Read more

Source: Guardian

Read more

Source: indymedia

We welcome the decision to consult the Muslim community on the proposed introduction of a UK Bill of Rights. As the UK’s largest minority faith group with a population numbering between 1.57 and 2.2 million, we have particular concerns which the Bill of Rights may address. However, this does not negate an overall concern for the rights and welfare of all British citizens, regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, colour or gender.

In a democratic society, justice demands a proper and measured response in strict accordance with rules of law which have been established over time and following centuries of experience and formulation. Our laws should afford every citizen trust and confidence in the system. Security is of paramount importance in order to preserve our rule of law and the fabric of our society. Equally as essential is the need to uphold civil liberties regardless of the circumstances and the crime in question, as this is the hallmark of our society. One does not exclude the other, and both are necessary for the future success of Britain.

Deportations

It is our understanding that a proposed Bill of Rights seeks to rectify some of the perceived shortcomings within the Human Rights Act.  The main ‘interference’ Prime Minister David Cameron wants freedom from is the prohibition on deporting foreign nationals to countries where there is a real risk they will be tortured. He has declared this to be the main purpose of repealing the Human Rights Act.  This gives rise to a genuine concern from British Muslims at a human level, as I’m sure it does for many others in Britain. Numerous United Nations Conventions were drafted in 1948 following the horrors of a war which almost engulfed the entire globe, with a single purpose of creating a set of minimum standards by which all human beings can expect to be treated. Their right to life and freedom from torture is a basic and fundamental right which all nations’ agreed would be protected. All regional human rights charters across the globe reflect this, as does the European Convention on which the Human Rights Act was modelled. We cannot allow our current Prime Minister to act on a political whim in order to appear hard on immigration, to erode this right. It is something we should be protecting with greater fervour as time goes on and conflicts escalate, and it is certainly not something we should negotiate away.

We must contextualise a potential UK Bill of Rights within the framework of wider International Human Rights law so that the provisions which were established over 6 decades ago are not breached. In Britain we have been saved from the scourges of war, conflict and autocratic and tyrannical regimes which are an everyday reality for millions if not billions around the globe. However, we cannot allow this to create apathy in our society for the real torment and persecution people may face if we remove an obligation not to deport nationals to countries where they may face torture.

The Muslim Community

Another issue of particular concern to British Muslims is shortcomings in a potential Bill of Rights reflecting the same deficiencies found within the Human Rights Act which fails to adequately protect the human rights of the Muslim community where faith based crimes are concerned.

In order to build the confidence of the community, it is vital that legislation is applied consistently and without prejudice across all faith and race groups. If we are to build confidence within the Muslim community, it is critical that Muslims are not marginalised and targeted unfairly.

We welcome laws that deal with hate crimes such as anti-Semitism but are concerned at the inconsistent application of the law. There is no legislation at present which addressed Islamophobia in its own right, despite the plethora of research in existence which substantiates its existence within British society at every level, including in politics, the media and even on the streets. There is clear and independent evidence showing that Muslims are unfairly targeted in several ways:

- Through anti-terror legislation which focuses disproportionately on potential threats from the Muslim community and in doing so dangerously downplays threats from other sections of the community in particular from the Far Right.

- The use of Schedule 7 powers at ports of entry for stop and search still remains the greatest negative experience for Muslims, even more so when the Freedom of Information Act states that Asians and those that look like Muslims are 32 times more likely to be stopped. This is viewed as religious and/or race profiling with no evidence provided that it helps advance security interests.

Legislation

A UK Bill of Rights must tackle the inherent weakness of the Race Relations Act of 1976 which only gives protection to Jews and Sikhs as racial groups while excluding Muslims from its definition. This policy is wholly inadequate and leaves British Muslims vulnerable to religious hate crimes, which are on the rise. This policy is even more obtuse in light of the fact that the governmental, media and other sources continuously refer to Muslims as a distinctive community.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 has also failed in protecting Islam from the many far right groups like the BNP and EDL.

Such points as the ones outlined above are fundamental when considering the need to introduce a UK Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights can provide a unifying force in a diverse society, but it will not do so if it ignores the contribution of many countries, and most cultures, to the human rights values recognised throughout the world today and turns its back on the international Human Rights treaties which virtually every modern Bill of Rights is based on.  Furthermore, a UK Bill of Rights must be all encompassing applying universally to all four component countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales so as to ensure universal consistency.

Read full article here

Read more

Source: Community Care.co.uk

Damian Green’s speech on immigration on 15 September 2011 revealed various proposals which seem likely to become law. These build and elucidate on previous proposals, previously covered here on the blog.

The tone of the speech and the proposals is clear from the very first words:

The vast majority of people in this country believe that we need less immigration, and I agree.

