Austerity Measures Across Europe Have Undermined Human Rights
?"Many governments in Europe imposing austerity measures have forgotten about their human rights obligations, especially the social and economic rights of the most vulnerable, the need to ensure access to justice, and the right to equal treatment. Regrettably, international lenders have also neglected to incorporate human rights considerations into many of their assistance programmes," said today Nils Mui~nieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, while releasing a research paper about the impact of the economic crisis on the protection of human rights.
The Commissioner points out that austerity measures have undermined human rights in several ways: "National decisions on austerity measures and international rescue packages have lacked transparency, public participation and democratic accountability. In some cases, onerous conditionalities have prevented governments from investing in essential social protection, health and education programmes. When the EU as a central actor in the crisis makes decisions about economic governance in member states and when the Troika sets conditions for rescue packages and loan agreements, the impact on human rights should be better taken into account."
Read More: Nils Muiznieks, 04/11/13
Anatomy of a Failed Rendition - Isa Muaza
Over the weekend, just before Amazon sucked all the air out of rational discourse with its absurd PR flim-flam about drone deliveries, a far more sinister aerial story was developing. On Friday, the British Home Office announced that it had deported Ifa Muaza aboard a private jet.
The apparently unusual move of deporting detainees on private jets is not a first for the Home Office, which has previously used private aircraft to spirit contentious cases out of the country. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, who is currently looking for ways to strip Britons of their citizenship in contravention of British and international law, has used the tactic at least twice, including in the deportation of Abu Hamza, the fundamentalist cleric rendered to Jordan despite the clear threat of torture which should have stopped the process, again under both British and international law.
I wanted to know more about this journey. I find the shadowy technological aspects of these abominations against the person to be revealing of the underlying moral bankruptcy of the perpetrators. Technology is politics reified in electromechanical systems. When the government is deleting from the internet its own speeches promising greater transparency, consider this another kind of seeing through the cloud: an exercise in OSINT (Open Source Intelligence), using the tools of the network against its darkest masters.
Isa Muaza - and - Secretary Of State For The Home Department
IM ("the appellant") is a Nigerian national aged 45. He entered the United Kingdom in July 2007 and became an over-stayer on 23 January 2008 following the expiry of his six months' visitor's visa. He applied unsuccessfully for leave to remain under Article 8 ECHR in May 2011. He attended the respondent's asylum screening unit to make an asylum claim on 25 July 2013 and was then taken into immigration detention. His asylum claim was rejected and certified as clearly unfounded on 7 August 2013. On 27 August 2013 he began to refuse food and has continued to do so save for a brief interruption in October and on a few isolated occasions. He has been refusing fluids intermittently.
On 4 October 2013 he issued an application for permission to apply for judicial review, maintaining, at that stage, that his continued detention was unlawful inter alia because it was a breach of the respondent's published policy on detention as his serious medical condition could not be managed satisfactorily in detention and because it was a breach of Articles 2 and/or 3 ECHR.
Interim relief in the form of release was refused by Stewart J. on 17 October 2013 in a reserved judgment and by Collins J. on 28 October 2013. Collins J. ordered a rolled-up hearing of the application for permission and, if granted, the substantive application. That hearing took place on 13 and 14 November before Ouseley J. who, on 19 November, in a very detailed judgment granted permission but refused the substantive claim. He also granted leave to appeal to this court.
On 21 November this court (Maurice Kay, Moore-Bick and Ryder L.JJ.) refused an application for interim relief and ordered that the substantive appeal be heard on 25 November.
Following the hearing before this constitution on 25 November we announced that the appeal would be dismissed and that our judgments would be delivered at a later date. Delivered 05/12/13