Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Huge “FREE-ASSANGE” Billboard Trucks Are About to Invade New York City to Embarrass U.S. and British Govts


 
FEBRUARY 12, 2024
Facebook

Starting Feb. 12 — and continuing every day until Feb. 20 — eight million New Yorkers and hundreds of millions of onlookers around the world will be watching as these giant 30-foot-long billboard trucks circle the British Consulate on 48th Street; the U.S. courthouses and federal buildings in Foley Square; the United Nations on First Avenue; the corporate headquarters of media influencers like The New York Times, Daily News, Hearst, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Reuters, Warner Bros and Paramount; and the plush venues of Wall Street power players likeJPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Barclays, Black Rock and American Express. 

Why are the billboard trucks coming now? And why to New York?      

Because Feb. 20 is “X-Day” for Juian Assange. That is when the Britain’s High Court of Justice will give Julian a last chance to block his extradition to the U.S. If his appeal is denied, U.S. Marshals will snatch him out of Southeast London’s gloomy Belmarsh Prison and fly him to the U.S. (possibly within 24 hours), where he will be tried under the Espionage Act for publishing videos that exposed U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So confident is the U.S. Justice Department that it will crush Julian’s Feb. 20 High Court appeal against extradition, that it has already assigned a U.S. judge to his case. He is District Judge Claude M. Hilton, and he will try Julian’s case in the notorious Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse of the Eastern District of Virginia.

It should be understood that, in this district and this courthouse, the government almost never loses — because virtually everyone eligible to serve on a jury has a spouse or cousin or friend working for the government at the State Department, Justice Department, FBI or, most ominously, the CIA —  whose Trump-appointed director, Mike Pompeo, famously plotted to poison or shoot Julian and dump his corpse at sea, and whose Langley headquarters just happens to be a 12-minute hop-skip-and-jump down the road from the Albert V. Bryan courthouse.

As Reuters rather admiringly notes (without touching on the obvious reason for such a splendid record of convictions),

“In the past 20 years, the U.S. government has racked up remarkable success rates in winning convictions or guilty pleas from people brought before the federal court in Virginia who were accused of espionage or terrorism. Because of its speed, the court is considered a “rocket docket.”

If Judge Hilton and the U.S. justice system find Assange guilty (Is water wet?), he will be locked away in a U.S. maximum security prison for up to 175 years. So his February 20 appeal before the High Court in London is crucial. How good are his chances?

That may depend on how much outrage and public pressure can be brought to bear on the British and American governments, since everyone knows that this is not really a legal case, to be scrupulously decided by dispassionate High Court judges solemnly parsing the law. It is a high-profile political case that the judges will decide (as British judges in this case have been deciding for the past 4 years) according to the wishes of powerful forces inside the CIA and M16.

Which is why the activist and political satirist Randy Credico, host of Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom on WBAI-FM radio and the Progressive Radio Network (PRN), will be co-piloting huge “Free Assange” billboard trucks like this all over New York from Feb. 12 until the British High Court appeal date of Feb. 20.

Randy’s goal is to generate huge waves of provocative public noise in New York about Julien’s High Court appeal, as he did last year in Washington DC, where his mobile billboard trucks traversed the nation’s capital day after day, circling the British Embassy, the Department of Justice and the White House, alerting DC’s 700,000 residents and 22 million tourists to the years of illegal persecution and imprisonment that Julian suffered under Donald Trump, and continues to suffer under Joe Biden.

In Washington DC, Randy’s billboard trucks generated instant publicity and sympathy for Juian all over the world, and became a source of extreme embarrassment to U.S. and British leaders. Randy intends to generate even more public outrage by deploying his “Free Assange” billboard trucks in New York – at the crossroads of global media communications and financial power. These billboard trucks will be bigger and even harder to ignore than the Washington DC trucks — the better to increase public awareness and intensify the political pressure.

How many Assange billboard trucks will be coming to New York?

To lease these technologically sophisticated billboard trucks, create their giant 450-square-foot displays, and hire professional drivers to propel them around the city (with Randy co-piloting) is not cheap. The number of trucks will depend on how much money is raised for this campaign.

The cost of putting just one billboard truck on the streets of New York from Feb. 12 to Feb. 20 is $8,000. The final size of the fleet – two, three, four, even ten or more trucks — will depend on donations from people who care about Julian’s fate and the fate of investigative journalism.

