SA continues inhuman treatment of refugees

Allegations of inhuman treatment on asylum seekers are continuing here, a human rights organization being the latest to complain.

Read more

Source: The Zimbabwean

Abu Qatada wins appeal against deportation

Muslim cleric Abu Qatada has won the right not to be deported to Jordan. The European Court of Human Rights decided that Abu Qatada would face the possibility of torture upon return.

Read more

Source: BBC News

Human Rights are Rights

Refugee Council launches film for Human Rights Day

On Human Rights Day, the Refugee Council is launching a short film commemorating the people the charity has protected and supported over the last 60 years.

The film, “60 years of refugee protection”, features the testimonies and views of refugees who fled conflicts around the world and rebuilt their lives in the UK, in each decade since 1951 – the year the charity came together to offer support and advice to refugees. With British actress Zoe Wanamaker’s voiceover, the film features a refugee from each decade from Hungary, Kenya, Chile, Ghana, Kosovo and Liberia.

The film is the culmination of the Refugee Council’s 60th anniversary celebrations in 2011, as well as the 60th year of the UN Convention for Refugees.

You can watch the film here.

On behalf of refugees thank you for your support.

If you haven’t already donated to the Colin Firth appeal, you can give a gift here.

Goodbye paragraph 395C?

Source: Free Movement (Article first published 14 October 2011)

The cat gets it

Theresa May and David Cameron have promised to crack down on the perversion of human rights. May specifically stated that she wanted to amend the Immigration Rules to do so. Some of this is no doubt pure politics of the dogwhistle variety: it will not necessarily be followed by new policies or actual changes, but ministers want to be heard saying the ‘right’ thing.

It is difficult to take May seriously after Catgate. She cannot really be expected to check everything that is placed in front of her by her speech writers, but the pledge on changing the rules was unusually specific. I’ve been wondering what might follow, and my guess is that paragraph 395C will be scrapped. A Presenting Officer suggested to me that it might go the other day when we chatting before court, and this would perhaps arguably fulfil May’s promise.

The rule, very recently slightly amended, currently reads as follows:

395C. Before a decision to remove under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is given, regard will be had to all the relevant factors known to the Secretary of State including:

(i) age;

(ii) length of residence in the United Kingdom;

(iii) strength of connections with the United Kingdom;

(iv) personal history, including character, conduct and employment record;

(v) domestic circumstances;

(vi) previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted;

(vii) compassionate circumstances;

(viii) any representations received on the person’s behalf.

In the case of family members, the factors listed in paragraphs 365-368 must also be taken into account.

The flaw is that, as you can see, the paragraph makes no mention whatsoever of human rights. Arguments under this rule have a completely different legal basis additional to and more generous than human rights arguments. I don’t think this sort of legal nicety will bother May and her speech writers, however. The arguments made under paragraph 395C are basically the same as made under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Paragraph 395C was a surprisingly generous addition to the rules when it was introduced in 2006 following the deportation debacle, and it also, by a legal quirk, gives huge discretion to immigration judges to make up their own mind about how to dispose of a case. That is the very last thing that the last two governments seem to want – allowing judges to judge cases on their merit under national and international law.

Maya The Cat

Source: Free Movement

I have so far refrained from any mention of cats, although I came THIS close to asking in examination in chief yesterday whether my clients owned a cat…

You can read the disputed determination for yourself here, courtesy of The New Statesman. You can also read the reasons for yourself. Theresa May was ‘making it up’, basically. Alex Mik has sent in a more thoughtful piece on human rights reporting generally, which I am happy to reproduce below.

As a postscript to the judgment, Maya the Cat is still apparently going strong, as are the gay couple at the centre of the determination. You’d have thought The Daily Mail would be happy about that, but apparently not…

Can we have a little more responsible journalism please?

