sudan – two of the world’s most currently dangerous countries – have obtained passage to the UK through resettlement in the last year, with yet fewer from other refugee-producing countries like Eritrea, Iran and Iraq.

Nonetheless, it is not unusual for Government Ministers to cite the Syrian relocation scheme when they list examples of supposed safe routes that refugees can access. The specific Syrian relocation scheme in fact did enable 20,000 people to travel safely to the UK. But it was introduced in 2015 by David Cameron, literally five Conservative Prime Ministers ago, and has been closed since early 2021. There is no meaningful way for a Syrian person – regardless of their connections to the UK – to apply for passage to this country if their life is in danger now. But those 374 people allow the government to keep peddling the lie.


Meanwhile, over 8,000 Afghans have made it to the UK in the past 12 months by taking a small boat and risking their lives in the Channel. Six tragically died in August making the attempt. Unknown thousands more have died at earlier stages along the dangerous journey to escape from danger.


‘Making the ECHR the Bogeyman is the Conservatives’ Next Big Fear Campaign’

Calls for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights shouldn’t be viewed as mere sabre-rattling – as many did with Conservative promises to leave the EU, writes Nicholas Reed Langen



Trading in Lives

Iurge you to read the story reported in the Washington Post of Thaer Khalid al-Rahal, a Syrian father who waited with his family in a camp in the “first safe country” he reached for ten years hoping for a chance at resettlement to a country where he could rebuild a life for his children. When his four-year-old son was diagnosed with leukaemia, he couldn’t wait any longer. He made his way across the desert to the North African coast and boarded a boat trying to get to Europe. That boat sank and Thaer Khalid drowned along with around 650 others. This is where the lie of those safe routes brings us in the end.


I cannot endure the lie that obscures our Government’s culpability for the deaths of people like Thaer Khalid. In the face of ever more brazen distortions and dishonesty from those who seek to build their careers off anti-migrant hatred, we human rights defenders have always taken comfort in our expertise, on the facts being on our side. We have spent so long waiting for the facts to come to light and everyone to realise we’ve been right all along, it’s hard to recognise that the other side will never be held to account in the way we long for.

We need to trade in our facts for the larger truth. The facts may be that there are some, highly restrictive, extremely limited, cynically and minimally deployed ways in which a few “good refugees” can make it to the UK through government-sanctioned routes, but the real truth is that there are no safe routes to travel to the UK available to refugees. And that truth is killing refugees at our borders.


WRITTEN BY

 

Universal basic income and reproductive labour

With a renewed interest in universal basic income (UBI), maybe it is time to reconsider its gendered capabilities

June of this year (2023) saw the announcement of two proposed UBI micro-pilot schemes in England, one in Jarrow, North East, and the other in East Finchley, north London. Once deemed ‘radical’, this particular proposal would see an unconditional basic income of £1,600 paid individually to participants for a specified period of time. Important features are that a UBI is an unconditional, regular cash payment paid directly to the individual, as opposed to the household, irrelevant of income status. Whilst criticism remains, across the political spectrum UBI has been touted as a contender for addressing poverty and guarding against problems of the future such as climate breakdown and loss of jobs due to automation and artificial intelligence.

Whilst the notion of a UBI is not new, with trials having already been implemented in places such as Alaska, North Carolina, California, Canada, Finland, Germany, Spain, and Kenya, there has been increased interest in the UK, particularly post-Covid. In July 2022, Wales introduced a pilot offering more than 500 care leavers £1,600 per month for a period of two years to support their transition to adult life. The ability to have this unconditional payment from state to citizen could have a wealth of benefits – financial, emotional and physical, all which may have positive outcomes not only for the individual but for society as a whole. Whilst the aforementioned benefits are regularly discussed, less so is the transformative potential of a UBI with regards to women and reproductive labour.