For if Julian is convicted and imprisoned, any journalist, anywhere in the world, who dares to expose government crimes can be snatched from his country, dragged to the U.S., and imprisoned for life. That would end forever the historic role of a free press as the watchdog and guarantor of democracy and human rights.

Help Randy protect Julian Assange and freedom of the press

You can donate to the Assange Mobile Billboard Campaign at AssangeCountdownToFreedomcom. A contribution of $5, $10, $25 (or more if you can afford it) will assure it success, because there are more than enough of you reading this to make it happen.

Think of how good you will feel as you watch those “Free Assange” trucks go by, knowing that your donations are the fuel on which they run.

Steve Brown is a member of the editorial board of CovertAction Magazine and director of the Society for Independent Investigative Journalism (SIIJ). He is co-founder of the Progressive Radio Network (PRN), former director of the Pacifica Radio Foundation and WBAI-FM in New York, and President of the Alliance for Community Elections (ACE). He has run political campaigns for the U.S. Senate, Governor of New York, and Mayor of New York City.









If Julian Assange is extradited it will have huge implications for human rights and press freedom around the world

LEFT FOOT FORWARD

'Assange has not been convicted of any crime, but incarcerated solely for acquiring and publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents, which exposed US state criminality'


Charlie Jaay is a freelance journalist with special interests in the environment, human rights and civil liberties.

On February 20 and 21, London’s Royal Courts of Justice will hear Julian Assange’s renewed application for appeal against extradition to the US, where he would face life imprisonment in a maximum security prison. This will be his last chance in the British courts to stop extradition, and will have huge implications not just for the defendant, but also human rights and press freedom around the world.

Award winning Journalist Julian Assange, founder of whistleblower site WikiLeaks, has been behind the bars of London’s Belmarsh prison since 2019. Once known as ‘Britain’s Guantanamo Bay’ because foreigners were detained without formally being charged, this maximum security prison is home to the country’s most dangerous criminals- serial rapists, drug barons, murderers and those serving sentences for terrorist-related crimes.

Assange has not been convicted of any crime, but incarcerated solely for acquiring and publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents, which exposed US state criminality. These were leaked to WikiLeaks, in 2010, by former US army intelligence analyst, Chelsea Manning, and related to abusive and torturous treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and illegal actions of the United States’ military and intelligence agencies during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and included information on the deaths of thousands of civilians.

Iraq Body Count records the death of civilians from violence, resulting from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. It worked with WikiLeaks and various media outlets, to publish these Iraq War Logs, which laid bare the scale and impact of the war, and showed abuse and torture to be commonplace.

“Julian Assange is the single most important journalist of our generation, not only because of the stories he broke but because, with WikiLeaks, he advanced the profession itself and its potential for public good”, says Hamit Dardagan, Iraq Body Count Co-founder.

“For Iraq this meant that some 15,000 otherwise unreported violent deaths of Iraqi civilians, known to the US military but kept from public knowledge, could be revealed. Revealed not just as a bare statistic, but with the how, when, where and, in many cases, by whom they were killed. And sometimes too, providing hitherto undisclosed identifying details including their names— no small matter when so many Iraqi families were still desperately searching for their missing loved ones.

“That such a journalist is being entombed in a maximum security prison exposes once more who poses the real threat to freedom, including freedom of thought”, Dardagan adds.

The US government argued that the leak contained sensitive information- including the war crimes themselves and, as a result, submitted an extradition request to the British government in 2019. If extradited to the US, Assange will stand trial for violating the 1917 Espionage Act, because he received and published classified documents, and will face up to 175 years in a maximum security prison.

Being at the centre of legal battles for more than a decade, is now taking its toll on his health. In 2021, after more than 100 doctors expressed their concern, demanding an ‘end (of his) torture and medical neglect’, and transference from Belmarsh Prison, his extradition was blocked by the British courts, because of the ‘substantial’ risk of suicide. However, in 2022, his extradition was approved by Home Secretary Priti Patel, resulting in a legal appeal against the US extradition order, in June of last year, which was unsuccessful.

Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East, has co-ordinated a cross-party group of parliamentarians who have repeatedly called for the charges to be dropped.


”Let’s remember it was Donald Trump’s administration that brought the charges against Mr Assange for his role in publishing evidence of war crimes, corruption and human rights abuses”, Burgon says.

“We simply cannot stand by while common practices in journalism – practices that have long served the public interest – are criminalised in this way. Now is the moment to put an end to this prosecution, drop the charges and allow him to return home.”

