/uk-news

  • London protesters block transfer of asylum seekers to #Bibby_Stockholm

    Dozens of demonstrators in #Peckham surround coach, preventing it from taking people to barge in Dorset.

    Hundreds of protesters have blocked an attempt to collect asylum seekers from a London hotel and take them to the Bibby Stockholm barge.

    Arrests were made as police waded into the crowd blocking the road near a Best Western hotel in Peckham. It was not until 3pm, seven hours after it turned up, that the coach sent for the asylum seekers was able to leave the area – without asylum seekers onboard – and a number of police vans carrying protesters who had been detained were also able to leave.

    The home secretary, James Cleverly, condemned the protesters and said they “will not … deter us from doing what is right for the British public”. But the scenes illustrated the challenges the government may yet face when it comes to carrying out deportations to Rwanda.

    It emerged on Thursday that the Home Office was abandoning plans to move asylum seekers in Margate to the Bibby Stockholm in the wake of protests there.

    Meanwhile, Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s outgoing first minister, denounced the Home Office’s “inhumane” and “cruel” detention raids on asylum seekers and urged the UK government to scrap the policy.

    At least eight asylum seekers living at the Best Western were told a week ago that they would be collected on Thursday morning and relocated to the Bibby Stockholm, moored at Portland in Dorset. The coach was expected to collect other passengers along the way, but it was blocked in when it was surrounded by protesters after pulling in at a bus stop at about 8am.

    At least one person received medical attention when they were knocked to the ground after police moved in at about 12.30pm.

    The people due to be removed were said to include teenagers attending colleges in the area. A number of men staying at the hotel said they feared the conditions that would await them on the Bibby Stockholm, where an Albanian man named Leonard Farruku died last year in a suspected suicide.

    One said: “We are also concerned this is happening at the same time as the government’s Rwanda plans have gone through. But it’s encouraging to see this sort of support.”

    The Metropolitan police’s deputy assistant commissioner, Ade Adelekan, said officers engaged with protesters at the scene and warned them they could be arrested.

    In Edinburgh, Yousaf told MSPs during first minister’s questions: “I deplore the inhumane Home Office enforcement action that we have seen. Detaining people to forcibly remove them to Rwanda is cruel, and punishes some of the most vulnerable in our society.”

    Yousaf was asked by the SNP MSP Karen Adams about the Guardian’s report on Sunday that the Home Office was to start detaining asylum seekers for forced deportation to Rwanda.

    He said: “At times like this, we all have an obligation to just step back. Actually think about what’s going on here, in a country, the UK, where those who flee persecution, war or extreme poverty, come to our shores.”

    Figures released on Thursday undermined Rishi Sunak’s claims that his Rwanda plan was working by putting off asylum seekers from trying to reach the UK. They showed that 711 people arrived by boat on Wednesday, more than half of the number who crossed during the whole of May last year, and a record for a single day since September.

    One of the coordinators of the protest in Peckham, Kojo Kyerewaa, of Black Lives Matter, said: “Our friends who are at a Home Office hotel got notification that they were going to be taken to the Bibby Stockholm today.”

    He said they were given a week’s notice and that “because of the bonds and relationships they’ve got in the community, we were made aware of that and organised a discreet action … so that they would not be abducted and taken away”.

    Kyerewaa said the protest was inspired by a similar one in Margate last week, where a coach was prevented from taking 22 asylum seekers to the barge.

    “We know that the residents don’t want to leave and we know that the Bibby Stockholm is a dangerous place to put anyone. It’s unsanitary and one person has taken their own life being there and there’s been multiple attempts of suicide by people told that they’re going to the Bibby Stockholm,” he said.

    The action is believed to be the first of its kind in London since 2022, when protesters gathered for hours to block a van transporting a man arrested for immigration offences.

    Some of those organising the action were from Black Lives Matter and the Southwark and Lambeth Anti-Raids network, while others were understood to be friends in the community, including those who taught the asylum seekers English at college.

    A Home Office spokesperson said: “This behaviour is intimidatory and aggressive. As part of our commitment to significantly reducing the use of hotels, asylum seekers are being moved into alternative accommodation to reduce costs on the taxpayer.

    “We have returned 150 hotels to local communities and we work closely with accommodation providers to manage the exit process in a way which limits the impact on local authorities and asylum seekers.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/02/london-protesters-block-coach-peckham-asylum-seekers-bibby-stockholm

    #résistance #UK #Angleterre
    via @karine4

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur le Bibby Stockholm :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1016683

  • Home Office to detain asylum seekers across UK in shock Rwanda operation

    Operation comes weeks earlier than expected and is thought to have been timed to coincide with local elections.

    The Home Office will launch a major operation to detain asylum seekers across the UK on Monday, weeks earlier than expected, in preparation for their deportation to Rwanda, the Guardian can reveal.

    Officials plan to hold asylum seekers who turn up for routine meetings at immigration service offices or bail appointments and will also pick people up nationwide in a surprise two-week exercise.

    Lawyers and campaigners said the detentions risked provoking protracted legal battles, community protests and clashes with police – with officers in Scotland put on high alert.

    Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “The government is determined to recklessly pursue its inhumane Rwanda plan despite the cost, chaos and human misery it will unleash. We know it is likely to cause a catastrophic system meltdown.”

    Detainees will be immediately transferred to detention centres, which have already been prepared for the operation, and held until they are put on planes to Rwanda. Some will be put on the first flight due to take off this summer.

    The Home Office said ratification of the prime minister’s Safety of Rwanda Act meant “the government is entering the final phase of operationalising this landmark policy to tackle illegal migration and stop the boats”.

    It added: “At some stage inevitably this will include detaining people in preparation for the first flight, which is set to take off to Rwanda in 10 to 12 weeks. It would be inappropriate to comment further on operational activity.”

    The start of the Home Office’s detention operation, which had not been anticipated for weeks, coincides with Thursday’s local council elections in England where the Tories face losing up to half the seats they currently hold.

    Rishi Sunak said on Sunday that cracking down on illegal migration was central to the Tory campaign.

    Police in Scotland have been put on alert because of the high risk of street protests and attempts by pro-refugee campaigners to stop detentions. Officers will not take part in the detentions but will take charge of crowd control and public order. A Police Scotland spokesperson referred the Guardian to the Home Office.

    Local communities in Scotland have twice prevented deportations by staging mass protests, on Kenmure Street in Glasgow in May 2021, and in Nicolson Square, Edinburgh, in June 2022. On both occasions, hundreds of people surrounded immigration enforcement vehicles to prevent asylum seekers being removed.

    During an interview in which he mentioned Rwanda and illegal migration 13 times, the prime minister said on Sunday that he was focused on “stopping the boats”, as well as his pledges on the economy. He told Sky News’s Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips of his “determination to get that Rwanda scheme going”.

    However, the latest official data, released on Sunday, showed the number of people arriving by small boats in the first four months of 2024 was the highest ever for that period, at 7,167 people, compared with 5,745 for the same period last year. The previous record for those four months was 6,691.

    Speaking on Monday before the Lords and Commons sat through the night to pass the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill, Sunak said: “To detain people while we prepare to remove them, we’ve increased detention spaces to 2,200.

    “To quickly process claims, we’ve got 200 trained, dedicated caseworkers ready and waiting. To deal with any legal cases quickly and decisively, the judiciary have made available 25 courtrooms and identified 150 judges who could provide over 5,000 sitting days.”

    Aamer Anwar, a Glasgow-based human rights lawyer who was directly involved in the Kenmure Street protests, said Police Scotland and the Scottish government had to be certain they believed this was lawful.

    He revealed he had been inundated with calls from activists after the Guardian first reported the Home Office move on Sunday morning. “People are extremely angry and upset, and ready to mobilise,” Anwar said, adding it would be “extremely dangerous” for Police Scotland to put itself in the middle of a deportation protest if people felt they were acting to protect deportation operations.

    “I suspect in the coming days we will see an explosion of the spirit of Kenmure Street across the UK, opposing a policy that will lead to misery, self-harm and death, driving so many more into the arms of people smugglers,” Anwar said. “The fundamental question for the Scottish government as well as Police Scotland is whether they are willing to engage in this barbaric abuse of power against a desperate people.”

    Solomon said the detention and removal operations were likely to persuade other asylum seekers already in the UK to disappear, for fear of being deported.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/28/home-office-to-detain-asylum-seekers-across-uk-in-shock-rwanda-operatio

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    elle-même ajouté à la métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • One in five asylum seekers on Rwanda deportation list is from Afghanistan, charity says

      Care4Calais says the government’s rounding up of asylum seekers for deportation to Rwanda was ‘deeply worrying’

      One in five asylum seekers due to be deported to Rwanda is from Afghanistan, according to a charity supporting the refugees.

      Care4Calais says that from the first group it has contacted, 18 per cent were Afghans and another one in five – 21 per cent – were Syrians.

      It’s not known whether the Afghans found by the charity included workers who supported the British armed forces overseas, such as interpreters and pilots.

      On Wednesday ministers released pictures of the first asylum seekers being rounded up for deportation to Rwanda after a controversial bill legalising such flights finally obtained royal assent last week.

      The House of Lords fought to have Afghans who supported British forces exempted from the legislation, but ultimately lost when it was forced to give way to the government in parliamentary “ping-pong”.

      The Independent has campaigned for these war heroes to be granted leave to remain in the UK.

      Care4Calais also said 15 per cent of the first cohort were Sudanese, while Eritreans and Iranians each accounted for 14 per cent.

      The remaining 18 per cent included Kuwaitis, Iraqis and Sri Lankans.

      Home Office immigration officers began detaining potential deportees on Monday at their homes or as they arrived at immigration centres, although the first flights are not due to depart until July.

      Around 800 officers are being deployed in Operation Vector, and home secretary James Cleverly said they were working “at pace”.

      Care4Calais said that from the first people it was in contact with, it was clear that those detained were predominantly from countries with a high rate of asylum granted by the UK.

      Hannah Marwood, head of legal access, said: “The government’s actions during this election week have been deeply worrying, but we are relieved that a significant number of people detained are now in contact with our caseworkers who will ensure they have access to legal support.

      “The people detained have not had their asylum claims processed, and it’s clear from the first cohort we are in contact with that if their claims were processed they would likely be granted refugee status in the UK.

      “It reaffirms how shameful the Rwanda plan is and why it must be stopped.”

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “We have proven time and again that Rwanda is a safe country, most recently with our landmark Safety of Rwanda Act and joint, legally binding treaty which makes clear that individuals relocated to Rwanda will not be returned to an unsafe country.

      “We remain confident in the country’s strong and successful track record in resettling people and are working at pace to get flights off the ground to Rwanda in the next to nine to eleven weeks.”

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-asylum-seekers-deport-afghanistan-b2539287.html

      #réfugiés_afghans

  • Sink the Boats

    The UK government is paying France to ‘Stop the Boats’. Now first-time footage reveals French police have violently intercepted dinghies sailing for Britain, risking the lives of people on board

    For decades, people have tried to reach the UK from northern France in order to claim asylum in Britain. With tightened security at French ports making it harder for stowaways, tens of thousands of people have crossed the English Channel in rubber dinghies, prompting the British government to make stopping the boats one of its top priorities.

    Last year, the UK announced that it would allocate nearly £500m to France over three years to prevent boats from leaving its shores.

    The British government has repeatedly pressured France to intercept the boats at sea. France has previously refused on the basis that it would place lives at risk.

    But in collaboration with Le Monde, The Observer and Der Spiegel, Lighthouse Reports can reveal that French police officers have carried out so-called “pullbacks” in the Channel, in moves experts say mirror the deadly and illegal tactics used in the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean by the Greek and Libyan coast guards.

    We’ve established through sources that the patrol boat used by the French police to carry out at least one of these dangerous manoeuvres was funded by the British.

    Meanwhile, over the last two years there has been a sharp increase in the number of drownings in the sea off northern France where most of the pullbacks have taken place.
    METHODS

    We obtained previously unseen footage, leaked documents and witness testimony showing French police have used aggressive methods to intercept migrant vessels at sea, including circling a small boat, causing waves to flood it; ramming into a small boat while threatening passengers with pepper spray; and puncturing boats while they are already at sea, forcing people to swim back to shore. We were able to geolocate the videos to confirm their veracity.

    We showed the videos to a number of maritime experts, UK Border Force officers and French coast guards, who said the tactics would have clearly endangered the lives of those on board and appeared to be illegal. Leaked maritime documents helped us to establish that these types of interceptions at sea are not compatible with French law.

    We then obtained an additional crucial piece of evidence: a complaint filed by a coast guard officer to the prosecutor about an incident in which French police officers had ordered a National Society of Sea Rescues (SNSM) crew to puncture a migrant dinghy that had already set sail despite the risk of drowning being “obvious and imminent”.

    To find out whether these interceptions were happening on a wider scale, we travelled to Northern France to speak to people on the ground trying to reach the UK in boats. A number of people described having their dinghies slashed by police once they had already set sail.

    We were able to link the hundreds of millions of pounds provided by Britain to France with these tactics when sources confirmed that police patrol vessels, including the exact vessel seen in one of the videos, had been bought by the French with funding provided by the British government.

    An analysis of data by charity Alarm Phone meanwhile showed a sharp increase in the number of people known to have drowned within the vicinity of the French coastline, where most of the pullbacks we documented took place – with one in 2022 compared to five already this year.
    STORYLINES

    We met Satinder* from Punjab, a predominantly Sikh region in northern India, in Calais.

    Five days earlier, he and two friends had tried to make it to Britain by boat. The dinghy was overcrowded with around 46 people, mainly Indians and Afghans, on board. “We sailed for around 10 minutes at dawn without a hitch in an overloaded boat,” he said. “Then a boat came. It was a gendarmerie boat, they had uniforms. They said: ‘Stop the boat’.

    “They went around the boat like in a circle and then they stabbed the boat and left. We had to swim for about 10 minutes […] We nearly died.”

    The two friends Satinder was with in the boat gave matching accounts. We spoke to four other people who recounted similar stories on different occasions.

    “It reminds me of the Greek and Turkish coast guards,” said French customs coast guard Rémi Vandeplanque.”And that’s shameful for the French. If the police continue to use such tactics, there is likely to be a death at some point.”

    https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/sink-the-boats
    #Manche #La_Manche #migrations #réfugiés #sauvetages #UK #Angleterre #France #stop_the_boats #externalisation #enquête #contre-enquête #pull-backs #financement #mourir_aux_Frontières #morts_aux_frontières

    • Revealed: UK-funded French forces putting migrants’ lives at risk with small-boat tactics

      Exclusive: newly obtained footage and leaked documents show how a ‘mass casualty event’ could arise from aggressive tactics employed by border forces

      French police funded by the UK government have endangered the lives of vulnerable migrants by intercepting small boats in the Channel, using tactics that search and rescue experts say could cause a “mass casualty event”.

      Shocking new evidence obtained by the Observer, Lighthouse Reports, Le Monde and Der Spiegel reveals for the first time that the French maritime police have tried physically to force small boats to turn around – manoeuvres known as “pullbacks” – in an attempt to prevent them reaching British shores.

      Newly obtained footage, leaked documents and witness testimonies show that the French authorities have used aggressive tactics including circling a migrant boat, causing waves to flood the dinghy; ramming into a small boat while threatening passengers with a large tank of pepper spray; and puncturing boats when they are already at sea, forcing migrants to swim back to shore.

      The French authorities have previously refused the UK’s requests for them to carry out interceptions at sea, stating that they contravened international maritime law. But evidence indicates there has been an escalation in the use of these tactics since last summer.

      Rishi Sunak has pledged to “stop the boats” crossing the Channel and has promised hundreds of millions of pounds to France to pay for more surveillance and border guards to prevent people making the journey. Last Wednesday the government’s safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill suffered several defeats in the House of Lords, delaying the prime minister’s plan to see flights for Kigali take off until after Easter.

      Ministers claim that the bill will act as a deterrent to all those crossing the Channel from northern France to the UK. In the first video obtained and verified for this investigation, a police boat in Dunkirk harbour circles close to a dinghy holding about 25 people, creating a wake that floods the boat.

      The police vessel is seen advancing towards the dinghy at speed, before turning sharply to create waves, circling and coming back again. Migrants are seen wearing foam-packed lifejackets and attempting to bale water out using their shoes.

      Sources confirmed that the police patrol vessel used to carry out the manoeuvre seen in the video was bought by the French authorities with funding provided by the UK government under the “Sandhurst treaty”, a bilateral border security deal signed at the royal military academy in 2018.

      “This is a textbook pushback – exactly the same as we see in Greece,” said one search and rescue expert who was shown the footage. “That one manoeuvre alone could cause a mass casualty event. The water is deep enough to drown in. I’ve seen this in the central Mediterranean many times, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen anything like this happening in the Channel.”

      Previous evidence has shown how the Greek coastguard has forced boats carrying migrants back into Turkish waters in the Aegean Sea, in some cases by manoeuvring around them at high speed to create waves.

      Two senior UK Border Force sources confirmed that the tactic could lead to multiple deaths and injuries. “If the blades [of the French boat] make contact with the vessel, it will slash right through it,” said one operational Border Force official.

      “The other thing is a collision. The weight and the force of that vessel could ride straight over the top of the rib. It would knock the passengers out, knock them unconscious and into the water. It could potentially lead to death. I can’t believe any mariner could condone that.”

      Maritime experts added that they would be “very surprised” if Border Force and HM Coastguard were not aware of these tactics being used, with one adding: “One hundred per cent, someone high up will definitely be aware of this.”

      In a second video, members of the French gendarmerie drive alongside a dinghy in a speedboat about 12 miles from the French coast, threatening to use a large tank of pepper spray against a boat carrying migrants. They then proceed to ram their vessel into the dinghy. “They don’t even know who’s on board – whether there’s someone asthmatic that you’re using pepper spray against, or pregnant women,” said a Border Force official. “That could really harm people.”

      In evidence of a third attempted pullback, a complaint filed by a member of the French customs coastguard to the public prosecutor in Boulogne-sur-Mer alleges that on 11 August 2023 police officers ordered a National Society of Sea Rescues (SNSM) crew to puncture a small boat that had already set sail. In an email seen by this investigation, the complainant, Rémi Vandeplanque, states that the SNSM crew “obviously refused” to do this, adding that the risk of drowning if they had done so was “obvious and imminent”.

      Testimony from several sources who boarded small boats bound for the UK supports the claims that French police have used such tactics. “There were four of them [French gendarmes] on the boat,” said one man, who was from India. “They went round the boat in a circle and then they stabbed the boat and left. We had to swim for about 10 minutes … We nearly died.” On 9 February 2024, the man lodged a complaint with the French human rights ombudsman. The incident is under investigation.

      Sources within France’s interior ministry have described the UK government’s “enormous pressure on a daily basis” for the French maritime police to prevent small boat departures, with one French civil servant describing the pressure as “intense” and “nonstop”.

      Another senior civil servant, who was in post until the end of 2020, added: “As far as the British were concerned, the boats had to be caught at sea. They sometimes insisted on it.”

      In September last year, then immigration minister Robert Jenrick said in the House of Commons that “there is clearly more that we need the French to do for us”, pointing to a recent trip to Belgium, where he said the authorities had “been willing to intercept in the water small boats leaving its shores”. He added: “That has proven decisive. Small boats from Belgian waters are now extremely rare, so that is an approach that we encourage the French to follow.”

      In August 2021, during a visit to the Greek island of Samos, then home secretary Priti Patel went out on patrol with the Greek coastguard, which is known for its use of aggressive pushbacks in the Aegean.

      “She came back invigorated,” said a Home Office source with knowledge of the trip. “They were very aggressive, had a good success rate of detection and were swift in how they processed them [asylum seekers]. She liked their posturing of ‘protecting borders’ and working with the military, though there was recognition that a lot of this wouldn’t be lawful in the UK.”

      Britain has allocated more than £700m to France to prevent irregular migration since 2014.

      At a summit in March 2023, Sunak announced that Britain would give France £500m over three years to fund additional border guards and a new detention facility, as well as video surveillance cameras, drones and night-vision binoculars, among other equipment.

      The package was, according to several sources at the French interior ministry, a turning point. “This has really put the relationship between the two countries on a contractual footing,” said one senior official.

      Last month the UK signed a working agreement with the European border agency Frontex to bolster intelligence sharing and deploy UK Border Force officials to coordinate the Channel response.

      When contacted by this investigation, the prefecture for the north of France confirmed that a police boat had circled a dinghy and that the aim of the intervention was to “dissuade passengers” from approaching the open sea, adding: “It’s the only time we’ve been able to intercept a small boat using this manoeuvre and it was a deterrent. All the migrants were recovered and the smugglers arrested.”

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “An unacceptable number of people are crossing the Channel and we will do whatever is necessary to end these perilous and fatal journeys. We remain committed to building on the successes that saw arrivals drop by more than a third last year.

      “Not only have we introduced tougher legislation and agreements with international partners, but we continue to work closely with our French counterparts, who are working tirelessly to save lives and stop the boats.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/23/uk-funding-french-migrants-small-boat-border-forces

    • Dans la Manche, les techniques agressives de la police pour empêcher les traversées de migrants

      Officiellement, la police a interdiction formelle d’intercepter en mer les embarcations de migrants qui tentent de traverser la Manche. Après plusieurs mois d’enquête, « Le Monde » et ses partenaires de Lighthouse Reports, de « The Observer » et du « Der Spiegel » ont pourtant pu documenter différentes situations où les forces de l’ordre emploient des manœuvres dangereuses à l’encontre de ces « small boats » pourtant déjà à l’eau.

      Il pleut des cordes et la grande tonnelle blanche, sous laquelle plusieurs dizaines de personnes viennent s’abriter, a du mal à supporter le poids de l’eau qui s’accumule. Il est presque 11 heures, dans une zone périphérique de Loon-Plage Nord), ce mardi 12 mars, à l’entrée de l’un des nombreux campements de personnes migrantes présents depuis des années maintenant sur la commune, voisine de Dunkerque.

      Ziko (les personnes citées par leur prénom ont requis l’anonymat), 16 ans, vivote ici depuis cinq mois. Le jeune Somalien a déjà essayé cinq fois de gagner le Royaume-Uni. A chaque fois en bateau. A chaque fois sans succès. Systématiquement, les policiers sont intervenus pour stopper l’embarcation à bord de laquelle lui et d’autres espéraient traverser la Manche. « A chaque fois, ils ont crevé le bateau », se souvient-il.

      Il y a environ deux semaines de cela, les policiers ont fait une manœuvre au large de la plage de Gravelines (Nord) que le jeune homme n’est pas près d’oublier. Les fonctionnaires ont fait obstacle au canot alors qu’il était déjà en mer. « On était à plusieurs dizaines de mètres des côtes quand un bateau pneumatique avec cinq ou six policiers s’est approché et a crevé notre embarcation. » Ziko rapporte que lui et la cinquantaine de passagers sont tous tombés à l’eau. « J’avais de l’eau jusqu’à la poitrine, c’était très dangereux. Il y avait des enfants qui étaient portés à bout de bras par des adultes pour ne pas se noyer. »

      De ses cinq tentatives de traversée, c’est la seule au cours de laquelle le bateau de Ziko a été crevé en mer. Son témoignage, rare, vient percuter la version officielle livrée par les autorités depuis 2018 et l’explosion du phénomène des small boats, ces petites embarcations de migrants dont le but est de rejoindre le Royaume-Uni. Officiellement, la police a interdiction formelle d’intervenir lorsque les small boats sont déjà en mer. Dans une directive à diffusion restreinte du 10 novembre 2022, le préfet maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord, Marc Véran, rappelait que « le cadre de l’action des moyens agissant en mer (…) y compris dans la bande littorale des 300 mètres (…) est celui de la recherche et du sauvetage en mer » et « ne permet pas de mener des actions coercitives de lutte contre l’immigration clandestine ».

      Et ce, en dépit de la pression constante sur le littoral : alors que moins de 2 000 personnes ont traversé la Manche en 2019, elles étaient plus de 45 000 en 2022 et près de 30 000 en 2023. Un phénomène qui est devenu un irritant majeur dans la relation franco-britannique.

      Manœuvre dangereuse

      Au terme de plusieurs mois d’enquête, Le Monde, ses partenaires du collectif de journalistes Lighthouse Reports, du journal britannique The Observer et de l’hebdomadaire allemand Der Spiegel ont pourtant pu documenter différentes situations, parfois filmées, où des tactiques agressives similaires à celles que dénonce Ziko ont été employées depuis juillet 2023. D’après nos informations, elles sont même comptabilisées par le ministère de l’intérieur sous la dénomination explicite d’« interceptions en mer ». Des données d’une sensibilité telle qu’elles ne font l’objet d’aucune publicité.

      D’autres que Ziko en témoignent. La Défenseure des droits explique au Monde que quatre saisines sont en cours d’investigation portant sur des interceptions en mer en 2022 et 2023. Par ailleurs, l’inspection générale de la police nationale est saisie depuis l’automne 2023 d’une enquête préliminaire à la suite d’un signalement au parquet de Boulogne-sur-Mer (Pas-de-Calais) effectué par Rémi Vandeplanque, un garde-côte douanier et représentant du syndicat Solidaires.

      Ce dernier rapporte que, le 11 août 2023, au petit matin, un gendarme aurait demandé à un membre d’équipage de la Société nationale de sauvetage en mer (SNSM) de l’aider à percer un bateau au large de la plage de Berck-sur-Mer (Pas-de-Calais) avec une dizaine de personnes à son bord. Une manœuvre dangereuse que le sauveteur a refusé d’effectuer, tout en avisant le centre régional opérationnel de surveillance et de sauvetage (Cross) de Gris-Nez (Pas-de-Calais).

      L’échange a été entendu sur l’un des canaux radio utilisés par le Cross. « En tant que policier, on ne peut pas agir d’une manière qui met la vie d’autrui en danger, affirme Rémi Vandeplanque. On doit respecter les règles. » Sollicitée, la préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord assure que, « si elle est avérée, cette initiative ne pourrait être qu’une initiative individuelle de la personne en question et inappropriée ».

      Rares sont les images qui documentent ces pratiques, mais une vidéo inédite que nous nous sommes procurée, datée du 9 octobre 2023, montre un semi-rigide de la police nationale tourner autour d’un small boat dans le port de Dunkerque en créant à dessein des vagues qui déstabilisent la petite embarcation. A bord se trouvent pourtant une trentaine de passagers. Une partie d’entre eux se tient sur le boudin du canot. De l’eau entre dans l’embarcation au point que ceux assis au milieu sont immergés jusqu’aux genoux. Le policier semble ensuite dire aux occupants du petit bateau de retourner sur le bord. Les migrants seront finalement débarqués sains et saufs.

      Une manœuvre dangereuse, jugent plusieurs experts maritimes, d’autant que, en cas de chavirement, les embarcations légères des forces de l’ordre ne sont pas dimensionnées pour conduire des opérations de sauvetage. « Cette vidéo m’a choqué, raconte Kevin Saunders, ancien officier de la Border Force britannique en poste à Calais jusqu’en 2016 et connu pour ses positions extrêmement critiques à l’égard de l’immigration. Elle me rappelle ce que les Grecs faisaient à la frontière maritime avec la Turquie. Je suis surpris que les Français fassent cela parce que c’est contraire à leur interprétation du droit de la mer. »

      « Les Français sont poussés à jouer le même rôle dans la Manche que celui que l’Union européenne offre aux pays africains. Paris reçoit beaucoup d’argent des Anglais pour empêcher les migrants de partir ou les arrêter en mer », renchérit de son côté le politiste autrichien Gerald Knaus, architecte de l’accord de lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière entre l’Union européenne et la Turquie, faisant référence à la pression grandissante des autorités britanniques.

      Crever des bateaux bondés

      De son côté, la préfecture de la zone de défense et de sécurité Nord relativise : « On était en journée, dans une enceinte portuaire. Le but de l’intervention est de dissuader les passagers de s’approcher de la digue du Braek [qui mène à la mer du Nord]. C’est la seule fois où on a pu intercepter un small boat par cette manœuvre et ça a été dissuasif. Toutes les personnes migrantes ont été sauvées et les passeurs interpellés. »

      Dans une seconde vidéo, diffusée sur le réseau social TikTok en juillet 2023, un semi-rigide appartenant à la vedette de gendarmerie maritime Aber-Ildut, déployée depuis 2022 dans la Manche, est filmé en train de percuter à deux reprises une embarcation de migrants à pleine vitesse, au large des côtes de Boulogne-sur-Mer. Trois gendarmes sont à bord. L’un d’entre eux brandit une bombe de gaz lacrymogène en direction du small boat et intime à ses passagers de s’arrêter. Une pratique, encore une fois, contraire au cadre opérationnel français.

      « Refusant le contrôle coopérant, aucune action de coercition n’a été réalisée et cette embarcation a librement poursuivi sa route, précise la préfecture maritime, interrogée sur cette action. Le nombre de ces contrôles reste très modeste, aucun naufrage, blessé ou procédure non conforme n’a été signalé. »

      D’autres témoignages, recueillis auprès de migrants à Calais (Pas-de-Calais) ou à Loon-Plage, décrivent des tentatives de traversées empêchées par des forces de l’ordre, qui s’avancent dans l’eau, jusqu’aux épaules parfois, pour crever des bateaux bondés de passagers. « A aucun moment de telles consignes ne sont données ni même suggérées aux équipes coordonnées, assure pourtant la préfecture maritime, bien au contraire, la préservation de la vie humaine en mer est le seul credo qui vaille. »

      La lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière franchit-elle la ligne rouge ? Le 10 mars 2023, une grappe de journalistes trépignent dans la cour de l’Elysée balayée par un vent hivernal. Tous attendent la poignée de main entre le chef de l’Etat, Emmanuel Macron, et le premier ministre britannique, Rishi Sunak, sur le perron du palais présidentiel. C’est le premier sommet bilatéral entre les deux pays depuis cinq ans. Le rapprochement qui doit être mis en scène ce jour-là va s’incarner sur un sujet : l’immigration. Londres annonce le versement sur trois ans de 543 millions d’euros à la France pour « stopper davantage de bateaux », au titre du traité de Sandhurst de 2018.

