France:
Children Face Abusive, Racist Police Stops
Ethnic Profiling Fuels Distrust, Exclusion:
French police use overly broad stop-and-frisk
powers to conduct discriminatory and abusive
checks on Black and Arab boys and men, Human
Rights Watch said in a report released Thursday
18th June 2020. Curbing these powers is key to
addressing biased policing, including racial or
ethnic profiling, and repairing police-community
relations.
The 44-page report, “‘They Talk to Us Like We’re
Dogs’: Abusive Police Stops in France,”
documents repetitive, baseless police stops
targeting minorities including children as young
as 10, older children, and adults. These stops
often involve invasive, humiliating body
pat-downs and searches of personal belongings.
Most stops are never recorded, the police don’t
provide written documentation or usually tell
people why they were stopped, and measures to
improve accountability have been ineffective.
Several of the children and adults interviewed
said police used racial slurs.“There is ample
evidence that identity checks in France, in
particular because they have a discriminatory
impact, drive a deep and sharp wedge between
communities and the police, while doing
virtually nothing to deter or detect crime,”
said Bénédicte Jeannerod, France director at
Human Rights Watch. “The authorities shouldn’t
keep ignoring the calls for change.”
Read more: Human Rights Blog,
https://is.gd/EBv4Au
Advocacy in
Restricted Spaces: A Toolkit For Civil
Society Organizations
Thousands of civil society
organizations worldwide find themselves
operating in environments where their ability to
freely assemble, associate, and express
themselves is severely restricted. To support
organizations facing these obstacles to
fundamental freedoms, the Lifeline Embattled CSO
Assistance Fund – a Freedom House-led consortium
of 7 international non-governmental
organizations supported by 19 governments – is
releasing the Advocacy in Restricted Spaces
Toolkit. The Toolkit is a new and practical
resource that emphasizes that advocacy is
possible even in highly restrictive
spaces.
Placing the advocacy planning process within the
context of risk assessment and mitigation, the
Advocacy in Restricted Spaces Toolkit is
intended to be used by grassroots, national, and
regional civil society organizations that aim to
engage in advocacy in restrictive environments.
The Toolkit includes examples and perspectives
on mobilization opportunities for democratic
progress. The Toolkit provides real-world
examples of how civil society can be effective
even under significant duress.
In the era of COVID-19 restrictions, the tactics
and case studies included in the Toolkit are
perhaps even more relevant as growing numbers of
civil society organizations find themselves
operating in increasingly restrictive space
where traditional advocacy tactics may no longer
be feasible. The Toolkit is able to provide
organizations with a new look at their operating
environments to see what opportunities for
advocacy still exist.
Download the Toolkit: https://is.gd/dgGOtx
Refugees: Children
Baroness Hamwee to ask Her Majesty’s Government
whether the Draft Working Text for an Agreement
between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the European Union on the
transfer of unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children makes it a mandatory obligation to (1)
ensure family reunion, and (2) confer rights
enforceable through domestic legal systems
[HL4979]
Baroness Williams of Trafford: The UK published
the draft legal text of our proposed agreement
with the EU on the family reunion of
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children on 19 May.
Under the terms of the draft legal text, the UK
would act on requests from sending states where
we are satisfied that the criteria for transfer
as set out in the draft legal text are met. It
is only right that all transfers are in a
child’s best interests and the legal text makes
that clear. A transfer could be rejected, for
example, where there are safeguarding concerns
or failure to establish a proven family link as
these transfers would not be in a child’s best
interests.
With regards to conferral of rights enforceable
through domestic legal systems, the UK will
abide by its international agreements and
implement it in domestic law as appropriate. An
individual’s rights come from the UK’s
implementation of an international agreement,
not from the agreement itself –this is standard
practice for all international agreements.
“Beyond
Belief” - Home Office Asylum Interviews
Reveal a Culture Tainted by
Prejudgement
Freedom from Torture today publishes a new
report on the experience of the asylum interview
for torture survivors seeking asylum in the UK.
The report argues that the Home Office
repeatedly breaches its own guidelines, and
calls for a fundamental culture change.