Much has been written recently about Daily Mail reporting, specifically their dreadful handling of the Amanda Knox trial. This has been covered by a number of better qualified outlets so I won’t focus on this. My attention was drawn to the Daily Mail’s reporting of what is being imaginatively tiled ‘catgate’. It was not the first time my attention had been drawn to it, as it was when the story was originally published in the Sunday Telegraph back in 2009. The story was inaccurate then and it continues to be inaccurate now. The problem is that the mistakes are getting bigger, and there is no need for them.

As soon as Mrs May mentioned the cat people were trying to find the case. The UK Human Rights Blog had time to publish two articles about it, the first of which gave a link to the actual Upper Tier Tribunal determination. The determination makes clear that the cat was irrelevant to the decision to let the individual remain in this country (The decision was reached because the Home Office were not following their own guidance). This was published around 2pm on 4^th October. How is it then that two days later the Daily Mail’s front page article offers a story exclaiming “Truth about Tory catfight: Judge DID rule migrant’s pet was a reason he shouldn’t be deported”? It is the capitals that catch the attention. Much like Mrs May’s “and I’m not making this up”, it is almost as if they feel if they emphasise their mistake it will make more people accept it as truth.

Are we to believe that the piece, which actually credits three authors, was a genuine mistake? That not one of the three established journalists picked up on the accurate story? Or is it that they just preferred their story, as it fit into a wider narrative about the Human Rights Act being something with which criminals are somehow able to cheat the system and remain in this country, no doubt in a 6 bedroom council mansion complete with giant flatscreen tv.  The same goes for Mrs May. Did nobody in her camp check the facts? Or is it a case of throwing enough mud and seeing what sticks.

I haven’t the time or the inclination to check every story the tabloids publish, but I’ve followed immigration stories with interest. Here are some recent examples:

“Nigerian rapist who can’t be deported because European judges say it would violate his right to family life” ­This article appeared in on 20^th September 2011. It was an account of Akindoyin Akinshipe, “24, who was due to be sent home after losing appeal after appeal in the British courts over his jailing for an attack on a girl of 13”. While I’m not disputing that a terrible crime took place, the article wilfully misleads the reader, the crime having taken place when Akinshipe was 15. Rape is a serious crime (a crime for which he was punished), but the paper’s take on it adds a paedophilic dimension, creating an image of the individual as a sexual predator. Again, I’m not trivialising the crime, which was extremely serious, but the individual was sentences for his crime and he served his sentence. The newspaper in question or the readership may take issue with the sentence but that is an entirely different debate, and has little to do with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. As the paper points out, ‘the probation service said there was a low risk of him committing further offences”, and in the time the Home Office took to decide to attempt to deport him “he had obtained three A-levels, and he was about to finish a degree in economics and banking”. Leaving aside the various moral arguments around bankers and economists, this individual had by most accounts turned his life around. That the newspaper should try and hold him up as a poster boy for their campaign against the Human Rights Act is depressing.

On 14^th September 2011, the same paper had a story with the headline “98,000 asylum seekers have been ‘lost’ by bungling immigration workers”. Part way through the article it explains that “Many have been told they must leave but are mounting human rights or other legal challenges to escape deportation.” This is painted in a negative light. It entirely ignores the fact that many of these asylum seekers would not be mounting human rights or other legal challenges to escape deportation if there wasn’t an argument to be made. Many of these people have been here for over a decade, waiting for the Home Office to sort themselves out. A lot have been given permission to work and do so, paying taxes, contributing to society while unable to leave the country until their claim is decided. There is also an entirely separate article to be written about the tabloid’s liberal interchanging of ‘asylum seekers’ , ‘refugees’ and ‘illegal immigrants’. Refugee Council for one offer training on this sort of thing. Suggest one or two editors take them up on it.