      Cet argent va permettre de financer le déploiement de réservistes et l’installation de barrières et de caméras de vidéosurveillance sur la Côte d’Opale, mais aussi la surveillance aérienne du littoral ou encore l’équipement des forces de l’ordre en drones, jumelles à vision nocturne ou semi-rigides, comme celui que l’on voit à l’œuvre dans la vidéo prise dans le port de Dunkerque. Une tranche importante d’une centaine de millions d’euros est aussi dévolue à des projets immobiliers tels que la création d’un centre de rétention administrative vers Dunkerque ou d’un lieu de cantonnement pour les CRS à Calais. Désormais, plus de 700 policiers et gendarmes sillonnent vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre heures les 150 kilomètres de littoral.

      « Pression énorme » des Britanniques

      Il n’est pas question ici de sauvetage en mer, au grand dam de certains opérateurs qui verraient bien leur flotte renouvelée alors que les naufrages d’embarcations sont récurrents et mettent à rude épreuve les équipages. Ainsi la SNSM a échoué à plusieurs reprises à bénéficier des fonds Sandhurst, « parce que son action n’est pas assimilable à de la lutte contre l’immigration illégale », justifie à regret un cadre de l’association dans un document que nous avons pu consulter.

      L’enveloppe d’un demi-milliard d’euros débloquée par les Britanniques en 2023 constitue, de l’aveu de plusieurs sources au ministère de l’intérieur, un tournant. « Cela a vraiment contractualisé la relation entre les deux pays, rapporte un cadre de la Place Beauvau, sous le couvert de l’anonymat. Les Anglais se comportent avec nous comme nous on le ferait avec un pays tiers. Ils mettent une pression énorme au quotidien sur le déblocage des crédits, si les chiffres ne s’améliorent pas. C’est non-stop et à tous les niveaux. »

      Déjà présents au sein d’un centre conjoint d’information et de coordination franco-britannique ainsi que dans une unité de renseignement à Coquelles (Pas-de-Calais), des officiers de liaison britanniques de la Border Force participent aussi, officiellement comme simples observateurs, à la réunion hebdomadaire de l’état-major de lutte contre l’immigration clandestine. « Ils sont extrêmement intrusifs, mais ils connaissent bien la zone, ils savent où on contrôle bien, où on est en difficulté », affirme un cadre de la gendarmerie.

      Pour tarir les flux de migrants, les Britanniques ne manquent pas d’idées. En octobre 2020, le gouvernement conservateur de Boris Johnson disait réfléchir à installer des machines à vagues pour repousser les small boats. En août 2021, la ministre britannique de l’intérieur d’alors, Priti Patel, est revenue enthousiasmée d’une visite en Grèce où elle a effectué des patrouilles avec les gardes-côtes helléniques en mer Egée, l’une des portes d’entrée en Europe. « Elle a dit que nous devrions apprendre des Grecs, se souvient une source au Home Office. Ils étaient très agressifs, avaient un bon taux de détection. » Et ont, à de nombreuses reprises, fait l’objet d’accusations de refoulements illégaux de demandeurs d’asile vers la Turquie.

      Toutes ces idées sont partagées avec la France lors de réunions bilatérales. « Pour les Britanniques, il fallait attraper les bateaux en mer. Ils le disaient de façon par moment insistante, lâche un haut fonctionnaire du ministère de l’intérieur, en poste jusqu’à fin 2020. Ils nous ont même expliqué comment faire, par exemple en lançant des grappins ou des filets. » A la préfecture de la zone de défense et de sécurité Nord, on reconnaît que « de nouvelles techniques sont essayées en permanence », à l’image de celle qui consiste à paralyser l’hélice d’un bateau de migrants à l’aide de filets.

      Mais « cela n’a pas été concluant », assure-t-on. « Notre stratégie, ça a été plutôt de dire qu’il fallait une forte présence sur les plages et empêcher les livraisons de bateaux, corrobore un ancien directeur de la police aux frontières. En mer, on porte secours aux personnes, on ne les intercepte pas. » D’autres croient que ce qui a freiné les autorités tient plutôt à des contingences matérielles : « Il n’y avait pas de moyens nautiques pour cela », assure l’ancien haut fonctionnaire du ministère de l’intérieur.

      Vingt-quatre noyades depuis 2023

      L’ampleur du phénomène des traversées persistant, les digues ont-elles sauté ? Les manœuvres en mer des forces de l’ordre « se comptent sur les doigts d’une main », balaye une source au ministère de l’intérieur.

      Le 10 mars 2023, tandis qu’Emmanuel Macron et Rishi Sunak enterrent à l’Elysée des années de brouille diplomatique, le préfet maritime Véran signe une nouvelle directive à diffusion restreinte. Elle précise le cadre de certaines manœuvres opérationnelles face à l’apparition du phénomène des taxis boats, ces embarcations qui longent la côte et récupèrent les migrants directement à l’eau pour éviter les interceptions sur les plages. La directive ouvre la voie à l’interception de small boats en mer par les forces de sécurité intérieure, à condition d’opérer « uniquement de jour », dans la bande côtière de 200 mètres de littoral, avant que le taxi boat n’embarque des passagers et dans le cas où « moins de trois personnes » seraient à bord.

      L’intervention est conditionnée, explique le vice-amiral, au comportement coopératif des occupants du bateau, mais aussi à l’absence de risques de mise en danger de la vie humaine. « En dehors des missions dédiées de contrôle des taxis boats, (…) le cadre juridique de la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine en mer se limite à l’exercice de pouvoirs de police à l’encontre des passeurs et non des passagers eux-mêmes », insiste M. Véran. Le préfet maritime ordonne d’éviter à tout prix des « routes de collision ».

      A la garde-côte douanière, Rémi Vandeplanque s’inquiète : « C’est une évolution choquante, mais ce n’est vraiment pas une surprise. » Un sentiment partagé par l’association d’aide aux migrants Utopia 56, présente sur le littoral et qui fustige, par la voix de son porte-parole, Nikolaï Posner, une « violence stérile et illégitime ». « Depuis octobre 2021 et la mise en place d’une maraude qui sillonne la côte, l’association est souvent la première à recueillir les témoignages de ceux qui ont tenté la traversée. »

      Sollicitée sur les différents cas de pratiques dangereuses des forces de l’ordre à l’encontre de small boats déjà à l’eau, la préfecture de la zone de défense et de sécurité Nord renvoie vers la préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord, qui est l’autorité compétente en mer. De plus, elle insiste sur la violence des réseaux de passeurs, confrontés à « la montée en puissance des saisies de bateaux en amont du littoral et sur les plages ».

      Les autorités décrivent ainsi comment « des personnes migrantes sont parfois sommées de créer des lignes de défense » et de jeter des pierres aux forces de l’ordre, pour permettre la mise à l’eau des small boats. Quarante et un policiers et gendarmes ont été blessés à cette occasion en 2023 et la préfecture a dénombré sur la même période « 160 confrontations sur les plages, c’est-à-dire avec usage de la force et de gaz lacrymogènes, alors qu’il n’y en a quasiment pas eu en 2022 ».

      C’est ce qui s’est notamment passé le 15 décembre 2023, à Sangatte, dans le Pas-de-Calais. D’après les éléments partagés par le parquet de Boulogne-sur-Mer, un groupe de migrants aurait fait barrage à des policiers pour permettre à un bateau de partir. Les policiers auraient essuyé des jets de projectiles et fait usage de gaz lacrymogènes en retour. Un récit en substance corroboré par plusieurs témoins présents sur place ce jour-là. Parvenu à prendre la mer, le small boat aurait rapidement subi une avarie de moteur et voulu regagner le rivage.

      Un migrant somalien parmi les passagers assure que, à bord du bateau, un jeune homme de 25 ans a par ailleurs été victime d’un malaise. La police aurait continué d’user de gaz lacrymogènes et se serait avancée pour crever le bateau avant qu’il n’ait pu atteindre le rivage. « Une personne de nationalité soudanaise se retrouve inanimée sur la plage », selon le parquet, et décède peu de temps après d’un arrêt cardio-respiratoire, en dépit des tentatives de le réanimer. « Depuis août 2023, on observe une recrudescence des événements dramatiques », dit le procureur de Boulogne-sur-Mer, Guirec Le Bras. Sans parvenir à expliquer cette particularité, il note que sa juridiction a recensé dix-neuf décès par noyade, survenus pour « la plupart au bord de l’eau ».

      Au total, selon l’estimation de la préfecture du Nord, vingt-quatre personnes sont décédées par noyade depuis 2023. Les autorités incriminent des « embarcations beaucoup plus chargées et une dégradation de la qualité des bateaux ». Dans un rapport publié en janvier, le réseau d’activistes Alarm Phone alertait sur ces morts près des côtes : « L’augmentation des fonds alloués à la France s’est traduite par un renforcement de la police, une augmentation de la violence sur les plages et, par conséquent, une augmentation des embarquements dangereusement surpeuplés et chaotiques au cours desquels des personnes perdent la vie. »

      « Nous avons dû nager »

      C’est peu ou prou ce que rapportent des migrants après une tentative de traversée échouée dans la nuit du 2 au 3 mars. Un exilé syrien de 27 ans, Jumaa Alhasan, s’est noyé dans le canal de l’Aa, un fleuve côtier qui se jette dans la mer du Nord. Plusieurs témoins, interrogés par Le Monde, assurent l’avoir vu tomber dans l’eau lors d’une intervention des forces de l’ordre qui aurait provoqué la panique des passeurs et poussé le Syrien à s’élancer depuis les rives de l’Aa pour tenter de sauter sur le canot en marche, là où le bateau était censé accoster et embarquer tout le monde. « Pour moi, il ne serait pas mort si les policiers français n’avaient pas été là », ne décolère pas Youssef, témoin de la scène. Le corps de Jumaa Alhasan a été retrouvé dans le chenal de l’Aa mardi 19 mars.

      Il est près de midi sur un des campements de Calais, ce 22 janvier. Sous le crachin habituel, un homme débite du bois pour alimenter un brasero autour duquel viennent se masser une demi-douzaine d’hommes. La plupart viennent du Pendjab, une région à majorité sikhe du nord de l’Inde. Tous sont arrivés il y a quelques semaines dans le nord de la France.

      Cinq jours plus tôt, Satinder, Paramjit et Gurfateh ont tenté une traversée. Ils ont longé l’autoroute qui mène jusqu’au port de Calais pour arriver au pied des dunes. « On a mis le bateau sur la plage, on l’a gonflé, tout se passait bien », rappelle Satinder, grand gaillard barbu, emmitouflé dans un cache-cou. Les trois hommes naviguent une petite dizaine de minutes au petit jour sans anicroche. Ils sont quarante-six à bord, la plupart avec des gilets de sauvetage. La météo n’est pas mauvaise, la mer presque plate.

      Ils entendent finalement une voix qui semble les poursuivre : « Stop the boat. » Un bateau s’approche du leur. La voix répète : « Stop the boat. » Satinder aperçoit une embarcation de la gendarmerie qui arrive par l’ouest. Le conducteur panique, remet les gaz sans parvenir à distancer les gendarmes. « Ils étaient quatre sur le bateau. Ils ont tourné autour de nous et ils nous ont dit que les conditions météorologiques étaient trop dangereuses, qu’ils ne pouvaient pas nous laisser partir », explique Satinder. L’un des gendarmes sort alors un « click-knife [un couteau d’attaque] », raconte Gurfateh, et assène un coup dans l’embarcation. L’air s’échappe du boudin. Le bateau s’affaisse.

      Le conducteur met alors le cap sur la terre ferme, mais le bateau coule avant de rejoindre la plage. « Nous avons dû nager une dizaine de minutes. Heureusement qu’il n’y avait presque que des adultes. Il y avait juste une petite fille de 4 ans », complète Satinder. Sur la plage, le groupe, hébété, reprend ses esprits avant de regagner la route du campement. Les trois hommes n’ont pas abandonné l’idée de traverser. Le 9 février, ils ont saisi la Défenseure des droits. « Ce jour-là, nous avons failli mourir. »

      https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/03/23/dans-la-manche-les-techniques-agressives-de-la-police-pour-empecher-les-trav

  • Rwanda trips by UK ministers and officials have already cost over £400,000

    Sending ministers and officials to Rwanda has cost the government more than £400,000 before a single deportation flight has taken off, figures show.

    Ministers have spent a total of £413,541 on travel in the two years since the policy to send asylum seekers to Kigali started to be developed.

    The total, calculated by the Labour party, is based on government transparency releases. It includes trips by senior government officials and a succession of ministers and home secretaries including James Cleverly, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel.

    This week it emerged that Cleverly spent £165,561 on chartering a private jet for a one-day trip to sign a new treaty with Rwanda in December. The cost of the flight was published in a transparency document on Thursday.

    The shadow immigration minister, Stephen Kinnock, said: “Having clearly decided that committing £600m of taxpayers’ money to the Rwandan government for just 300 refugees wasn’t insulting enough, it now emerges that three home secretaries have blown hundreds of thousands of pounds on their various publicity stunts in Rwanda. This government’s enthusiasm for wasting taxpayers’ money knows no bounds.

    “Labour would redirect the cash set aside for Rwanda into a cross-border police unit and security partnership to smash the criminal smuggler gangs at source, and introduce a new returns unit to quickly remove those with no right to be here.”

    A succession of legal challenges have prevented the Rwanda policy, which would send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on small boats to the east African country for processing, from being implemented.

    The plan was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022 but is yet to become operational two years later.

    The government insists that flights to Rwanda will take off this spring, after a bill intended to overcome legal hurdles to the policy becomes law.

    However, ministers have delayed the passage of the bill until after Easter, with the final votes on it expected to take place in mid-April. The government has yet to find an airline to operate the flight.

    Asked why he was waiting another three weeks to push the legislation through, Rishi Sunak said his plan to stop Channel crossings “is working”.

    “People should not be able to jump the queue, come here illegally, put pressure on local services, undermine our sense of fairness and ultimately put their lives at risk as they are exploited by gangs,” he told broadcasters. “That’s why I am determined to stop the boats. Our plan is working, the numbers last year were down by a third. That’s never happened before, that shows that we are making progress.”

    He added that the UK needed Rwanda flights as a “deterrent” to “finish the job”.

    Cleverly’s flight to Rwanda in December was to sign a new treaty that established a new appeal body, to be made up of judges with asylum expertise from a range of countries, to hear individual cases.

    The flights alone of the home secretary’s 24-hour trip cost more than four times the total cost of Braverman’s last visit in March 2023. Her trip cost just over £40,000, with flights at £35,041, hotels £4,301, transport £248 and “engagement” £2,056, the Daily Mirror reported last year.

    The government said Rwanda’s asylum system would be monitored by an independent committee, whose powers to enforce the treaty would be beefed up. The committee would develop a system to enable relocated people and their lawyers to lodge complaints.

    The government was criticised earlier this month for planning to spend £1.8m on each of the first 300 asylum seekers it plans to send to Rwanda. The overall cost of the scheme stands at more than half a billion pounds, according to the figures released to the National Audit Office.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/rwanda-trips-uk-ministers-officials-cost-over-400000

    #coût #Rwanda #externalisation #UK #Angleterre #préparation #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    –—

    ajouté à la #métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Jury convicts #Ibrahima_Bah : Statement from Captain Support UK

    Following a three-week trial, Ibrahima Bah, a teenager from Senegal, has been convicted by an all-white jury at Canterbury Crown Court. The jury unanimously found him guilty of facilitating illegal entry to the UK, and by a 10-2 majority of manslaughter by gross negligence. This conviction followed a previous trial in July 2023 in which the jury could not reach a verdict.

    Ibrahima’s prosecution and conviction is a violent escalation in the persecution of migrants to ‘Stop the Boats’. Observing the trial has also made it clear to us how anti-black racism pervades the criminal ‘justice’ system in this country. The verdict rested on the jury’s interpretation of generic words with shifting meanings such as ‘reasonable’, ‘significant’, and ‘minimal’. Such vagueness invites subjective prejudice, in this case anti-black racist profiling. Ibrahima, a teenage survivor, was perceived in the eyes of many jurors to be older, more mature, more responsible, more threatening, with more agency, and thus as more ‘guilty’.
    Why Ibrahima was charged

    Ibrahima was arrested in December 2022 after the dinghy he was driving across the Channel broke apart next to the fishing vessel Arcturus. Four men are known to have drowned, and up to five are still missing at sea. The court heard the names of three of them: Allaji Ibrahima Ba, 18 years old from Guinea who had travelled with Ibrahima from Libya and who Ibrahima described as his brother; Hajratullah Ahmadi, from Afghanistan; and Moussa Conate, a 15 year old from Guinea.

    The jury, judge, defense, and prosecution agreed the shipwreck and resultant deaths had multiple factors. These included the poor construction of the boat, water ingress after a time at sea, and later everyone standing up to be rescued causing the floor of the dinghy ripping apart. A report by Alarm Phone and LIMINAL points to other contributing factors, including the lack of aerial surveillance, the failure of the French to launch a search and rescue operation when first informed of the dinghy’s distress, and the skipper of Arcturus’ delay in informing Dover Coastguard of the seriousness of the wreck. Nonetheless, the Kent jury has decided to exclusively punish a black teenaged survivor.

    What the jury heard

    Many of the other survivors, all of whom claimed asylum upon reaching the UK, testified that Ibrahima saved their lives. At the moment the dinghy got into danger, Ibrahima steered it towards the fishing vessel which rescued them. He was also shown holding a rope to keep the collapsed dinghy alongside the fishing vessel while others climbed onboard. One survivor told the court that Ibrahima “was an angel”.

    The story told by witnesses not on the dinghy contrasted greatly to that of the asylum seekers who survived. Ray Strachan, the captain of the shipping vessel Arcturus offered testimony which appeared particularly prejudiced. He described Ibrahima using racist tropes – “mouthy”, not grateful enough following rescue, and as behaving very unusually. He complained about the tone in which Ibrahima asked the crew to rescue his drowning friend Allaji, who Strachan could only describe as being “dark brown. What can you say nowadays? He wasn’t white.” Strachan also has spoken out in a GB News interview against what he considers to be the “migrant taxi service” in the Channel, and volunteered to the jury, “It wasn’t my decision to take them to Dover. I wanted to take them back to France.” This begs the question of whether Strachan’s clearly anti-migrant political opinions influenced his testimony in a way which he felt would help secure Ibrahima’s conviction. It also raises the question if jury members identified more with Strachan’s retelling than the Afghans who testified through interpreters, and to what extent they shared some of his convictions.

    When Ibrahima took the stand to testify in his defense he explained that he refused to drive the rubber inflatable after he was taken to the beach and saw its size compared to the number of people expecting to travel on it. He told how smugglers, who had organised the boat and had knives and a gun, then assaulted him and forced him to drive the dinghy. The other survivors corroborated his testimony and described the boat’s driver being beaten and forced onboard.

    The prosecutor, however, sought to discredit Ibrahima, cross-examining him for one-and-a-half days. He demonised Ibrahima and insisted that he was personally responsible for the deaths because he was driving. Ibrahima’s actions, which survivors testified saved their lives, were twisted into dangerous decisions. His experiences of being forced to drive the boat under threat of death, and following assault, were disbelieved. The witness stand became the scene of another interrogation, with the prosecutor picking over the details of Ibrahima’s previous statements for hours.

    Ibrahima’s account never waivered. Yes he drove the dinghy, he didn’t want to, he was forced to, and when they got into trouble he did everything in his power to save everybody on board.
    Free Ibrahima!

    We have been supporting, and will continue to support, Ibrahima as he faces his imprisonment at the hands of the racist and unjust UK border regime.

    This is a truly shocking decision.

    We call for everybody who shares our anger to protest the unjust conviction of Ibrahima Bah and to stand in solidarity with all those incarcerated and criminalised for seeking freedom of movement.

    https://captainsupport.net/jury-convicts-ibrahima-bah-statement-from-captain-support-uk

    #scafista #scafisti #UK #Angleterre #criminalisation_de_la_migration #migrations #réfugiés #procès #justice #condamnation #négligence #Stop_the_Boats #verdict #naufrage #responsabilité #Arcturus

    • “NO SUCH THING AS JUSTICE HERE”. THE CRIMINALISATION OF PEOPLE ARRIVING TO THE UK ON ‘SMALL BOATS’

      New research shows how people arriving on small boats are being imprisoned for their ‘illegal arrival’. Among those prosecuted are people seeking asylum, victims of trafficking and torture, and children with ongoing age disputes.

      This research provides broader context surrounding the imprisonment of Ibrahima Bah, a Senegalese teenager, who has recently been found ‘guilty’ of both facilitating illegal entry and manslaughter. He was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment on Friday 23rd February. In their statement, Captain Support UK argue that “Ibrahima’s prosecution and conviction is a violent escalation in the persecution of migrants to ‘Stop the Boats’.”

      The research

      This report, published by the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford and Border Criminologies, shows how people have been imprisoned for their arrival on a ‘small boat’ since the Nationality and Borders Act (2022) came into force. It details the process from sea to prison, and explains how this policy is experienced by those affected. Analysis is based on observations of over 100 hearings where people seeking asylum were prosecuted for their own illegal arrival, or for facilitating the arrival of others through steering the dinghy they travelled on. The report is informed by the detailed casework experience of Humans for Rights Network, Captain Support UK and Refugee Legal Support. It also draws on data collected through Freedom of Information requests, and research interviews with lawyers, interpreters, and people who have been criminalised for crossing the Channel on a ‘small boat’.

      Background

      In late 2018, the number of people using dinghies to reach the UK from mainland Europe began to increase. Despite Government claims, alternative ‘safe and legal routes’ for accessing protection in the UK remain inaccessible to most people. There is no visa for ‘seeking asylum’, and humanitarian routes to the UK are very restricted. For many, irregular journeys by sea have become the only way to enter the UK to seek asylum, safety, and a better life.

      Soon after the number of people arriving on small boats started to increase, the Crown Prosecution Service began to charge those identified as steering the boats with the offences of ‘illegal entry’ or ‘facilitation’. These are offences within Section 24 and Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. However, in 2021, a series of successful appeals overturned these prosecutions. This was on the basis that if the people on a small boat intended to claim asylum at port, there was no breach of immigration law through attempted ‘illegal entry’. The Court of Appeal found that those who arrive by small boat and claim asylum do not enter illegally, as they are granted entry as an asylum seeker.

      In response, in June 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act expanded the scope of criminal offences relating to irregular arrival to the UK. First, the offence of ‘illegal arrival’ was introduced, with a maximum sentence of 4 years. Second, the offence of ‘facilitation’ was expanded to include circumstances in which ‘gain’ was difficult to prove, and the maximum sentence was increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. During Parliamentary debates, members of both Houses of Parliament warned that this would criminalise asylum seeking to the UK.

      Who has been prosecuted since the Nationality and Borders Act (2022)?

      New data shows that in the first year of implementation (June 2022 – June 2023), 240 people arriving on small boats were charged with ‘illegal arrival’ off small boats. While anyone arriving irregularly can now be arrested for ‘illegal arrival’, this research finds that in practice those prosecuted either:

      – Have an ‘immigration history’ in the UK, including having been identified as being in the country, or having attempted to arrive previously ( for example, through simply having applied for a visa), or,
      – Are identified as steering the dinghy they travelled in as it crossed the Channel.

      49 people were also charged with ‘facilitation’ in addition to ‘illegal arrival’ after allegedly being identified as having their ‘hand on the tiller’ at some point during the journey. At least two people were charged with ‘facilitation’ for bringing their children with them on the dinghy.

      In 2022, 1 person for every 10 boats was arrested for their alleged role in steering. In 2023, this was 1 for every 7 boats. People end up being spotted with their ‘hand on the tiller’ for many reasons, including having boating experience, steering in return for discounted passage, taking it in turns, or being under duress. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, both offences target people with no role in organised criminal gangs.

      The vast majority of those convicted of both ‘illegal arrival’ and ‘facilitation’ have ongoing asylum claims. Victims of torture and trafficking, as well as children with ongoing age disputes, have also been prosecuted. Those arrested include people from nationalities with a high asylum grant rate, including people from Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, and Syria.

      Those imprisoned are distressed and harmed by their experiences in court and prison

      This research shows how court hearings were often complicated and delayed by issues with interpreters and faulty video link technology. Bail was routinely denied without proper consideration of each individual’s circumstances. Those accused were usually advised to plead guilty to ‘illegal arrival’ at the first opportunity to benefit from sentence reductions, however, this restricted the possibility of legal challenge.

      Imprisonment caused significant psychological and physical harm, which people said was particularly acute given their experiences of displacement. The majority of those arrested are imprisoned in HMP Elmley. They frequently reported not being able to access crucial services, including medical care, interpretation services including for key documents relating to their cases, contact with their solicitors, immigration advice, as well as work and English lessons. People shared their experiences of poor living conditions, inadequate food, and routine and frequent racist remarks and abuse from prison staff as ‘foreign nationals’.

      Children with age disputes are being imprisoned for their arrival on small boats

      Research (see, for example, here) by refugee support organisations has highlighted significant flaws in the Home Office’s age assessment processes in Dover, resulting in children being aged as adults, and treated as such. One consequence of this is that children with ongoing age disputes have been charged as adults with the offences of ‘illegal arrival’ and ‘facilitation’ for their alleged role in steering boats across the Channel.

      Humans for Rights Network has identified 15 age-disputed children who were wrongly treated as adults and charged with these new offences, with 14 spending time in adult prison. This is very likely to be an undercount. The Home Office fails to collect data on how many people with ongoing age disputes are convicted. These young people have all claimed asylum, and several claim (or have been found to be) survivors of torture and/or trafficking. The majority are Sudanese or South Sudanese, who have travelled to the UK via Libya.

      Throughout the entirety of the criminal process, responsibility lay with the child at every stage to reject their ‘given’ age and reassert that they are under 18. Despite this, the Courts generally relied on the Home Office’s ‘given age’, without recognition of evidence highlighting clear flaws in these initial age enquiries. Children who maintained that they were under 18 in official legal proceedings faced substantial delays to their cases, due to the time required by the relevant local authority to carry out an age assessment, and delays to the criminal process. Due to this inaction, several children have decided to be convicted and sentenced as adults to try to avoid spending additional time in prison.

      These young people have experienced serious psychological and physical harm in adult courts and prisons, raising serious questions around the practices of the Home Office, Border Force, Ministry of Justice, magistrates and Judges, the CPS, defence lawyers, and prison staff.

      Pour télécharger le rapport :
      Full report:https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/No%20such%20thing%20as%20justice%20here_for%20publication.pdf
      Summary : https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/SUMMARY_No%20such%20thing%20as%20justice%20here_for%20publication.pd

      https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/news/report-launch-no-such-thing-justice-here
      #rapport

    • Ibrahima Bah was sentenced to nine years for steering a ‘death trap’ dinghy across the Channel. Was he really to blame?

      The young asylum seeker was forced into piloting the boat on which at least four people drowned. Under new ‘stop the boats’ laws, he’s responsible for their deaths – but others say he’s a victim

      In the dock at Canterbury crown court, Ibrahima Bah listened closely as his interpreter told him he was being sentenced to nine years and six months in prison.

      In December 2022, Bah had steered an inflatable dinghy full of passengers seeking asylum in the UK across the Channel from France. The boat collapsed and four people were confirmed drowned – it is thought that at least one other went overboard, but no other bodies have yet been recovered.

      Bah’s conviction – four counts of gross negligence manslaughter and one of facilitating a breach of immigration law – is the first of its kind. The Home Office put out a triumphant tweet after his sentencing, with the word “JAILED” in capital letters above his mugshot. According to the government, Bah’s sentence is proof that it is achieving one of Rishi Sunak’s main priorities: to “Stop the Boats”. But human rights campaigners are less jubilant and fear his conviction will be far from the last.

      Of the 39 passengers who survived that perilous journey in December 2022, about a dozen were lone children. Bah is a young asylum seeker himself, from Senegal. The judge determined he is now 20; his birth certificate says he is 17. Either way, he was a teenager at the time of the crossing. So how did his dream of a new life in the UK end up here, in this courtroom, being convicted of multiple counts of manslaughter?

      As with so many asylum seekers, details about Bah’s life are hazy and complicated. He has had little opportunity to speak to people since he arrived in the UK because he has been behind bars. His older sister, Hassanatou Ba, who lives in Morocco, says the whole family is devastated by his imprisonment, especially their mother. Hassanatou says her brother – the only son in the family, and the only male after the death of their father – has always been focused on helping them all.

      “He is gentle, kind and respectful, and loves his family very much,” she says. “He always wanted to take care of all of us. He knew about the difficulties in our lives and wanted our problems to stop.”

      In court, the judge, Mr Justice Johnson KC, noted that Bah’s early upbringing was difficult and that he was subjected to child labour. His initial journey from Senegal was tough, too, as he travelled to the Gambia, then Mali (where the judge acknowledged he had been subjected to forced labour), Algeria and Libya before crossing the Mediterranean to reach Europe. The risk of drowning in a flimsy and overcrowded boat in the Mediterranean is extremely high, with more than 25,000 deaths or people missing during the crossing since 2014. The Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority found there were reasonable grounds to conclude Bah was a victim of modern slavery based on some of his experiences on his journey. He told the police the boat journey was “terrifying”, and took four days and four nights in an “overcrowded and unsuitable” vessel.

      Bah and his fellow travellers were rescued and taken to Sicily. From there, he travelled to France and met Allaji Ba, 18, from Guinea, who became his friend and who he has described as his “brother”. The pair spent five months in Bordeaux before travelling to Paris, then Calais, then Dunkirk, spending three months in an area known as the Jungle – a series of small, basic encampments. The refugees who live there are frequently uprooted by French police. The vast original Calais refugee encampment – also known as the Jungle – was destroyed in October 2016, but the camps still exist, albeit in more compact and makeshift forms. Some people have tents, while others sleep in the open air, whatever the weather.