Assange’s supporters, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Jill Edwards, have tirelessly called for the UK government to halt the possible extradition plans. The International Federation of Journalists has called for his immediate release, launching the Free Assange Now! campaign which has support from Journalist’s unions around the world, including the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which has also organized events in support of Assange.

“The NUJ is opposed to ongoing efforts by the United States to extradite Julian Assange and has condemned the UK’s complicity through its recent approval of his extradition”, says Michelle Stanistreet,NUJ General Secretary. “Journalists have voiced their disbelief at wider ramifications for journalism and the ability to publish public interest stories involving the US government if their dogged pursuit continues any longer.”

According to Simon Crowther, Amnesty International Legal Adviser, Freedom of Expression is protected under international human right’s law, and if the UK facilitates this extradition it would then be violating its obligations, to which it is bound, under international law.

“Assange is being prosecuted for publication of classified material, in the public interest, which is a journalist’s job, and something they do all the time without being prosecuted for espionage as a result, nor are they snatched from another country for that to happen”, he says.

Charging Assange under the Espionage Act, for exposing public interest material, is an attack on the public’s ability to obtain truthful information. If the US gets its way, we will have a clear legal precedent saying if classified information is published, any state can seek the extradition of the person who published it, and prosecute them, wherever in the world they may be. This will affect every newsroom, with journalists having to be mindful of what they do and do not publish, and will pose a major threat to investigative journalism and press freedom. If the powerful cannot be held to account then this will seriously threaten democracy.

Crowther also warns that Assange risks being placed under Special Administrative Measures– rules often used in the US, to restrict the contact dangerous prisoners may have with the outside world.

“There is a very real risk of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment or punishment. Solitary confinement is frequently used in the US, the implications of which are grossly underestimated by the global public. If someone is put in prolonged solitary confinement it breaks them. It has profound implications and is very well documented”, he says.

“Although the UK has sought a diplomatic agreement from the US, that Julian Assange wouldn’t be put under one of these Special Administrative Measures, if extradited, unfortunately these are never legally binding. And, even then, this diplomatic agreement says that unless circumstances change, Assange continues to be a risk to confidential information”, Crowther explains.

“Our government has been complicit. They certified this, and Amnesty argues the UK is breaching its human rights obligations if Assange is extradited. The UK has a clear international obligation not to send people to places where they are at risk of torture or degrading treatment.”

Assange’s case is now at a critical juncture, his life hangs in the balance. The UK protest will take place outside London’s Royal Courts of Justice, 8.30am, February 20 and 21.



Monday, February 12, 2024

 

Body Shop’s UK arm close to bankruptcy: report

    The Body Shop, the near 50-year-old cosmetics company renowned for its ethical hair and skin products, is near bankrupt in the UK after poor Christmas trade, media has reported.

Sky News on Sunday reported that German private equity firm Aurelius, which bought The Body Shop only in November, is lining up administration — a UK process whereby financial experts are drafted in to try and save parts of a business.

It said this would result in shop closures and job losses for The Body Shop, founded in 1976 by Anita Roddick but which has been under various owners since she sold it to French cosmetics giant L’Oreal in 2006.

The Body Shop has about 200 shops in the UK, or around seven percent of its worldwide total of some 3,000 stores in more than 70 countries.

The company directly employs about 10,000 staff, while 12,000 more are employed via franchises. 

The Body Shop and Aurelius had yet to comment on the weekend news.

Since taking over, Aurelius has already sold The Body Shop business in most of mainland Europe and parts of Asia to an unnamed buyer.

“Administration will mean the company is protected from compulsory liquidation and offers legal protection from creditors’ demands,” noted Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown. 

“It will give Aurelius breathing space to restructure and close highly underperforming stores and refocus attention on e-commerce sales. Whatever the outcome, it looks likely that many shops will shut for good.”

Roddick, who died in 2007 from a brain haemorrhage, had rapidly expanded the business from modest beginnings with a determination to offer products that had not been tested on animals. 

She set out also to make her business environmentally-friendly, with customers encouraged to return empty containers for refilling at the original shop in Brighton, on England’s southern coast.

Brazil’s Natura Cosmeticos, which had bought The Body Shop from L’Oreal, sold it at the end of last year to Aurelius for £207 million, far less than the previous owners had paid.


British boys most at risk of modern slavery in UK

British boys most at risk of modern slavery in UK image
Image: Ground Picture / Shutterstock.com

People suffering criminal exploitation, often young British boys, must be recognised as victims of modern slavery, a new report has argued.