Key findings:
- Arriving in Britain, traumatised from
torture and sexual violence, as well as a
harrowing journey, survivors are often prevented
from giving a full account of their experiences
or are denied the opportunity to explain the
relevance of their evidence. The Home Office
fails to follow its own guidance and aspiration
to create a ‘positive and secure environment’
for the survivor.
- Home Office case workers have been found to
employ poor questioning technique and are likely
to prejudge aspects of the account during the
interview. Sensitivity and professional approach
to claimants is not always maintained.
- An experience of torture is not consistently
identified at this stage of questioning despite
being a critical indicator of both vulnerability
and risk of harm on return.
- If done badly, the asylum interview may hamper
the caseworker’s ability to make a prompt, fair
and safe decision on the claim. This can mean
that people desperately in need of protection
are sent back to torture and persecution.
- Many people leave the interview feeling
dehumanised, re-traumatised and despairing of
getting a fair decision.
Read more: Freedom From Torture
‘Taking
Down Statues Does Not Cause us to Forget
History’
In American jurisprudence, the ‘fruit of the
poisoned tree’ is the principle that evidence
which has been acquired unlawfully, regardless
of how valuable, cannot be used in court. The
original sin taints everything that comes from
it. This is a helpful metaphor for how to
consider Edward Colston. As many have recently
learnt, he was a noted philanthropist, whose
money has done, and continues to do, much good.
All of this good, however, unequivocally comes
from the heinous sin of slavery. It is
irrevocably tainted.
Attempts to qualify Colston’s legacy, such as
through a plaque acknowledging his culpability
in the slave trade, came to nought. The
democratic means of clarifying history and
recognising wrong failed, in no small part due
to the intervention of societies like the
‘Merchant Venturers’, who were inexcusably
determined to ensure that the people of Bristol
were left ignorant of Colston’s history as a
slaver. Dragging him from his plinth and dumping
him in the river was no more than he- and
his modern-day defenders – deserved.
Statues are not mere decorations, pleasant
distractions from the monotony of the high
street. Nor are they a record of our history –
indeed, as Robert Saunders has noted, they
curate it. They demonstrate our values and
principles as a society. It is no little thing
to fund and commission a statue – who we carve
in marble is as revealing as who we do not.
Cecil Rhodes looms over Oxford High Street, his
presence there dictated by the terms of his
bequest. Much like Colston, this bequest – and
all the other creditable causes that Rhodes
funded and founded – was gained inhumanely,
through oppression and brutality. That Rhodes
Scholarships are now awarded to black students
from Africa does not absolve Rhodes of the pain
and suffering that he inflicted upon the African
peoples.
Colston’s dunking in Bristol Harbour has
reinvigorated calls for other statues to be
de-plinthed, as a way of our modern society
atoning for the sins of our forefathers. The
‘Rhodes Must Fall’ campaign has resurged, with
the netting intended to protect Rhodes from
desecration from pigeons now serving to protect
him from the even greater ignominy of crashing
to Oxford’s High Street.
Read more: Nicholas Reed Langen, Justice Gap, https://is.gd/VEFcO6
White
Privilege' is a Distraction, Leaving Racism
and Power Untouched
The transformation has been bewilderingly swift.
Six years ago, most Americans thought that
police killings of black suspects were “isolated
events”. Now, three out of four accept that
there exists a systemic problem. Support for
Black Lives Matter has risen more in the past
two weeks than over the past two years. And far
from feeding Donald Trump’s base, the flames
consuming US cities have diminished the stature
of the president while, so far, not exacerbating
the polarisation of the nation. The attitudes
not just of the public but of major
institutions, too, have metamorphosed. The NFL,
which for the past four years has condemned
players “taking the knee” to the national anthem
in protest at racist killings, now acknowledges
it was wrong. Nascar, that most Trumpian of US
sports, has banned Confederate flags.