      In the Jungle, Bah met a group of smugglers. He was unable to pay the going rate of about £2,000 for a space on a dinghy to come to the UK, so instead he agreed to steer the boat in exchange for free passage. Smugglers don’t drive boats themselves: they either offer the job to someone like Bah, who can’t afford to pay for their passage; force a passenger to steer; or leave it to the group to share the task between them.

      When Bah saw how unseaworthy and overcrowded the boat was, he refused to pilot it, and in court, the judge accepted there was a degree of coercion by the smugglers. Bah said smugglers with a knife and a gun assaulted him, and other survivors corroborated his account of being beaten after refusing to board the boat.

      Once the dinghy was afloat, survivors have said the situation became increasingly terrifying. Out at sea, under a pitch black sky, the dinghy began taking in water up to knee level. It was when the passengers saw a fishing vessel, Arcturus, that catastrophe struck, with some standing up, hoping that at last they were going to be saved from what they believed was certain drowning.

      At Bah’s trial, witnesses gave evidence about his efforts to save lives by manoeuvring the stricken dinghy towards the fishing trawler, so that people could be rescued.

      One witness said that if it hadn’t been for Bah, everyone on board would have drowned. “He was trying his best,” he said. Another survivor called him an “angel” for his efforts to save lives, holding a rope so others could be hoisted to safety on the fishing vessel and putting the welfare of others first. The judge acknowledged that Bah was one of the last to leave the dinghy and tried to help others after he did so, including his friend Ba, “who tragically died before your eyes”.

      The dinghy was described by the judge as a “death trap”; he also recognised that the primary responsibility for what happened that night rests with the criminal gangs who exploit and endanger those who wish to come to the UK. He noted that Bah was “significantly less culpable” than the gangs and did not coerce other passengers or organise the trip.

      “Everything that has happened to Ibrahima since he was forced to drive the boat in 2022 has been bad luck,” says Hassanatou. “In fact, Ibrahima’s whole journey has been suffering on top of suffering.”

      Had Bah made the journey just a few months earlier, he would not be in this courtroom today. His conviction was made possible by recent changes in the law – part of the Conservative government’s clampdown on small boats. In June 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act (NABA) expanded the scope of criminal offences relating to irregular arrival to the UK. The offence of “illegal arrival” was introduced, with a maximum sentence of four years. This criminalises the act of arriving in the UK to claim asylum – and effectively makes claiming asylum impossible since, by law, you have to be physically in the country to make a claim.

      At the same time, the pre-existing offence of “facilitation” – making it possible for others to claim asylum by piloting a dinghy, for example – was expanded, with the maximum sentence increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. Hundreds of people, including children and victims of torture and smuggling, have subsequently been jailed for the first offence and a handful for the second.

      The reasons Bah and thousands of others are forced into this particularly deadly form of Russian roulette on the Channel is due to government policy not to provide safe and legal routes for those who are fleeing persecution. Last year, the government went further than NABA with the Illegal Migration Act, making any asylum claim by someone arriving by an “irregular” means, such as on a small boat, inadmissible. It is hard to overstate the significance of this change. The right to claim asylum was enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Convention after the horrors of the second world war – and has saved many lives. The UK is still signed up to that convention, but the Illegal Migration Act now makes it almost impossible to exercise that essential right, and has been strongly criticised by the UN.

      None of these legal changes are stopping the boats. Although the number of Channel crossings fell by 36% last year, much of that reduction was due to 90% fewer crossings by Albanians (there had been a spike in the numbers of Albanians coming over in 2022). Those fleeing conflict zones are still crossing in large numbers, and according to a report by the NGO Alarm Phone, measures introduced to stop the boats are likely to have increased the number of Channel drownings.

      Most asylum seekers do not seek sanctuary in the UK but instead head to the nearest safe country. Those who do come here often have family in the UK, or speak English. The decisions people make before stepping into a precarious dinghy on a beach in northern France are not a result of nuanced calculations based on the latest law to pass through parliament. “I come or I die,” one Syrian asylum seeker told me recently, when I asked about his decision to make a high-risk boat crossing after experiencing torture in his home country.

      Some lawyers who have followed Bah’s case and the broader implications of the new legislation are worried about these developments. “There is now no legal way to claim asylum,” one lawyer says.

      “The use of manslaughter in these circumstances is completely novel and demonstrates how pernicious the new laws are. It is the most vulnerable who end up piloting the boats and asylum seekers have no knowledge that the law has changed.”

      Bah’s case has also caused consternation among campaigners. “The conviction of Ibrahima Bah demonstrates a violent escalation in the prosecution of people for the way in which they arrive in the UK,” reads a joint statement from Humans for Rights Network and Refugee Legal Support, two of the organisations supporting Bah. They also point out that Bah had already spent 14 months in prison without knowing how long he would remain there, after a previous trial against him last year collapsed when the jury failed to reach a verdict.

      “He too is a survivor of the shipwreck he experienced in December 2022,” the statement continues. “Imprisonment has severely impacted his mental health and will continue to do so while he is incarcerated. Ibrahima navigated a horrific journey to the UK in the hope of finding safety here through the only means available to him and yet he has been punished for the deaths of others seeking the same thing, sanctuary.”

      The organisation Captain Support is helping 175 people who face prosecution as a result of the new laws to find legal representation. A letter-writing campaign calling for Bah to be freed has been launched.

      Hassanatou says she is struggling to comprehend the UK’s harsh laws towards people like her little brother, and she fears his age will make it particularly difficult for him to cope behind bars. He will be expected to serve two-thirds of his sentence in custody, first in a young offenders’ institute and then in an adult jail.

      In his sentencing remarks the judge said to Bah: “This is also a tragedy for you. Your dream of starting a new life in the UK is in tatters.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/12/ibrahima-bah-teenage-asylum-seeker-manslaughter

  • Human rights monitors: new UK-Frontex agreement risks “axis of abuse”

    Charities on both sides of the English Channel have hit out at the new cooperation agreement between EU border agency Frontex and UK authorities signed in London today between UK officials and EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson; citing human rights scandals surrounding both organisations and an enforcement approach that is “flawed from conception.”

    - The “integrated border management” between countries described in today’s deal has had serious consequences. Frontex was recently found (https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/frontex-and-the-pirate-ship) to be systematically sharing the coordinates of Mediterranean boats in distress with militias and pirates that return people crossing to conditions of abuse and violence.
    - This news came over a year on from the forced resignation of its former director (now a European Parliament candidate for the French far-right National Rally) over the agency’s complicity and cover-ups in Greece’s deadly border campaign, which was supposed to herald a culture change.
    - The number of UK border drownings has doubled in the past year, which rescue NGO Alarmphone says is linked to Anglo-French border policy (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/29/uk-france-small-boats-pact-doubling-drownings-directly-linked). UK and French authorities have faced allegations of serious shortcomings in responding to Channel shipwrecks.
    - Meanwhile the UK continues to attempt to undermine its own courts and international refugee law with its plans to outsource its asylum processes to Rwanda, and its abuse-ridden detention estate is widely documented.

    Quotes from organisations responding to the move can be found below.

    Michele LeVoy, Director of the Brussels-based Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said:

    “Frontex is signing this new agreement with the UK border forces after countless reports of complicity by the EU agency in serious violence.”

    “The plan is flawed from conception. Tougher enforcement does not reduce irregular crossings; it only makes people’s journeys more dangerous. These resources should instead be used to provide safe routes and proper support for people seeking safety.”

    Mary Atkinson, Campaigns and Networks Manager at the London-based Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said:

    “People move – they always have and always will. It’s something we should welcome, not something which needs to be ‘tackled’ or ‘cracked down’ upon. We urgently need change so that people can move without risking – and too often losing – their lives.

    “This latest development is just more of the same tired old thinking. Making our borders more violent has never stopped those in need from coming here and all these measures will do is make it more dangerous. The government needs to wake up and accept that ‘deterrents’ never have – and never will – work. Instead, we need to listen to the evidence and develop policies that prioritise people’s safety and human rights.”

    A spokesperson for Calais-based Human Rights Observers said:

    “Frontex, the EU’s biggest agency, which squanders European taxpayers’ money by massively violating human rights, is preparing to land on the French-British border. With at least 28 people killed by the murderous border policies of France and the UK in 2023, the presence of Frontex would only increase the insecurity of people seeking protection.”

    Josephine Valeske at Europe-wide campaign Abolish Frontex said:

    “UK border policy has seen deaths by drowning double in the last year, and its government continues to insist on violating both UK and international law by deporting people seeking asylum to Rwanda.”

    “Frontex claims to have made progress on rights – but joining the UK for its new so-called “crackdown” on migration shows that nothing has changed. The EU cannot claim to defend human rights while Frontex continues to exist, and expand a European axis of abuse, at our expense.”

    https://picum.org/blog/human-rights-monitors-new-uk-frontex-agreement-risks-axis-of-abuse

    #Frontex #Manche #La_Manche #migrations #réfugiés #contrôles_frontaliers #UK #Angleterre #accord #coopération #frontières #Calais #France

  • #UK and France’s small boats pact and doubling in drownings ‘directly linked’

    Report says greater police presence on French beaches and more attempts to stop dinghies increases risks to refugees

    The most recent illegal migration pact between the UK and France is “directly linked” to a doubling of the number of Channel drownings in the last year, a report has found.

    The increased police presence on French beaches – along with more dinghies being stopped from reaching the coast – is leading to more dangerous overcrowding and chaotic attempts to board the boats, the paper said.

    The lives lost in 2023 – when the deal was signed – were close to the French shore and to police patrols on the beaches, in contrast to earlier Channel drownings such as the mass drowning on 24 November 2021, where at least 27 people lost their lives after their boat got into difficulty in the middle of the Channel.

    “We directly link the recent increase in the number of deadly incidents to the agreement between the British and French governments to Stop The Boats,” the report states.

    It adds that the increased police presence and their attacks on some of the migrants trying to cross “create panicked and dangerous situations in which dinghies launch before they are fully inflated”. This scenario can increase the risk of drowning in shallow water.

    The paper, named the Deadly Consequences of the New Deal to Stop the Boats, condemns what it describes as increased police violence as the most visible consequence of last year’s deal.

    The report compares data in the year before the March 2023 deal with last year’s data after the deal was signed.

    The data was analysed by the organisation Alarmphone, which operates an emergency helpline for migrants crossing the seas who get into distress, and passes on location and other information to rescue services.

    In 2022, six lives were lost at sea in three separate incidents. In 2023, at least 13 lives were lost in six separate incidents.

    The most recent incident was on 14 January this year where five people lost their lives near the beach of Wimereux, north of Boulogne-sur-Mer, as more than 70 people tried to board a dinghy.

    The BBC reported that two of those who drowned were Obada Abd Rabbo, 14, and his older brother, Ayser, 24, who lost their lives a few metres from the French coast when people rushed into the sea to try to board the dinghy.

    Crossings reduced by a third in 2023 compared with 2022. But there are indications more migrants are turning to lorries and other methods of transport to reach the UK as the clampdown on sea crossings increases.

    Incidents last year in which people lost their lives close to the French shore include:

    - 12 August 2023: six Afghan men drowned in an overloaded dinghy which got intro trouble close to the French shore

    - 26 September 2023: Eritrean woman, 24, died in Blériot-Plage after being asphyxiated in a crush of 80 people trying to board one dinghy

    - 22 November 2023: three people drowned close to Équihen-Plage as the dinghy collapsed close to the shore. Fifty-seven survivors returned to the beach.

    The report concludes that the UK/French deal has further destabilised an already dangerous situation while police are still unable to prevent most crossings on a busy day. It identifies “victim blaming” of those trying to cross by politicians.

    A Home Office spokesperson said: “Fatal incidents in the Channel are the result of dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys in unseaworthy craft, facilitated by criminals in the pursuit of profit.

    “Asylum seekers should seek protection in the first country where it is reasonable for them to do so and we continue to take robust action to crackdown on criminal gangs, deter migrants from making dangerous crossings and intercept vessels.”

    The French interior ministry was approached for comment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/29/uk-france-small-boats-pact-doubling-drownings-directly-linked

    #Calais #France #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_aux_frontières #morts_aux_frontières #militarisation_des_frontières #rapport #létalité #risques #Manche #La_Manche #violences_policières #accord #Wimereux #Boulogne-sur-Mer #responsabilité #Angleterre

    • The deadly consequences of the new deal to ‘#Stop_the_Boats’

      There were more deadly incidents in the Channel in 2023 due to the new ’Stop the Boats’ deal. Increased funding for the French has meant more police, more violence on the beaches, and thus more of the dangerously overcrowded and chaotic embarkations in which people loose their lives.

      On 14 January 2024, around 2am CET, another five people were killed attempting to cross the Channel to the UK. Survivors report that their dinghy collapsed near the beach of Wimereux, north of Boulogne-sur-Mer, as more than 70 people tried to get onboard during the launch. The Préfecture maritime’s press release states the police forces present first tried rescuing the people returning to the beach, as rescue boats and a helicopter spotted four unconscious people in the sea. Later in the morning, a walker discovered a fifth body washed up on the beach. In addition to the five who died, one person was taken into intensive care in the Boulogne hospital due to severe hypothermia, and another 33 needed additional care ashore after the incident. The identities of those who died have not yet been officially published. Testimonies of survivors identify them as four Syrian nationals; two aged 14 and 16. The fifth person remains unidentified but is thought to be a man from the Middle East.

      This incident is the most recent in a disturbing trend we have observed develop over the latter part of 2023: an increase in the loss of life in the Channel very close to the French beaches and often in the presence of police.

      The increasing activities of French police since the newest Franco-British declaration in March 2023 have had two main consequences:

      - Fewer dinghies are reaching the French coast, causing dangerous overcrowding and chaotic embarkations;
      – More police attacks on the dinghies as they launch, provoking panic and further destabilising an already unsafe situation.

      The result has been not only more dangerous and deadly embarkations, but further injury and trauma for travellers at the hands of police, as well as the increased separation of families.

      In this report we show the evolution in state policy and practices which are responsible for this trend, while drawing attention to those who lost their lives as a result.
      More deadly incidents

      Since the start of 2023 there has been an alarming increase in the number of deadly incidents in the Channel compared with 2022. Of the 29 people1 known to have died at the Franco-British border last year according to Calais Migrant Solidarity, at least 13 lost their lives in six incidents related to sea crossings. This includes the shipwreck of 12 August in which six Afghan men drowned.2 This is significantly more than the six people known to have lost their lives in three events related to sea crossings in 2022.

      There is a common misperception that people most often die in the Channel far out to sea, when the search and rescue response is not properly initiated or help takes too long to arrive. This is understandable considering the shipwreck of 24 November 2021 where the UK and French coastguards refused to assist a group of more than 30 people, passing responsibility back and forth to one another. Only two people survived. The misperception may also have been bolstered by the shipwreck of 14 December, 2022 in which up to four people lost their lives, and more are still missing, despite the authorities being informed of their distress. See our analysis of what really happened here. However, as a result of their previous failures, the Coastguards have since improved their organisation, coordination, and resources for search and rescue missions on both sides of Channel. French boats routinely shadow dinghies as they make their way to the UK to be on hand to rescue if necessary, and the UK Border Force anticipate the arrivals and rescue people as they cross the borderline

      What we observed last year, however, is that the deadly incidents all happened despite the presence or near immediate intervention of French rescue boats, for example on 12 August, 15 December 2023 and 14 January 2024. Even more concerning is that they all occurred on or within sight of French shores. The cause in all of the cases seems to be the same; the dinghies being overcrowded and failing shortly after departure, or dangerous situations created by chaotic launches.
      2023 Deaths during sea crossing attempts
      12 August: 6 Afghan men drown after the sponson of their dinghy of around 65 people collapses off of Sangatte.

      36 survivors are taken to the port of Calais by the French coastguard, and 22 or 23 more are taken to Dover by the British coastguard. 2 people remain missing at sea.

      Survivors told us their dinghy was moving slowly because of the high number of people (65 or 66). One of the sponsons gave out suddenly and half of the travellers were thrown into the water. Some tried to swim to the shore as they reported they could still see Sangatte. The search and rescue operation included 5 French assets, 2 UK assets, a French helicopter and aeroplane. The search and rescue operation was not able to recover all the travellers because most of them were already in the water when the first vessel arrived on scene. Two survivors are in custody in France, accused of piloting the dinghy.
      26 September: A 24-year-old Eritrean woman dies in Blériot-Plage after being asphyxiated in a crush of 80 people trying to board one dinghy.

      Witnesses told us a group approached the dinghy at the last moment before it departed and attempted to get onboard too. The dinghy was already overcrowded and this intervention led to mass panic among travellers. We know of at least two Eritrean families who were separated as some were pushed out of the boat and others unable to leave due to physical pressure from the mass of people. Wudase, a 24 year old woman from Eritrea was unable to get out and died from asphyxiation, crushed underneath the other travellers. Her body was lowered from the boat and around 75 people continued their journey to arrive in the UK.
      8 October: A 23-year-old Eritrean man is found drowned in Merlimont, after 60 people in dinghy collapsed near the beach.

      Around 60 people tried to board a dinghy towards the UK but the craft was unable to take the weight of the people and collapsed. The travellers swam or waded back to the shore but one man, Meron, was unable to swim and drowned at the beach. The emergency services on scene were unable to resuscitate him.
      22 November: Three people drown off of Equihen-Plage as the dinghy collapsed in sight of the shore. 57 survivors return to the beach.

      Two bodies, one man, Aman and a woman, Mulu were recovered on scene. A third body, of Ezekiel, a man also from Ethiopia was found on the beach of Dannes on the 4th of December.
      15 December: One Kurdish man name Rawezh from Iraq drowns 8kms off the coast of Grand-Fort-Philippe after attempting to cross to the UK by sea. 66 other people are rescued.

      As a French Navy vessel military approached the dinghy at around 1am, the crew informed CROSS Gris-Nez that one of the dinghy’s tubes had deflated and that some people were in the water. Despite the fast response of the French, it was already too late to recover all of the people alive. Two young men Hiwa and Nima both Kurdish Iranian are still missing after the incident.
      15 December: A Sudanese man named Ahmed drowns.

      An overloaded boat struggled to leave from Sangatte’s beach amidst a cloud of tear gas launched by the French police. Some people fell into the water as the dinghy turned around due to a non-functioning engine. One young man from Sudan drowned, trapped under the collapsed dinghy, and died later from cardio-respiratory arrest in hospital.
      What changed?: dangerous deals

      We directly link the recent increase in the number of deadly incidents to agreements between the British and French governments to ‘Stop the Boats’. Since the introduction of juxtaposed border controls in the 1990s there has been intense cooperation between the French and British in attacking and harassing people on the move in Northern France to prevent and deter them from crossing to the UK. The UK gives huge sums of money to France to intensify its policing of the border in the North, and secure its ports. From 2014 to 2022 £319m was handed over according to the House of Commons Library. This included £150m in four deals between 2019 and 2022 focused on stopping boat crossings.

      This money paid for an increase of the numbers of gendarmes patrolling the coast under Operation Poseidon; more surveillance tech including night-vision goggles, drones, aeroplanes, and ANPR cameras on the roads; and several all-terrain vehicles for patrolling the beaches and dunes. This equipment has made the French police and gendarmes more effective at detecting stashed dinghies, engines, fuel and life-jackets as well as groups of people while they wait for several hours hidden in the dunes before a crossing. It also marginally increased their ability to disrupt departures on the beach, but they remained unable to prevent most on a busy crossing day. Additionally, the deals increased law enforcement cooperation and intelligence sharing between the French and British to dismantle the networks of those who organise the journeys, as well as disrupt their supply chains.

      Despite the vast sums put up by the British, previous deals were criticised for still not providing the French with enough resources to ‘Stop the Boats’. They also took place in a period of cooler relations between France and Britain in the post-Brexit period of Johnson’s premiership when the French may have been less enthusiastic about being Britain’s border police. Last March, however, both governments doubled-down and made a new declaration in which the UK promised £478m to the French over three years for 500 more police, a new detention centre, and more surveillance capacity ‘to enable swifter detection of crossing attempts’ and ‘monitor a larger area of northern France and prevent more crossings’. It is after this deal that we have really noticed an uptick in the numbers of police interventions to stop dinghies being delivered to the coast, violence on the beaches (and sometimes at sea) to stop them launching, and by consequence the number of deadly incidents occurring at or near the shores.
      Consequences of the new deal
      1: Dangerously overcrowded dinghies

      Despite the fewer overall number of people crossing in 2023 compared to 2022, each dinghy making the trip was more crowded than in any previous year.

      Illustrated in the graphs above, the 47 days with the highest average number of people per dinghy ever all took place in 2023. The highest, 26 September 2023, had an average over 70, and there were 27 days with 56 or more people per dinghy, with all except one being after June. By comparison, the highest average day in 2022 saw not-quite 53 people per dinghy. These averages do not show the actual figures of each dinghy which have recently been stretching to more than 70, and sometimes 80. Meanwhile the number of crossings on any given day has gone down.

      A key factor driving this overcrowding are the police operations against the logistical networks to organise the dinghies used for crossings, which stretch as far as Turkey and other European countries like Germany. The vehicles and drivers which do the deliveries to the French coast during periods of good weather are also targeted by police on the coastal roads. The UK government recently boasted that in 2023 246 people were arrested as ‘people smugglers’ and an international operation led to the seizure of 136 dinghies and 46 outboard motors.

      These attacks on the supply chain, however, do not reduce the overall demand. They simply mean there are fewer total vessels for the overall number of passengers. It has been observed that, with fewer boats reaching the shores on a crossing day, people who are expecting to travel try to force their way onto any dinghy that has been delivered and inflated. This had led to one person being crushed to death inside a dinghy as well as others being pushed out into the sea. It also means that the extremely overcrowded dinghies are failing close to the French shores, like in the case of 12 August 2023.
      2: Increased police violence

      Increased police violence on the French beaches is the most visible consequence of the new ‘Stop the Boats’ deal, and exacerbates the dangers of already overcrowded embarkations.

      In previous years, the fewer numbers of police patrolling the beaches were unable to deal with the large groups of people who gathered during a dinghy launch, and many times they chose to look on rather than intervene. They also had difficulties to cover the whole stretch of coastline between Belgium and Berck. Now with more aerial support, double the number of officers, and increased resources like dune buggies the police are more able to intervene at the moment of departure. Typically they will fire tear gas at the people to try and disperse them and then use knives to slice the dinghy. We have also been told about policing using ‘less-lethal’ grenades and wading into the sea to cut a dinghy as people try to board it and start the motor.

      The police’s presence and their attacks create panicked and dangerous situations in which dinghies launch before they are fully inflated and in which people have to scramble on board whilst in water up to their necks. During these moments people have drowned in the shallow water like on 8 October, and families have been separated like on 26 September 2023. The danger of the police attacks compounds that of overcrowding. It is now common to observe chaotic embarkations where more than 70 or even 80 people all try at once to get on an inflatable of just a few meters length while the police try to stop them. We have also been told that if the police do successfully destroy a dinghy as it launches the would-be travellers will look to get onboard another rather than give up, again increasing the risks of overcrowding.

      The British authorities have proudly acknowledged the increased violence, publicising a French police officer’s bodycam video where we see tear gas being used indiscriminately against a group of people which we know included those in a situation of vulnerability. In a statement celebrating the fact that two people shown in the video trying to hold the violence of the police at bay were arrested and jailed in the UK, the Home Office states:

      “Tension on French beaches is increasing due to the successful efforts of law enforcement in frustrating this organised criminal enterprise. Incidents like this highlight the complex and brave work of our French colleagues in the face of challenging conditions.”

      Despite the increased violence on the shore, for now, it still appears that the policy of the French is to not intervene to stop the boats once they are at sea and underway. This illustrates a clear contradiction between the apparent concern for safety of life while at sea, and creating extremely dangerous situations for people by attacking their dinghies as they launch.
      No borders, not ‘Stop the Boats’

      The hypocrisy of the French and British governments is that their increased border policing activities, which they sanctimoniously describe as protecting people who have to travel to the UK by boat, have only made their crossings more dangerous. Unfortunately it seems these policies will only continue over the coming years, evidenced by the three year funding agreement from March. We must then expect only more victim blaming and lies for each death in the coming years that will occur as a result. The people who continue to have to make this journey, denied access to the safe ferries and trains the rest of us are able to take, are being sacrificed for the sake of politicians’ electoral ambitions. What those politicians understand, but do not want to admit, is that it is impossible to ‘stop the boats’ so long as the border exists. Further militarisation and police intervention will only increase the number of people who die, as we have been seeing. How far the states will go in pursuing their policies of harm and death in the name of protecting their border remains to be seen. In the meantime we must continue doing all we can to not only present them the account of the consequences for their obstinance, but practically organise against it, together with those who already doing so.

      https://alarmphone.org/en/2024/01/28/the-deadly-consequences-of-the-new-deal-to-stop-the-boats
      #Alarmphone #Alarm_phone #bateaux #statistiques #chiffres

  • Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’

    Exclusive: #Gavin_Stephens becomes most senior serving officer to accept discrimination in policing operates at a ‘fundamental level’

    The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist, as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination.

    Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge.

    Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”.

    In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist.

    “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes.

    “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.”

    Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years.

    His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear.

    Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied.

    Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.”

    Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important.

    Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission.

    Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree.

    Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.”

    After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years.

    Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.”

    The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs.

    Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police.

    The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan.

    They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.”

    Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.”

    He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/05/head-of-britains-police-chiefs-says-force-is-institutionally-racist-gav

    #racisme_structurel #racisme_institutionnel #police #UK #Angleterre #racisme #discriminations #responsabilité #formation #procédures #Noirs #stéréotypes

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • Supreme court rejects Rishi Sunak’s plan to send asylum seekers to #Rwanda

    Judges uphold appeal court ruling over risk to deported refugees and deals blow to PM’s ‘stop the boats’ strategy

    Rishi Sunak’s key immigration policy has been dealt a blow after the UK’s highest court rejected the government’s plans to deport people seeking asylum to Rwanda.

    Five judges at the supreme court unanimously upheld an appeal court ruling that found there was a real risk of deported refugees having their claims in the east African country wrongly assessed or being returned to their country of origin to face persecution.

    The ruling undermines one of the prime minister’s key pledges: to “stop the boats”. The government claimed that the £140m Rwanda scheme would be a key deterrent for growing numbers of asylum seekers reaching the UK via small boats travelling across the Channel, a claim that refugee charities have rejected.

    Reading out the judgment, Lord Reed, the president of the supreme court, said the judges agreed unanimously with the court of appeal ruling that there was a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda, resulting in asylum seekers being wrongly returned to their country of origin.

    He pointed to crucial evidence from the United Nations’ refugee agency, the UNHCR, which highlighted the failure of a similar deportation agreement between Israel and Rwanda.

    The ruling came the day after the sacked home secretary, Suella Braverman, released an incendiary letter accusing the prime minister of breaking an agreement to insert clauses into UK law that would have “blocked off” legal challenges under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act.

    Braverman said Sunak had no “credible plan B” and added: “If we lose in the supreme court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an act of parliament, only to arrive back at square one.”

    A meeting of hard-right Conservative MPs on Wednesday morning to consider the judgment was expected to back calls to leave the ECHR.

    Sir John Hayes, a close ally of Braverman, said on Tuesday that in the event of losing, ministers should table a narrow piece of legislation to enact the Rwanda plan before Christmas, and later include withdrawing from the ECHR in the Tory election manifesto.

    Reacting to the ruling, Sunak said the government would consider its next steps and claimed there was a “plan B”, despite Braverman’s criticisms.

    He said: “This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.

    “Crucially, the supreme court – like the court of appeal and the high court before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful.”

    The home secretary, James Cleverly, said: “Our partnership with Rwanda, while bold and ambitious, is just one part of a vehicle of measures to stop the boats and tackle illegal migration.

    “But clearly there is an appetite for this concept. Across Europe, illegal migration is increasing and governments are following our lead: Italy, Germany and Austria are all exploring models similar to our partnership with Rwanda.”

    The judgment will raise serious questions about expenditure on the scheme. More than £140m has already been paid to the Rwandan government. The government has refused to disclose a further breakdown of costs on the scheme and on legal fees.

    A spokesperson for the Rwandan government said: “The money has been already allocated to a number of government projects.”

    Reed said the legal test in the case was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of being sent back to the countries they came from, where they could face ill treatment.

    “In the light of the evidence which I have summarised, the court of appeal concluded that there were such grounds. We are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. Indeed, having been taken through the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion,” he said.

    Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said it was a victory for men, women and children who simply wanted to be safe.

    He said: “The plan goes against who we are as a country that stands up for those less fortunate than us and for the values of compassion, fairness and humanity. The government should be focusing on creating a functioning asylum system that allows people who seek safety in the UK a fair hearing on our soil and provides safe routes so they don’t have to take dangerous journeys.”

    Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis solicitors, one of the lawyers representing asylum seekers who brought the legal challenge, said: “This is a victory for our brave clients who stood up to an inhumane policy. It is also a victory for the rule of law itself and the separation of powers, despite the noise. It is a timely reminder that governments must operate within the law. We hope that now our clients are able to dream of a better, safer future.”

    Sonya Sceats, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the supreme court has affirmed what caring people already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, but it also flies in the face of the laws of this country.

    “The stakes of this case could not have been higher. Every day in our therapy rooms we see the terror that this scheme has inflicted on survivors of torture who have come to the UK seeking sanctuary.”

    Steve Smith, the chief executive of the refugee charity Care4Calais, a claimant in the initial legal challenge, said the judgment was “a victory for humanity”.

    He added: “This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral but, most importantly, it is unlawful. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on this cruel policy, and the only receipts the government has are the pain and torment inflicted on the thousands of survivors of war, torture and modern slavery they have targeted with it.