Women and work

Gendered divisions of labour have long been unequal and reproductive labour disproportionately burdens women and girls. Indeed, an Oxfam report highlighted that globally, women and girls do more than three-quarters of all unpaid care work which, if valued at minimum wage, would ‘represent a contribution to the global economy of at least $10.8trillion a year, more than three times the size of the global tech industry’.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, attention was drawn to this, with research from UCL revealing that women undertook twice as much home-schooling as men during the lockdown. Additionally, some evidence showed that when it came to household chores responsibility was more equal. However, this was quickly dispelled, with a study  by the World Economic Forum which found that by September 2020 ‘gender divisions had been re-established and women disproportionately held the majority of the domestic burdens’. Whilst such discussions have ceased in mainstream discourse, this wasn’t the first time the relationship between women and unpaid work has been highlighted. 

Wages for housework

Founded by Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Selma James, Silvia Federici and Brigitte Galtier, the 1970s Wages for Housework’s (WfH) campaign was a crucial moment in the widespread dialogue around women and labour. Attempting to have reproductive labour gain legitimacy politically, this grassroots campaign provided an intersectional, anti-capitalist and international feminist network across both the global north and global south. Seeking to disrupt power relations and redistribute wealth gained, the WfH campaign challenged an entrenched order in which women’s, mostly unnoticed, essential domestic work goes ‘undervalued, unremunerated or underpaid’. It demanded that ‘caring labour, mostly done by women, is not biological destiny or ‘love’, but – under capitalism – work that should receive a wage.’ Their first campaign was to keep family allowance in women’s hands as the government at the time ‘intended to transfer it to men’s pay packets’.

However, there have been subsequent concerns around providing a ‘wage’ for women’s unpaid labour. Such concern includes the potential for women to become institutionalised at home and for unpaid work to be commodified, thus further embedding them in the capitalist machine. Despite being 50 years on, the WfH campaign can offer an alternative perspective, reiterating the continued struggle to have women’s reproductive labour adequately recognised. Whilst acknowledging flaws, a UBI could go some way in creating such recognition, subsequently increasing agency and offering immediate relief for many in the current cost of living crisis.

Reproductive labour today

Today, women around the world continue to bear the brunt of unpaid domestic work along with child-care and elder-care. In 2016, the ONS reported that in the UK ‘women carry out an overall average of 60% more unpaid work than men’ and a later study by the Women’s Budget Group revealed that on top of this, austerity measures have hit women hardest. It is important to reiterate that this isn’t something new; such gendered divisions are long-standing, and whilst commendable work has been done in order to address gender inequality here in the UK and globally, divisions persist.

We have seen a number of policies in recent years aimed at women and labour. Despite not explicitly acknowledging the structural inequalities women face due to patriarchal power imbalances, their focus has been specifically on productive labour. But such policies fall far short from the transformative change needed. In 2015, Shared Parental Leave was introduced, but figures from Maternity Action reveal that an estimate of only 3 – 4% of eligible fathers have taken up the opportunity. In this year’s Spring Budget, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that from 2024 we would see a ‘revolution in childcare’, which he claimed, amongst other things, would ‘remove barriers to work for nearly half a million parents with children under 3 in England not working due to caring responsibilities’, with an emphasis on reducing ‘discrimination against women’. However, such a pledge comes with a plethora of its own issues. Indeed, CEO of the Early Years Alliance criticised the plan as he told Sky News, ‘such a policy would do little, if anything, to lower costs for parents’. Further criticisms have included several childcare providers raising concerns around recruitment, alongside risks regarding increasing child-to-adult ratios. Such policies merely tinker around the edge of an already failing system which puts economic growth above all else. They do little, if anything, to address structural inequalities women experience with regards to both paid and unpaid work and go no way to increasing agency.

Additional benefits for women

Enhancing women’s autonomy, both individually and as part of a family unit, allows for greater choice for women in both private and public spaces. Whilst the economic benefits of a UBI are regularly touted, such a proposal could also aid in both valuing and rewarding those who want to be full time care givers – either to their own children, disabled people or elderly relatives – echoing the WfH calls of the 1970s.

Going beyond the idea of wages for housework, there could be additional benefits for women. Assisting in avoiding the ‘unemployment traps’ that recipients of welfare may experience whereby they ‘risk losing their benefits should they increase their labour force participation’, a UBI offers a secure, unconditional minimum floor irrespective of changing circumstances. Such a ‘trap’ is shown to be of particular detriment to single parents, around 90% of which are women, as well as people with disabilities . Jason B. Whiting, writing in The Institute for Family Studies highlights the financial constraints many women experiencing domestic violence face, and the individual recipient stipulation of UBI means that women could ‘be empowered with their own financial independence, and increased access to necessary resources to escape abusive situations’. Helping to reshape entrenched patriarchal gender norms which continue to rest on the assumption of a heteronormative family consisting of a male breadwinner and female caregiver, could have transformative effects at both the individual and wider societal level, allowing women to have greater choice with regards to their own labour.