“Most migrants on a marriage visa have never visited the UK before”, appeared on 15^th September 2011. This is probably just me, one of those liberal elites that the government have talked about, but I can’t see how this is a problem. I’ve found that generally marriages aren’t about countries, they’re about the two people getting married. Really, this kind of thing should probably be encouraged by these anti-immigration espousers.  I suspect a lot of spouses upon getting here and seeing the kind of headlines spewed out by our most popular newspapers will feel unwelcome and leave again, taking their partner with them, providing more room for the rest of us. It should also be pointed out that there isn’t a requirement in the rules for spouses to have visited here (possibly because it would make courtships unnecessarily expensive), as the Immigration Rules are more focused on important things like ensuring the marriage is genuine and subsisting. In addition the article raises concerns that “many of those coming here to marry or to join partners have little knowledge and understanding of British culture.” I’m 25 years old, have spent most of my life in the UK, and I’m not sure what British culture it is that they’re talking about. Is it the binge drinking culture I read so much of in the same papers? Is it the films or music? I suspect a lot of applicants have heard of Keira Knightley, Ian McKellen and the Beatles. Realistically our best bits are exported, you don’t ever need to have been to this country to enjoy The Office, our cricket team or our cuisine.

On 22^nd February 2011 the same paper produced an article headed “Immigration fears of the young as almost three-quarters say it is a problem.” Is it any wonder that this is the case when the young are fed such irresponsible journalism on such a regular basis.

As we’ve been told by our political leaders countless times, there needs to be a debate about immigration but we cannot have one while so many, the Home Secretary included, are so badly misinformed.

Alex Mik

Scaremongering about immigration and human rights

Ekklesia – Scaremongering about immigration and human rights is popular among UK politicians. So it was not surprising when Home Secretary Theresa May tried to exploit fears and prejudices on these topics at the annual conference of the Conservative Party (the dominant partner in the ruling coalition). But her speech did not go quite as planned.

On 4 October 2011, she launched a verbal attack on the Human Rights Act, set out plans to alter immigration rules to prevent “misinterpretation” of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to family life. “We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act… The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat.”

But it was a made-up story. Her colleague, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, was quick to express scepticism about her claim. The judicial communications office, which represents senior judges, insisted the tale was not true and said it had told the Home Office as much.

Journalists were quick to uncover the reality of what happened. A Bolivian student has lived with his British partner for four years. But the Home Office tried to deport him, contrary to its own immigration rules on unmarried couples. Judges overturned the decision on appeal. During the case, his lawyers pointed out that the couple had a committed relationship, and mentioned that they shared a cat. The pet was not the reason that he was allowed to stay.

May might not have been deliberately lying, rather repeating one of the myths peddled in sections of the press to try to discredit laws protecting ordinary people from abuses of power. On this occasion, it seems as if this might have backfired, as top politicians ‘let the cat out of the bag’ about their cavalier attitude to facts. Perhaps more members of the public will look sceptically at other claims made by government ministers about those facing intensified hardship as a result of state policies, such as welfare benefit claimants.

In a report following an inquiry on human rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission gave examples of ‘Everyday situations in which the Human Rights Act might apply’, such as ‘Abuse or neglect of older, those who are learning disabled or other vulnerable people (Articles 2 and 3)’, ‘Loss of personal data by public officials

(Article 8)’ and ‘Refusal to allow people to attend a demonstration (Articles 10 and 11)’.

Many churches and other faith groups, humanist and atheist groups have spoken out over the years in defence of human rights principles. The British Humanist Association, to its credit, has publicly criticised the Home Secretary’s recent attacks on the Human Rights Act. Other belief-based movements should perhaps do more to educate their members about the ethical basis of human rights measures and what these mean in practice, so that misinformation can be more widely challenged.

——-

© Savi Hensman works in the care and equalities sector. An Ekklesia associate, she is a widely published Christian commentator of political and social issues.