    “Today’s judgment should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a close. Never again should our government seek to shirk our country’s responsibility to offer sanctuary to those caught up in horrors around the world.”

    Care4Calais continues to support claimants in the case.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/supreme-court-rejects-rishi-sunak-plan-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwan

    #justice #cour_suprême #asile #migrtions #réfugiés #externalisation #UK

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    • Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful

      The government’s Rwanda asylum policy, which it says is needed to tackle small boats, is in disarray, after the UK’s highest court ruled it is unlawful.

      The Supreme Court upheld a Court of Appeal ruling, which said the policy leaves people sent to Rwanda open to human rights breaches.

      It means the policy cannot be implemented in its current form.

      Rishi Sunak said the government would work on a new treaty with Rwanda and said he was prepared to change UK laws.

      The controversial plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda and ban them from returning to the UK has been subject to legal challenges since it was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022.

      The government has already spent £140m on the scheme but flights were prevented from taking off in June last year after the Court of Appeal ruled the approach was unlawful due to a lack of human rights safeguards.

      Now that the UK’s most senior court has agreed, the policy’s chances of being realised without major revisions are effectively ended.

      But Mr Sunak told MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions that he was ready to finalise a formal treaty with Rwanda and would be “prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks” in a bid to revive the plan.

      A treaty - which Downing Street has said it will publish in the “coming days” - would upgrade the agreement between the UK and Rwanda from its current status as a “memorandum of understanding”, which the government believes would put the arrangement on a stronger legal footing.

      The new text would provide the necessary “reassurances” the Supreme Court has asked for, the prime minister’s official spokesman said.

      LIVE: Reaction to Supreme Court Rwanda ruling
      Chris Mason: Ruling leaves Rwanda policy in tatters
      How many people cross the Channel in small boats?
      What was the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?

      Ministers have been forced to reconsider their flagship immigration policy after 10 claimants in the Supreme Court case argued that ministers had ignored clear evidence that Rwanda’s asylum system was unfair and arbitrary.

      The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of “non-refoulement” - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law.

      In a unanimous decision, the court’s five justices agreed with the Court of Appeal that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was safe.

      The judgement does not ban sending migrants to another country, but it leaves the Rwanda scheme in tatters - and it is not clear which other nations are prepared to do a similar deal with the UK.

      The Supreme Court justices said there were “substantial grounds” to believe people deported to Rwanda could then be sent, by the Rwandan government, to places where they would be unsafe.

      It said the Rwandan government had entered into the agreement in “good faith” but the evidence cast doubt on its “practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term”, to fix “deficiencies” in its asylum system and see through “the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required”.

      A spokesman for the Rwandan government said the policy’s legality was “ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system”, but added “we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country”.

      It leaves Mr Sunak - who has made tackling illegal immigration a central focus his government - looking for a way to salvage the policy.

      In a statement issued after the ruling, the prime minister said the government had been “planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats”.

      He continued: “Crucially, the Supreme Court - like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it - has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the government’s clear view from the outset.”

      Mr Sunak is expected to hold a televised press conference in Downing Street at 16:45 GMT on Wednesday.

      The Supreme Court decision comes amid the political fallout from the sacking of Suella Braverman on Monday, who, as home secretary had championed the Rwanda policy.

      In a highly critical letter, published after her sacking and the day before the ruling, she said the prime minister had “failed to prepare any sort of credible Plan B” in the event the Supreme Court halts the policy.

      Newly appointed Home Secretary James Cleverly told the Commons on Wednesday the government had been “working on a plan to provide the certainty that the court demands” for “the last few months”.

      He said upgrading the agreement to a treaty “will make it absolutely clear to our courts and to Strasbourg that the risks laid out by the court today have been responded to, will be consistent with international law”.

      Lee Anderson MP, the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, urged the government to ignore the Supreme Court and “put planes in the air” anyway.

      Natalie Elphicke, Conservative MP for Dover, the landing point for many of the small boats, said the Rwanda policy is “at an end” and “we now need to move forward”.

      “With winter coming the timing of this decision couldn’t be worse. Be in no doubt, this will embolden the people smugglers and put more lives at risk,” she continued.

      But charity Asylum Aid said the government must “abandon the idea of forcibly removing people seeking asylum to third countries”, describing the policy as “cruel and ineffective”.

      More than 100,000 people have arrived in the UK via illegal crossings since 2018, though the number appears to be falling this year.

      In 2022, 45,000 people reached the UK in small boats. The total is on course to be lower for 2023, with the total for the year so far below 28,000 as of November 12.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67423745

    • Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next

      The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

      Upholding an earlier decision by the court of appeal, the supreme court found that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may be at risk of refoulement – being sent back to a country where they may be persecuted, tortured or killed.

      The courts cited extensive evidence from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) that Rwanda does not respect the principle of non-refoulement – a legal obligation. The UNHCR’s evidence questioned the ability of Rwandan authorities to fairly assess asylum claims. It also raised concerns about human rights violations by Rwandan authorities, including not respecting non-refoulement with other asylum seekers.

      It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.

      The ruling is another blow to the government’s promise to “stop the boats”. And since the Rwanda plan is at the heart of its new Illegal Migration Act, the government will need to reconsider its asylum policies. This is further complicated by Conservative party infighting and the firing of home secretary Suella Braverman, just two days before the ruling.
      How did we get here?

      For years, the UK government has been seeking to reduce small boat arrivals to the UK. In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement making it possible for the UK to deport some people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda, without their cases being heard in the UK. Instead, they would have their cases decided by Rwandan authorities, to be granted (or rejected) asylum in Rwanda.

      While the Rwanda plan specifically was found to be unlawful, the government could, in theory, replicate this in other countries so long as they are considered “safe” for asylum seekers.

      The government has not yet sent anyone to Rwanda. The first flight was prevented from taking off by the European court of human rights in June 2022, which said that British courts needed to consider all human rights issues before starting deportations.

      A UK high court then decided in December 2022 that the Rwanda plan was lawful.

      Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania challenged the high court ruling, with the support of the charity Asylum Aid. Their claim was about whether Rwanda meets the legal threshold for being a safe country for asylum seekers.

      The court of appeal said it was not and that asylum seekers risked being sent back to their home countries (where they could face persecution), when in fact they may have a good claim for asylum.

      The government has since passed the Illegal Migration Act. The law now states that all asylum seekers arriving irregularly (for example, in small boats) must be removed to a safe third country. But now that the Rwanda deal has been ruled unlawful, there are no other countries that have said they would take asylum seekers from the UK.

      What happens next?

      It is clear that the government’s asylum policies will need rethinking. Should another country now be designated as a safe country and different arrangements put in place, these will probably be subject to further legal challenges, including in the European court of human rights and in British courts.

      This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.

      But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.

      The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that he is working on a new treaty with Rwanda and is prepared to change domestic laws to “do whatever it takes to stop the boats”.

      The UK is not the only country to attempt to off-shore asylum processing. Germany and Italy have recently been considering finding new safe third countries to accept asylum seekers as well.

      But ensuring these measures comply with human rights obligations is complicated. International law requires states to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution or risk to their lives. As this ruling shows, the UK is not going to find an easy way out of these obligations.

      https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rules-rwanda-plan-unlawful-a-legal-expert-explains-th

    • La décision:
      R (on the application of AAA and others) (Respondents/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent)

      Case ID: #2023/0093
      Case summary
      Issues

      The Supreme Court is asked to decide the following legal questions:

      Did the Divisional Court apply the wrong test when determining whether removal to Rwanda would breach article 3?
      If the Divisional Court applied the right test, was the Court of Appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that Rwanda was a safe third country?
      If the Divisional Court applied the wrong test or there was another basis for interfering with its conclusion, was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that Rwanda was not a safe third country because asylum seekers would face a real risk of refoulement?
      Did the Home Secretary fail to discharge her procedural obligation under article 3 to undertake a thorough examination of Rwanda’s asylum procedures to determine whether they adequately protect asylum seekers against the risk of refoulement?
      Were there substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 in Rwanda itself, in addition to the risk of refoulement?
      Does the Asylum Procedures Directive continue to have effect as retained EU law? This is relevant because the Directive only permits asylum seekers to be removed to a safe third country if they have some connection to it. None of the claimants has any connection to Rwanda.

      Facts

      These appeals arise out of claims brought by individual asylum seekers ("the claimants") who travelled to the UK in small boats (or, in one case, by lorry). The Home Secretary declared the claimants’ claims for asylum to be inadmissible, intending that they should be removed to Rwanda where their asylum claims would be decided by the Rwandan authorities. Her decisions were made in accordance with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership ("MEDP") between the UK and Rwanda, recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding and a series of diplomatic “Notes Verbales”.

      Under paragraphs 345A to 345D of the Immigration Rules, if the Home Secretary decides that an asylum claim is inadmissible, she is permitted to remove the person who has made the claim to any safe third country that agrees to accept the asylum claimant. On the basis of the arrangements made in the MEDP, the Home Secretary decided that Rwanda was a safe third country for these purposes. This is “the Rwanda policy”.

      The claimants (and other affected asylum seekers) challenged both the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy generally, and the Home Secretary’s decisions to remove each claimant to Rwanda. The Divisional Court held that the Rwanda policy was, in principle, lawful. However, the way in which the Home Secretary had implemented the policy in the claimants’ individual cases was procedurally flawed. Accordingly, her decisions in those cases would be quashed and remitted to her for reconsideration.

      The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned only the challenges to the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy generally. By a majority, the Court allowed the claimants’ appeal on the ground that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda were such that there were substantial reasons for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement. That is, a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda would be returned to their home countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda was not a safe third country. Accordingly, unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This is because it would breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the claimants’ other grounds of appeal.

      The Home Secretary now appeals to the Supreme Court on issues (1) to (3) below. AAA (Syria) and others and HTN (Vietnam) cross appeal on issues (4) and (5). AS (Iran) also cross appeals on issue (4). ASM (Iraq) appeals on issue (6).

      https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0093.html

    • Alasdair Mackenzie sur X:

      Here’s my take on the Rwanda judgment in the Supreme Court today.

      It’s a longish one, but tl;dr: it’s a disaster for the Home Office and also for the Rwandans, & surely leaves the idea of outsourcing refugee protection to other countries in tatters, perhaps permanently sunk 1/
      First up, it’s extremely interesting that the Supreme Court was keen to dispel the idea that the problem with the Rwanda policy is only that it’s contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights 2/
      The SC points out that the principle of non-refoulement (not returning people directly or indirectly to face risks of human rights abuses) is also prohibited by other international conventions & by UK law – a clear attempt to defuse criticism of the ECHR 3/
      (Whether that will stop the usual suspects from calling for the UK to leave the ECHR is of course doubtful, but they’d have said that anyway – indeed Braverman’s letter yesterday seems to have been setting herself up to do so whichever way this judgment went.) 4/
      Second, the Divisional Court (High Court) – the only court to have upheld the Rwanda policy – comes in for sharp criticism.
      It’s said to be unclear that it understood its own function properly, ie to assess risk in Rwanda, not to review the Home Office’s assessment 5/
      The High Court also failed to engage with the evidence before it of “serious and systemic defects in Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims” 6/
      The High Court also took “a mistaken approach” to a key plank of the govt’s case, ie that it was for the govt itself to assess diplomatic assurances given by Rwanda – in fact it shd’ve been for the Court to do so.
      (The last sentence has a nice little barb towards ministers.) 7/
      The High Court also failed to address crucial evidence, including evidence of how asylum seekers transferred from Israel to Rwanda under an earlier deal had been treated, despite its (you might have thought) obvious implications for how those sent by the UK would fare in Rw 8/
      The High Court is particularly criticised for dealing “dismissively” with the crucial evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which was largely uncontradicted and should have been given “particular importance” 9/
      The High Court was of course the court which primarily refused to stop the removals of people on 14 June last year, meaning that people had to apply to the European Court at the last minute. 10/
      So having disposed of the High Ct, the next Q for the Supreme Ct was whether to uphold the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Rwanda policy was unlawful.

      The SC strikingly doesn’t limit itself (as it cdve) to saying the CA’s view was lawful, but strongly agrees with it. 11/
      The SC, again strikingly, dives straight in with this devastating summary of Rwanda’s abject human rights record, including its threats to kill dissidents on the streets of the UK (the point about the first line here is to show that the Home Office knew about this very well) 12/
      The SC summarises numerous problems with Rwanda’s asylum processes (set out in more detail by the Court of Appeal), incl lack of training, “ingrained scepticism” towards some groups, lack of understanding of the Refugee Convention, lack of judicial independence etc 13/
      Why, you might ask by now, didn’t the Home Office know all this? Well, they shdve done, but it seems officials, under pressure (implicitly from ministers) did inadequate & one-sided research into Rwandan asylum processes, something which ultimately undermined the whole policy 14/
      The HO’s fallback argument was basically: “well, even if the Rwandan system is a mess, people won’t be going anywhere anyway”. The SC is as contemptuous as can be of this (to translate for non-legal folk, “somewhat surprising” is as dismissive as it gets) 15/
      Now we move to the Israel-Rwanda deal, a catastrophe for Rwanda’s credibility & thus for the HO case – and ofc a total disaster for those affected, who were routinely secretly expelled from Rwanda (some were also left without documents, effectively forced out, trafficked etc) 16/
      The HO, again, knew about this but wasn’t deflected from potentially repeating the same mistakes: its lame answer was that the Israel-Rw deal wasn’t even relevant bc the UK-Rw one was new. You might think that was also a “surprising” submission and so, it seems, did the SC 17/
      However sadly – if only because it would’ve been what we lawyers call “the ultimate banter outcome” – the Rwanda scheme is found not to be contrary to retained EU law [aspects of EU law which remain part of UK law], bc in fact the relevant provisions were abolished in 2020 18/
      It’s important to note that the SC doesn’t rule out that the Rwandan system could be improved, & it hasn’t found that the idea of a scheme like this is prohibited (it wasn’t asked to decide that). 19/
      But what are the prospects of that happening? The Court of Appeal previously pointed to a real need for thorough culture change in the Rwandan civil service & judiciary, & to an absence of any sort of roadmap for achieving it (in a state ofc uninterested in the rule of law). 20/
      For all the govt’s attempts to put a brave face on it & claim it’ll upgrade the Rwandan system, personally I don’t think flights will go soon, if ever (NB the idea that it would make a difference if there was a treaty w Rwanda is pie in the sky imho) 21/
      And whilst this decision is a disaster for Patel, Braverman, Johnson & Sunak & all else who supported the policy, it’s surely a catastrophe for Rwanda, whose record has been pored over in detail in the most public way. (I’ve never understood why they didn’t predict that.) 22/
      For the same reason I can’t personally see any other state wanting to line up to replace Rwanda, whatever ££ incentives are offered (and remember we still don’t know the full extent of these in respect of Rwanda). 23/
      Any attempt to amend or replicate this policy will almost certainly be scrutinised with great care & intensity by the courts, inspired by the example of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in this case.

      The government will not get an easy ride. 24/
      At the heart of this of course have been the asylum seekers left in a state of fear & anxiety by this appalling policy – principally those like our client who were actually on the June 2022 flight until the last minute – but also others directly or indirectly affected. 25/
      Let this, please, be a turning point in how we treat refugees, and the catalyst for working towards humane, non-racist immigration policies more broadly.

      Refugees welcome here, always. 26/
      Finally, tributes: the team at @Refugees
      – UNHCR – put together compelling evidence about Rwanda which formed the basis for this outcome. Its legal team presented that evidence with awesome clarity & force. 27/
      The legal team for the lead group of claimants (AAA etc) have been outstanding and although it’s invidious to single out anyone, I’m going to anyway, as no praise can be too high for the skill, dedication & humanity of the leading counsel for the AAA team, @RazaHusainQC 28/
      I was privileged to play a small part in this case, representing one of the co-claimants, “RM”, instructed by Daniel Merriman & Tim Davies of Wilsons LLP, alongside David Sellwood & Rosa Polaschek, led initially by Richard Drabble KC & in the SC by Phillippa Kaufmann KC 29/

      https://twitter.com/AlasdairMack66/status/1724776723160748310

    • La Cour suprême britannique juge illégal de renvoyer des demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda

      La Cour suprême britannique a confirmé mercredi 15 novembre l’illégalité du projet hautement controversé du gouvernement d’expulser vers le Rwanda les demandeurs d’asile, d’où qu’ils viennent, arrivés illégalement sur le sol britannique.

      Les hauts magistrats ont ainsi rejeté l’appel du gouvernement du Premier ministre Rishi Sunak et jugé que c’est à juste titre que la cour d’appel avait conclu que le Rwanda ne pouvait être considéré comme un pays tiers sûr.

      Le projet avait été rejeté par une cour d’appel britannique en juin dernier.

      La Cour suprême a rendu son jugement à l’unanimité.

      Pour justifier leur décision, les juges s’appuient sur le bilan rwandais en matière de droits de l’Homme et de traitement des demandeurs d’asile, rapporte notre correspondante à Londres, Émeline Vin. Selon eux, le Rwanda ne respecte pas ses obligations internationales, il rejette 100 % des demandes d’asile venant de Syriens, de Yéménites ou d’Afghans - qui fuient des zones de conflit.

      Ils reprochent aussi au pays de renvoyer des demandeurs voire des réfugiés dans leur pays d’origine, une pratique contraire à la Convention des Nations unies.

      Ce partenariat ferait courir des risques aux demandeurs d’asile et enfreint les lois britanniques.

      Cette décision est un coup dur pour le Premier ministre Rishi Sunak, qui doit faire face aux pressions de son parti conservateur et d’une partie de l’opinion publique sur la question de l’immigration, à moins d’un an des prochaines élections législatives.

      Même s’il avait hérité le projet de ses prédécesseurs, Rishi Sunak en avait fait le pilier de sa promesse de faire baisser l’immigration. Le gouvernement fraîchement remanié n’a pas encore dévoilé son « plan B » ; des sources ministérielles rejettent la possibilité de quitter la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme.
      Kigali « conteste » la décision, Londres affiche vouloir poursuivre le projet

      Malgré ce revers juridique, Londres a affiché sa volonté de poursuivre le projet en question. Devant les députés, Rishi Sunak a indiqué que son gouvernement travaillait déjà à un « nouveau traité » avec Kigali. « S’il apparaît clairement que nos cadres juridiques nationaux ou nos conventions internationales continuent de nous entraver, je suis prêt à modifier nos lois et à réexaminer ces relations internationales », a-t-il ajouté, alors que certains élus de sa majorité réclament un retrait de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (CEDH).

      Après l’annonce, Kigali aussi a immédiatement annoncé « contester » la décision juridique. « Nous contestons la décision selon laquelle le Rwanda n’est pas un pays tiers sûr pour les demandeurs d’asile et les réfugiés », a déclaré la porte-parole de la présidence rwandaise Yolande Makolo.

      Lors d’un entretien téléphonique, le Premier ministre britannique Rishi Sunak et le président rwandais Paul Kagame « ont réitéré leur ferme engagement à faire fonctionner (leur) partenariat en matière d’immigration et ont convenu de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour s’assurer que cette politique soit solide et légale », a indiqué Downing Street dans un communiqué.

      https://www.rfi.fr/fr/afrique/20231115-la-cour-supr%C3%AAme-britannique-juge-ill%C3%A9gal-de-renvoyer-des-dema

    • Devant les députés, Rishi Sunak a indiqué que son gouvernement travaillait déjà à un « nouveau traité » avec Kigali. « S’il apparaît clairement que nos cadres juridiques nationaux ou nos conventions internationales continuent de nous entraver, je suis prêt à modifier nos lois et à réexaminer ces relations internationales », a-t-il ajouté, alors que certains élus de sa majorité réclament un retrait de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (#CEDH).

      Darmanin, fais gaffe ! il est possible que les anglais tirent les premiers.
      Et, cela se lit le jour où l’on apprend que « Une directive en préparation sur les violences faites aux femmes prévoit de caractériser le viol par l’absence de consentement. L’objectif est de faire converger les législations européennes. Plusieurs Etats, dont la France, s’y opposent. »
      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/11/15/emmanuel-macron-refuse-que-bruxelles-intervienne-dans-la-definition-du-viol_

      souveraineté en crise, chauvinisme en essor.

    • Envoyer les demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda ? La Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni dit non

      Dans une décision rendue mercredi 15 novembre, la plus haute juridiction britannique s’est prononcée sur le projet du gouvernement visant à expédier les migrants au Rwanda le temps de l’examen de leur demande de protection. Il n’en sera pas question pour l’instant.

      La décision était très attendue. Voilà près de deux ans que le Royaume-Uni avait signé un accord – informel – avec le Rwanda pour y expédier ses demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile, dans un contexte où les arrivées de migrant·es par la Manche atteignaient des niveaux records

      La nouvelle s’inscrivait dans un contexte de surenchère politique nauséabonde s’agissant de l’immigration, après que le gouvernement eut envisagé les pires scénarios possible pour repousser les exilé·es en mer et les empêcher d’atteindre les côtes anglaises.

      Mercredi 15 novembre, la Cour suprême s’est enfin prononcée, plusieurs mois après avoir été saisie. Cinq juges ont estimé, à l’unanimité, que le risque d’envoyer des demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile au Rwanda était trop grand : non seulement cela pourrait créer des inégalités de traitement dans les requêtes formulées par les exilé·es, mais ces personnes pourraient être renvoyées dans leur pays d’origine en cas de rejet de leur demande, alors même qu’elles pourraient y encourir un danger.

      Une pratique qui violerait le principe de « non-refoulement », qui interdit aux États d’expulser, « de quelque manière que ce soit », un·e réfugié·e « sur les frontières des territoires où sa vie ou sa liberté seraient menacées en raison de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un certain groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques ».

      Dans sa prise de parole, le président de la Cour suprême a rappelé l’importance de la Convention de Genève relative aux réfugié·es, dont le Royaume-Uni est signataire, de même que la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et le droit international de manière générale, qui interdit de renvoyer des personnes en quête de protection dans leur pays d’origine sans qu’un examen sérieux de leur demande n’ait été réalisé au préalable.

      Le juge, Robert Reed, a également pris soin de souligner qu’il ne s’agissait pas d’une « décision politique » mais bien d’une question de droit, relevant de ce qui est légal ou non.
      Un risque trop grand pour les réfugié·es

      « Nous avons conclu qu’il existait des raisons sérieuses de croire qu’un risque réel de refoulement existait. Un changement est nécessaire pour éliminer ce risque, mais il n’a pas été démontré qu’il était en place actuellement », a-t-il justifié, rappelant les violations de droits humains régulièrement dénoncées au Rwanda, ainsi que les effets concrets déjà observés à l’occasion d’un autre accord similaire, signé entre le Rwanda et Israël, ayant mené à des refoulements réguliers de personnes exilées.

      « Si le Rwanda ne dispose pas d’un système adéquat pour traiter les demandes d’asile, les véritables réfugiés pourraient être renvoyés dans leur pays d’origine. En d’autres termes, ils feraient l’objet d’un refoulement », a complété le juge dans son propos.

      La requête du ministère de l’intérieur, qui contestait une décision antérieure de la cour d’appel, a ainsi été rejetée. Récemment, une grande campagne de communication lancée par le premier ministre Rishi Sunak ambitionnait d’« arrêter les bateaux » (stop the boats, en anglais), en s’appuyant notamment sur ce projet d’accord avec le Rwanda, qui devait avoir un effet « dissuasif » pour les personnes migrantes aspirant à rejoindre le Royaume-Uni.

      « J’ai promis de réformer non pas seulement notre système d’asile mais aussi nos lois. Nous avons donc introduit une législation sans précédent pour faire en sorte que les personnes arrivant illégalement soient placées en détention et expulsées en quelques semaines, soit vers le pays d’origine, soit vers un pays tiers sûr comme le Rwanda », avait déclaré le premier ministre lors d’un point organisé le 5 juin.

      La décision de la Cour suprême représente donc un sérieux camouflet pour le gouvernement britannique dans ce contexte, à l’heure où celui-ci faisait de la sous-traitance de l’asile une solution miracle.

      Mercredi, Rishi Sunak n’a pas tardé à réagir sur les réseaux sociaux, rappelant que lorsqu’il avait promis d’arrêter les bateaux, il « le pensait sérieusement ». « Il faut mettre fin à ce manège. Nous travaillons sur un nouveau traité international avec le Rwanda et nous le ratifierons sans tarder. Nous fournirons une garantie légale que ceux qui seront relocalisés vers le Rwanda seront protégés d’une éventuelle expulsion », a-t-il réaffirmé.

      En juin dernier, le premier ministre vantait également la possibilité de placer les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile sur une barge, surnommée le « Bibby Stockholm » et installée dans le port de Portland, dans le sud de l’Angleterre. Celle-ci devait permettre, selon le gouvernement, de réaliser des économies en cessant d’héberger les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile à l’hôtel : elle a finalement fait polémique.

      À peine installé·es à bord, les occupant·es ont alerté sur les conditions d’hygiène avant d’être évacué·es à la suite de la découverte d’une bactérie sur place. Le 26 octobre, un jeune Nigérian a tenté de mettre fin à ses jours lorsqu’il a appris qu’il serait transféré sur cette barge. Selon le quotidien The Guardian, deux décès « récents » s’apparentant à des suicides ont été répertoriés dans les hôtels hébergeant des exilé·es au Royaume-Uni cette année.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/161123/envoyer-les-demandeurs-d-asile-au-rwanda-la-cour-supreme-du-royaume-uni-di

    • La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito giudica illegale l’accordo con il Ruanda

      Il Ruanda non è un paese sicuro dove trasferire i richiedenti asilo

      Mercoledì 15 novembre la più alta Corte del Regno Unito ha bloccato almeno per un periodo la volontà politica del governo di deportare i richiedenti asilo in paesi dell’Africa o in paesi extra Ue che non possono garantire per diversi motivi le tutele previste dal diritto internazionale.

      La Corte ha infatti stabilito che il Ruanda non è un Paese terzo sicuro in cui inviare i richiedenti asilo. Secondo tutte le organizzazioni che si battono per i diritti dei rifugiati e per i diritti fondamentali si tratta di un’enorme vittoria, un risultato ottenuto anche per merito della mobilitazione diffusa e che proteggerà i diritti di innumerevoli persone giunte nel Regno Unito in cerca di sicurezza e accoglienza.

      L’accordo tra Regno Unito e Ruanda era stato fortemente voluto nell’aprile del 2022 dall’allora primo ministro Boris Johnson (dimessosi poi il 9 giugno 2023 per aver mentito alla Camera dei Comuni in relazione ai festini a Downing street nel corso del lockdown). Nella pomposa conferenza stampa del 14 aprile 2022 l’ex premier disse: «Tutti coloro che raggiungono illegalmente il Regno Unito, così come coloro che sono arrivati illegalmente dal primo gennaio, possono essere trasferiti in Ruanda. […] Ciò significa che i migranti economici che approfittano del sistema d’asilo non potranno rimanere nel Regno Unito, mentre quelli che ne hanno veramente bisogno avranno […] l’opportunità di costruirsi una nuova vita in un paese dinamico».

      Quel giorno il Segretario di Stato per gli Affari Interni e il Ministro Ruandese per gli Affari Esteri e la Cooperazione Internazionale illustrarono l’accordo di cooperazione in materia di sviluppo economico e migrazioni, utilizzando la solita retorica – tanto cara anche al governo italiano – del contrasto all’immigrazione illegale, della necessità di controllare le frontiere e di reprimere le organizzazioni di trafficanti.

      Tuttavia, solo due mesi dopo, il 16 giugno 2022, la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo (CEDU) bloccò, insieme alla proteste di diverse organizzazioni, il volo che avrebbe dovuto deportare i primi sette richiedenti asilo verso il paese africano.

      Le motivazioni alla base di quella decisione solo le stesse riprese mercoledì dalla Corte Suprema e prima ancora dalla Corte di Appello: ci sono motivi sostanziali per ritenere che i richiedenti asilo deportati in Ruanda corrano il rischio reale di essere rimpatriati nel loro Paese d’origine dove potrebbero subire trattamenti inumani e degradanti. Ciò porterebbe il Regno Unito a violare gli obblighi di non respingimento (non-refoulement) previsti dal diritto internazionale e nazionale.

      Emilie McDonnell di Human Rights Watch spiega che «la Corte Suprema ha richiamato l’attenzione sulla pessima situazione del Ruanda in materia di diritti umani, tra cui le minacce ai ruandesi che vivono nel Regno Unito, oltre alle esecuzioni extragiudiziali, alle morti in custodia, alle sparizioni forzate, alla tortura e alle restrizioni ai media e alle libertà politiche».

      L’esperta di diritti umani e diritto internazionale ricorda che nel 2022 Human Rights Watch scrisse al Ministro degli Interni del Regno Unito, chiarendo che il Ruanda non poteva essere considerato un Paese terzo sicuro, date le continue violazioni dei diritti umani. «L’Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i Rifugiati (UNHCR) ha fornito prove schiaccianti dei problemi sistemici del sistema di asilo ruandese, della potenziale mancanza di indipendenza della magistratura e degli avvocati e del tasso di rifiuto del 100% per le persone provenienti da zone di conflitto, in particolare Afghanistan, Siria e Yemen, probabili Paesi di origine dei richiedenti asilo trasferiti dal Regno Unito. L’UNHCR ha inoltre presentato almeno 100 accuse di respingimento, una pratica che è continuata anche dopo la conclusione dell’accordo con il Regno Unito».

      La linea del governo inglese è stata bocciata in tutto e per tutto dalla Corte Suprema, anche nella parte relativa al monitoraggio dell’accordo: il tribunale ha dichiarato che “le intenzioni e le aspirazioni non corrispondono necessariamente alla realtà“.

      «La Corte ha ritenuto che il Ruanda non abbia la capacità pratica di determinare correttamente le richieste di asilo e di proteggere le persone dal respingimento», aggiunge Emilie McDonnell. «Questo dovrebbe essere un monito per gli altri governi che stanno pensando di esternalizzare e spostare le proprie responsabilità in materia di asilo su altri Paesi».