Entitled Criminal exploitation: Modern slavery by another name, the report found that 45% of victims in the UK are British boys aged 17 and under, with risk factors including deprivation, substance misuse, family circumstances, learning disabilities and school exclusion.

Victims of criminal exploitation are ‘forced, coerced or groomed into committing crime for someone else’s benefit’, the report by the Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care says.

However, it says professionals, families and victims themselves ‘frequently do not apply the label of “modern slavery” (nor even exploitation in some cases) to what is happening’.

Legislation and policy are ‘inconsistent’, ‘incomplete’ and ‘confusing’, while support for victims and prevention is inadequate, despite good work done by some charities, local authorities and the Government’s County Lines programme, the report found.

It calls for the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to be amended to include a definition of criminal exploitation.

The independent anti-slavery commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, said: ‘This report rightly calls on the Government and frontline policing to make sure criminal exploitation is prosecuted for what it is: a form of modern slavery.

‘This will also allow us to do more to prevent the endless stream of young people and vulnerable adults being pulled into criminal exploitation. And give them the support they deserve.’

 Ellie Ames 12 February 2024


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BOY BRIDES 

UK
FARM FAIR

'Are you an animal lover?' Animal rights protest displaying dead pig, cat, and dog shocks in Central London

The protest, aimed at convincing people the rethink eating animals, has raised eyebrows in the capital

By Amber Allott
Published 12th Feb 2024,
Watch more of our videos on Shots!
Visit Shots! now

Animal rights activists have shocked the public in Central London, as a pro-vegan protest displayed what is believed to be a real dead cat, dog, and pig hanging side-by-side from butcher's hooks.

The protest was organised by Viva! - a campaign group best known for its investigations into conditions on factory farms - and was designed to challenge people's perceptions on how they viewed animals. The stunt saw the three displayed on the back of a lorry, beneath a sign reading ‘Are You an Animal Lover?’ The cat and dog were marked as pets, but the pig as just 'animal'.

Footage of the public's reaction to the protest showed a number of people recoiling in visible disgust as the truck drives past, parking at key London landmarks like the London Eye, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. Social media reaction has also been mixed, with one posting on X - formerly known as Twitter - that this was the best way to make people understand, while another slammed it as a "cheap and pathetic stunt".

Animal rights activists have displayed a dead dog, cat and pig in Central London 
(Photo: Viva! Campaigns / SWNS)

NationalWorld has approached Viva! to confirm whether the animal's bodies were real, but they are currently believed to be.

Viva! said the stunt marked the start of a new wave of campaigning, which will use more provocative tactics to encourage people to go vegan. The protest action's main aim was to "evoke a powerful response from passers-by as they were confronted with the reality that the pigs they eat are very similar to their beloved pets".

The group's founder, Juliet Gellatley, defended their use of shock tactics. “As a society we treat cats and dogs as part of our families but see animals such as pigs, chickens and cows as commodities," she said. "Tens of millions of people in the UK eat factory farmed animals, but very few are happy to look at them dead, see how they are farmed or witness how they are killed."
UK
Deliveroo and Uber Eats riders strike on Valentine's Day

By Jemma Dempsey
BBC News
Getty Images

Takeaway delivery drivers are planning to strike on Valentine's Day to demand better pay and improved working conditions.

The action, impacting four food apps including Deliveroo and Uber Eats, is thought to involve as many as 3,000 drivers and riders on Wednesday between 17:00 and 22:00 GMT.

One cyclist taking part told the BBC their pay was "absolutely ridiculous".

Deliveroo said its riders "always earn at least the national living wage".

The action, organised by a grassroots group of couriers, many of whom are Brazilian, is intended to draw attention to what has been described as poor pay and working conditions many riders face while delivering food and groceries in cities across the UK.

"Sacrificing a few hours for our rights is essential, instead of continuing to work incessantly for insufficient wages," the group Delivery Job UK said on its Instagram page.

"Our request is simple: we want fair compensation for the work we do. We are tired of being exploited and risking our lives every day... It's time for our voices to be heard."

Aside from Deliveroo and Uber Eats, Just Eat and Stuart.com will also be affected, with couriers who normally compete across multiple apps for delivery planning to refuse to take orders.

Delivery Job UK claimed delivery riders were braving the "cold, rain and absurd distances" for deliveries paying "ridiculous values", ranging from £2.80 to £3.15.

A spokesman for the group told the BBC striking Deliveroo riders wanted an increase to a minimum of £5. The other companies use different pricing structures.