Corporation after corporation has publicly
affirmed support for Black Lives Matter. In
Britain, too, the ground has shifted. From
nationwide mass protests to a new national
conversation about statues and history, from
footballers and politicians taking the knee, to
Yorkshire Tea telling a critic of Black Lives
Matter “Please don’t buy our tea again”, public
life seems irrevocably changed. When
demonstrators toppled the statue of slaver
Edward Colston in Bristol, only a minority of
Britons supported their actions. A majority,
however, thought the statue should be taken down
legally, something unimaginable even a few
months ago.
Read more: Kenan Malik, Guardian, https://is.gd/Ky7k4Q
|
Judicial
Review of Home Office ‘Permission to Work’
Policy for Asylum Seekers
On 5 June 2020, the High Court granted our
client, (‘the Claimant’), permission to
judicially review the legality of the SSHD’s
(‘the Defendant’) immigration rules and current
Permission to Work policy for asylum seekers.
Paragraph 360 of Part 11B of the Immigration
Rules (together with the Defendant’s Permission
to Work (‘PTW’) policy) enables asylum seekers
to apply for PTW in the UK if they have been
waiting for a decision on their asylum claims
for over a year. However, successful applicants
can only be granted PTW in jobs restricted to
the list of highly-skilled professions set out
in the Defendant’s Shortage Occupation List
(‘SOL’). This means that many asylum seekers are
essentially prevented from working whilst they
experience significant delays in the
determination of their asylum claims.
As a result of previous litigation brought by
the Claimant, the Defendant agreed to reconsider
her application for PTW in employment not
included within the SOL on a discretionary
basis. Despite this, she went on to make a new
decision and restrict the Claimant’s PTW to jobs
on the SOL, alleging that the Claimant had not
raised any exceptional circumstances to justify
discretion being granted in her favour.
Read More: https://is.gd/qT9wES
Refugees: Families
Lord Hylton to ask Her Majesty’s
Government whether they intend to expand the
eligibility criteria for family reunion refugee
status to include adult refugees sponsoring
their (1) adult children, (2) parents, and (3)
siblings under the age of 25; and whether they
will allow unaccompanied children now in the UK
to sponsor their parents and siblings under the
age of 25. [HL4993]
Baroness Williams of Trafford: The Government
already provides a safe and legal route to bring
refugee families together through its family
reunion policy. This allows a partner and
children under 18 of those granted protection in
the UK to join them here, if they formed part of
the family unit before the sponsor fled their
country.
Refugees can also sponsor adult dependent
relatives living overseas to join them where,
due to age, illness or disability, that person
requires long-term personal care that can only
be provided by relatives in the UK. There are
separate provisions in the Rules to allow
extended family to sponsor children to come here
where there are serious and compelling
circumstances.
Further, there is discretion to grant visas
outside the Immigration Rules, which caters for
extended family members in exceptional
circumstances –including young adult sons or
daughters who are dependent on family here and
living in dangerous situations.
It is the Government’s view that if
children were allowed to sponsor family, this
would risk creating incentives for more children
to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their
family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK.
This plays into the hands of criminal gangs who
exploit vulnerable people and goes against our
safeguarding responsibilities.
Immigration:
What is an Offence Causing “Serious Harm”?
This deceptively simple question was
the subject of the Court of Appeal’s decision in
the three joined cases reported as Mahmood v
Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum
Chamber) & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 717. Sending
a picture of your penis to a 15-year-old girl
and causing her to send an “intimate” picture in
return does qualify as serious harm. As does a
road rage assault with an unidentified “quite
long” and “blunt edged” weapon, causing two cuts
to the scalp, four superficial cuts to the back,
and bruises and grazes on the cheek. Possessing
a fake ID and making a “bogus” asylum claim does
not qualify. These three facts, together with
some guidance of more general application, are
what we learn from the decision in Mahmood.
Why does it matter whether an offence has caused
serious harm?
It matters because someone who is not a British
citizen, who has been convicted of an offence
that has caused serious harm, is a “foreign
criminal” as defined in section 117D(2)(c)(ii)
of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
2002 and can be deported.
There are two other ways to obtain the
unflattering designation of foreign criminal.