      Di sicuro questa sentenza metterà in difficoltà anche il governo austriaco che sta pensando di stringere un accordo simile con il Ruanda, ma anche lo stesso governo italiano che circa 10 giorni fa ha stipulato un protocollo illegale e disumano con l’Albania.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/11/la-corte-suprema-del-regno-unito-giudica-illegale-laccordo-con-il-ruanda

    • L’asilo è un diritto, la Gran Bretagna deve rispettarlo: è un dovere

      La sua spregiudicata strategia di esternalizzazione ha subito un duro colpo ma molte questioni restano aperte. A partire dal tentativo del Regno Unito di disfarsi di ogni responsabilità sui rifugiati

      Con sentenza del 15 novembre 2023 la Corte Suprema del Regno Unito ha confermato “la conclusione della Corte d’Appello secondo cui la politica sul Ruanda è illegittima. Ciò in quanto ci sono motivi sostanziali per ritenere che i richiedenti asilo affronterebbero un rischio reale di maltrattamenti a causa del respingimento nel loro Paese d’origine se fossero trasferiti in Ruanda” afferma la Corte.

      Il Memorandum siglato tra il Regno Unito e il Ruanda il 6 aprile 2022 prevedeva che le domande di asilo presentate da chi arriva in modo irregolare nel Regno Unito, specie se attraverso il canale della Manica, sarebbero state tutte dichiarate inammissibili.

      Nel Memorandum si conveniva infatti di dare avvio ad un «meccanismo per la ricollocazione dei richiedenti asilo le cui richieste non sono state prese in considerazione dal Regno Unito, in Ruanda, che esaminerà le loro richieste e sistemerà o espellerà (a seconda dei casi) le persone dopo che la loro richiesta è stata decisa, in conformità con il diritto interno ruandese».

      Subito dopo si precisava altresì che «gli impegni indicati in questo Memorandum sono presi tra il Regno Unito e il Ruanda e viceversa e non creano o conferiscono alcun diritto a nessun individuo, né il rispetto di questo accordo può essere oggetto di ricorso in qualsiasi tribunale da parte di terzi o individui».

      Sarebbe stato il Regno Unito a determinare «i tempi di una richiesta di ricollocamento (in inglese il termine usato è relocation n.d.r.) di individui in base a questi accordi e il numero di richieste di ricollocazione da inoltrare» al Ruanda il quale sarebbe divenuto il solo Paese responsabile ad occuparsi della sorte dei richiedenti anche se con esso i richiedenti non hanno alcun legame.

      Anche in caso di accoglimento della loro domanda di asilo, non veniva prevista per i rifugiati alcuna possibilità di rientro verso la Gran Bretagna, nonostante si tratti del Paese al quale inizialmente avevano chiesto asilo. Nel valutare come illegale il Memorandum tra UK e il Ruanda, l’U.N.H.C.R. (Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i Rifugiati) aveva sottolineato come “Gli accordi di trasferimento non sarebbero appropriati se rappresentassero un tentativo, in tutto o in parte, da parte di uno Stato parte della Convenzione del 1951 di liberarsi dalle proprie responsabilità”.

      Le sole inquietanti parole del Memorandum laddove precisa che le misure adottate “non creano o conferiscono alcun diritto a nessun individuo” sono sufficienti a far comprendere il livello di estremismo politico che caratterizzava il Memorandum nel quale l’individuo veniva spogliato dei suoi diritti fondamentali e veniva ridotto a mero oggetto passivo del potere esecutivo.

      Già la Corte Europea per i Diritti dell’Uomo aveva ritenuto, con misura di urgenza (caso N.S.K. v. Regno Unito del 14.06.22) di bloccare tutte le operazioni di trasferimento coatto dal Regno Unito al Ruanda per due principali ragioni: la prima è che il Ruanda non è in grado di garantire una effettiva applicazione della Convenzione di Ginevra e che quindi detto rinvio violerebbe l’art. 3 della CEDU che prescrive che «Nessuno può essere sottoposto a tortura né a pene o trattamenti inumani o degradanti».

      La seconda ragione riguarda l’impossibilità legale di contestare la decisione di trasferimento coatto verso il Ruanda; come sopra richiamato infatti, non solo non sarebbe stato possibile garantire alcuna effettività al ricorso, ma veniva negato alla radice lo stesso diritto di agire in giudizio.

      Nel rigettare il ricorso presentato dal premier Sunak la Corte Suprema del Regno Unito si è concentrata principalmente su due motivi di ricorso: a) il rischio di violazione del divieto di non respingimento; 2) la violazione del diritto dell’UE in materia di asilo. Sotto quest’ultimo profilo la Corte Suprema ha rigettato il ricorso correttamente evidenziando che, a seguito della Brexit, le disposizioni del diritto dell’Unione “hanno cessato di avere effetto nel diritto interno del Regno Unito quando il periodo di transizione è terminato il 31.12.2020”.

      Tanto il diritto interno che la Convenzione Europea sui Diritti dell’Uomo e le libertà fondamentali (CEDU), e in particolare l’art. 3, vanno però rispettati, e ad avviso della Corte “ le prove dimostrano che ci sono motivi sostanziali per ritenere che vi sia un rischio reale che le richieste di asilo non vengano esaminate correttamente e che i richiedenti asilo rischino quindi di essere rimpatriati direttamente o indirettamente nel loro Paese d’origine”.

      In un passaggio della sentenza la Corte afferma che “i cambiamenti strutturali e il rafforzamento delle capacità necessarie per eliminare tale rischio (il rischio che i rifugiati subiscano respingimenti illegali in Ruanda ndr) possono essere realizzati in futuro” (paragrafo 105). Tale espressione rinvia a un futuro ipotetico e non rappresenta alcuna apertura di credito verso le scelte del Governo.

      Nonostante ciò il Premier Sunak, per il quale la decisione finale assunta dalla Suprema Corte rappresenta una catastrofe politica, ha cercato di piegare a suo vantaggio tale passaggio della sentenza dichiarando in Parlamento che la Suprema Corte ha chiesto in realtà solo maggiori garanzie sul rispetto dei diritti dei richiedenti asilo in Ruanda e che il governo sta già lavorando a un nuovo trattato con il Ruanda e che esso sarà finalizzato alla luce della sentenza odierna.

      Probabilmente Sunak vende fumo per prendere tempo perché sa bene che i richiesti cambiamenti strutturali non sono realizzabili. Tuttavia la politica del governo inglese, almeno al momento, non sembra avviata verso un serio ripensamento e alcuni osservatori non escludono la possibilità che vengano adottate scelte ancora più estremiste come l’uscita unilaterale del Regno Unito dal Consiglio d’Europa, cessando dunque di essere parte contraente della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo (come avvenuto per la Russia nel 2022).

      Uno scenario destinato ad incidere sui diritti dei migranti come su quelli dei cittadini britannici, che può apparire degno di uno scadente romanzo di fantapolitica, ma che in realtà non può essere escluso. Come non mi stancherò mai di ricordare, le violente politiche di esternalizzazione dei confini e l’attacco al diritto d’asilo stanno causando una profonda crisi a quel sistema giuridico di tutela dei diritti umani in Europa che fino a poco tempo fa tutti ritenevano inscalfibile.

      La Corte Suprema ha precisato nella sentenza che “in questo appello, la Corte deve decidere se la politica del Ruanda è legittima”. Rimane dunque irrisolta la più generale e scottante questione della legittimità o meno della politica del Governo inglese, di potersi disfare, completamente e ogni volta che lo desidera, della responsabilità giuridica del Regno Unito di esaminare le domande di asilo che pur vengono presentate sul suo territorio, delegando a tal fine, dietro pagamento, un compiacente paese terzo (sperando di poterne trovare, prima o poi, uno che non presenti gli aspetti critici del Ruanda).

      Si tratta dell’obiettivo generale che sta alla base della recentissima controversa legge approvata dal Parlamento inglese a nel luglio 2023 (Illegal Migration Act), successivamente quindi al Memorandum con il Ruanda, che all’art. 1.1 afferma che “scopo della presente legge è prevenire e scoraggiare la migrazione illegale, in particolare la migrazione per rotte non sicure e illegali, richiedendo la rimozione (“the removal” nel testo originale) dal Regno Unito di alcune persone che entrano o arrivano nel Regno Unito in violazione del controllo dell’immigrazione”.

      In una dichiarazione congiunta resa il 18.07.23 da UNHCR e dall’Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per i Diritti Umani al momento dell’approvazione della legge, entrambe le agenzie delle Nazioni Unite hanno sostenuto che la nuova legge “è in contrasto con gli obblighi del paese ai sensi della legge internazionale sui diritti umani e dei rifugiati (….) la legge estingue l’accesso all’asilo nel Regno Unito per chiunque arrivi irregolarmente, essendo passato attraverso un paese – per quanto brevemente – dove non ha affrontato persecuzioni. Gli impedisce di presentare la protezione dei rifugiati o altre rivendicazioni sui diritti umani, indipendentemente da quanto siano convincenti le loro circostanze. Inoltre, richiede la loro rimozione in un altro paese, senza alcuna garanzia che saranno necessariamente in grado di accedere alla protezione. Crea nuovi poteri di detenzione, con una limitata supervisione giudiziaria”.

      La spregiudicata strategia della esternalizzazione del diritto d’asilo condotta dal governo del Regno Unito ha subito un duro colpo con la cancellazione del Memorandum con il Ruanda, ma moltissimi scenari problematici rimangono ancora aperti.

      Nel frattempo, come messo in luce dalle associazioni inglesi che operano nel campo della protezione dei rifugiati, il sistema inglese d’asilo sta collassando a causa della paralisi amministrativa prodotto dalle continue tentate riforme, e l’arretrato nella definizione delle domande di asilo ha superato i centomila casi pendenti.

      https://www.unita.it/2023/11/17/lasilo-e-un-diritto-la-gran-bretagna-deve-rispettarlo-e-un-dovere

  • Braverman plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, appeal court rules

    Rishi Sunak announces government will seek supreme court appeal, but Labour says policy is unravelling after judges’ decision

    Court of appeal judges have ruled that it is unlawful to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their claims processed, in a judgment that delivers a potential hammer blow to government policy.

    Rishi Sunak said in a statement that the government would now seek permission to appeal against the decision at the supreme court as he insisted that Rwanda was a safe country and said that the court had agreed with this.

    The ruling follows a four-day hearing in April against a high court decision last December that it was lawful to send some asylum seekers, including people arriving on small boats, to Rwanda to have their claims processed rather than dealing with their applications for sanctuary in the UK.

    The court ruled that due to deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system there was a real risk that people sent to Rwanda would be returned to their home countries, where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment, when in fact they had a good claim for asylum.

    The court’s conclusion was that Rwanda was not a “safe third country” even though assurances provided by the Rwandan government were provided in good faith.

    “While I respect the court, I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions,” Sunak said. “I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries, something that the lord chief justice agrees with.”

    He added: “The policy of this government is very simple: it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.”

    The illegal migration bill, now passing through parliament, states that all asylum seekers arriving by “irregular means” could face being forcibly removed to Rwanda.

    However, Labour claimed the government’s policy on so-called small boats crossing the Channel was now “completely unravelling”. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said the Rwanda scheme was “unworkable, unethical and extortionate”.

    The home secretary, Suella Braverman, said she was disappointed by the ruling, adding: “The British people want to stop the boats, and so does this government. That’s what I am determined to deliver and I won’t take a backward step from that.”

    Lord Burnett, who heard the appeal with Sir Geoffrey Vos and Lord Justice Underhill, said the court had ruled by a majority that the policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, though he disagreed with the other two judges.

    Those who supported the appeal against the ruling included the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR, lawyers, charities and a group of asylum seekers.

    The court heard from UNHCR that Rwanda had a record of human rights abuses towards refugees within its borders, including refoulement – forced removal to countries where they are at risk – expulsions and arbitrary detention. The refugee agency said the Home Office would not be able to guarantee the safety of asylum seekers who were deported to the east African country.

    But Sir James Eadie KC, counsel for the home secretary, said she was confident that the government of Rwanda would abide by undertakings given in a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries.

    Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania who arrived in the UK by irregular means, crossing the Channel in small boats, brought the case along with the charity Asylum Aid.

    The key issue before the court was whether Rwanda was capable of delivering reliable outcomes on asylum claims and whether there was a risk that asylum seekers would be forcibly removed to their home countries after arriving in Rwanda, even if they had strong asylum claims.

    The judges found that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would be a breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights.

    The judges unanimously rejected other grounds of appeal in the case.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/29/plan-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-unlawful-uk-appeal-court-rules

    #illégalité #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UK #légalité #justice #externalisation

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • Sending asylum seekers to #Rwanda will cost £169k a person, says Home Office

    ‘Impact assessment’ of the illegal migration bill reignites bitter rows over the controversial scheme

    The cost of sending a single person seeking asylum to Rwanda could be nearly £170,000, according to government analysis, which has immediately reignited bitter rows over the controversial scheme.

    A long-awaited “impact assessment” of the illegal migration bill has conceded that ministers do not know the overall costs of implementing plans to detain and deport anyone who arrives in the UK by irregular means.

    The disclosure comes at the start of a pivotal week for the government’s flagship policy, which is meant to “stop the boats”, one of Rishi Sunak’s five key promises.

    Peers have already threatened to derail the bill when it returns to the upper chamber on Wednesday.

    On Thursday, the court of appeal is expected to rule on whether it is legal to deport people seeking asylum, including women and children, to Rwanda.

    Enver Solomon, the head of the Refugee Council, said the assessment failed to evaluate the true costs and consequences of the government’s proposed legislation.

    “If enacted in its current form, the bill would leave tens of thousands of refugees unable to access the protection they are entitled to under international law. It would cause hardship, cost billions of pounds, and do nothing to alleviate the current crisis and pressures within the asylum system,” he said.

    Suella Braverman, the home secretary, said the assessment examining the costs of the illegal migration bill showed the government would save at least £106,000 for every person deterred from entering the UK by irregular means.

    “Our impact assessment shows that doing nothing is not an option.

    “I urge MPs and peers to back the bill to stop the boats, so we can crack down on people smuggling gangs while bringing our asylum system back into balance,” she said.

    But the assessment also claimed that locating an individual to the central African country or another third country is estimated to cost £169,000, based on a previous government scheme.

    It said that “an estimated unit cost of £169,000 is found for relocating an individual … This cost will only be incurred for people who arrive in the UK illegally.” A Home Office source said the figure is based on a “theoretical exercise on costs under the bill”.

    The assessment said it is “not possible to estimate with precision the level of deterrence” the bill will have.

    It noted academic consensus is that there is “little to no evidence” policy changes deter people leaving their home countries and seeking refuge.

    Instead, shared language, culture and family ties were accepted to be “strong factors” influencing choice of final destination.

    The Home Office has refused to publish the payments agreed with the Rwandan government, citing “commercial sensitivities”, on top of a £140m payment handed over as part of a deal signed under Boris Johnson’s government.

    In passages that undermine the government’s plan to detain and deport everyone who arrives by irregular means, the assessment said constraints on capacity meant the illegal migration bill might only be applied to a proportion of arrivals.

    “This could lead to additional costs associated with bailing individuals and providing non-detained accommodation, a reduced deterrent effect observed and further process issues such as migrants absconding while not detained,” the report said.

    Braverman’s plan to house people seeking asylum on barges was called “unworkable” on Monday as she missed her own target for the first vessel to be in place.

    The Bibby Stockholm accommodation vessel, which would house about 500 people, was not yet in Portland Port, Dorset, despite the home secretary’s promise it would be in the dock a week ago.

    The release of the document came after peers threatened to delay the bill until after the government had published facts and figures showing the financial impact.

    The government awaits a court of appeal judgment on the legality of its plans to deport people seeking asylum including women and children to Rwanda.

    Organisations, including the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, have warned the proposals are in breach of international law and set a dangerous precedent for other countries in their treatment of people seeking refuge.

    Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the assessment was a “complete joke” and that the illegal migration bill could cost taxpayers billions more.

    “By its own admission, this failing Conservative government is totally clueless on how much this bill will cost or what the impact of any of its policies will be.

    “The few figures the Home Office has produced show how chaotic and unworkable their plans are. It suggests that if Rishi Sunak were actually able to deliver on his promise to remove every asylum seeker who arrives in the UK it would cost billions of pounds more even than the Tories’ broken asylum system today,” Cooper said.

    Shami Chakrabarti, the human rights barrister who has led criticisms of the bill in the Lords, compared the assessment to a press release. “Is this the much awaited document, so carefully prepared that it could not be published at any stage during such a contentious bill’s passage through the House of Commons?

    “The so-called impact assessment is about the length of a Home Office press release and similar in style and content. It’s all about deterrence but the financial and human costs are ‘untested’, the delivery plan still ‘being developed’ and international law is completely ignored,” she said.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/26/cost-of-sending-each-asylum-seeker-to-rwanda-is-170000-says-home-office
    #coût #prix #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #UK #Angleterre

    –—

    ajouté à cette métaliste:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • UK signs contract with US startup to identify migrants in small-boat crossings

    The UK government has turned a US-based startup specialized in artificial intelligence as part of its pledge to stop small-boat crossings. Experts have already pointed out the legal and logistical challenges of the plan.

    In a new effort to address the high number of Channel crossings, the UK Home Office is working with the US defense startup #Anduril, specialized in the use of artificial intelligence (AI).

    A surveillance tower has already been installed at Dover, and other technologies might be rolled out with the onset of warmer temperatures and renewed attempts by migrants to reach the UK. Some experts already point out the risks and practical loopholes involved in using AI to identify migrants.

    “This is obviously the next step of the illegal migration bill,” said Olivier Cahn, a researcher specialized in penal law.

    “The goal is to retrieve images that were taken at sea and use AI to show they entered UK territory illegally even if people vanish into thin air upon arrival in the UK.”

    The “illegal migration bill” was passed by the UK last month barring anyone from entering the country irregularly from filing an asylum claim and imposing a “legal duty” to remove them to a third country.
    Who is behind Anduril?

    Founded in 2017 by its CEO #Palmer_Luckey, Anduril is backed by #Peter_Thiel, a Silicon Valley investor and supporter of Donald Trump. The company has supplied autonomous surveillance technology to the US Department of Defense (DOD) to detect and track migrants trying to cross the US-Mexico border.

    In 2021, the UK Ministry of Defence awarded Anduril with a £3.8-million contract to trial an advanced base defence system. Anduril eventually opened a branch in London where it states its mission: “combining the latest in artificial intelligence with commercial-of-the-shelf sensor technology (EO, IR, Radar, Lidar, UGS, sUAS) to enhance national security through automated detection, identification and tracking of objects of interest.”

    According to Cahn, the advantage of Brexit is that the UK government is no longer required to submit to the General Data Protection Regulation (RGPDP), a component of data protection that also addresses the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas.

    “Even so, the UK has data protection laws of its own which the government cannot breach. Where will the servers with the incoming data be kept? What are the rights of appeal for UK citizens whose data is being processed by the servers?”, he asked.

    ’Smugglers will provide migrants with balaclavas for an extra 15 euros’

    Cahn also pointed out the technical difficulties of identifying migrants at sea. “The weather conditions are often not ideal, and many small-boat crossings happen at night. How will facial recognition technology operate in this context?”

    The ability of migrants and smugglers to adapt is yet another factor. “People are going to cover their faces, and anyone would think the smugglers will respond by providing migrants with balaclavas for an extra 15 euros.”

    If the UK has solicited the services of a US startup to detect and identify migrants, the reason may lie in AI’s principle of self-learning. “A machine accumulates data and recognizes what it has already seen. The US is a country with a significantly more racially and ethnically diverse population than the UK. Its artificial intelligence might contain data from populations which are more ethnically comparable to the populations that are crossing the Channel, like Somalia for example, thus facilitating the process of facial recognition.”

    For Cahn, it is not capturing the images which will be the most difficult but the legal challenges that will arise out of their usage. “People are going to be identified and there are going to be errors. If a file exists, there needs to be the possibility for individuals to appear before justice and have access to a judge.”

    A societal uproar

    In a research paper titled “Refugee protection in the artificial intelligence Era”, Chatham House notes “the most common ethical and legal challenges associated with the use of AI in asylum and related border and immigration systems involve issues of opacity and unpredictability, the potential for bias and unlawful discrimination, and how such factors affect the ability of individuals to obtain a remedy in the event of erroneous or unfair decisions.”

    For Cahn, the UK government’s usage of AI can only be used to justify and reinforce its hardline position against migrants. “For a government that doesn’t respect the Geneva Convention [whose core principle is non-refoulement, editor’s note] and which passed an illegal migration law, it is out of the question that migrants have entered the territory legally.”

    Identifying migrants crossing the Channel is not going to be the hardest part for the UK government. Cahn imagines a societal backlash with, “the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom being solicited, refugees seeking remedies to legal decisions through lawyers and associations attacking”.

    He added there would be due process concerning the storage of the data, with judges issuing disclosure orders. “There is going to be a whole series of questions which the government will have to elucidate. The rights of refugees are often used as a laboratory. If these technologies are ’successful’, they will soon be applied to the rest of the population."

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/48326/uk-signs-contract-with-us-startup-to-identify-migrants-in-smallboat-cr

    #UK #Angleterre #migrations #asile #réfugiés #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #start-up #complexe_militaro-industriel #IA #intelligence_artificielle #surveillance #technologie #channel #Manche

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur la Bibby Stockholm:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1016683

    • Huge barge set to house 500 asylum seekers arrives in the UK

      The #Bibby_Stockholm is being refitted in #Falmouth to increase its capacity from 222 to 506 people.

      A barge set to house 500 asylum seekers has arrived in the UK as the government struggles with efforts to move migrants out of hotels.

      The Independent understands that people will not be transferred onto the Bibby Stockholm until July, following refurbishment to increase its capacity and safety checks.

      The barge has been towed from its former berth in Italy to the port of Falmouth, in Cornwall.

      It will remain there while works are carried out, before being moved onto its final destination in #Portland, Dorset.

      The private operators of the port struck an agreement to host the barge with the Home Office without formal public consultation, angering the local council and residents.

      Conservative MP Richard Drax previously told The Independent legal action was still being considered to stop the government’s plans for what he labelled a “quasi-prison”.

      He accused ministers and Home Office officials of being “unable to answer” practical questions on how the barge will operate, such as how asylum seekers will be able to come and go safely through the port, what activities they will be provided with and how sufficient healthcare will be ensured.

      “The question is how do we cope?” Mr Drax said. “Every organisation has its own raft of questions: ‘Where’s the money coming from? Who’s going to do what if this all happens?’ There are not sufficient answers, which is very worrying.”

      The Independent previously revealed that asylum seekers will have less living space than an average parking bay on the Bibby Stockholm, which saw at least one person die and reports of rape and abuse on board when it was used by the Dutch government to detain migrants in the 2000s.

      An official brochure released by owner Bibby Marine shows there are only 222 “single en-suite bedrooms” on board, meaning that at least two people must be crammed into every cabin for the government to achieve its aim of holding 500 people.

      Dorset Council has said it still had “serious reservations about the appropriateness of Portland Port in this scenario and remains opposed to the proposals”.

      The Conservative police and crime commissioner for Dorset is demanding extra government funding for the local force to “meet the extra policing needs that this project will entail”.

      A multi-agency forum including representatives from national, regional and local public sector agencies has been looking at plans for the provision of health services, the safety and security of both asylum seekers and local residents and charity involvement.

      Portland Port said it had been working with the Home Office and local agencies to ensure the safe arrival and operation of the Bibby Stockholm, and to minimise its impact locally.

      The barge is part of a wider government push to move migrants out of hotels, which are currently housing more than 47,000 asylum seekers at a cost of £6m a day.

      But the use of ships as accommodation was previously ruled out on cost grounds by the Treasury, when Rishi Sunak was chancellor, and the government has not confirmed how much it will be spending on the scheme.

      Ministers have also identified several former military and government sites, including two defunct airbases and an empty prison, that they want to transform into asylum accommodation.

      But a court battle with Braintree District Council over former RAF Wethersfield is ongoing, and legal action has also been threatened over similar plans for RAF Scampton in Lancashire.

      Last month, a barrister representing home secretary Suella Braverman told the High Court that 56,000 people were expected to arrive on small boats in 2023 and that some could be made homeless if hotel places are not found.

      A record backlog of asylum applications, driven by the increase in Channel crossings and a collapse in Home Office decision-making, mean the government is having to provide accommodation for longer while claims are considered.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/barge-falmouth-cornwall-migrants-bibby-b2333313.html
      #barge #bateau

    • ‘Performative cruelty’ : the hostile architecture of the UK government’s migrant barge

      The arrival of the Bibby Stockholm barge at Portland Port, in Dorset, on July 18 2023, marks a new low in the UK government’s hostile immigration environment. The vessel is set to accommodate over 500 asylum seekers. This, the Home Office argues, will benefit British taxpayers and local residents.

      The barge, however, was immediately rejected by the local population and Dorset council. Several British charities and church groups have condemned the barge, and the illegal migration bill it accompanies, as “an affront to human dignity”.

      Anti-immigration groups have also protested against the barge, with some adopting offensive language, referring to the asylum seekers who will be hosted there as “bargies”. Conservative MP for South Dorset Richard Drax has claimed that hosting migrants at sea would exacerbate tenfold the issues that have arisen in hotels to date, namely sexual assaults, children disappearing and local residents protesting.

      My research shows that facilities built to house irregular migrants in Europe and beyond create a temporary infrastructure designed to be hostile. Governments thereby effectively make asylum seekers more displaceable while ignoring their everyday spatial and social needs.
      Precarious space

      The official brochure plans for the Bibby Stockholm show 222 single bedrooms over three stories, built around two small internal courtyards. It has now been retrofitted with bunk beds to host more than 500 single men – more than double the number it was designed to host.

      Journalists Lizzie Dearden and Martha McHardy have shown this means the asylum seekers housed there – for up to nine months – will have “less living space than an average parking bay”. This stands in contravention of international standards of a minimum 4.5m² of covered living space per person in cold climates, where more time is spent indoors.

      In an open letter, dated June 15 2023 and addressed to home secretary Suella Braverman, over 700 people and nearly 100 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) voiced concerns that this will only add to the trauma migrants have already experienced:

      Housing people on a sea barge – which we argue is equal to a floating prison – is morally indefensible, and threatens to retraumatise a group of already vulnerable people.

      Locals are concerned already overstretched services in Portland, including GP practices, will not be able to cope with further pressure. West Dorset MP Chris Lode has questioned whether the barge itself is safe “to cope with double the weight that it was designed to bear”. A caller to the LBC radio station, meanwhile, has voiced concerns over the vessel’s very narrow and low fire escape routes, saying: “What they [the government] are effectively doing here is creating a potential Grenfell on water, a floating coffin.”

      Such fears are not unfounded. There have been several cases of fires destroying migrant camps in Europe, from the Grand-Synthe camp near Dunkirk in France, in 2017, to the 2020 fire at the Moria camp in Greece. The difficulty of escaping a vessel at sea could turn it into a death trap.

      Performative hostility

      Research on migrant accommodation shows that being able to inhabit a place – even temporarily – and develop feelings of attachment and belonging, is crucial to a person’s wellbeing. Even amid ever tighter border controls, migrants in Europe, who can be described as “stuck on the move”, nonetheless still attempt to inhabit their temporary spaces and form such connections.

      However, designs can hamper such efforts when they concentrate asylum seekers in inhospitable, cut-off spaces. In 2015, Berlin officials began temporarily housing refugees in the former Tempelhof airport, a noisy, alienating industrial space, lacking in privacy and disconnected from the city. Many people ended up staying there for the better part of a year.

      French authorities, meanwhile, opened the Centre Humanitaire Paris-Nord in Paris in 2016, temporary migrant housing in a disused train depot. Nicknamed la Bulle (the bubble) for its bulbous inflatable covering, this facility was noisy and claustrophobic, lacking in basic comforts.

      Like the barge in Portland Port, these facilities, placed in industrial sites, sit uncomfortably between hospitality and hostility. The barge will be fenced off, since the port is a secured zone, and access will be heavily restricted and controlled. The Home Office insists that the barge is not a floating prison, yet it is an unmistakably hostile space.

      Infrastructure for water and electricity will physically link the barge to shore. However, Dorset council has no jurisdiction at sea.

      The commercial agreement on the barge was signed between the Home Office and Portland Port, not the council. Since the vessel is positioned below the mean low water mark, it did not require planning permission.

      This makes the barge an island of sorts, where other rules apply, much like those islands in the Aegean sea and in the Pacific, on which Greece and Australia have respectively housed migrants.

      I have shown how facilities are often designed in this way not to give displaced people any agency, but, on the contrary, to objectify them. They heighten the instability migrants face, keeping them detached from local communities and constantly on the move.

      The government has presented the barge as a cheaper solution than the £6.8 million it is currently spending, daily, on housing asylum seekers in hotels. A recent report by two NGOs, Reclaim the Seas and One Life to Live, concludes, however, that it will save less than £10 a person a day. It could even prove more expensive than the hotel model.

      Sarah Teather, director of the Jesuit Refugee Service UK charity, has described the illegal migration bill as “performative cruelty”. Images of the barge which have flooded the news certainly meet that description too.