The current Government certainly doesn’t beat around the bush! Green suggests that immigration figures have stabilised, but this may come back to haunt him. One quarter a trend does not make. The revelation that employers are not making full use of the Points Based System quota is interesting. I’d heard this on the grapevine and could have sworn I had blogged about it but can’t now find the post. I may now be imagining writing blog posts, which cannot be healthy.

Anyway, the proposals seem to be as follows:

• Ban on foreign spouses sponsoring another spouse within five years of entry
• Ban on sponsoring spouses for ten years following a conviction relating to sham marriages or bigamy
• Ban on sponsoring spouses following a conviction for domestic violence or being a respondent to a Forced Marriage Prevention Order (presumably a full order rather than an interim one)
• Curtailment of existing leave if involved in a sham marriage (the law already allows this anyway: see para 322(2) of the rules)
• Necessity to speak a common language and know ‘the most basic facts about each other’. This would appear to require interviews by immigration officials, which UKBA has all but eliminated in the last few years. It is difficult to see how this would work with the current ‘hub and spoke’ visa operation.
• An initial grant of only 12 months leave to enter where the relationship is less than 12 months old. The reference is to relationship rather than marriage. It is difficult to see how this would work in entry clearance cases – will letters, emails and evidence of telephone contact be required? Such evidence is usually presented anyway, although not covering a 12 month period. This proposal will certainly affect arranged marriage cases.
• Extend probationary period for spouses to five years. It was only a year under the last Tory Government, back in 1997, and was then increased to two years by David Blunkett.
• A new ‘attachment’ requirement is proposed, with reference to the requirements in Denmark. Those are that the sponsor has resided legally for 15 years and the spouse has visited at least twice. For spouses from relatively poor countries such a requirement would be very difficult to satisfy, particularly given the abysmal quality of decision making at some entry clearance posts. This proposal looks like a straw man, deliberately included for the specific purpose of jettisoning it after the consultation. In the mean time it attracts the most effort and ire from respondents to the consultation and it makes the Government look reasonable even though the other proposals are adopted wholesale.
• An allegation of sham marriage may be made a lawful impediment to marriage, causing a delay and postponement while such an allegation is investigated.
• Requests of social services departments to conduct an enquiry into the capacity to marry of any person with learning disabilities or belonging to another particularly vulnerable group. Depending on how it is done, this may amount to an unlawful interference with the right to marry. The courts have approached this subject with considerable sensitivity, but the same cannot be expected of the UK Border Agency nor even social workers unfamiliar with key legal authorities. See the case of In the matter of SA [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR 867.
• A new minimum income level in excess of the Income Support level. The (No) Migration Advisory Committee has been asked to advise. Apparently a figure of around £24,000 is being contemplated.
• Third party support to be scrapped (again) or limited to cases where there are compelling and compassionate circumstances.
• Some sort of change to the accommodation requirement, seemingly formalising the requirement to obtain confirmation from a local authority that accommodation will not be overcrowded where there is no formal mortgage or tenancy agreement.
• Outside the spouse route, the abolition of indefinite leave to enter for adult dependents.
• Imposition of English language requirements for children aged 16-17 and for adult dependents under the age of 65, with B1 being the required standard for adults.
• Family visit appeals to be scrapped (again). The idea that a new application to the ECOs at Islamabad or Dhaka is an adequate remedy is absurd. Judicial review is likely to burgeon.

There is a lot of emphasis on abuse in the speech. There is no mention at all of the positive benefits of immigration.

Lastly, the speech mentions the figure of 155 arrests in sham marriage cases in the last year. No figures are given for convictions. I am suspicious that these figures follow the pattern established in terrorism cases – lots of arrests, followed by no convictions and various claims for damages afterwards. I feel a Freedom of Information request coming on…

On 24/10/11, first day back to school after half term, activities as follows: I would like schools/pupils to come and join in our Cultural Diwali Workshop activities event ie make their own Clay divas, create & design Diwali cards, make Diwali envelopes and colour rangoli patterns for only £2.50 each. The City Mayor – Peter Soulsby will be attending to plants bulbs in our gardens at Newarke Houses Museum on the day with school children, and present will be the Press ie Leicester Mercury, FACE magazine, East Midlands Weather Team so that the Children can  have ago at forecasting the weather on the day, there is also an Asian Kathak dance teacher who will teach traditional dance with musical instruments tabla and sitar players.

This will give an opportunity for the pupils take part and awareness in the traditional culture event and also plant in our gardens with the City Mayor.

I would appreciate if you could kindly display the attached poster on your notice boards.

To book your reservations on 0116 2254980 or email: priti.narshi@leicester.gov.uk

This report online: http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=93858