The British Institute of Human Rights: National Human Rights Tour

‘Making Human Rights Happen’

16 Rights | 16 Cities | 16 Weeks

BIHR is running a free-to-attend National Human Rights Tour, visiting 16 UK cities from September to December 2011. We will celebrate the Human Rights Act, look at how human rights relate to the Coalition’s plans, and address human rights issues both nationally and specific to each region that we visit.

The towns and cities we shall visit are Belfast (date TBC), Birmingham (29^th Sept), Brighton (18^th Oct), Bristol (15^th Sept), Cardiff (17^th Nov), Derby (27^th Sept), London (13^th Dec), Manchester (8^th Sept), Newcastle (4^th Oct), North Wales (Mold – 9^th Nov), Norwich (1^st Nov), Oxford (13^th Sept), Plymouth (date TBA), Scotland (2 events, TBA), and Sheffield (13^th Oct).

Six road shows are being funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) through BIHR’s ‘Human Rights in the Community Project’. These are Birmingham, Bristol, Derby, Manchester, Newcastle, and Sheffield. They will follow a similar agenda to the other events with the addition of specific information on the Community Project, input from the official partner, EREN (English Regions Equality Network), and presentations from participating pilot organisations.

For further details, and to book onto an event, please visit:

http://www.bihr.org.uk/events/bihr-national-human-rights-tour-information-page#format

West Midlands Human Rights Film Festival 2011

Birmingham International Film Society presents the regions first ever Human Rights Film Festival.

* Tuesday 6 September 2011 – Tuesday 4 October 2011

* At venues across the Midlands

The Festival will be screening a wide range of films that investigate the notion of human rights in the 21st Century as measured against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For more information see the programme of events (http://www.birmingham-film.org/page/news/153).

Human rights: the assault continues

By Frances Webber| Institute of Race Relations

The government is poised to cut down the reach of human rights law, paving the way for easier deportation of foreign national prisoners.

The government’s announcements in the wake of the riots that non-British citizens convicted of riot-related offences will be deported ‘at the earliest opportunity’[1] is part of a new attempt to strip foreign national prisoners of the minimal protection against double punishment afforded them by international human rights law. And already, moves are in progress among foreign ministers of the forty-seven signatory states to the Human Rights Convention to shift power from the European Court of Human Rights to the states’ own domestic courts in matters of immigration and deportation. From November, the UK chairs the Council of Europe – and it will seek to use its chairmanship to push ahead with the reforms, which would allow the UK to adopt a much tougher line on the human rights criteria for deportation – without the oversight and corrective influence of the European Court.

Human rights court to lose powers?

The adoption of the Human Rights Convention in 1950 and the setting up of the European Court of Human Rights were arguably the greatest achievements of the Council of Europe. But justice secretary Ken Clarke has announced that he intends to use the UK’s chairmanship of the Council to ‘redraw the relationship with national courts’ and reduce the role of the European Court. And home secretary Theresa May is to argue for a ‘new definition’ of article 8 of the Convention, which protects the right to family and private life, which will ensure that foreign criminals cannot block their deportation.

The groundwork for such changes has already been laid, in proposals for reform to deal with the huge and growing backlog of cases to the Court. In April, a High Level Conference of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers met in Izmir, Turkey, following a meeting in Interlaken, Switzerland, which adopted streamlined screening procedures. The declaration adopted in Izmir went much further, leaving open the possibility of charging fees to those seeking to apply to the Court, and erecting further procedural obstacles, which drew strong opposition from hundreds of civil society groups and international NGOs, fearful that the changes would restrict access to the Court. An ominous feature of the Izmir declaration is the clause noting that the Court was not ‘an immigration appeals tribunal’ and should not intervene in asylum and immigration cases except in ‘the most exceptional circumstances’. This followed a speech by Clarke at the conference, in which he argued that domestic courts and parliaments should be given much more freedom to interpret and apply the Convention in their own way.