It’s no panacea but it may offer a way ahead

UBI is in no way a utopian dream. Alone, it would be insufficient in challenging the many barriers women experience with regards to both reproductive and productive labour. It is vital that our public services are adequately funded and any implementation of a UBI should go alongside the ongoing struggle for an improvement in workers’ rights and conditions. Of course there are flaws, but in contrast to meagre offerings from the current government, a UBI could provide increased support and agency for all.

With the exciting potential that the North East could be home to a pilot, perhaps now is the time to renew discussions regarding the gendered capabilities of a UBI. Whilst valid argument remains regarding the risk of entrenching and exploiting women’s unpaid work, the current cost of living crisis, broken education system, crumbling social care system and continued gender pay gap are just some of the reasons that UBI may not only have positive, widespread and impactful outcomes for all, but have the added benefit of contributing to the ongoing struggle towards a more just and gender equal society. 


UK
Pret a Manger fined £800,000 after worker left trapped in -18°C freezer


Sian Elvin
Thursday 31 Aug 2023 
She tried to tear up a cardboard box containing chocolate croissants
 to keep herself warm (Picture: Shutterstock)

A Pret a Manger worker feared for her life after she was left trapped in a walk-in freezer for two-and-a-half hours.

The sandwich chain was fined £800,000 over the incident at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday.

The company pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 following an investigation by Westminster City Council.

The court heard how a member of staff working at the Victoria Coach Station branch became stuck in the shop’s commercial freezer on July 29, 2021.

She was wearing only jeans and a t-shirt in an environment where the temperature is typically set to run at -18°C.

Despite the limited space in the freezer the worker attempted to keep warm by moving around.

But after some time she started to feel ill – her breathing felt restricted and she was losing sensation in her thighs and feet.

At one point she attempted to tear up a cardboard box holding chocolate croissants to try and shield herself from the ventilator blowing out cold air, but found her hands were too stiff and cold to pull it apart.

A colleague eventually found her in ‘a state of distress’, thinking she was going to die.

She was taken to hospital and treated for suspected hypothermia.

The subsequent investigation found there was no suitable risk assessment in placeand over the past 19 months there had been several call-outs relating to broken or frozen push buttons inside the freezer.

On a similar occasion in January 2020 another worker also became trapped in the freezer and couldn’t open the door from the inside due to the internal release mechanism not working.

Pret a Manger was ordered to pay the council its full costs and a victim surcharge within 28 days.

The district judge had reduced the fine from £1.6 million due to the early guilty plea and mitigation.

Councillor and deputy leader Aicha Less said: ‘The shocking details of this case show a lapse of due care and attention. This incident shows that overlooking basic safety measures can have the most serious consequences.

‘We hope the significant fine awarded in court acts to all businesses as a warning, preventing this from ever happening again.

‘Westminster City Council will continue to work with businesses to make sure the highest levels of health and safety are consistently maintained and educate staff in safe practice.’

A Pret A Manger spokesperson said: ‘We are incredibly sorry for our colleague’s experience and understand how distressing this must have been.

‘We have carried out a full review and have worked with the manufacturer to develop a solution to stop this from happening again.

‘Following the incident, we have revisited all our existing systems and where appropriate, enhanced these processes, and have co-operated fully with Westminster City Council’s investigation.’
Majority of Church of England priests support same-sex weddings
Staff writer 31 August 2023 
A Pride flag flies at the Church of St Peter & St Pauls in Bromley, Kent.
(Photo: Getty/iStock)

A survey of Church of England clergy by The Times newspaper has found widespread support for a change in rules to allow priests to conduct same-sex weddings.

The survey of 1,200 serving priests found that over half (53.4%) support a change in Church law to allow them to wed gay couples, compared to over a third (36.5%) who are opposed.