      However threatening these images might be, though, they will not stop desperate people from attempting to come to the UK to seek safety. Rather than deterring asylum seekers, the Bibby Stockholm is potentially creating another hazard to them and to their hosting communities.

      https://theconversation.com/performative-cruelty-the-hostile-architecture-of-the-uk-governments

      –---

      Point intéressant, lié à l’aménagement du territoire :

      “Since the vessel is positioned below the mean low water mark, it did not require planning permission”

      C’est un peu comme les #zones_frontalières qui ont été créées un peu partout en Europe (et pas que) pour que les Etats se débarassent des règles en vigueur (notamment le principe du non-refoulement). Voir cette métaliste, à laquelle j’ajoute aussi cet exemple :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/795053

      voir aussi :

      The circumstances at Portland Port are very different because where the barge is to be positioned is below the mean low water mark. This means that the barge is outside of our planning control and there is no requirement for planning permission from the council.

      https://news.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/2023/07/18/leaders-comments-on-the-home-office-barge

      #hostile_architecture #architecture_hostile #dignité #espace #Portland #hostilité #hostilité_performative #île #infrastructure #extraterritorialité #extra-territorialité #prix #coût

    • Sur l’#histoire (notamment liées au commerce d’ #esclaves) de la Bibby Stockholm :

      Bibby Line, shipowners

      Information
      From Guide to the Records of Merseyside Maritime Museum, volume 1: Bibby Line. In 1807 John Bibby and John Highfield, Liverpool shipbrokers, began taking shares in ships, mainly Parkgate Dublin packets. By 1821 (the end of the partnership) they had vessels sailing to the Mediterranean and South America. In 1850 they expanded their Mediterranean and Black Sea interests by buying two steamers and by 1865 their fleet had increased to twenty three. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 severely affected their business and Frederick Leyland, their general manager, failed to persuade the family partners to diversify onto the Atlantic. Eventually, he bought them out in 1873. In 1889 the Bibby family revived its shipowning interests with a successful passenger cargo service to Burma. From 1893 it also began to carry British troops to overseas postings which remained a Bibby staple until 1962. The Burma service ended in 1971 and the company moved to new areas of shipowning including bulkers, gas tankers and accommodation barges. It still has its head office in Liverpool where most management records are held. The museum holds models of the Staffordshire (1929) and Oxfordshire (1955). For further details see the attached catalogue or contact The Archives Centre for a copy of the catalogue.

      The earliest records within the collection, the ships’ logs at B/BIBBY/1/1/1 - 1/1/3 show company vessels travelling between Europe and South America carrying cargoes that would have been produced on plantations using the labour of enslaved peoples or used within plantation and slave based economies. For example the vessel Thomas (B/BIBBY/1/1/1) carries a cargo of iron hoops for barrels to Brazil in 1812. The Mary Bibby on a voyage in 1825-1826 loads a cargo of sugar in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to carry to Rotterdam. The log (B/BIBBY/1/1/3) records the use of ’negroes’ to work with the ship’s carpenter while the vessel is in port.

      In September 1980 the latest Bibby vessel to hold the name Derbyshire was lost with all hands in the South China Sea. This collection does not include records relating to that vessel or its sinking, apart from a copy ’Motor vessel ’Derbyshire’, 1976-80: in memoriam’ at reference B/BIBBY/3/2/1 (a copy is also available in The Archives Centre library collection at 340.DER). Information about the sinking and subsequent campaigning by the victims’ family can be found on the NML website and in the Life On Board gallery. The Archives Centre holds papers of Captain David Ramwell who assisted the Derbyshire Family Association at D/RAM and other smaller collections of related documents within the DX collection.

      https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/bibby-line-shipowners

      –—
      An Open Letter to #Bibby_Marine

      Links between your parent company #Bibby_Line_Group (#BLG) and the slave trade have repeatedly been made. If true, we appeal to you to consider what actions you might take in recompense.

      Bibby Marine’s modern slavery statement says that one of the company’s values is to “do the right thing”, and that you “strongly support the eradication of slavery, as well as the eradication of servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking”. These are admirable words.

      Meanwhile, your parent company’s website says that it is “family owned with a rich history”. Please will you clarify whether this rich history includes slaving voyages where ships were owned, and cargoes transported, by BLG’s founder John Bibby, six generations ago. The BLG website says that in 1807 (which is when slavery was abolished in Britain), “John Bibby began trading as a shipowner in Liverpool with his partner John Highfield”. John Bibby is listed as co-owner of three slaving ships, of which John Highfield co-owned two:

      In 1805, the Harmonie (co-owned by #John_Bibby and three others, including John Highfield) left Liverpool for a voyage which carried 250 captives purchased in West Central Africa and St Helena, delivering them to Cumingsberg in 1806 (see the SlaveVoyages database using Voyage ID 81732).
      In 1806, the Sally (co-owned by John Bibby and two others) left Liverpool for a voyage which transported 250 captives purchased in Bassa and delivered them to Barbados (see the SlaveVoyages database using Voyage ID 83481).
      In 1806, the Eagle (co-owned by John Bibby and four others, including John Highfield) left Liverpool for a voyage which transported 237 captives purchased in Cameroon and delivered them to Kingston in 1807 (see the SlaveVoyages database using Voyage ID 81106).

      The same and related claims were recently mentioned by Private Eye. They also appear in the story of Liverpool’s Calderstones Park [PDF] and on the website of National Museums Liverpool and in this blog post “Shenanigans in Shipping” (a detailed history of the BLG). They are also mentioned by Laurence Westgaph, a TV presenter specialising in Black British history and slavery and the author of Read The Signs: Street Names with a Connection to the Transatlantic Slave Trade and Abolition in Liverpool [PDF], published with the support of English Heritage, The City of Liverpool, Northwest Regional Development Agency, National Museums Liverpool and Liverpool Vision.

      While of course your public pledges on slavery underline that there is no possibility of there being any link between the activities of John Bibby and John Highfield in the early 1800s and your activities in 2023, we do believe that it is in the public interest to raise this connection, and to ask for a public expression of your categorical renunciation of the reported slave trade activities of Mr Bibby and Mr Highfield.

      https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/an-open-letter-to-bibby-marine

      –-

      Très peu d’info sur John Bibby sur wikipedia :

      John Bibby (19 February 1775 – 17 July 1840) was the founder of the British Bibby Line shipping company. He was born in Eccleston, near Ormskirk, Lancashire. He was murdered on 17 July 1840 on his way home from dinner at a friend’s house in Kirkdale.[1]


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bibby_(businessman)

    • ‘Floating Prisons’: The 200-year-old family #business behind the Bibby Stockholm

      #Bibby_Line_Group_Limited is a UK company offering financial, marine and construction services to clients in at least 16 countries around the world. It recently made headlines after the government announced one of the firm’s vessels, Bibby Stockholm, would be used to accommodate asylum seekers on the Dorset coast.

      In tandem with plans to house migrants at surplus military sites, the move was heralded by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman as a way of mitigating the £6m-a-day cost of hotel accommodation amid the massive ongoing backlog of asylum claims, as well as deterring refugees from making the dangerous channel crossing to the UK. Several protests have been organised against the project already, while over ninety migrants’ rights groups and hundreds of individual campaigners have signed an open letter to the Home Secretary calling for the plans to be scrapped, describing the barge as a “floating prison.”

      Corporate Watch has researched into the Bibby Line Group’s operations and financial interests. We found that:

      - The Bibby Stockholm vessel was previously used as a floating detention centre in the Netherlands, where undercover reporting revealed violence, sexual exploitation and poor sanitation.

      – Bibby Line Group is more than 90% owned by members of the Bibby family, primarily through trusts. Its pre-tax profits for 2021 stood at almost £31m, which they upped to £35.5m by claiming generous tax credits and deferring a fair amount to the following year.

      - Management aboard the vessel will be overseen by an Australian business travel services company, Corporate Travel Management, who have previously had aspersions cast over the financial health of their operations and the integrity of their business practices.

      - Another beneficiary of the initiative is Langham Industries, a maritime and engineering company whose owners, the Langham family, have longstanding ties to right wing parties.

      Key Issues

      According to the Home Office, the Bibby Stockholm barge will be operational for at least 18 months, housing approximately 500 single adult men while their claims are processed, with “24/7 security in place on board, to minimise the disruption to local communities.” These measures appear to have been to dissuade opposition from the local Conservative council, who pushed for background checks on detainees and were reportedly even weighing legal action out of concern for a perceived threat of physical attacks from those housed onboard, as well as potential attacks from the far right against migrants held there.

      Local campaigners have taken aim at the initiative, noting in the open letter:

      “For many people seeking asylum arriving in the UK, the sea represents a site of significant trauma as they have been forced to cross it on one or more occasions. Housing people on a sea barge – which we argue is equal to a floating prison – is morally indefensible, and threatens to re-traumatise a group of already vulnerable people.”

      Technically, migrants on the barge will be able to leave the site. However, in reality they will be under significant levels of surveillance and cordoned off behind fences in the high security port area.

      If they leave, there is an expectation they will return by 11pm, and departure will be controlled by the authorities. According to the Home Office:

      “In order to ensure that migrants come and go in an orderly manner with as little impact as possible, buses will be provided to take those accommodated on the vessel from the port to local drop off points”.

      These drop off points are to be determined by the government, while being sited off the coast of Dorset means they will be isolated from centres of support and solidarity.

      Meanwhile, the government’s new Illegal Migration Bill is designed to provide a legal justification for the automatic detention of refugees crossing the Channel. If it passes, there’s a chance this might set the stage for a change in regime on the Bibby Stockholm – from that of an “accommodation centre” to a full-blown migrant prison.

      An initial release from the Home Office suggested the local voluntary sector would be engaged “to organise activities that keep occupied those being accommodated, potentially involved in local volunteering activity,” though they seemed to have changed the wording after critics said this would mean detainees could be effectively exploited for unpaid labour. It’s also been reported the vessel required modifications in order to increase capacity to the needed level, raising further concerns over cramped living conditions and a lack of privacy.

      Bibby Line Group has prior form in border profiteering. From 1994 to 1998, the Bibby Stockholm was used to house the homeless, some of whom were asylum seekers, in Hamburg, Germany. In 2005, it was used to detain asylum seekers in the Netherlands, which proved a cause of controversy at the time. Undercover reporting revealed a number of cases abuse on board, such as beatings and sexual exploitation, as well suicide attempts, routine strip searches, scabies and the death of an Algerian man who failed to receive timely medical care for a deteriorating heart condition. As the undercover security guard wrote:

      “The longer I work on the Bibby Stockholm, the more I worry about safety on the boat. Between exclusion and containment I encounter so many defects and feel so much tension among the prisoners that it no longer seems to be a question of whether things will get completely out of hand here, but when.”

      He went on:

      “I couldn’t stand the way prisoners were treated […] The staff become like that, because the whole culture there is like that. Inhuman. They do not see the residents as people with a history, but as numbers.”

      Discussions were also held in August 2017 over the possibility of using the vessel as accommodation for some 400 students in Galway, Ireland, amid the country’s housing crisis. Though the idea was eventually dropped for lack of mooring space and planning permission requirements, local students had voiced safety concerns over the “bizarre” and “unconventional” solution to a lack of rental opportunities.
      Corporate Travel Management & Langham Industries

      Although leased from Bibby Line Group, management aboard the Bibby Stockholm itself will be handled by #Corporate_Travel_Management (#CTM), a global travel company specialising in business travel services. The Australian-headquartered company also recently received a £100m contract for the provision of accommodation, travel, venue and ancillary booking services for the housing of Ukrainian refugees at local hotels and aboard cruise ships M/S Victoria and M/S Ambition. The British Red Cross warned earlier in May against continuing to house refugees on ships with “isolated” and “windowless” cabins, and said the scheme had left many “living in limbo.”

      Founded by CEO #Jamie_Pherous, CTM was targeted in 2018 by #VGI_Partners, a group of short-sellers, who identified more than 20 red flags concerning the company’s business interests. Most strikingly, the short-sellers said they’d attended CTM’s offices in Glasgow, Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm and Switzerland. Finding no signs of business activity there, they said it was possible the firm had significantly overstated the scale of its operations. VGI Partners also claimed CTM’s cash flows didn’t seem to add up when set against the company’s reported growth, and that CTM hadn’t fully disclosed revisions they’d made to their annual revenue figures.

      Two years later, the short-sellers released a follow-up report, questioning how CTM had managed to report a drop in rewards granted for high sales numbers to travel agencies, when in fact their transaction turnover had grown during the same period. They also accused CTM of dressing up their debt balance to make their accounts look healthier.

      CTM denied VGI Partners’ allegations. In their response, they paraphrased a report by auditors EY, supposedly confirming there were no question marks over their business practices, though the report itself was never actually made public. They further claim VGI Partners, as short-sellers, had only released the reports in the hope of benefitting from uncertainty over CTM’s operations.

      Despite these troubles, CTM’s market standing improved drastically earlier this year, when it was announced the firm had secured contracts for the provision of travel services to the UK Home Office worth in excess of $3bn AUD (£1.6bn). These have been accompanied by further tenders with, among others, the National Audit Office, HS2, Cafcass, Serious Fraud Office, Office of National Statistics, HM Revenue & Customs, National Health Service, Ministry of Justice, Department of Education, Foreign Office, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

      The Home Office has not released any figures on the cost of either leasing or management services aboard Bibby Stockholm, though press reports have put the estimated price tag at more than £20,000 a day for charter and berthing alone. If accurate, this would put the overall expenditure for the 18-month period in which the vessel will operate as a detention centre at almost £11m, exclusive of actual detention centre management costs such as security, food and healthcare.

      Another beneficiary of the project are Portland Port’s owners, #Langham_Industries, a maritime and engineering company owned by the #Langham family. The family has long-running ties to right-wing parties. Langham Industries donated over £70,000 to the UK Independence Party from 2003 up until the 2016 Brexit referendum. In 2014, Langham Industries donated money to support the re-election campaign of former Clacton MP for UKIP Douglas Carswell, shortly after his defection from the Conservatives. #Catherine_Langham, a Tory parish councillor for Hilton in Dorset, has described herself as a Langham Industries director (although she is not listed on Companies House). In 2016 she was actively involved in local efforts to support the campaign to leave the European Union. The family holds a large estate in Dorset which it uses for its other line of business, winemaking.

      At present, there is no publicly available information on who will be providing security services aboard the Bibby Stockholm.

      Business Basics

      Bibby Line Group describes itself as “one of the UK’s oldest family owned businesses,” operating in “multiple countries, employing around 1,300 colleagues, and managing over £1 billion of funds.” Its head office is registered in Liverpool, with other headquarters in Scotland, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Malaysia, France, Slovakia, Czechia, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and Nigeria (see the appendix for more). The company’s primary sectors correspond to its three main UK subsidiaries:

      #Bibby_Financial_Services. A global provider of financial services. The firm provides loans to small- and medium-sized businesses engaged in business services, construction, manufacturing, transportation, export, recruitment and wholesale markets. This includes invoice financing, export and trade finance, and foreign exchanges. Overall, the subsidiary manages more than £6bn each year on behalf of some 9,000 clients across 300 different industry sectors, and in 2021 it brought in more than 50% of the group’s annual turnover.

      - #Bibby_Marine_Limited. Owner and operator of the Bibby WaveMaster fleet, a group of vessels specialising in the transport and accommodation of workers employed at remote locations, such as offshore oil and gas sites in the North Sea. Sometimes, as in the case of Chevron’s Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) project in Nigeria, the vessels are used as an alternative to hotels owing to a “a volatile project environment.” The fleet consists of 40 accommodation vessels similar in size to the Bibby Stockholm and a smaller number of service vessels, though the share of annual turnover pales compared to the group’s financial services operations, standing at just under 10% for 2021.

      - #Garic Ltd. Confined to construction, quarrying, airport, agriculture and transport sectors in the UK, the firm designs, manufactures and purchases plant equipment and machinery for sale or hire. Garic brought in around 14% of Bibby Line Group’s turnover in 2021.

      Prior to February 2021, Bibby Line Group also owned #Costcutter_Supermarkets_Group, before it was sold to #Bestway_Wholesale to maintain liquidity amid the Covid-19 pandemic. In their report for that year, the company’s directors also suggested grant funding from #MarRI-UK, an organisation facilitating innovation in maritime technologies and systems, had been important in preserving the firm’s position during the crisis.
      History

      The Bibby Line Group’s story begins in 1807, when Lancashire-born shipowner John Bibby began trading out of Liverpool with partner John Highfield. By the time of his death in 1840, murdered while returning home from dinner with a friend in Kirkdale, Bibby had struck out on his own and come to manage a fleet of more than 18 ships. The mysterious case of his death has never been solved, and the business was left to his sons John and James.

      Between 1891 and 1989, the company operated under the name #Bibby_Line_Limited. Its ships served as hospital and transport vessels during the First World War, as well as merchant cruisers, and the company’s entire fleet of 11 ships was requisitioned by the state in 1939.

      By 1970, the company had tripled its overseas earnings, branching into ‘factoring’, or invoice financing (converting unpaid invoices into cash for immediate use via short-term loans) in the early 1980s, before this aspect of the business was eventually spun off into Bibby Financial Services. The group acquired Garic Ltd in 2008, which currently operates four sites across the UK.

      People

      #Jonathan_Lewis has served as Bibby Line Group’s Managing and Executive Director since January 2021, prior to which he acted as the company’s Chief Financial and Strategy Officer since joining in 2019. Previously, Lewis worked as CFO for Imagination Technologies, a tech company specialising in semiconductors, and as head of supermarket Tesco’s mergers and acquisitions team. He was also a member of McKinsey’s European corporate finance practice, as well as an investment banker at Lazard. During his first year at the helm of Bibby’s operations, he was paid £748,000. Assuming his role at the head of the group’s operations, he replaced Paul Drescher, CBE, then a board member of the UK International Chamber of Commerce and a former president of the Confederation of British Industry.

      Bibby Line Group’s board also includes two immediate members of the Bibby family, Sir #Michael_James_Bibby, 3rd Bt. and his younger brother #Geoffrey_Bibby. Michael has acted as company chairman since 2020, before which he had occupied senior management roles in the company for 20 years. He also has external experience, including time at Unilever’s acquisitions, disposals and joint venture divisions, and now acts as president of the UK Chamber of Shipping, chairman of the Charities Trust, and chairman of the Institute of Family Business Research Foundation.

      Geoffrey has served as a non-executive director of the company since 2015, having previously worked as a managing director of Vast Visibility Ltd, a digital marketing and technology company. In 2021, the Bibby brothers received salaries of £125,000 and £56,000 respectively.

      The final member of the firm’s board is #David_Anderson, who has acted as non-executive director since 2012. A financier with 35 years experience in investment banking, he’s founder and CEO of EPL Advisory – which advises company boards on requirements and disclosure obligations of public markets – and chair of Creative Education Trust, a multi-academy trust comprising 17 schools. Anderson is also chairman at multinational ship broker Howe Robinson Partners, which recently auctioned off a superyacht seized from Dmitry Pumpyansky, after the sanctioned Russian businessman reneged on a €20.5m loan from JP Morgan. In 2021, Anderson’s salary stood at £55,000.

      Ownership

      Bibby Line Group’s annual report and accounts for 2021 state that more than 90% of the company is owned by members of the Bibby family, primarily through family trusts. These ownership structures, effectively entities allowing people to benefit from assets without being their registered legal owners, have long attracted staunch criticism from transparency advocates given the obscurity they afford means they often feature extensively in corruption, money laundering and tax abuse schemes.

      According to Companies House, the UK corporate registry, between 50% and 75% of Bibby Line Group’s shares and voting rights are owned by #Bibby_Family_Company_Limited, which also retains the right to appoint and remove members of the board. Directors of Bibby Family Company Limited include both the Bibby brothers, as well as a third sibling, #Peter_John_Bibby, who’s formally listed as the firm’s ‘ultimate beneficial owner’ (i.e. the person who ultimately profits from the company’s assets).

      Other people with comparable shares in Bibby Family Company Limited are #Mark_Rupert_Feeny, #Philip_Charles_Okell, and Lady #Christine_Maud_Bibby. Feeny’s occupation is listed as solicitor, with other interests in real estate management and a position on the board of the University of Liverpool Pension Fund Trustees Limited. Okell meanwhile appears as director of Okell Money Management Limited, a wealth management firm, while Lady Bibby, Michael and Geoffrey’s mother, appears as “retired playground supervisor.”

      Key Relationships

      Bibby Line Group runs an internal ‘Donate a Day’ volunteer program, enabling employees to take paid leave in order to “help causes they care about.” Specific charities colleagues have volunteered with, listed in the company’s Annual Review for 2021 to 2022, include:

      - The Hive Youth Zone. An award-winning charity for young people with disabilities, based in the Wirral.

      – The Whitechapel Centre. A leading homeless and housing charity in the Liverpool region, working with people sleeping rough, living in hostels, or struggling with their accommodation.

      - Let’s Play Project. Another charity specialising in after-school and holiday activities for young people with additional needs in the Banbury area.

      - Whitdale House. A care home for the elderly, based in Whitburn, West Lothian and run by the local council.

      – DEBRA. An Irish charity set up in 1988 for individuals living with a rare, painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa, as well as their families.

      – Reaching Out Homeless Outreach. A non-profit providing resources and support to the homeless in Ireland.

      Various senior executives and associated actors at Bibby Line Group and its subsidiaries also have current and former ties to the following organisations:

      - UK Chamber of Shipping

      - Charities Trust

      - Institute of Family Business Research Foundation

      - Indefatigable Old Boys Association

      - Howe Robinson Partners

      - hibu Ltd

      - EPL Advisory

      - Creative Education Trust

      - Capita Health and Wellbeing Limited

      - The Ambassador Theatre Group Limited

      – Pilkington Plc

      – UK International Chamber of Commerce

      – Confederation of British Industry

      – Arkley Finance Limited (Weatherby’s Banking Group)

      – FastMarkets Ltd, Multiple Sclerosis Society

      – Early Music as Education

      – Liverpool Pension Fund Trustees Limited

      – Okell Money Management Limited

      Finances

      For the period ending 2021, Bibby Line Group’s total turnover stood at just under £260m, with a pre-tax profit of almost £31m – fairly healthy for a company providing maritime services during a global pandemic. Their post-tax profits in fact stood at £35.5m, an increase they would appear to have secured by claiming generous tax credits (£4.6m) and deferring a fair amount (£8.4m) to the following year.

      Judging by their last available statement on the firm’s profitability, Bibby’s directors seem fairly confident the company has adequate financing and resources to continue operations for the foreseeable future. They stress their February 2021 sale of Costcutter was an important step in securing this, given it provided additional liquidity during the pandemic, as well as the funding secured for R&D on fuel consumption by Bibby Marine’s fleet.
      Scandal Sheet

      Bibby Line Group and its subsidiaries have featured in a number of UK legal proceedings over the years, sometimes as defendants. One notable case is Godfrey v Bibby Line, a lawsuit brought against the company in 2019 after one of their former employees died as the result of an asbestos-related disease.

      In their claim, the executors of Alan Peter Godfrey’s estate maintained that between 1965 and 1972, he was repeatedly exposed to large amounts of asbestos while working on board various Bibby vessels. Although the link between the material and fatal lung conditions was established as early as 1930, they claimed that Bibby Line, among other things:

      “Failed to warn the deceased of the risk of contracting asbestos related disease or of the precautions to be taken in relation thereto;

      “Failed to heed or act upon the expert evidence available to them as to the best means of protecting their workers from danger from asbestos dust; [and]

      “Failed to take all reasonably practicable measures, either by securing adequate ventilation or by the provision and use of suitable respirators or otherwise, to prevent inhalation of dust.”

      The lawsuit, which claimed “unlimited damage”’ against the group, also stated that Mr Godfrey’s “condition deteriorated rapidly with worsening pain and debility,” and that he was “completely dependent upon others for his needs by the last weeks of his life.” There is no publicly available information on how the matter was concluded.

      In 2017, Bibby Line Limited also featured in a leak of more than 13.4 million financial records known as the Paradise Papers, specifically as a client of Appleby, which provided “offshore corporate services” such as legal and accountancy work. According to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a global network of investigative media outlets, leaked Appleby documents revealed, among other things, “the ties between Russia and [Trump’s] billionaire commerce secretary, the secret dealings of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief fundraiser and the offshore interests of the Queen of England and more than 120 politicians around the world.”

      This would not appear to be the Bibby group’s only link to the shady world of offshore finance. Michael Bibby pops up as a treasurer for two shell companies registered in Panama, Minimar Transport S.A. and Vista Equities Inc.
      Looking Forward

      Much about the Bibby Stockholm saga remains to be seen. The exact cost of the initiative and who will be providing security services on board, are open questions. What’s clear however is that activists will continue to oppose the plans, with efforts to prevent the vessel sailing from Falmouth to its final docking in Portland scheduled to take place on 30th June.

      Appendix: Company Addresses

      HQ and general inquiries: 3rd Floor Walker House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool, United Kingdom, L2 3YL

      Tel: +44 (0) 151 708 8000

      Other offices, as of 2021:

      6, Shenton Way, #18-08A Oue Downtown 068809, Singapore

      1/1, The Exchange Building, 142 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, G2 5LA, United Kingdom

      4th Floor Heather House, Heather Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18, Ireland

      Unit 2302, 23/F Jubilee Centre, 18 Fenwick Street, Wanchai, Hong Kong

      Unit 508, Fifth Floor, Metropolis Mall, MG Road, Gurugram, Haryana, 122002 India

      Suite 7E, Level 7, Menara Ansar, 65 Jalan Trus, 8000 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

      160 Avenue Jean Jaures, CS 90404, 69364 Lyon Cedex, France

      Prievozská 4D, Block E, 13th Floor, Bratislava 821 09, Slovak Republic

      Hlinky 118, Brno, 603 00, Czech Republic

      Laan Van Diepenvoorde 5, 5582 LA, Waalre, Netherlands

      Hansaallee 249, 40549 Düsseldorf, Germany

      Poland Eurocentrum, Al. Jerozolimskie 134, 02-305 Warsaw, Poland

      1/2 Atarbekova str, 350062, Krasnodar, Krasnodar

      1 St Peter’s Square, Manchester, M2 3AE, United Kingdom

      25 Adeyemo Alakija Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria

      10 Anson Road, #09-17 International Plaza, 079903 Singapore

      https://corporatewatch.org/floating-prisons-the-200-year-old-family-business-behind-the-bibby-s

      signalé ici aussi par @rezo:
      https://seenthis.net/messages/1010504

    • The Langham family seem quite happy to support right-wing political parties that are against immigration, while at the same time profiting handsomely from the misery of refugees who are forced to claim sanctuary here.


      https://twitter.com/PositiveActionH/status/1687817910364884992

      –---

      Family firm ’profiteering from misery’ by providing migrant barges donated £70k to #UKIP

      The Langham family, owners of Langham Industries, is now set to profit from an 18-month contract with the Home Office to let the Bibby Stockholm berth at Portland, Dorset

      A family firm that donated more than £70,000 to UKIP is “profiteering from misery” by hosting the Government’s controversial migrant barge. Langham Industries owns Portland Port, where the Bibby Stockholm is docked in a deal reported to be worth some £2.5million.

      The Langham family owns luxurious properties and has links to high-profile politicians, including Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden. And we can reveal that their business made 19 donations to pro-Brexit party UKIP between 2003 and 2016.

      Late founder John Langham was described as an “avid supporter” of UKIP in an obituary in 2017. Now his children, John, Jill and Justin – all directors of the family firm – are set to profit from an 18-month contract with the Home Office to let the Bibby Stockholm berth at Portland, Dorset.

      While Portland Port refuses to reveal how much the Home Office is paying, its website cites berthing fees for a ship the size of the Bibby Stockholm at more than £4,000 a day. In 2011, Portland Port chairman John, 71, invested £3.7million in Grade II* listed country pile Steeple Manor at Wareham, Dorset. Dating to around 1600, it has a pond, tennis court and extensive gardens designed by the landscape architect Brenda Colvin.

      The arrangement to host the “prison-like” barge for housing migrants has led some locals to blast the Langhams, who have owned the port since 1997. Portland mayor Carralyn Parkes, 61, said: “I don’t know how John Langham will sleep at night in his luxurious home, with his tennis court and his fluffy bed, when asylum seekers are sleeping in tiny beds on the barge.

      “I went on the boat and measured the rooms with a tape measure. On average they are about 10ft by 12ft. The bunk bed mattresses are about 6ft long. If you’re taller than 6ft you’re stuffed. The Langham family need to have more humanity. They are only interested in making money. It’s shocking.”

      (#paywall)
      https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/family-firm-profiteering-misery-providing-30584405.amp

      #UK_Independence_Party

    • ‘This is a prison’: men tell of distressing conditions on Bibby Stockholm

      Asylum seekers share fears about Dorset barge becoming even more crowded, saying they already ‘despair and wish for death’

      Asylum seekers brought back to the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, Dorset, have said they are being treated in such a way that “we despair and wish for death”.

      The Guardian spoke to two men in their first interview since their return to the barge on 19 October after the vessel lay empty for more than two months. The presence of deadly legionella bacteria was confirmed on board on 7 August, the same day the first group of asylum seekers arrived. The barge was evacuated four days later.

      The new warning comes after it emerged that one asylum seeker attempted to kill himself and is in hospital after finding out he is due to be taken to the barge on Tuesday.

      A man currently on the barge told the Guardian: “Government decisions are turning healthy and normal refugees into mental patients whom they then hand over to society. Here, many people were healthy and coping with OK spirits, but as a result of the dysfunctional strategies of the government, they have suffered – and continue to suffer – from various forms of serious mental distress. We are treated in such a way that we despair and wish for death.”

      He said that although the asylum seekers were not detained on the barge and could leave to visit the nearby town, in practice, doing so was not easy.

      He added: “In the barge, we have exactly the feeling of being in prison. It is true that they say that this is not a prison and you can go outside at any time, but you can only go to specific stops at certain times by bus, and this does not give me a good feeling.

      “Even to use the fresh air, you have to go through the inspection every time and go to the small yard with high fences and go through the X-ray machine again. And this is not good for our health.

      “In short, this is a prison whose prisoners are not criminals, they are people who have fled their country just to save their lives and have taken shelter here to live.”

      The asylum seekers raised concerns about what conditions on the barge would be like if the Home Office did fill it with about 500 asylum seekers, as officials say is the plan. Those on board said it already felt quite full with about 70 people living there.