Double punishment

The idea that foreign national prisoners enjoy special rights and protections is laughable. But in the UK, the fact that deportation of foreign national prisoners is a double punishment which is frequently more severe and devastating than any prison sentence, has been obscured in the right-wing and tabloid clamour against their ‘human rights’, which has already led to legal changes in the past five years which make it more difficult to resist deportation,[2] and to greater willingness among judges to defer to Home Office assessments of the need for deportation in individual cases.[3] The hostility to the Human Rights Act and the campaign to dilute or abolish it, and to prevent foreign national prisoners relying on article 8 to prevent their deportation, rests on a number of misconceptions and misrepresentations.

As eminent lawyer Geoffrey Bindman recalled in an important recent defence of the Act,[4] the Convention is not some nasty foreign invention. Its key drafters were British, and Winston Churchill was a strong supporter. Opponents of the Act frequently cite the blocking of the deportation of Learco Chindamo (killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence) as an example of the ‘madness of human rights’. But what stopped the deportation of Chindamo, a young Italian national, was EU free movement law, which stipulates that only those EU nationals who present a serious current risk to public order or national security can be deported. It had nothing to do with human rights law.

And contrary to tabloid rants, article 8 gives no absolute guarantees against deportation. It merely requires decisions which separate families to be for the right reasons – such as preventing crime or disorder, or protection of the rights of others – and to be proportionate to those aims. This means that judges have to consider the effect of deportation on innocent family members, as well as the effect of not deporting on the public.

Proposal to sideline family life

But in July, Dominic Raab MP proposed an amendment to the UK law which would stop judges having the power even to consider such matters as family ties, or how long someone had lived in the UK. This would mean that someone with thirty years’ residence, with children and grandchildren born here, could be deported for, say, an offence of theft or assault, on top of serving a prison sentence, with no regard at all to the effect on the family or the likelihood of reoffending. At present, such an amendment would be incompatible with the Human Rights Convention and with the European Court’s case law – which is why the government is arguing in Europe for the right to interpret the Convention in its own way, without interference by the Court.

Protection against torture under threat?

Even more worrying is the government’s repeated argument to the Court that it should be able to deport terrorist suspects even where there is a real risk of torture. Thanks to the recent revelations about British involvement in extraordinary rendition to Libya,[5] we know that this happens anyway, under the cloak of secrecy. But for several years, the government has sought to make the process legal by getting the European Court to endorse the return of those it considers really serious threats to national security. The Court has always said no: the ban on sending people back to torture is absolute. But the Court might lose the power to intervene in deportations to torture, if the government’s attempts to reduce its jurisdiction in favour of national courts and parliaments bear fruit.

Any attempt to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court would need the approval of the Council’s Parliamentary Assembly and would have to be drafted as a Protocol. But many member states’ ministers support the British attempt to dilute the Court’s jurisdiction.[6] There is real concern that, in the absence of a strong and European-wide campaign, the diminishing protection against violation of migrants’ human rights will be reduced to vanishing point.

—-
FOOTNOTE

References: [1] ‘England riots: foreign rioters will be deported’, the Telegraph, 19 August 2011. [2] Changes in the immigration rules and the provisions for automatic deportation in the UK Borders Act 2007. [3] See ‘Foreign criminals, the press and the judges’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2011/june/bj000025.html), IRR News, 29 June 2011. [4] ‘Britain should be proud of the Human Rights Act – and protect it’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/human-rights-act-protect), Guardian, 30 August 2011. [5], ‘Libya: ministers “agreed to rendition”‘ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8743340/Libya-ministers-agreed-to-rendition.html), Telegraph, 5 September 2011. [6] See ‘Accelerated removals: the human cost of EU deportation policies, 2009-10′, European Race Audit Briefing Paper No 4, download it here (http://www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/ERA_BriefingPaper4.pdf) (pdf file, 1.3mb). See also ‘Swiss campaign against double punishment’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2011/july/bj000019.html), IRR News, 21 July 2011, for an account of the Swiss deportation proposals.

HAT news is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Next Page »