The Church of England's parliamentary body, the General Synod, backed plans to introduce same-sex blessings in February. Asked where they stand on the issue, most of the priests surveyed (59%) said they plan to offer same-sex blessings to couples, versus 32.3% who said they will not.

More than three in five (63.3%) said gay priests should be allowed to marry their same-sex partners.

A sizable majority (62.6%) support a change in position on premarital sex - 21.6% support an end to the teaching of abstinence before marriage, and 41% say opposition to premarital sex should be dropped for people in "committed relationships".

Just over a third (34.6%) say the Church's traditional teaching on premarital sex should not be changed.

The findings reflect a dramatic change in attitudes among CofE priests since 2014, when 51% said in a Lancaster University study that same-sex marriage was "wrong", compared to 39% who supported it.

Linda Woodhead, who led the 2014 study, said The Times survey revealed "a very rapid change" in attitudes.

The Rev Canon John Dunnett, director of the Church of England Evangelical Council, said the study "signposts a thoroughly divided Church of England".

"The question it raises, the million-dollar question, is how is the [Church] is going to face a situation in which the level of division is both so substantial and runs so deep?" he told the newspaper.

 

More than half of clergy think CofE establishment needs review

Posted:Thu, 31 Aug 2023

Nearly 12% of priests support disestablishment, survey finds


More than half of Church of England priests want the Church's established status to be reviewed, according to new figures.

survey conducted by The Times found 53% of Church of England clerics think establishment should be reviewed. This is a significant increase from the last survey in 2014, which found 41% supported a review.

Clergy who question establishment include nearly 12% of priests who said Church should be disestablished – formally separated from the state.

Over 41% of clergy say the Church's established status "should be reviewed, with some elements of establishment retained and some abolished". Only 43% think the Church's status should be left unchanged.

The National Secular Society has said the figures underline the need for parliament to "take disestablishment seriously".

Most clergy want bishops' bench reformed, say Britain no longer a "Christian country"

The survey also indicated widespread doubt about the appropriateness of reserving 26 seats in the House of Lords exclusively for CofE bishops (Lords Spiritual, also known as the 'bishops bench'). Sixty per cent of priests back reform, including nearly 45% who say the seats should be opened up to other faith leaders, and over 8% who say their numbers should be reduced. Nearly 7% think Lords Spiritual should be abolished altogether.

Less than 37% say the bishops' bench should be left unchanged.

The survey, which analysed responses from 1,200 ordained serving priests, also found:

  • Over 73% think modern Britain cannot be called a "Christian country". The 2021 census found less than half the population of England and Wales are Christian, while the percentage of nonreligious people has risen sharply to 37%.
  • Approximately 67% predict church attendance will continue to decline.
  • A majority (53%) think the Church should allow priests to choose to conduct same-sex weddings, and 63% believe gay priests should be allowed to enter same-sex civil marriages. Nearly 65% believe the Church's teaching that "homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture" should be dropped.
  • Nearly 63% of priests think the Church should drop its opposition to sex outside of marriage.

NSS: Separating religion and state most "practical, sustainable and suitable approach"

NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: "It's encouraging to see support for reforms to remove the Church's privileges coming from within the Church itself.

"The issue of automatic seats for religious clerics in House of Lords certainly needs to be addressed, but extending the privilege to leaders of other faiths is wholly unworkable.

"The question of which faith communities would be represented, and then identifying and selecting individuals who could legitimately represent those faith communities, would be both extremely difficult and divisive.

"It would also add to the alienation of the rapidly growing numbers of nonreligious people.

"A clear separation of religion and state through disestablishment, including ending seats 'as of right' for religious leaders, is much more practical, sustainable and suitable approach for a modern pluralistic Britain.

"It's time for parliament to take disestablishment seriously and ensure mechanisms are in place to enable a clean break between Church and state."

 Jane Dodds

Jane Dodds writes: Basic Income is a liberal idea and we must reclaim it

As a long-standing advocate of Basic Income I was incredibly excited that my native Wales was the first part of the UK to pilot this policy idea. I have supported the Labour Government in this process and am following developments with optimism.

The pilot is centred around young people leaving the care system. This is a particularly disadvantaged group of youngsters who ordinarily would be more or less left to their own devices when they reach their 18th birthday and are no longer considered children by the system.