"They [Deliveroo] have lowered their fees. There's no incentive anymore. On a Friday night you could make £100 over 4-5 hours, now that's gone," the spokesman said.

He also claimed couriers were exposed to "a lot of violence on the streets", especially in the evenings.Deliveroo not forced by law to engage with unions
Children working for food delivery apps, BBC finds

Joe, a courier in London since 2018 who plans to strike on Wednesday, said the work was "incredibly isolating" and attracted a lot of migrant workers who were unable to challenge the conditions and were "forced into it".

"Conditions are shocking," he told the BBC. "The pricing of fees is aggressive. It's hard to overstate how sophisticated these algorithms have become. The fees are absolutely ridiculous."


Callum Cant, who has written about the gig economy and is a lecturer at Essex University, said changes to fees meant couriers had seen a 40% drop in wages in real terms since 2018.

"With a minimum fee of £2.80, most might only be making three orders an hour, and then they have to subtract their costs too. Some are making £7 an hour, which in London is barely liveable," he said.

While delivery drivers are not formally unionised the GMB has an agreement with Deliveroo which, the union has said, is the first of its kind in the food delivery sector.

It includes access to education courses and a pay floor for fees, negotiated each April.

In a statement, Deliveroo said it offered its riders self-employed, flexible work, alongside protections.

"Riders always earn at least the national living wage, plus vehicle costs, for the time they are working with us, though the vast majority earn far more than this," it said.

"Riders are also automatically insured for free, covering them if they are in an accident or injured while working and receive income protection if they are unwell and cannot work."

Uber Eats told the BBC it offered a "flexible way" for couriers to earn by using its app "when and where they choose".

"We know that the vast majority of couriers are satisfied with their experience on the app, and we regularly engage with couriers to look at how we can improve their experience."

Just Eat said it provided "a highly competitive base rate to self-employed couriers and also offer regular incentives to help them maximise their earnings".

"We continue to review our pay structure regularly and welcome any feedback from couriers," the company added.

Stuart.com said it also was "committed to providing competitive earnings opportunities for courier partners".

UK eyes Hitachi’s Welsh site for nuclear plant: report

A UK government body is in talks to buy Welsh land from Hitachi that could house a new nuclear plant after the Japanese giant scrapped construction plans, media reported Monday.

Great British Nuclear has held “preliminary talks” with Hitachi to acquire the land ahead of finding a private partner to help construct a new facility, said the Financial Times (FT) newspaper, citing an unnamed minister.

Hitachi in 2020 axed its planned multi-billion-pound nuclear facility at the Wylfa Newydd site on Anglesey island off the northwest coast of Wales, blaming soaring costs and souring economic climate amid the Covid pandemic.

“Wylfa is one of a number of potential sites that could host civil nuclear projects,” a government spokesman told AFP when questioned about the FT report.

“Whilst no decisions on sites have yet been taken, we are working with Great British Nuclear to support access to potential sites for new nuclear projects,” he added.

The British government is looking to tap into more nuclear power under plans to help meet its target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“We’ve ended the stop-start approach to nuclear and recently launched a roadmap setting out the biggest expansion of the sector in 70 years, simplifying regulation and shortening the process for building new power stations,” the spokesman said.

This strategy would mean “cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy in the long-term”, he added.

The UK wants to increase the share of nuclear in the country’s energy mix since it does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Its use as an alternative to fossil fuels is highly controversial, however, with environmental groups warning about safety risks around the disposal of nuclear waste.

UK government 'wants to take control' of land in Wales to revive nuclear power

A new power plant could be built at the old Wylfa site in Anglesey

Reem Ahmed

WALES ONLINE
12 FEB 2024
The decommissioned Wylfa Power Station on Anglesey (Image: Daily Post Wales)


The UK Government is seeking to acquire and revive a dormant nuclear power station site in Wales, it has been reported. According to a report by the Financial Times, nuclear energy company Great British Nuclear - which is owned by the government - is in early-stage talks with Hitachi, owner of the old Wylfa site in Anglesey.

Located west of Cemaes Bay, Wylfa pumped electricity into millions of homes for 44 years until it was was decommissioned at the end of 2015. These people were forced to leave their homes amidst long-proposed plans for a new power station, which was to be called Wylfa Newydd.

