IRR: Challenging Media Double Standards - Resetting the Agenda
The role of an objective press should be to present the facts and inform the public about what is happening in the world. But the mainstream media, wanting to set the 24-hour news agenda and shape public opinion, have long since jettisoned such an approach.
Over the last few weeks, however, we have seen welcome signs that the mainstream media may have lost its knack for shaping public opinion. Daily mobilisations in support of a permanent ceasefire in Gaza in towns and cities across the country have posed a direct challenge to the media’s double standards in reporting from Israel and the Occupied Territories.
These double standards are visible in the offensive presentation of Palestinian lives as less worthy of saving than others, the inflammatory use of language that treats Palestinians en masse as guilty, coupled with insensitive or downright hostile interviewing of British Palestinians who have lost family members in the conflict and an uncritical acceptance of all information coming from the Israeli authorities, which is presented as fact before verification.
It is not just the media’s double standards on Israel/ Palestine that have been challenged this week; the right-wing media’s anti-immigration agenda is now threatened too, by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the government’s Rwanda plan is unlawful, and the sacking of the right-wing media’s darling, Suella Braverman.
Naturally, none of this has caused the media to change its tune, either in terms of reporting on the carnage in Palestine or a miraculous conversion to a human rights-based approach to asylum seekers. On the contrary, if the media cannot shape public opinion, the media will reject public opinion! And that’s precisely what it has been doing these last weeks, denigrating those who call for a ceasefire as at best, naive and ill-informed, and at worst dangerous, guilty by association with – or rather by non-active disassociation from – Hamas.
Read more: Institute of Race Relations (IRR), https://is.gd/5mpap9
UK Point-Based Immigration System Increase Risk of Exploitation for Migrant Workers
A report released last week by the employment justice charity the Work Rights Centre (WORC) looks at how the UK's immigration system contributes to the risk of exploitation faced by migrant workers.
The report examines the systemic drivers of exploitation for migrant workers in the UK, who are defined by WORC as workers subject to immigration controls under the points-based system (PBS) who have visas tied to the business that sponsored them.
WORC finds that the exploitation of migrant workers is becoming an increasing problem in the UK, and it threatens to become a national crisis without urgent changes to the immigration and labour enforcement system.
The report notes that the number of businesses that are licensed to sponsor migrant workers has more than doubled since the introduction of the post-Brexit PBS. Over 236,000 employer-sponsored visas were issued by the Home Office in 2022.
WORC argues that the current immigration system is ill-equipped to mitigate the risks of exploitation for migrant workers and, indeed, the current system actively contributes to those risks.
Read more; EIN, https://tinyurl.com/bdfm3zpe
Victim of Trafficking/Modern Slavery - Criminal Convictions Quashed
This applicant, now aged 24, pleaded guilty to drugs offences committed when he was a teenager, and was sentenced in 2017 to terms of detention. He now makes applications to this court on the basis that at the time of the offending, he was a victim of trafficking or modern slavery (for convenience, a "VMS").
The applicant further applies for an order granting him anonymity in these proceedings. We have considered the principles stated by this court in R v L [2017] EWCA Crim 2129 at [9-15]. We bear very much in mind the importance of the principle of open justice. We are however satisfied that it is necessary and appropriate to make an order for anonymity. As will become apparent, the applicant has been recognised by the Single Competent Authority ("SCA") as a VMS, and we accept that there is a real risk that he will be subject to reprisals and/or to further trafficking if his true identity is revealed.
Moreover, issues which in some respect overlap with the issues before this court have also arisen in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("the FTT"). An order for the applicant's anonymity was made in those proceedings. The purpose of that order would be defeated if he were identified in these applications. We therefore grant the applicant anonymity in these proceedings. We order, pursuant to s11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, that in any report of these proceedings the applicant must not be named, and should be referred to only by the randomly-chosen letters "BSG".
Analysis: All of the applications turn on the applicant's core contention that he was a VMS and that he should therefore not have been prosecuted; or, if prosecuted, should have been advised of a defence under s45(4) of MSA 2015 which would probably have succeeded; or alternatively, that he should have been sentenced much more leniently than he was. If that core contention fails it is not suggested that there is any other basis for challenging the safety of the Canterbury convictions or for challenging any of the sentences.
In those circumstances, it is unnecessary to engage in any detailed examination of the circumstances of the offences. It is sufficient, in our view, to focus on issues relating to the statutory defence. We therefore do not think it necessary to give detailed consideration to whether there would have been a prosecution if the facts now asserted had been known to the CPS, or to whether a defence of duress, or an application to stay the proceedings, would have succeeded. We are therefore satisfied that the extensions of time should be granted and the appeal against conviction of the Canterbury offences allowed. The appeal against sentence in relation to those offences accordingly falls away.
The unlawful sentence imposed for the Aylesbury offences must be quashed.
For each of those offences, the appropriate sentence was in our view a detention and training order for 24 months: although the judge would have had power to impose sentences of detention for a longer term, we think that he would have imposed detention and training orders if he had properly considered the sentences lawfully available to him. We are not persuaded that this aspect of the hearing should be adjourned to await the decision of the CCRC.
For those reasons we grant the necessary extensions of time. We admit as fresh evidence all the evidence referred to in paragraph 35 above except for the report of Ms Beddoe. We grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal against the convictions for the Canterbury offences and quash those convictions. We grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal against the sentences for the Aylesbury offences: we quash the sentences imposed below and substitute on each count, concurrently, a detention and training order for 24 months. Those sentences have, of course, already been served.