      The second asylum seeker said: “The space inside the barge is very small. It feels crowded in the dining hall and the small entertainment room. It is absolutely clear to me that there will be chaos here soon.

      “According to my estimate, as I look at the spaces around us, the capacity of this barge is maximum 120 people, including personnel and crew. The strategy of ​​transferring refugees from hotels to barges or ships or military installations is bound to fail.

      “The situation here on the barge is getting worse. Does the government have a plan for shipwrecked residents? Everyone here is going mad with anxiety. It is not just the barge that floats on the water, but the plans of the government that are radically adrift.”

      Maddie Harris of the NGO Humans For Rights Network, which supports asylum seekers in hotels, said: “Home Office policies directly contribute to the significant deterioration of the wellbeing and mental health of so many asylum seekers in their ‘care’, with a dehumanising environment, violent anti-migrant rhetoric and isolated accommodations away from community and lacking in support.”

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “The Bibby Stockholm is part of the government’s pledge to reduce the use of expensive hotels and bring forward alternative accommodation options which provide a more cost-effective, sustainable and manageable system for the UK taxpayer and local communities.

      “The health and welfare of asylum seekers remains the utmost priority. We work continually to ensure the needs and vulnerabilities of those residing in asylum accommodation are identified and considered, including those related to mental health and trauma.”

      Nadia Whittome and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Labour MPs for Nottingham East and Brighton Kemptown respectively, will travel to Portland on Monday to meet asylum seekers accommodated on the Bibby Stockholm barge and local community members.

      The visit follows the home secretary, Suella Braverman, not approving a visit from the MPs to assess living conditions as they requested through parliamentary channels.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/29/this-is-a-prison-men-tell-of-distressing-conditions-on-bibby-stockholm
      #prison #conditions_de_vie

  • French publisher arrested in London on terrorism charge
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/18/french-publisher-arrested-london-counter-terrorism-police-ernest-moret

    Tous des Feltrinelli ... dorénavant nos idées et informations sensibles ne passeront les frontières que dans le coffre fort de notre tête (ou dans une figure de la danse des électrons composant une connexion chiffrée).

    Rien n’a changé depuis l’époque de Heinrich Heine.
    http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/M/Heine,+Heinrich/Versepen/Deutschland.+Ein+Winterm%C3%A4rchen/Caput+2

    Ihr Toren, die ihr im Koffer sucht!
    Hier werdet ihr nichts entdecken!
    Die Konterbande, die mit mir reist,
    Die hab ich im Kopfe stecken.

    Le poème de 1844 donne un sens au fait divers. Cet éditeur ne prend pas au sérieux les textes de révoltés qu’il publie. Soyons clairs, les libertés garanties par les constitutions des états bourgeois ne le sont que pour les bourgeois, les vrais, pas pour les petits bourgeois rebelles.

    18.4.2023 by Matthew Weaver - A French publisher has been arrested on terror charges in London after being questioned by UK police about participating in anti-government protests in France.

    Ernest Moret, 28, a foreign rights manager for Éditions la Fabrique, was approached by two plainclothes officers at St Pancras station on Monday evening after arriving by train from Paris to attend the London book fair.

    He was questioned for six hours and then arrested for alleged obstruction in refusing to disclose the passcodes to his phone and computer. His treatment was condemned as an attack on the right to demonstrate, amid calls for protests outside the UK embassy in Paris and the French Institute in London.

    Moret arrived at St Pancras at 7.15pm with his colleague Stella Magliani-Belkacem, the editorial director at the Paris-based publishing house, to be confronted by the two officers.

    Magliani-Belkacem told the Guardian: “When we were on the platform, two people, a woman and a guy, told us they were counter-terrorist police. They showed a paper called section 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and said they had the right to ask him about demonstrations in France.”

    She added: “I’m still shaking. We are in shock about what happened.”

    She said French publishers had drafted a joint letter calling for a protest outside the British embassy in France on Tuesday evening about Moret’s treatment.

    When the officers began questioning Moret, Magliani-Belkacem called her friend Sebastian Budgen, a senior editor at Verso Books in London, at whose home she and Moret had arranged to stay.

    Budgen arranged for a lawyer to visit Moret. The lawyer called Budgen at 1am on Tuesday to confirm that Moret had been arrested over his refusal to tell police the passcodes to his confiscated phone and laptop. He was transferred to a police station in Islington, north London, where he remained in custody on Tuesday. He was later released on bail.

    Éditions la Fabrique is known for publishing radical left authors. Moret also represents the French science fiction novelist Alain Damasio and had arranged more than 40 appointments at the London book fair.

    A joint press release from Verso Books and Éditions la Fabrique condemned Moret’s treatment as “scandalous”.

    It said: “The police officers claimed that Ernest had participated in demonstrations in France as a justification for this act – a quite remarkably inappropriate statement for a British police officer to make, and which seems to clearly indicate complicity between French and British authorities on this matter.”

    It added: “We consider these actions to be outrageous and unjustifiable infringements of basic principles of the freedom of expression and an example of the abuse of anti-terrorism laws.”

    The statement said a protest was planned at the French Institute in London and called on France’s ambassador to the UK, Hélène Duchêne, to request Moret’s immediate release.

    Budgen said: “It is causing a stink at the London book fair and there’s a big stink in France as well … there’s been an increasingly repressive approach by the French government to the demonstrations, both in terms of police violence, but also in terms of a security clampdown.”

    Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in France last month over Emmanuel Macron’s use of constitutional executive powers to push through an unpopular increase in the pension age. The protests caused King Charles’s planned visit to France, his first overseas tour as monarch, to be postponed.

    The writers’ association Pen International said it was “deeply concerned” that Moret was detained on counter-terrorism grounds.

    Pamela Morton, senior books and magazines organiser for the National Union of Journalists, also expressed concern.

    She said it seemed “extraordinary that the British police have acted this way” in arresting a publisher on the way to the London book fair. “We will be taking this up with the police,” she added.

    A Metropolitan police spokesperson said: “At around 7.30pm on Monday 17 April, a 28-year-old man was stopped by ports officers as he arrived at St Pancras station, using powers under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

    “On Tuesday 18 April, the man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of wilfully obstructing a schedule 7 examination, contrary to section 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000.”

    #Royaume_Uni #France #frontières #répression #liberté_d_expression

    • French publisher arrested in London on terrorism charge | UK news | The Guardian
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/18/french-publisher-arrested-london-counter-terrorism-police-ernest-moret

      Ernest Moret was stopped at rail station and taken into custody, where he was questioned about his participation in French protests

      A French publisher has been arrested on terror charges in London after being questioned by UK police about participating in anti-government protests in France.

      Ernest Moret, 28, a foreign rights manager for Éditions la Fabrique, was approached by two plainclothes officers at St Pancras station on Monday evening after arriving by train from Paris to attend the London book fair.

      He was questioned for six hours and then arrested for alleged obstruction in refusing to disclose the passcodes to his phone and computer. His treatment was condemned as an attack on the right to demonstrate, amid calls for protests outside the UK embassy in Paris and the French Institute in London.

      Moret arrived at St Pancras at 7.15pm with his colleague Stella Magliani-Belkacem, the editorial director at the Paris-based publishing house, to be confronted by the two officers.

      Magliani-Belkacem told the Guardian: “When we were on the platform, two people, a woman and a guy, told us they were counter-terrorist police. They showed a paper called section 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and said they had the right to ask him about demonstrations in France.”

      She added: “I’m still shaking. We are in shock about what happened.”

      She said French publishers had drafted a joint letter calling for a protest outside the British embassy in France on Tuesday evening about Moret’s treatment.

      When the officers began questioning Moret, Magliani-Belkacem called her friend Sebastian Budgen, a senior editor at Verso Books in London, at whose home she and Moret had arranged to stay.

      Budgen arranged for a lawyer to visit Moret. The lawyer called Budgen at 1am on Tuesday to confirm that Moret had been arrested over his refusal to tell police the passcodes to his confiscated phone and laptop. He was transferred to a police station in Islington, north London, where he remained in custody on Tuesday. He was later released on bail.

      Éditions la Fabrique is known for publishing radical left authors. Moret also represents the French science fiction novelist Alain Damasio and had arranged more than 40 appointments at the London book fair.

      A joint press release from Verso Books and Éditions la Fabrique condemned Moret’s treatment as “scandalous”.

      It said: “The police officers claimed that Ernest had participated in demonstrations in France as a justification for this act – a quite remarkably inappropriate statement for a British police officer to make, and which seems to clearly indicate complicity between French and British authorities on this matter.”

      It added: “We consider these actions to be outrageous and unjustifiable infringements of basic principles of the freedom of expression and an example of the abuse of anti-terrorism laws.”

      The statement said a protest was planned at the French Institute in London and called on France’s ambassador to the UK, Hélène Duchêne, to request Moret’s immediate release.

      Budgen said: “It is causing a stink at the London book fair and there’s a big stink in France as well … there’s been an increasingly repressive approach by the French government to the demonstrations, both in terms of police violence, but also in terms of a security clampdown.”

      Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in France last month over Emmanuel Macron’s use of constitutional executive powers to push through an unpopular increase in the pension age. The protests caused King Charles’s planned visit to France, his first overseas tour as monarch, to be postponed.

      The writers’ association Pen International said it was “deeply concerned” that Moret was detained on counter-terrorism grounds.

      Pamela Morton, senior books and magazines organiser for the National Union of Journalists, also expressed concern.

      She said it seemed “extraordinary that the British police have acted this way” in arresting a publisher on the way to the London book fair. “We will be taking this up with the police,” she added.

      A Metropolitan police spokesperson said: “At around 7.30pm on Monday 17 April, a 28-year-old man was stopped by ports officers as he arrived at St Pancras station, using powers under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

      “On Tuesday 18 April, the man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of wilfully obstructing a schedule 7 examination, contrary to section 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000.”

  • #Home_Office planning to house asylum seekers on disused cruise ships

    Exclusive: Ministers facing growing anger from Tory backbenchers over use of hotels in their constituencies

    The Home Office is planning to use disused cruise ships to house asylum seekers amid growing anger from Conservative backbenchers over the use of hotels in their constituencies.

    Ministers are looking at possible vessels including a former cruise ship from Indonesia, which would be moored in south-west England, the Guardian understands.

    During the Conservative leadership campaign last summer, Rishi Sunak proposed putting illegal immigrants on cruise ships moored around the country but was warned it could be illegal under the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.

    Downing Street confirmed he had dropped the idea to use the ships to house asylum seekers, which critics said would amount to arbitrary detention, once he became prime minister last October.

    Sources suggested, however, that the cruise ships could be registered as hotels rather than detention centres to get around possible legal challenges.

    The immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, is due to make an announcement on Wednesday regarding asylum accommodation amid speculation that it will include the use of boats and military barracks. It could also disclose plans to make use of a clause in the levelling up bill to force councils to accept large-scale accommodation for those seeking asylum.

    Multiple reports on Tuesday night suggested a plan to house asylum seekers on giant barges normally used for offshore construction projects could also be announced.

    The barges are built to house hundreds of people, although a government source told the Times that plans were at an “early stage” and had significant practical issues that needed to be addressed.

    The disclosure comes as the Home Office admitted nearly 400 hotels across the country were being used to accommodate more than 51,000 people at a reported cost of more than £6m a day.

    Sunak is under pressure to come up with alternatives as Conservative MPs, including members of his own cabinet, object to plans to move some people from hotels into former military bases.

    Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is expected to announce alternatives to hotel accommodation as soon as this week. They are expected to be used for new arrivals initially, rather than to rehouse people who are in hotels.

    The prime minister managed to face down a potentially big rebellion on Monday as up to 60 Tory MPs attempted to amend the new illegal migration bill by giving UK courts the power to ignore rulings by Strasbourg judges.

    Whitehall sources confirmed that the government had “in recent months” examined plans including using cruise ships from across the world, which could be brought to the UK and then used to house asylum seekers.

    The ships would be moored off the coast, emulating an approach by the Scottish government, which housed Ukrainian refugees in two 700-cabin ships. They were docked in Glasgow and Edinburgh and could hold 1,750 people each.

    Braverman said she would not rule out the use of former cruise ships when questioned in December by a House of Lords committee. “We will bring forward a range of alternative sites, they will include disused holiday parks, former student halls – I should say we are looking at those sites – I wouldn’t say anything is confirmed yet.

    “But we need to bring forward thousands of places, and when you talk about vessels all I can say is – because we are in discussion with a wide variety of providers – that everything is still on the table and nothing is excluded,” she said.

    It comes amid a Tory backlash over hotels in constituencies being used to house asylum seekers.

    Ministers had also drawn up plans to use two military bases that were identified to house asylum seekers earlier this year – RAF Scampton, the Dambusters’ base in Lincolnshire, and MDP Wethersfield in Braintree, Essex. But they are facing opposition from local Conservative politicians. Council leaders in Braintree are taking legal action to stop up to 5,000 people being moved to the site over the space of a year.

    James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who is the local MP, wrote on his Facebook page that Wethersfield was inappropriate as an asylum camp because of “the remote nature of the site, limited transport infrastructure and narrow road network”.

    The local council in Scampton is seeking listed status for the Lincolnshire base, while historians and RAF veterans have written to the government asking for the plans to be halted.

    One government source, asked about the possible use of cruise ships, said ministers were working to end the use of hotels and bring forward a range of alternative sites for longer-term accommodation. But they would not discuss details of individual sites or proposals that could be used for bridging or asylum accommodation.

    A government spokesperson said: “We have always been upfront about the unprecedented pressure being placed on our asylum system, brought about by a significant increase in dangerous and illegal journeys into the country.

    “We continue to work across government and with local authorities to identify a range of accommodation options. The government remains committed to engaging with local authorities and key stakeholders as part of this process.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/28/home-office-planning-to-house-asylum-seekers-on-disused-cruise-ships
    #hébergement #asile #réfugiés #migrations #bateaux #bateaux_de_croisière #bateau_de_croisière #Angleterre #UK

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur la Bibby Stockholm :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1016683

    ajouté à la métaliste #migrations et #tourisme :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/770799

    • Air force bases set to be used to house migrants as ministers hunt for cheaper alternatives to hotels

      The Government are reportedly also considering a former cruise ship from Indonesia, which would be moored in south-west England, as a possible site

      Migrants will be housed at two air force bases in a bid to cut down on the use of hotels and deter people from crossing the Channel on small boats, the immigration minister is expected to announce on Wednesday.

      #RAF_Scampton in Lincolnshire, the former home of the Dambusters and Red Arrows, and #RAF_Wethersfield in Essex are expected to be among the accommodation sites for asylum seekers confirmed by Robert Jenrick, despite local opposition.

      The announcement is being made with the aim of ending the use of hotels for migrants – a pledge the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has made. More than 51,000 people are being housed in 395 hotels, according to the BBC, at an estimated cost of £5.6m a day. Holiday parks and student halls are not expected to be included on the initial list of new sites.

      The Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, has found himself at odds with his own government over plans to house asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield, which is in his constituency.

      Braintree District Council is taking legal action against the Home Office in an attempt to secure an injunction against plans to house 1,500 migrants at RAF #Wethersfield.

      Veteran Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh has meanwhile raised concerns that using RAF Scampton to house asylum seekers could put at risk a £300 million investment plan for the site.

      A plan to turn a former RAF base in Linton-on-Ouse, in the constituency of Mr Sunak’s close ally Kevin Hollinrake, into a processing centre for asylum seekers, was meanwhile ditched under Liz Truss.

      During the Tory leadership contest last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to use “cruise ships” as part of efforts to “end the farce of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent every day on housing illegal migrants in hotels”.

      Downing Street did not respond to a question on whether that meant the prospect of using cruise ships has now been shelved.

      The Guardian reports that the Government was considering a former cruise ship from Indonesia, which would be moored in south-west England, as a possible site.

      According to The Sun, an announcement on nautical accommodation will be made in the coming days.

      There are reports ministers are said to be considering obtaining accommodation barges – typically used for offshore construction projects with only basic facilities – which could house hundreds of migrants who are currently in hotels.

      The plan is at an “early stage”, The Times reported, with ministers not yet decided on where the barge or barges will be stationed, though they are expected to be stationed at port, rather than at sea.

      A source told The Times the Government was aware of “significant practical issues” with these vessels, and it was not clear how safety would be dealt with, though a source told the newspaper: “It’s a row we’re prepared to have.”

      The Government is said to be keen on the idea as a way to discourage people from crossing the Channel and is pointing to countries like France housing refugees in floating vessels.

      Meanwhile, right-wing Tory rebel Jonathan Gullis said it would be “perfectly acceptable” to house asylum seekers in tents while they await for deportation, amid concerns about the cost of hotels.

      During a debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, ministers were also urged to give “serious assurances” they will not return to the “barbaric days” of detaining children in immigration centres.

      Conservative former minister Tim Loughton led calls for the Government to confirm it would not place migrant children in indefinite detention if they come to the UK by unauthorised means.

      Centrist Tories were joined by MPs from across the political spectrum who are worried that a coalition government-era policy not to detain children could be overturned.

      The announcement comes after months of pressure from Tory MPs over the use of hotels for asylum seekers, at a cost of £5.6m a day.

      But it will also be a test of the Government’s ability to override local opposition to build new asylum sites.

      Plans for alternative sites have however triggered a backlash from some Tory MPs over now-abandoned plans to house asylum seekers in Pontins holiday parks in Southport and Camber Sands.

      https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-plan-house-asylum-seekers-cruise-ships-shelved-for-now-2239548
      #bases_aériennes #Scampton

    • Au Royaume-Uni, des #barges pour parquer les réfugiés qui traversent la Manche

      Le gouvernement britannique multiplie les annonces censées dissuader les migrants de traverser. La dernière innovation prévoit d’installer les demandeurs d’asile sur d’anciennes embarcations, dans les ports, le temps de leur procédure. Le premier ministre se targue d’avoir déjà fait baisser le nombre de passages depuis la France.

      LeLe feuilleton au Royaume-Uni se poursuit. Les exilé·es, qui en sont les actrices et acteurs principaux, ne sont pour autant jamais consulté·es. On parle d’elles et d’eux comme des « indésirables » qu’il faudrait éloigner, tantôt en usant de machines capables de générer des vagues en mer, tantôt en les parquant sur des ferrys hors d’usage en mer.

      Il y a eu ensuite l’accord non officiel signé entre le Royaume-Uni et le Rwanda, visant à acter le projet de sous-traitance des demandes d’asile à un pays tiers. Un accord décrié et vivement critiqué par les membres de la société civile, mais aussi des chercheurs et chercheuses, qui soulignaient combien cette externalisation venait saboter le droit d’asile.

      Faute de pouvoir encore les envoyer au Rwanda – l’accord a fait l’objet d’un recours devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), puis devant la justice britannique fin 2022 –, le gouvernement a décidé plus récemment d’installer une barge au sud-ouest du pays pour y parquer les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile qui parviendraient à rejoindre le Royaume-Uni de manière irrégulière.

      L’objectif ? Dissuader les personnes exilées de tenter la traversée de la Manche, alors que le nombre de traversées n’a jamais été aussi élevé en 2022, et qu’un terrible naufrage survenu le 24 novembre 2021 ayant coûté la vie à au moins 27 migrant·es est venu souligner les défaillances du secours en mer.

      Satisfait des résultats de son « plan », le premier ministre britannique, Rishi Sunak, a annoncé l’installation de deux nouvelles barges pour l’accueil de demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile, d’une capacité de 500 personnes chacune, d’ici cet été. Le gouvernement entend ainsi réduire de moitié la facture correspondant à l’hébergement des migrant·es dans les hôtels du pays, qui s’élèverait à 6 millions de livres (soit environ 7 millions d’euros) par jour.
      Un « plan » qui fonctionnerait déjà

      La toute première barge, baptisée Bibby Stockholm, a fait l’objet d’une rénovation à Falmouth et sera installée au port de Portland, une petite île située au sud-ouest de Londres. Elle devrait accueillir 500 personnes pour un total de 200 chambres, et sera surveillée en permanence dans l’objectif de préserver la population locale, avancent les autorités.

      La barge aurait coûté, selon le journal The Times, près de 20 000 livres (soit 23 000 euros), et le dispositif coûterait « nettement moins cher que les hôtels », a affirmé Rishi Sunak. La ministre de l’intérieur britannique, Suella Braverman, avait déjà affirmé le souhait de freiner l’hébergement des demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile dans les hôtels, compte tenu du coût que cela engendrait « pour le contribuable ».

      Le 5 juin, le premier ministre a tenu un discours particulièrement dur à leur endroit, renvoyant dos à dos les difficultés économiques rencontrées par les Britanniques dans un contexte d’inflation et le coût de l’accueil des migrant·es.

      « Notre plan commence à fonctionner. Avant que l’on ne le mette en place en décembre, le nombre de personnes ayant traversé illégalement la Manche avait quadruplé en deux ans. Mais en cinq mois, les traversées ont baissé de 20 % par rapport à l’an dernier », a-t-il rassuré. Ce serait la première fois, insiste Rishi Sunak, qu’une baisse des arrivées serait observée sur la période de janvier à mai.

      « Je ne me reposerai pas tant que les bateaux ne sont pas stoppés », a-t-il poursuivi, indiquant utiliser « tous les outils à disposition » ; à commencer par la diplomatie, puisque le partenariat avec la France aurait permis d’empêcher 33 000 traversées en 2022, soit une hausse de 40 % des interceptions.

      L’accord signé avec l’Albanie en décembre dernier, pour réduire les migrations depuis « un pays sûr, européen », aurait lui aussi porté ses fruits. Alors que les Albanais·es représentaient un tiers des arrivées en small boats (lire nos reportages ici et là), Rishi Sunak se vante d’avoir ainsi fait baisser ce chiffre de près de 90 %, et d’avoir expulsé 1 800 ressortissant·es albanais·es en l’espace de six mois.

      « C’est bien la preuve que notre stratégie de détermination peut fonctionner. Quand les gens savent qu’en venant ici illégalement, ils ne pourront pas rester, ils ne viennent plus. »

      Pour « sortir » les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile du schéma classique d’hébergement dans les hôtels, le gouvernement compte par ailleurs se servir de lieux « alternatifs », comme des bases militaires situées à Wethersfield et à Scampton, où des centaines de personnes devraient être transférées d’ici à cet été, et 3 000 d’ici à l’automne. Celles et ceux restant dans les hôtels pourront être amenés à partager une même chambre avec plusieurs personnes, « lorsque c’est approprié ».
      L’externalisation toujours d’actualité

      « Et je dis à ces migrants qui protestent : ceci est plus que juste. Si vous venez ici illégalement, en quête d’une protection après avoir fui la mort, la torture ou la persécution, alors vous devriez pouvoir partager une chambre d’hôtel, payée par le contribuable, dans le centre de Londres. »

      À l’avenir, le gouvernement britannique mise aussi sur la réforme de la loi sur l’immigration et espère, une fois tous les recours en justice « terminés », pouvoir mettre en pratique la nouvelle loi sur la migration, qui permettrait de placer en détention toute personne arrivée illégalement sur le territoire, avant de l’expulser, soit vers son pays d’origine, soit vers un pays tiers comme le Rwanda, avec lequel un accord a été signé en ce sens.

      « Nous voulons que les choses soient claires, a martelé Rishi Sunak lors de son discours empli de fermeté. Je sais que ce sont des mesures difficiles. Et je ne m’en excuserai pas. »

      Dans un rapport rendu public le 11 juin, le comité mixte des droits de l’homme du Parlement britannique a exhorté le gouvernement à « ne pas enfreindre ses obligations légales envers les réfugiés, les enfants et les victimes de l’esclavage moderne », et à « jouer son rôle dans le système international de protection des réfugiés ». Invitée à répondre aux questions des membres de ce comité, la ministre de l’intérieur n’a pas donné suite.

      Le rapport final, qui contient une liste de recommandations telles que le respect effectif du droit d’asile ou du droit européen (comme les mesures de la CEDH), le non-recours à la détention des migrant·es et la protection des mineur·es non accompagné·es et autres publics vulnérables, appelle le gouvernement à répondre dans les deux mois.

      Celui-ci n’y répondra sans doute pas, considérant que la lutte contre la « migration illégale » est une priorité urgente pour laquelle tous les moyens sont permis.
      La société civile ne cesse de dire son inquiétude

      « Nous sommes profondément inquiets de voir que le gouvernement prévoit d’héberger un nombre grandissant de demandeurs d’asile dans des lieux totalement inadaptés à leurs besoins », avait dénoncé dans un tweet le Refugee Council, une organisation venant en aide aux personnes migrantes et réfugiées en Angleterre, réagissant à l’annonce de l’installation de la première barge.

      Sans compter la portée symbolique associée au fait de loger des personnes ayant traversé la Manche – et potentiellement d’autres eaux – à bord d’une embarcation qui, bien qu’elle soit à quai, ne peut que raviver le souvenir d’un parcours migratoire souvent dangereux et des vies que la mer emporte régulièrement, quand elle ne renforce pas le sentiment d’insécurité lié à une potentielle expulsion.

      Le Royaume-Uni a finalement réinventé le concept de « zone d’attente », mais pour les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile. Reste à savoir dans quelle mesure leur liberté de circulation sera respectée ou non.

      Si le gouvernement britannique assure que la portée dissuasive de son discours et de ses mesures « fonctionne », il serait bon de se pencher sur les résultats concrets d’une telle politique, qui pousse les personnes exilées à davantage de précarité : celles qui n’osent effectivement plus tenter la traversée n’ont que la perspective des camps et de la rue pour horizon, à l’heure où l’État maintient une politique « zéro point de fixation » pour éviter que la jungle de Calais ne se reforme et où l’accueil des migrant·es est toujours plus décousu.

      Celles qui tentent toutefois de rejoindre le Royaume-Uni en small boat prennent de plus en plus de risques, partant désormais de communes plus éloignées des côtes anglaises pour éviter les contrôles et patrouilles des forces de l’ordre, dont les effectifs sont particulièrement présents aux abords des plages servant de points de départ.

      L’association Utopia 56, très présente sur le littoral pour venir en aide aux exilé·es, n’a d’ailleurs pas tardé à réagir aux annonces de Rishi Sunak. « Pourtant, ces quatre derniers jours, 1 519 personnes ont traversé la Manche et nos équipes ont reçu douze appels d’embarcations en détresse. Rishi Sunak, Gérald Darmanin, malgré les effets d’annonce, vos politiques violentes ne mènent à rien, sinon à pousser les personnes à risquer leur vie », a tweeté l’organisation le 14 juin.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/160623/au-royaume-uni-des-barges-pour-parquer-les-refugies-qui-traversent-la-manc
      #Bibby_Stockholm

    • Government quietly awards travel firm £1.6bn contract for asylum barges and accommodation

      Fury over astonishing sum to operate barges and run services to house asylum seekers in Britain

      An Australian travel firm previously slammed for its handling of Covid quarantine hotels has been quietly handed a £1.6bn contract covering the UK’s new asylum accommodation ships, The Independent can reveal.

      #Corporate_Travel_Management (#CTM) was put in charge of the lucrative two-year arrangement in February, weeks before the government revealed it would use a barge as its first offshore accommodation for asylum seekers.

      The contract was awarded directly to CTM without competition, and a lawyer with knowledge of the system said the government had pushed a wider deal originally drawn up for official travel “beyond what it was intended to be used for”.

      Ministers have repeatedly refused to detail the projected cost of Rishi Sunak’s controversial asylum vessels, while insisting they will be cheaper than using hotels that are currently costing £6m a day.

      This week, Suella Braverman told parliament’s Home Affairs Committee she could not predict the cost of the new Illegal Migration Bill, because there are “many unknown factors”.

      Three vessels so far have been announced, with a barge named the “Bibby Stockholm” due to arrive in Portland, Dorset later this month and a further two ships set for undisclosed locations.

      Richard Drax, the Conservative MP for South Dorset, said the public “should know how much is being paid” on the barge set-up and said the spending he was aware of so far was “alarmingly high”.

      “The point is this is taxpayers’ money,” he told The Independent. “This contract might actually be separate to what the ports are being paid.

      “Then on top of that, the police want money, the health authority wants money, of course the council wants money, and yet the government continues to insist that this is cheaper than hotels. The overall figure will be alarmingly high.”

      Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, said the Home Office has “serious questions to answer”.

      “The Tories are spending more and more taxpayers’ money on their total failure to fix the asylum backlog they have created,” she added.

      “This is an incredibly expensive contract with no clarity on whether proper procedures have been followed, and the barges come on top of costly hotels, not instead of them, because of the government failure to take asylum decisions or get any grip.”

      The CTM contract, published under the title “provision of bridging accommodation and travel services”, states that it has an estimated value of £1,593,535,200 over two years and could be extended beyond 2025.

      The Home Office refused to answer The Independent’s questions on what portion of the contract covers barges, and parts of official documents headed “pricing details” have been redacted in full because of “commercial interests”.

      John O’Connell, chief executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “This murky contract leaves taxpayers in the dark. The migrant crisis may require an urgent response, but bungled procurement has cost a fortune in recent years.

      “Ministers must ensure transparency and value for money when tendering services.”

      Answering a parliamentary question on the Bibby Stockholm in May, immigration minister Robert Jenrick said it would be managed “by a specialist and experienced provider, which has a strong track record of providing this kind of accommodation”. He added that the provider had “managed two vessels [housing Ukrainian refugees] in Scottish ports for the past year”.

      On its website, CTM describes itself as “a global provider of innovative and cost-effective travel solutions spanning corporate, events, leisure, loyalty and wholesale travel”.

      The firm says it was established in Brisbane in 1994 and has since grown from a “two-person start-up into one of the world’s most successful travel management companies”, operating across Australasia, Asia, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. It has two UK offices in London and Manchester.

      The firm’s most recent financial report hailed record profits, having taken A$292m (£160m) in revenue over the last six months of 2022.

      A notice to its shareholders celebrated the new contract’s “significant impact” on financial growth, adding: “This work involves highly complex services and logistic support… CTM has both the experience and specialised knowledge to support this work.”