It was hailed by some as crucial to the economic development of Ynys Môn and a a "game-changer" for the north Wales economy, with the ability to bring up thousands of jobs into the area. But in January 2019 Hitachi suspended work on the £13bn project as funding negotiations with the UK Government had "hit an impasse", according to the Japanese corporation. For the latest Welsh news delivered to your inbox sign up to our newsletter

The UK government is seeking to take control of the dormant power station (Image: Getty Images)

By September 2020, plans for Wylfa Newydd nuclear power plant had been scrapped as Hitachi had withdrawn from the project. But a year later, there was hope yet as Rolls-Royce announced they were developing small modular reactors (SMR) in November 2021, with sites such as Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd subsequently being shortlisted as SMR sites a year later. Now the government is looking to buy the site from Hitachi and find a private sector developer to build a new plant there, the FT reports. 

The land is believed to be worth about £200m, but the government could strike a cheaper deal as the land lies fallow, according to the report. The move is part of the government's wider ambition to expand nuclear power, having last month published a roadmap setting out its "biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years".


Rwanda plan 'fundamentally incompatible' with UK’s human rights obligations



Demonstrators hold placards as they protest against Britain’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, outside the High Court in London on June 13, 2022
 [NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP via Getty Images]

MEMO
February 12, 2024



The British government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is fundamentally incompatible with the country’s human rights obligations, according to a joint committee report released today.

“Measures intended to remove barriers to sending individuals to Rwanda, including mandating that courts treat Rwanda as a ‘safe’ country and limiting access to courts to appeal decisions, are incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations,” warned MPs and peers from the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The controversial bill aims to address the concerns of the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that the government’s original plan to send asylum seekers to the East African country was unlawful.

“The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account,” said the report.

READ: UK rejects Palestinian’s student visa in spite of previously providing her a scholarship

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned: “The Bill would erode protection for human rights provided by the Human Rights Act, contravene rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and fall short of the UK’s commitments under international treaties.

“The Bill places the UK’s hard-won reputation for human rights and the rule of law into jeopardy,” said Joanna Cherry, chair of the committee.

The Rwanda plan had been one of the most controversial plans of the government’s migration policy as it sparked international criticism and mass protests across the UK.

In January 2023, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that tackling small boat crossings by irregular migrants across the English Channel is among five priorities of his government as more than 45,000 migrants arrived in the UK through that route in 2022.


UK plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda incompatible with human rights, parliamentary watchdog says

Copyright © africanews
Associated Press
By Rédaction Africanews with AP

UNITED KINGDOM
The British government's plan to send some asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is "fundamentally incompatible" with the U.K.'s human rights obligations, a parliamentary rights watchdog said Monday, as the contentious bill returned for debate in the House of Lords.

Parliament's unelected upper chamber is scrutinizing a bill designed to overcome the U.K. Supreme Court's ruling that the Rwanda plan is illegal. The court said in November that the East African nation is not a safe country for migrants.

The Safety of Rwanda Bill pronounces the country safe, makes it harder for migrants to challenge deportation and allows the British government to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights that seek to block removals.

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has members from both government and opposition parties, said in a report that the bill "openly invites the possibility of the U.K. breaching international law" and allows British officials "to act in a manner that is incompatible with human rights standards."

Scottish National Party lawmaker Joanna Cherry, who chairs the committee, said the bill "risks untold damage to the U.K.'s reputation as a proponent of human rights."

"This bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court," she said. "Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it."

The Home Office said the Rwanda plan is a "bold and innovative" solution to a "major global challenge."

"Rwanda is clearly a safe country that cares deeply about supporting refugees," it said in a statement. "It hosts more than 135,000 asylum seekers and stands ready to relocate people and help them rebuild their lives."

Under the policy, asylum-seekers who reach the U.K. in small boats across the English Channel would have their claims processed in Rwanda, and stay there permanently. The plan is key to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's pledge to "stop the boats" bringing unauthorized migrants to the U.K. Sunak argues that deporting unauthorized asylum-seekers will deter people from making risky journeys and break the business model of people-smuggling gangs.

Human rights groups call the plan inhumane and unworkable, and no one has yet been sent to Rwanda.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protections for migrants. Sunak's Conservative government argues the treaty allows it to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination.

The bill was approved by the House of Commons last month, though only after 60 members of Sunak's governing Conservatives rebelled to make the legislation tougher.

It is now being scrutinized by the Lords, many of whom want to defeat or water down the bill. Unlike the Commons, the governing Conservatives do not hold a majority of seats in the Lords.

Ultimately, the upper house can delay and amend legislation but can't overrule the elected Commons.