There is already evidence that the generous £400 per week package is being used by these young people to go on courses, or to put down a deposit on a flat. One young person has used it to pay for driving lessons.

Even though the scheme has been criticised constantly by Conservatives in Wales, who say among other things that these young people will be taken advantage of, there is no evidence so far of that happening.

The scheme has been in place for a year and there is another year to go. The trial is being evaluated independently by Cardiff University and I am convinced that it will show that a Basic Income is good for people, for communities and for the economy.

Which is also why I am disappointed that our own party, which led the way in the UK by making Basic Income official party policy back in 2020, now appears to be backsliding in its commitment to this very liberal idea.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a Basic Income is a regular and unconditional payment to every individual in society, as a right of citizenship.

A Basic Income has five core characteristics:

  • It’s paid in cash: it’s money you can spend on whatever you want.
  • It’s paid regularly: so you know the next payment is coming.
  • It’s for individuals: Each person gets their own basic income, paid to the individual not the household.
  • It’s unconditional: You don’t have to work or make any promises to get your basic income, there are no strings attached
  • It’s universal: everyone gets it.

Basic Income is, at its core, about financial stability and dignity for all.

Basic Income trials like the one in Wales (and others currently being proposed in England) are a good idea, although there is already plenty of evidence that these sorts of unconditional cash transfer programmes have incredibly positive impacts on the wellbeing of communities and individuals.

A four-year experiment in Canada in the 1970s found that giving people a basic income made everyone nearly 10% less likely to end up in hospital. It also concluded, contrary to most popular beliefs, that giving people a bit of money does not have a measurable impact on their willingness to work.

More recently, a smaller basic income study among a cohort of unemployed people in Finland also concluded that their health outcomes were better and their inclination to work unaffected.

Modelling of Basic Income schemes shows that they reduce child poverty and health inequalities.

The Liberal Democrats made support for Basic Income official party policy at our 2020 party conference. With millions facing economic uncertainty because of the Covid-19 pandemic, we recognised that financial stability had to be for everyone and that we had a vested interest in looking out for each other in society.

Our policy people went to work and produced a sensible policy proposal for giving everyone in the country a Basic Income.

And yet, just three years later, that clarity of vision appears to have been lost. The Basic Income proposal was buried inside yet another consultation and essentially discarded at this year’s spring conference. Even the original proposal document has been removed from the party’s website (They published it here https://www.libdems.org.uk/a21-universal-basic-income but have now removed that page.)

I want our party to reclaim this liberal idea. Basic Income was proposed by Paddy Ashdown as a fundamental component of his “Radical Agenda for the 1990s”, a book published in the late 1980s. It is liberal because it recognises the agency of the individual and their contribution to society. A Basic Income, he said, “gives security to each individual”, and will also “liberate power in the hands of the citizen.”

We need to be a party that is not afraid to articulate bold ideas that strengthen our citizens, reduce inequality and make for stronger communities. Basic Income is one such idea. A Basic Income does not solve every problem, but it makes every problem easier to solve.

I will be at our autumn conference making the case for a Basic Income and I hope you will join me. Our session is on Sunday, September 24th 19.45 to 21.00 in the Meyrick Suite and the BIC.

* Jane Dodds is Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats

 

Maui fire books on Amazon don’t prove disaster was pre-planned

31 AUGUST 2023
WHAT WAS CLAIMED

The existence of books about the Maui fires published and for sale on Amazon so quickly after (and in one example during) the event show the disaster was planned.

OUR VERDICT

Books on Amazon published via Kindle Direct Publishing can be uploaded to Amazon for sale as eBooks or paperbacks very quickly. The existence of these books does not prove the fire was planned.

Multiple posts on Facebook have claimed that the presence of books for sale on Amazon about the Maui fires so soon after the event show that the disaster was premeditated. 

One post says: “How come a book about the Hawaii fires was physically published on the 11th Aug…It’s as if they already knew and had the full details of the fires before they even happened!!”

While several books about the Maui fires have appeared on Amazon in the days following the fire (and in one case before most fires were under control), they hadn’t been published via traditional methods. Amazon allows anyone to self-publish eBooks or paperbacks which are then printed quickly on demand.