The first is being sentenced to a period of
imprisonment of at least 12 months. This is the
most common one in my experience, and certainly
the most straightforward. All three offences in
Mahmood attracted custodial sentences of under
12 months. The second is being a “persistent
offender“.
Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/gLo7fF
Online
Petition: Everyone has a Right to
Safely Access Healthcare in the UK
The government should urgently end the Hostile
Environment and make the the NHS safe and free
for everyone, by: 1. Stopping all NHS charges
for migrants, so no one is left to pay
unaffordable fees for medical care. 2. Ending
all data sharing between the NHS and the Home
Office, meaning that patient data will no longer
be used for immigration enforcement. 3.
Launching a public health campaign to ensure NHS
staff and the public are aware of these changes.
Why is this important? A man, known only as
Elvis, who had lived in the UK for 10 years and
worked as a cleaner, died at home of
coronavirus, after having severe symptoms for
two weeks. He did not seek help from the NHS
because he was scared he’d be landed with a
huge, unaffordable bill for his treatment, or
that he would be reported to immigration
authorities. The Government’s hostile
immigration policies mean that many migrants are
too afraid to access the NHS, even if they have
coronavirus symptoms. The NHS was founded on the
principle of universal healthcare, that everyone
could access for free, regardless of background,
nationality, or ability to pay. The Hostile
Environment means this is no longer the case.
No one should avoid healthcare because they are
scared of the debt they’ll incur, or that
they’ll be deported, especially not during a
public health crisis like Covid-19. The nature
of coronavirus means that we are only as
protected as the least protected amongst us. A
recent report published by Migrants Organise,
Medact, and the New Economics Foundation, told
stories of many migrants avoiding accessing
healthcare services during coronavirus because
they fear being charged, or facing immigration
enforcement. It clearly shows that adding
Covid-19 to the list of conditions exempt from
charging is not enough to ensure people can
access care.
There is widespread and growing outrage over the
policy. Seven health institutions in the UK,
including the British Medical Association, 100
civil society organisations and community
associations, and 60 MPs, have all demanded that
the government ends NHS charging for migrants
and data sharing with the Home Office. It’s time
for everyone to join this call for the
Government to take emergency action to end NHS
charging and data sharing during the coronavirus
crisis.
To defeat coronavirus we must stand together,
support everyone in our communities, and ensure
the NHS is free and safe for all who need it.
It is our NHS. It should treat
#PatientsNotPassports
https://is.gd/0Anfqu
Home
Office Ordered to Pay For Hotel For Family
in Unsafe Accommodation
A high-court judge has ordered the Home Office
to pay for a hotel for a vulnerable asylum
seeker and her two young children, after twice
placing them in unsafe accommodation over the
past 10 months. The woman and her two children
aged eight and nine were placed in Home Office
accommodation last August, but made repeated
complaints about the conditions. Concerns were
raised about the risk to the woman and her
children of remaining in that accommodation by
the children’s school, social services, lawyers
and charities.
After almost 10 months they were finally moved
last Friday to a dirty, insect-infested hotel in
east London where, the woman told the Guardian,
physical distancing was impossible and she
witnessed prostitution. In an emergency
high-court Skype hearing on Wednesday Mr Justice
Choudhury ordered the Home Office to pay for a
hotel close to the children’s school which is
clean and safe until more suitable long-term
accommodation in the area can be found. The
woman’s barrister, Raza Halim, told the high
court: “This hotel is not fit for habitation,
let alone during a pandemic. There is
prostitution there in plain sight.”
Home Office barrister Zane Malik told the court
that the government was unable to find the
family alternative accommodation in east London
and wanted to move the family to Plymouth. He
said that the hotel the family had been placed
in complied with Public Health England
guidelines. The judge rejected the Home Office’s
plan to uproot the children from their school
and move the family to Plymouth and said in his
judgment the accommodation provided was not
suitable and that the evidence provided by the
mother about the poor conditions in the hotel
the Home Office moved the family to last Friday
seemed credible and reliable.
Diane Taylor, Guardian, https://is.gd/bya2Sw
|