 

UK’s Rwanda plan incompatible with rights obligations: lawmakers

    The UK government’s latest legislation to revive its controversial plan to send migrants to Rwanda is “not compatible” with the country’s rights obligations, a watchdog panel of British lawmakers warned Monday.

The ruling Conservatives introduced the so-called Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill late last year, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that deporting asylum seekers to Kigali is illegal under international law.

If passed after ongoing scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, the legislation would compel UK judges to treat Rwanda as a safe third country.

It would also give government ministers powers to disregard sections of international and British human rights legislation.

But after a detailed review, parliament’s own Joint Committee on Human Rights said in a new report that it had various concerns.

“By denying access to a court to challenge the safety of Rwanda the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s international obligations,” the committee concluded in its 52-page report.

It noted the proposed law appeared incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, in particular, as well as domestic rights law.

The committee, which features five Conservative lawmakers among its 12 members, warned enacting it held many pitfalls, including “undermining the rights-compliant culture that should exist in all public bodies” in the UK.

Globally, the law also “risks damaging” Britain’s hard-earned reputation for rights protections and “encouraging other states who are less respectful of the international legal order”.

Meanwhile, the report criticised allowing ministers rather than judges to determine whether a country like Rwanda is safe or not.

“The question of Rwanda’s safety would best be determined not by legislation but by allowing the courts to consider the new treaty and the latest developments on the ground,” the report stated.

The draft law is central to the government’s policy to combat “irregular immigration” to Britain, in particular via small boats crossing the Channel, by deporting arrivals to the East African country.

It has been criticised by opposition parties as well as various international bodies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

But Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, facing an uphill battle to win a general election due later this year, has vowed to press ahead, winning a knife-edge parliamentary vote in the lower House of Commons on the legislation last month.

Members of the upper House of Lords chamber, which includes former senior judges, are due to renew their debate on it Monday, with many having already expressed deep unease about parts of the plan.

 

Parliamentary rights committee: Safety of Rwanda Bill is fundamentally incompatible with UK’s human rights obligations

Summary

New reports by Joint Committee on Human Rights and Lords Select Committee on the Constitution warn Bill breaches international obligations

By EIN
Date of Publication:
12 February 2024

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has today published the report of its inquiry in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.

Palace of WestminsterImage credit: UK GovernmentYou can download the 52-page report here or read it online here.

The focus of the Committee's inquiry and report is on whether the Safety of Rwanda Bill is compatible with the UK's human rights obligations. The Bill was subjected to detailed line by line scrutiny by the JCHR as part of its inquiry. Very notably, the Committee finds the Bill is fundamentally incompatible with those obligations.

Indeed, the Committee finds the Bill goes further than ever before and disapplies almost all of the key provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of removals to Rwanda and thereby undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights.

As the Bill allows government ministers to decide whether or not to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Bill openly invites the possibility of the UK breaching international law.

The Government maintains that Rwanda is now a safe country for asylum seekers despite the Supreme Court finding in November that is was not, but the JCHR found the evidence was not clear to support the Government's position.

"We have considered the Government's evidence that Rwanda is now safe, but have also heard from witnesses and bodies including the UNHCR that Rwanda remains unsafe, or at least that there is not enough evidence available at this point to be sure of its safety. Overall, we cannot be clear that the position reached on Rwanda's safety by the country's most senior court is no longer correct. In any event, the courts remain the most appropriate branch of the state to resolve contested issues of fact, so the question of Rwanda's safety would best be determined not by legislation but by allowing the courts to consider the new treaty and the latest developments on the ground," the report states.

The JCHR finds that by denying access to a court to challenge the claim that Rwanda is safe, the Bill is not compatible with the UK's international obligations, most obviously Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The report states: "Clause 4 of the Bill would mitigate the Bill's impact by allowing for claims based on individual circumstances. It would not, however, make the Bill compliant with the Refugee Convention or with Article 13 ECHR because it would continue to deny access to court for individuals with arguable claims that they face persecution or a violation of fundamental human rights as a result of Rwanda being unsafe generally or because there is a risk of refoulement. Neither would clause 4 provide for a suspensive process, as required by Article 13 ECHR, in all but the rarest of circumstances."

Joanna Cherry QC MP, the chair of the Committee, said: "This Bill is designed to remove vital safeguards against persecution and human rights abuses, including the fundamental right to access a court. Hostility to human rights is at its heart and no amendments can salvage it. This isn't just about the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy itself. By taking this approach, the Bill risks untold damage to the UK's reputation as a proponent of human rights internationally. Human rights aren't inconvenient barriers that must be overcome to reach policy goals, they are fundamental protections that ensure individuals are not harmed by Government action. If a policy is sound it should be able to withstand judicial scrutiny, not run away from it."