Leader of the Heritage Party and former London Assembly member David Kurten claimed on X, formerly known as Twitter, “There is no way that a book about the Maui fires could have been written, edited and published on 10 Aug before the end of the period it is talking about (8 - 11 Aug), and all filled with climate change propaganda. This was pre-planned.” At the time of writing that has over 10,000 reposts. Full Fact has contacted Mr Kurten for comment.

Honesty in public debate matters

You can help us take action – and get our regular free email

I’m in

Fire and book timeline

One Facebook post appeared to claim that a book on the Maui fires was published the day before they happened. This is false. The Maui fires began on 8 August, although footage of one fire was captured by CCTV just before midnight the day before.

Firefighters continued to contain the fires on 9, 10 and 11 August, and on 12 August at least one of the fires was declared 100% contained.

The book mentioned in the Facebook post, ‘Fire and Fury: The Story of the 2023 Maui Fire and its Implications for Climate Change’ was published on 10 August (although at the time of writing had been removed from sale). The paperback version was only 86 pages long.

The description of the book did contain the line: “The book chronicles the events of August 8-11, 2023, when a massive fire swept across the island of Maui, fueled by drought, heat, and hurricane winds.” The book was published before 11 August so could not have chronicled the events of the day after unless it was subsequently edited or an error when the description was written.

That author, ‘Dr Miles Stones’ has a profile on Amazon’s website that does not have an image and gives no other information about them, bar a few other books they’re listed as the author of, including one about President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

A different Facebook post pointed to another book on Maui, also published on 10 August, called ‘Unforgiving Flames: The Hawaiian Wildfires of 2023: Survival, Unity and Hope in the Face of Nature’s Fury’. At the time of writing this book had also been removed from sale. The Kindle version of the book was only 54 pages long. The author appears to have published two other short books on Amazon that are both under 30 pages long on Kindle.

Full Fact found two other books apparently about the fires on Amazon, but after we contacted Amazon about them, they were removed from sale. We have not been able to verify if they were also self published.

One book, ‘Fire and Fury: Unmasking the Enigma of the Maui Fire—Decoding the Unfolding Tragedy’, was published on 17 August. It was just 46 pages in paperback and the description contained grammatical errors.

Another book, called ‘MAUI WILDFIRES: Ignited Paradise’ was published on 15 August and was 40 pages long.

Full Fact has not been able to contact the listed authors.

Anyone can self-publish a book on Amazon

Several of the posts questioned how these books could be written, published and printed so fast. One Facebook post claimed a book on the fires was “written, sent to print and distributed to stores” on 10 August even though the fires started just two days before. This is not quite the case.

Anyone can publish a book on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing—you do not need to get a book deal from a traditional publisher to do this. The Kindle Direct Publishing website says: “Get to market fast. Publishing is simple and your book appears on Amazon Stores around the world within days.”

An eBook or paperback published in this way can be listed on the Amazon website within 72 hours.

Kindle Direct Publishing can also print the books on demand, meaning they’re only printed once they’re ordered using digital printing, which is much faster than the traditional way mass-produced books are printed, using plates.

We don’t know for certain how the books were written so fast, but they all have relatively low page counts.

An Amazon spokesperson told Full Fact: “The titles flagged are being removed from sale. 

“All publishers in the store must adhere to our content guidelines, regardless of how the content was created. We invest significant time and resources to ensure our guidelines are followed and remove books that do not adhere to these guidelines.”

Amazon has content guidelines for the books it sells, and removes content that doesn’t adhere to them. For eBooks, there are certain errors Amazon refers to as ‘critical issues’ that “significantly impact the reading experience”, which include content that is uploaded in unsupported languages, books that are entire scans of a physical book and a number of different formatting errors. If such critical issues are identified, the book will be removed from sale until corrections are made. Amazon did not confirm which guidelines the removed books did not adhere to.

We’ve checked other misinformation relating to the Maui fires, including false claims the fires were purposefully started to create a ‘smart island’, that the fires weren’t hot enough to melt aluminium in cars and that the fire was started by a ‘directed energy weapon’. While a single cause of the fire is still under investigation, there’s no evidence the disaster was planned.

Image courtesy of State Farm