Full transcript: BAILLI, https://tinyurl.com/mthjbkdm
|
Just 15 Countries Host More Than Half of 71.1 Million IDPs Worldwide
Internally Displaced People (IDPs) who have access to adequate housing are over three times more likely to not rely on humanitarian assistance and twice as likely to have stable income according to a study published today by the International Organization for Migration's Global Data Institute (GDI) in partnership with Georgetown University in the United States.
The PROGRESS report is a comprehensive analysis of the state of solutions to internal displacement worldwide. “Our findings are shifting the debate from ‘when does displacement end’ to ‘when do solutions start’,” said Ugochi Daniels, IOM Deputy Director General for Operations.?? Together with the communities we serve, IOM is committed to leave no one behind in the quest for a sustainable, resilient future. PROGRESS shows us where investments can be made for effective solutions, which match what IDPs also tell us: adequate housing, livelihoods, and local integration in situations when displacement persists.”?
The report focuses on 15 countries, who currently host 37.5 million of the 71.1 million IDPs worldwide, providing crucial insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by IDPs. It shows the importance of job creation, security, and fostering a sense of belonging within communities for overcoming displacement-related vulnerabilities and, subsequently, reduce disparities between IDPs and their host communities.?
Read more: Reliefweb, https://is.gd/19k7eG
Parliament: There are no Safe Routes for Refugees and Asylum Seekers to the UK
Lord Dubs: To ask His Majesty’s Government what safe routes to the United Kingdom are available to child refugees and asylum seekers.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office: Lord Sharpe of Epsom
There are no provisions in our Immigration Rules to enable someone to travel to the UK to seek asylum or temporary refuge. The UK welcomes vulnerable refugees, including children, directly from regions of conflict and instability through our global resettlement routes, the UK resettlement scheme, community sponsorship and the mandate resettlement scheme. We also have bespoke routes responding to crises in Ukraine and Afghanistan and the Hong Kong BNO visa route.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful for the Answer, but is it not the truth that virtually every safe and legal route to child refugees has been closed by the Government? Perhaps the Minister will not recall, but some years ago I was given assurances both privately by Ministers and in the House that the Government would not close down safe and legal routes. Why are they not willing to do that?
Read more: Parliament, https://is.gd/Jgivv3
Rwanda: Evil Then and Evil Now
Anyone who reads and engages with the Supreme Court’s judgment striking this down should be outraged by the policy, not by the Supreme Court’s intervention. Lord Reed – a justice not known for his willingness to hold the government’s feet to the fire – noted that Rwanda has starved refugees and used live ammunition on them, has sent them clandestinely to countries like Uganda where they could be refouled, and has refused refuge to asylum seekers from war zones like Syria and Afghanistan.
There is nothing that requires, let alone that justifies, treating refugees in this way. Rwanda may be war-torn and impoverished, but it still has agency. It chooses to use this agency to inflict harm and suffering. But if Rwanda’s government is culpable, Britain’s is too. Knowing that Kagame’s government was authoritarian and repressive, with the British Foreign Office condemning its abuses of power in 2021, Suella Braverman, then Home Secretary, chose to sign a ‘memorandum of understanding’ with the regime. In exchange for £140m upfront, and a £100,000 fee for every asylum seeker taken, Kagame was willing to take Britain’s ‘undesirables’ off the government’s hands.
Key to this deal was Rwanda’s track record. The fact that it tortured, persecuted, and refouled asylum seekers was not a bug in the policy, but the point of the policy. Braverman hoped that asylum seekers looking at Britain from camps in Calais, or thinking of Britain as they washed up on a Mediterranean shore would remember Rwanda, and the odds of ending up back where they started – or somewhere worse. Choosing whether to stick with where they were or twist and aim for Britain, the hope was that they would stick. If the Home Office had somehow contrived a deal with a developed country or a country with a strong human rights record – say, Canada – the policy would have been neutralised. Asylum seekers would have considered it a win-win.
Read more: Nicholas Reed Langen, Justice Gap, https://tinyurl.com/yw5nunt
Worsening Conditions/Challenges Facing Vulnerable Ukrainian Refugees In Europe
Almost two years following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, older people, people with disabilities, those with serious medical conditions, and others with specific needs who have fled Ukraine, are facing increasing challenges and hardship, according to the latest report released today by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.
UNHCR’s latest regional protection monitoring report, Displacement Patterns, Protection Risks and Needs of Refugees from Ukraine, finds that while notable progress has been observed overall in terms of refugees’ access to services and inclusion in national systems in Europe as a result of access to Temporary Protection, the data paints a grim picture for those most vulnerable.
Despite continued advocacy for the full inclusion of the most vulnerable in national systems, those with specific needs face increasing obstacles in finding housing, or accessing health care or jobs, with the situation deteriorating over time. In addition, the most vulnerable struggle to obtain or replace identity documentation, primarily biometric passports, in their host countries which can negatively impact access to rights. Worryingly, there are indications that some may be compelled to make premature decisions to return home to Ukraine, where the situation remains volatile.
Read more: ReliefWeb, https://tinyurl.com/yc6wh9ww
Student With Rare Disease to Stay in UK After Immigration Battle
An Egyptian man with a rare genetic disorder facing deportation has won the right to stay in the UK until 2026. Youssef Mikhaiel was due to be deported in June, within days, but that was postponed after a ruling at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. The 28-year-old has Fabry disease, which damages the heart, kidneys and nervous system. He cannot access treatment in his home country.
The Home Office has now granted him leave to remain for two years. In a letter seen by BBC Scotland News, it told the graduate engineer it would exercise discretion due to his "exceptional circumstances". It comes after Mr Mikhaiel had been held at Dungavel House detention centre in Lanarkshire for two weeks in May and June. He described the relief he felt following the decision.
Read more: Chris Clements, BBC News, https://tinyurl.com/3dzbetj5
|