Last week, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution published an 18-page report on the Bill, which can be downloaded here.

It warns starkly that Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill (which "gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country") is constitutionally inappropriate and could be interpreted as a breach of the separation of powers between Parliament and the courts.

The Lords Committee said: "The sovereignty of the UK Parliament is a long-established principle of the UK constitution. Nevertheless, there are constitutional consequences when legislation is enacted that significantly impacts the separation of powers. This is constitutionally inappropriate because it provides a potential precedent in which legislation could be used to effectively reverse factual conclusions, jeopardising the rule of law as well as the separation of powers."

The Lords Committee finds it is possible that the Bill's provisions are incompatible with the UK's obligations in international law under both the ECHR and the Refugee Convention.

"We reiterate that respect for the rule of law requires respect for international law. Legislation that undermines the UK's international law obligations threatens the rule of law. We invite the House to consider the consequences should the enactment of this Bill in its current form breach the UK's international obligations," the report states.

Clause 2 of the Bill prevents legal challenges against the safety of Rwanda, which the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said would reduce access to justice and the protection of rights. The Committee asks the House of Lords to consider whether these restrictions are constitutionally appropriate.

In addition, the Lords Committee noted that Clause 5 of the Bill (allowing a minister to decide whether to comply with an interim measure of the ECtHR) "raises serious constitutional concerns" given the impact on the independence of the judiciary.



Foreign workers play pivotal role in NHS: 1 in 5 staff non-UK nationals


Data shows a significant presence of non-UK nationals among nurses and doctors, with 30% of nurses and 36.3% of doctors coming from abroad 

  • 12 February, 2024
  • The largest groups among nurses and health visitors are from India, 10.1% of all FTEs, the Philippines, (7.7%) Nigeria, and Ireland, (1.1%) while Indian, (8% of all medics) Pakistani, (3.7%), Egyptian, (2.9%) and Nigerian (2.0%) nationals are the most common among doctors 

    By: Kimberly Rodrigues

    In England, the NHS’s dependence on international staff has hit a record high, with one out of every five workers hailing from outside the UK. This diverse workforce spans 214 nations, including countries as varied as India, Portugal, Ghana, and smaller states like Tonga, Liechtenstein, and the Solomon Islands.

    Analysis of NHS Digital data reveals that as of September 2023, 20.4% of the 1,282,623 full-time equivalent (FTE) hospital and community health service staff in England were non-UK nationals. This marks a significant increase from 13% in 2016 and 11.9% in 2009, The Guardian reported.

    Danny Mortimer, CEO of NHS Employers, emphasised the critical role this international workforce plays in sustaining the NHS amidst escalating pressures. He highlighted the need for a dual focus on retention and attracting new talent to ensure a robust recruitment foundation, alongside expanding domestic training as outlined in the NHS England long-term workforce plan.

    The data further shows a significant presence of non-UK nationals among nurses and doctors, with 30% of nurses and 36.3% of doctors coming from abroad.

    The largest groups among nurses and health visitors are from India, 10.1% of all FTEs, the Philippines, (7.7%) Nigeria, and Ireland, (1.1%) while Indian, (8% of all medics) Pakistani, (3.7%), Egyptian, (2.9%) and Nigerian (2.0%) nationals are the most common among doctors.

    There has also been an uptick in the percentage of midwives (7.1% in 2020 to 9% in 2023) and medical support staff (7.2% in 2009 to 10.3% in 2016 and 17.6% in 2023) from outside the UK.

    Experts like Lucina Rolewicz, a researcher from the Nuffield Trust, and Alex Baylis from the King’s Fund have pointed out the NHS’s growing reliance on overseas recruitment to fill staffing gaps, stressing the importance of supporting these international workers through fair treatment, access to training, and career progression opportunities.

    Baylis said, “Staff from overseas are – and always have been – absolutely essential to the NHS and must be recognised and valued as such.”

    The Department of Health and Social Care recognizes the crucial contribution of international staff but aims to lessen dependency on overseas recruitment through significant increases in domestic training placements for doctors, nurses, and GPs as part of the NHS long-term workforce plan.

    This strategy aims to reduce the international workforce component from nearly a quarter to about 10% over the next 15 years.