      The government placed the new barges under a pre-existing agreement with CTM for “travel and venue solutions”, which previously covered official bookings for conferences, flights, train tickets, hotels and vehicle hire for ministers and civil servants.

      A source familiar with the drawing up of the overarching framework accused the government of “pushing the scope beyond what it was intended to be used for”.

      “If products and services are outside scope there’s a procurement failure and the contract has been awarded without following the rules,” they told The Independent. “It doesn’t look like the right vehicle for this kind of contract and it looks like they’ve done it to minimise visibility.”

      The remit of CTM’s government work was widened during the pandemic and its general manager for northern England, Michael Healy, was made an OBE in the 2021 New Year honours list over the repatriation of British nationals stranded abroad during the Covid pandemic.

      A report by parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee found that the operation was “too slow and placed too much reliance on commercial providers”, but CTM was then handed a contract for operating quarantine hotels and mandatory testing.

      In a series of angry Google reviews that dragged the company’s rating down to 1.4 stars, one person called CTM “incompetent”, while another wrote: “Shame on the Tory government UK, on whoever decided to give them this contract.”

      Several MPs raised their constituents’ poor experiences in parliament, with one presenting a formal petition demanding compensation and saying the way the contract was awarded “avoided due process or competition”.

      CTM was later involved in operations to transport Afghans and Ukrainians to the UK, and operated two cruise ships used to temporarily house Ukrainian refugees in Scotland.

      That contract, which was also awarded without competition under the same framework as the new barges, covered two ships and hotels, and had an estimated value of £100m.

      CTM declined to comment and did not answer The Independent’s request for details of what the contract covered.

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “The pressure on the asylum system has continued to grow and requires us to look at a range of accommodation options, which offer better value for money for taxpayers than hotels. It is right that we explore all available options.

      “CTM was awarded the contract to deliver accommodation for the Home Office after an extensive procurement process and has a strong track record of providing this kind of accommodation.

      “We are pleased that they will be providing management for Bibby Stockholm, the two additional vessels announced by the prime minister, as well as bridging accommodation and travel services.”

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/barge-australia-asylum-contract-travel-b2354578.html

    • Le “prigioni galleggianti”: il nuovo piano del Regno Unito per la prima accoglienza

      L’intervista a Tigs Louis-Puttick, fondatrice dell’ONG Reclaim The Sea, arrestata nei giorni scorsi durante una protesta

      Fanno discutere in UK, e non solo, le “prigioni galleggianti” volute fortemente dal primo ministro britannico Rishi Sunak e il ministro dell’Interno Suella Braverman. Una misura per risparmiare sul costo della prima accoglienza che ora prevede la sistemazione in albergo dei richiedenti asilo.

      “Bibby Stockholm” è il nome della chiatta marittima che per i prossimi 18 mesi sarà utilizzata dal governo britannico per “ospitare” fino a 506 richiedenti asilo uomini, tra i 18 e i 56 anni, in attesa che si concluda l’iter della domanda di accoglienza nel Paese.

      Abbiamo parlato del nuovo piano del governo britannico e della campagna “No floating prisons” in questa intervista a Tigs Louis-Puttick, fondatrice dell’ONG Reclaim The Sea. L’attivista il 18 luglio scorso è stata arrestata «per essermi fermata in strada davanti al Ministero degli Interni con un cartello che diceva ‘Refugees Welcome’ e ‘No all’Immigration Bill, No Floating Prisons‘», ha dichiarato Tigs Louis-Puttick 1.

      Nello stesso giorno la “Bibby Stockholm” attraccava nel porto di Portland.

      Il nuovo piano del governo britannico prevede la prima accoglienza di 500 persone richiedenti asilo in una gigantesca chiatta-alloggio ancorata in un porto nel Canale della Manica, violando la libertà di movimento e il diritto alla privacy.

      Il 5 aprile 2023 l’Ufficio degli Interni britannico (Home Office) ha annunciato l’avvio di un piano per “accogliere” le persone migranti su una gigantesca chiatta-alloggio (la Bibby Stockhom), che giacerà all’interno del porto dell’isola di Portland, nel Canale della Manica. Secondo quanto dichiarato, la decisione è stata presa per “(…) ridurre l’insostenibile pressione sul sistema d’asilo britannico e ridurre l’onere economico che pesa sui contribuenti, causato dall’aumento significativo degli attraversamenti del Canale della Manica” 2. Da quanto emerge dalle dichiarazioni ufficiali dell’Home Office, la Bibby Stockholm diventerà operativa da luglio per un periodo iniziale di 18 mesi, e ospiterà fino a 500 richiedenti asilo uomini, tra i 18 e i 65 anni. La chiatta giacerà in un’area cosiddetta “protetta” del porto, da dove sarà possibile uscire e accedere al centro abitato solamente tramite un servizio autobus dedicato. A bordo, sarà presente un servizio di lavanderia, un catering per i pasti e degli spazi comuni. Sebbene sarà permesso scendere e accedere terra ferma, al momento, per gli ospiti, non è prevista l’erogazione di alcun servizio relativo all’accoglienza al di fuori del porto 3.

      È più che evidente come, l’Home Office miri alla limitazione della libertà di movimento delle persone migranti, riducendola ai minimi termini. Secondo quanto stimato da The Independent lo spazio che ogni persona avrà a disposizione sulla chiatta sarà di appena 15 metri quadri, “la misura di un posto auto”.

      Richard Drax, esponente del partito Conservatore britannico, l’ha definita una “quasi-prigione”, dove le persone saranno lasciate “sedute a girarsi i pollici”. Secondo James Wilson, direttore dell’organizzazione Detention Action (che fornisce supporto all’interno dei centri di detenzione per l’immigrazione illegale), non è che “(…) una chiatta angusta e simile ad una prigione” 4. E, a ragion del vero, è lo stesso Home Office, in diverse dichiarazioni ufficiali, a dichiarare esplicitamente la propria intenzione di “minimizzare l’impatto sulle comunità locali”, come dichiarato nel comunicato stampa del 5 aprile 2023, e ribadito, a più riprese nella Scheda Informativa disponibile sul proprio sito ufficiale.

      Di fronte all’ennesimo scenario di un sistema d’accoglienza sempre più restrittivo e non curante dei diritti delle persone richiedenti asilo, c’è chi non è rimasto indifferente e, anzi, ha dato il via ad una vera e propria lotta per i diritti delle persone migranti. In un’intervista per Melting Pot, parla Tigs Louis-Puttick, fondatrice dell’ONG Reclaim The Sea, che, fornendo lezioni di nuoto e surf alle persone migranti, ha l’obiettivo di accrescere la loro qualità di vita, e aiutarle trasformare il mare da un evento traumatico a uno spazio di libertà e guarigione. A maggio, Reclaimthesea ha redatto una lettera aperta a Suella Braverman, Segretaria di Stato per gli Affari Interni, domandando l’abbandono del progetto, firmata da 706 individui e 91 organizzazioni e collettivi, tra cui Medici Senza Frontiere UK e Sea-Watch. Lo scorso 21 maggio, insieme all’ONG Europe Must Act, Reclaimthesea ha guidato una protesta di fronte all’Home Office, e dato il via alla campagna “No floating prisons” (No alle prigioni galleggianti), che comprende una serie attività ed eventi di protesta e sensibilizzazione.

      https://twitter.com/Reclaim_The_Sea/status/1657692409671630849

      «Abbiamo deciso di chiamare la campagna di protesta No floating prisons per l’approccio generale che ne rispecchia il carattere di questi luoghi. L’attuale processo di ristrutturazione della chiatta prevede l’aumento dei posti da 220 a 500, il che vorrà dire stipare le persone in pochissimo spazio, violando la loro privacy e il diritto allo spazio personale. Il piano è che, direttamente al loro arrivo, le persone saranno sistemate sulla chiatta, che pare non sarà nemmeno attraccata alla terraferma. Inoltre, Portland è un porto chiuso, recintato, non si può entrare ed uscire liberamente. Le autorità potrebbero arbitrariamente decidere di negare il permesso a lasciare il porto e, siccome è un porto privato, non abbiamo controllo sulle decisioni delle autorità, ne possiamo essere certi che daranno informazioni».

      Sui rischi delle prigioni galleggianti, Tigs dice: «La quasi totalità delle persone migranti presenti nel Regno Unito, hanno dovuto affrontare un attraversamento in mare, che sia dalla Libia all’Italia, dalla Turchia alla Grecia o il Canale della Manica. Molti di loro, hanno vissuto qualche tipo di trauma legato al mare. Per ciò, l’idea di farli stare ancora in una barca equivale letteralmente a relegarli nel reale, fisico luogo del trauma. Inoltre, solo il 25% degli uomini e il 18% delle donne provenienti dall’Africa Orientale (area di provenienza di molti dei richiedenti asilo nel Regno Unito) sa nuotare. Dunque, se per qualsiasi motivo qualcuno dovesse cadere in acqua dalla barca o dal molo, rischierebbe seriamente la morte, anche per via delle temperature gelide. Infine, molti hanno vissuto momenti di prigionia nei loro paesi d’origine o nei paesi transito. Arrivano qui e ciò che li aspetta è praticamente un’altra prigione».

      La preoccupazione delle prigioni galleggianti è anche legata all’accordo tra Regno Unito e Rwanda, che prevede la ricollocazione permanente dei richiedenti asilo arrivati irregolarmente nel Regno Unito al Rwanda, affinché la loro domanda d’asilo venga esaminata lì 5. «E’ sostanzialmente una sala d’attesa per chi sarà portato in Rwanda, che non è un paese sicuro, poiché ci sono già tantissimi rifugiati e poche risorse. Come si può pensare di portare qualcuno, che per esempio viene dall’Afghanistan, in Rwanda? Cosa faranno lì? Tutto ciò è solo un’esternalizzazione in stile coloniale delle responsabilità del Regno Unito verso il diritto all’ asilo. Ci preoccupa davvero il fatto che queste persone, possano essere spinte al suicidio, perché capiranno che stanno aspettando solo di essere deportate».

      Infine, secondo Tigs «ciò che sta facendo il Regno Unito fa parte di una tendenza più ampia che sta nascendo in Europa, copiata da Grecia e Italia, quando tenevano le persone in quarantena su una nave durante la pandemia. Nel 2021 ho preso parte ad una missione di soccorso con Sea Watch, siamo arrivati al porto di Trapani con 200 persone a bordo, dopo 12 giorni di navigazione, e un’enorme nave ci stava aspettando, per trasferire le persone dalla nostra imbarcazione. Le persone non volevano andare. Volevano scendere a terra. Avevano paura di cosa avrebbero trovato, di restare in acqua, di sentirsi male».

      In conclusione, sebbene sia la prima volta che il Regno Unito decida di adottare un sistema del genere, tenere le persone migranti il più possibile segregate rispetto alla popolazione locale, riducendo il loro spazio vitale al minimo, operare a risparmio sull’accoglienza ed esternalizzare le frontiere non rappresenta alcuna novità. Al contrario, è solo l’ennesimo triste passo verso una tendenza consolidata, dei democraticissimi stati europei, di lavarsi le mani dal dovere di salvare vite umane, accogliere, e rispettare il diritto all’asilo.

      E’ possibile seguire la campagna e donare per sostenere la campagna contro le prigioni galleggianti e avviare un’azione legale contro lo stato britannico a questo link: https://tr.ee/74EHZPD4rz .

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/07/le-prigioni-galleggianti-il-nuovo-piano-del-regno-unito-per-la-prima-acc

    • ‘Cabins slightly larger than a prison cell’: life aboard the UK’s barge for asylum seekers

      Home Office tour of asylum seeker Bibby Stockholm barge emphasises no-frills features including TVs that don’t work

      Each two-person cabin in the Bibby Stockholm barge, which is set to start accommodating asylum seekers imminently, has a small flat-screen television screwed to the wall opposite the bunk beds. Residents will not, however, be able to watch them because they have not been wired to anything.

      The timeline for the arrival of the first group of 50 asylum seekers has slipped from next week to “the coming weeks”, with the Home Office aiming to increase the number of occupants (or “service users”, as barge staff term them) to 500 by the autumn.

      Organising tours for journalists on Friday of the 222-cabin barge moored in Portland Port, Dorset, presented government officials with a PR conundrum.

      To underline that reliance on expensive hotel accommodation was being reduced, conditions needed to be shown to be less luxurious than hotels but not so austere that the barge could be classified as a floating prison.

      Officials have refused to provide any detail about the figures behind their assertion that the barge accommodation will be considerably cheaper than hotel rooms.

      When the facility finally opens, arrivals will make their way on to the barge via a gangplank, and through airport-style security. In line with the Home Office’s prevailing dislike of friendly murals and pictures, asylum seekers will be greeted by plain, undecorated walls, though a simple laminated A4 sheet stating “welcome” has been stuck on the wall of the reception room.

      Windowless corridors, narrow enough to trail your fingers along both walls as you walk through them, circle the perimeter of the barge, with about 50 rooms on the long edges. Empty of inhabitants, the very confined space feels clean and cool, with an atmosphere vaguely reminiscent of a faded cross-Channel ferry.

      Single-person cabins have been refitted with bunk beds to double the potential capacity of the vessel. Each cabin is slightly larger in size than a prison cell, a bit smaller than the most basic university accommodation, and is fitted with a shower and toilet, a cupboard, mirror, desk and (staff are keen to point this out as a positive feature) a window.

      There was a subtle difference in approach taken by the Home Office employees giving tours to journalists and the representatives of the firm subcontracted to manage the barge.

      Government officials were keen to emphasise the barge’s low-cost appeal, but staff working for the Miami-based Landry & Kling, which has been subcontracted by the Australian firm Corporate Travel Management (CTM) to run the vessel on behalf of the Home Office, wanted to highlight the “dignified” treatment that would be provided: a 24-hour snack bar, planned visits to local allotments, proposed walks and cycle trips for residents.

      Joyce Landry, the firm’s cofounder, valiantly described the Bibby Stockholm in an interview earlier this week with the Herald as “actually quite lovely”.

      In the centre of the barge there are two smallish outdoor areas where nets are soon to be installed to allow people to play volleyball or netball and possibly a very contracted form of football. There is a small gym with two running machines, and an education room with just eight seats.

      “The thing that puts this vessel above many others is that every room has a window. You won’t feel claustrophobic. The windows open, unlike in some hotels. There’s enough public space to have a sense of freedom and openness,” said a Landry & Kling staff member.

      The windows offer views of high metal fencing and naval works units. Whether or not residents, single men aged 18-65, who will be held here for up to nine months, will agree that there is a sense of freedom and openness is a moot point. Security staff are being trained to manage conflict on board.

      In the street by the port’s entrance local protesters have been displaying their anger about the barge all week, with some furious at the arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers so close to the small tourist town, and others protesting that asylum seekers should not be held on barges at all.

      Landry has spent the past three nights sleeping on the barge to experience conditions. A windy night prompted staff to request extra tethering to fix the barge to the shore.

      Landry & Kling staff said the Home Office had requested that the TVs (previously used by construction workers recently accommodated on the barge) should not be wired up.

      The Home Office staff said they wanted “to promote socialisation” by forcing people out of their rooms to watch television together in the two communal TV rooms.

      But the presence of non-functioning TVs may also signal a determination by the Home Office to show that its latest solution for housing asylum seekers is merely “basic and functional” and will offer no frills to residents.

      Before it housed oil and construction workers, the Bibby Stockholm was used in the 2000s by the Netherlands to house asylum seekers. An Amnesty report from 2008 documented the psychological trauma experienced by residents.

      The rare Home Office tour of facilities was designed to showcase progress away from housing 51,000 asylum seekers in hotels at a cost of £6m a day to a cheaper alternative.

      However, plans have only been laid out for alternative accommodation for 3,000 people who they now hope will be moved to new, ex-military facilities and the barge by the autumn.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/21/life-aboard-bibby-stockholm-asylum-seeker-barge-home-office-tour

    • ‘No timeframe’ on delayed opening of Bibby Stockholm asylum barge

      Transport minister says barge in Portland going through final checks amid row over safety concerns

      A UK government minister has said he “cannot put a timeframe” on when the Home Office will open a controversial giant barge meant to house asylum seekers, which has been further delayed for checks.

      The initial plan had been to move people on to the Bibby Stockholm in Portland, Dorset, from this week, with numbers due to rise over the coming months until the vessel held about 500 men.

      Asked on Sky News when the barge would be available, the transport minister Richard Holden said: “It’s going through its final checks at the moment. It’s right that … whatever accommodation we provide is safe and secure as well. I can’t put a timeframe on it.”

      Asked if safety concerns were delaying the opening, he said: “It’s going through final checks at the moment. With anything you would want them to be properly checked out.”

      The Guardian reported on Monday that the first asylum seekers were due to be moved onboard the vessel on Wednesday but that seems to have been delayed further with the minister now unwilling to put a timeframe on the move.

      Asked if it would be delayed as long as the Rwanda policy had taken to implement, Holden added: “I can’t comment on the ongoing process of checks and things that have to take place but it is my understanding (it is) in its final checks.”

      Fears had been expressed that the barge could become a “floating Grenfell” and endanger the lives of vulnerable people who have fled hardship and war as it has not received the relevant safety signoff.

      About 40 claimants staying in other Home Office accommodation had received transfer letters saying they would be moved to the 222-cabin vessel in Dorset, Whitehall sources said.

      More than 50 national organisations and campaigners, including the Refugee Council, Asylum Matters and Refugee Action, have called the government’s plan “cruel and inhumane”. They said the vessel was “entirely inappropriate” and would house traumatised migrants in “detention-like conditions”.

      People are meanwhile expected to be moved this week on to another site that has become a focus for protest, the disused RAF base in Wethersfield, Essex.

      Local people who attended an event convened by the Home Office in the village complained on Monday night of coming away even more frustrated because of what they said was a lack of answers.

      “It was actually embarrassing. They didn’t pass a microphone around and it seemed to be really badly organised so people just ended up shouting to be heard,” said Michelle Chapman, of the Fields Association, a residents group involved in a campaign against the centre.

      “It ended up being quite heated and people just came away feeling frustrated. If there was one answer it was a pledge that they would not bring in any more than 50 people in one go, but there is still confusion here and genuine anxiety.”

      The meeting, held in the village hall, was addressed by senior police officers as well as Home Office officials. Local council officials were also present at the meeting, where Chapman said there was standing room only.

      A Home Office spokesperson said that delivering accommodation on surplus military sites and vessels would provide cheaper and more suitable accommodation for those arriving in the UK in small boats.

      They added: “The first asylum seekers have now been accommodated at Wethersfield and we are working with stakeholders on a carefully structured plan to increase the number staying there in a phased approach.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/01/no-timeframe-on-delayed-opening-of-bibby-stockholm-asylum-barge

    • Transfer of asylum seekers to ‘floating coffin’ Bibby Stockholm postponed

      Nicola David of campaign group One Life to Live documents the reasons why Bibby Stockholm is being recognised as a potential death trap

      With the first asylum seekers due to step aboard Bibby Stockholm this week, the controversy surrounding the Home Office’s decision to contain people on the barge has further escalated. Serious safety questions are being raised about the barge’s setting, a berth at the Langham Industries-run Portland Port. As a direct consequence, the initial transfer of 40 vulnerable adults to Bibby Stockholm has been postponed. I calculate that delays to date have already cost the taxpayer over £3mn.

      This is the first time that asylum seekers are to be contained on a barge in the UK, and the scheme is already mired in misery. There were significant delays in dry dock, where rotten sections of the hull needed replacing. And my report found that keeping people on the barge won’t cost less than in hotels, which is the crux of the Home Office’s strategy.

      Now, I have found that the 47-year-old vessel has not yet passed fire safety checks, and there are grave concerns over serious and unresolved (and potentially unresolvable) safety and fire risks. There also appears to be confusion over which safety regulations will apply, given that the site straddles the sea and land and the engine-less vessel is effectively a hotel.

      Clear evidence is emerging that the decision to transfer vulnerable adults onto Bibby Stockholm was premature at best – and potentially negligent at worst. And politically, if safety concerns require the Home Office to significantly reduce the number of people on board, the cost per head would be a humiliating blow to the prime minister and home secretary, who are counting on large-scale containment sites such as this to put an end to the daily asylum seeker hotel bill.
      Bibby Stockholm: a disaster waiting to happen

      Bibby Stockholm was designed to hold 222 people in single cabins, but was recently reconfigured to hold 506 asylum seekers in multiple-occupancy rooms along with 40 resident staff. A further 20 staff will live off the barge; with some of these on duty, around 550 people could be on board at any time.

      This is 248% of the intended capacity – and more than the previous maximum of 472 asylum seekers held when the same vessel was used as an immigration detention centre in Rotterdam in 2005. I am also left wondering whether the barge’s insurers can have extended its cover to this permit this level of overcrowding, and whether they would refuse public liability claims for injury, death or damage from asylum seekers, staff or the port.

      Asylum seekers sharing small cabins will have “less living space than an average parking bay”, according to the Independent. The mayor of Portland, Carralyn Parkes, measured the cabins and found that those for two people averaged “about 10ft by 12ft”. This could lead to serious problems with exiting rooms, using corridors, and accessing fire exits – and it is not clear whether there are sufficient fire exits for the new, higher population.

      The width of the corridors on board is not publicly known, but following a tour of the barge the Guardian reported that they are “narrow enough to trail your fingers along both walls as you walk”. Given the excess numbers of people, this could result in deadly delays, bottlenecks, and trampling of fallen people.

      Bibby Stockholm has three floors and all of the corridors are configured in the same way. There are no external windows in the corridors, and in an emergency – particularly if smoke and/or dim lighting affect visibility – it is easy to imagine that people might become disoriented or be unable to locate the bow, stern, port or starboard sides. This could cause delays and increase panic.

      Factors that would impede escape

      Asylum seekers may have prior injuries relating to war, conflict or persecution, or may sustain injuries as direct result of an incident on the barge. In 2005, when a fire broke out at a Dutch detention centre in which 11 people died and 15 were injured, one man “suffered injuries to his neck, shoulders and chest when he fell from his bed … in panic after realising that the detention centre was on fire”. Either type of injury could impede escape in a major incident. Additionally, those suffering from the mental trauma of war, conflict or persecution may be less able to process evacuation and safety instructions.

      Local councillors who visited the barge on 27 July reported that there were also no lifejackets on the vessel. The windows on board can be opened, but it is understood that this is restricted and would not allow a person to escape in an emergency. Barge operator Landry & Kling also told journalists that there would be no fire drills on Bibby Stockholm.

      Any emergency would be further compounded by the presence of asylum seekers whose first language is not English, or who speak no English, and may struggle to understand verbal evacuation and safety instructions, especially in a state of panic.
      Access for emergency vehicles

      I am very concerned about the capacity of the small quayside compound, which could not possibly hold 550 people in an evacuation. To prevent asylum seekers leaving the site or walking around on the port, this compound is surrounded by a fence at least 15 feet high and is accessible only via two sets of locked gates. In a crush, people simply couldn’t get out. There is significant potential for a Hillsborough-like crush situation.

      The only way for emergency vehicles to access the vessel would be via this compound. Locked gates could be a problem; even with access, how would first-responders and ambulances get through large numbers of panicked people crowding into the enclosed area?

      Physical condition of Bibby Stockholm

      Bibby Stockholm was built in 1976. According to a recent FT article:

      “The hull was rotten … in places the steel hull had decayed to the point where it was dangerously thin, necessitating the replacement of entire sections … Bibby Stockholm was late out of Falmouth for good reasons, mostly age-related.”

      The repair work done at Falmouth may have fixed the localised problems, and the barge may (as the FT found) have passed its Lloyd’s inspections, but the rot and repairs may have undermined the overall structural integrity of the hull.

      This could leave the barge open to being adversely affected by extreme weather, including being knocked against the berth, or by the weight of the additional residents plus the commensurate additional furniture and stores.
      Complexity around safety

      The barge scheme straddles both water and land, rendering safety inspections and certification more complex and potentially confusing. At least five agencies are involved:

      Lloyd’s Register of Shipping
      The Maritime and Coastguard Agency
      Dorset Council, which regulates the safety of the barge
      The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which regulates the surrounding quayside
      Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service.

      Health and safety concerns

      In the week commencing 24 July, the HSE visited the berth at Portland Port. It found that “a lot” of work was still required to be done by both Bibby Marine and Landry & Kling, the US-based subcontractor for operations.

      Landry & Kling co-founder Joyce Landry has claimed in an interview in The Herald that “fears about the conditions on board have been caused by a lack of accurate information,” and that Bibby Stockholm is “actually quite lovely”.

      Mark Davies, head of communications and campaigns at the Refugee Council, expressed concern, saying:

      “Like most people in the UK, we believe people seeking asylum – the vast majority of whom are refugees fleeing unimaginable horrors – should be treated with decency, respect and humanity. These are values people in Britain hold dear.”

      A 27 July report in the Guardian, highlighting some of these safety concerns, includes a statement from Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service which indicates that they are not yet satisfied with arrangements at the barge. They said they had “conducted visits to review fire safety arrangements on the Bibby Stockholm” and were continuing to liaise with other authorities “to ensure that appropriate fire safety measures under relevant legislation are in place”.
      Questions for the home secretary

      On 18 July it was reported that Chris Loder, MP for West Dorset, has said:

      “For months, I have been asking for sight of the safety risk assessments that should have been done to allow the Bibby Stockholm to be used in Portland Harbour … But visibility or assurances that adequate safety risk assessments have been completed have not been received.”

      Loder has written to the home secretary Suella Braverman and transport minister Baroness Vere to ask that they either stop the scheme or provide the necessary safety risk assessments confirming that the vessel can cope with double the weight that it was designed to bear.

      In May 2023, a caller named Mark told David Lammy MP on LBC Radio: “What they are effectively doing here is they are creating a potential Grenfell on water, a floating coffin … If there is a fire, people will die. In this case, people won’t die from the smoke or the flames, they will die from the stampede.”
      A failure both of competence and humanity

      The Home Office announced its intention to create a series of asylum seeker containment sites last year, but failed at the first hurdle with the cancelled plans for Linton-on-Ouse. The RAF Scampton and RAF Wethersfield sites now have permission to push ahead with a judicial review. Regardless, Scampton has been delayed until October, since the Home Office has failed for five months to survey the accommodation buildings and to engage tradespeople.

      At Wethersfield (the only large-scale site to have received any asylum seekers so far) there are cases of tuberculosis, scurvy and scabies. Legal action on human rights grounds is certain to follow at all sites, involving misery for individuals and a burden for the public purse.

      The Home Office appears to be embarrassingly unable to set up and manage these sites, or to show any humanity towards deeply vulnerable people. It certainly cannot deliver value for money. It is time for the Home Office to hire more asylum caseworkers to process the shameful backlog, and to put an end to large-scale containment – before we start to see them shifting into concentration-like detention centres.

      https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/home-affairs/transfer-of-asylum-seekers-to-floating-coffin-bibby-stockholm-po
      #sécurité

    • Bibby Stockholm: First asylum seekers to board UK’s controversial barge despite safety warnings

      Fire Bridges Union (FBU) have brand Bibby Stockholm a ’potential deathtrap,’ while leaked health document warns of a potential diphtheria outbreak.

      The first 50 asylum seekers will board the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge “imminently," the British government told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme.

      The announcement comes just days after the Fire Bridges Union (FBU) raised concerns about overcrowding and fire exit access in a letter to the Home Secretary.

      The Bibby Stockholm, a 222-cabin barge moored off Portland port in Dorset, is anticipated to accommodate double its original capacity, with bunkbeds squeezed into single cabins.

      Narrow corridors, a lack of life jackets, and locked gates could create a “Hillsborough-type crush” and make it a “potential deathtrap,” the FBU warned.

      The evacuation point, a compound on the quayside, has been described by Dorset councillors as “completely inappropriate".

      “Firefighting operations on vessels such as the Bibby Stockholm provide significant challenges and require specialist training and safe systems of work. The diminished safety provisions only exacerbate our operational concerns,” Ben Selby, the assistant general Secretary of the FBU wrote.

      A leaked internal health document has also warned of the potential for “a significant outbreak” of diphtheria aboard the boat.

      It also highlighted the risk of the spread of a number of other infectious diseases including TB, Legionnaires’ disease, norovirus, salmonella, and scabies.

      The first group of asylum seekers was initially intended to arrive last Tuesday, but the date was pushed to this week amid health and safety concerns.

      The Home Office had already been forced to delay the first arrivals onto the vessel in order to carry out last-minute fire safety checks, after an intervention by health and safety officials.

      On Sunday, Shadow Immigration Minister Stephen Kinnock said the opposition Labour Party would have “no choice” but to continue housing asylum seekers on barges if it forms the next government.

      The news comes amid a raft of new anti-migration measures including a huge increase in fines for landlords and employers who house or employ undocumented migrants, and the revival of plans to fly asylum seekers to Ascension Island.
      Floating prisons

      The move to house asylum seekers on the barge in “detention-like conditions” has been condemned by over 50 national organisations and campaigners for being “cruel and inhumane".

      “(This) floating prison is very quickly going to turn into an overcrowded camp like Manston,” a member of Action Against Detention and Deportations (ADD) told MEE, referring to the short-term facility in Kent that was dangerously overcrowded.

      “There’s also a concern about how this might affect deportation,” they said.

      “We know that the Home Office cuts a lot of different admin procedures where they can, any route they can go through to detain people easily, they will do so… having that number of people in unsafe conditions… is a big concern.”

      It is the first time a large floating structure has been used as long-term housing for asylum seekers in the UK. In 2008, Algerian national Rachid Abdelsalam died from heart failure aboard the Bibby Stockholm when it was deployed in the Netherlands.

      Reportedly, guards were warned of his deteriorating condition and treated his heart irregularities with cough syrup.

      In 2022, also in the Netherlands, a major typhoid outbreak aboard an ageing cruise liner infected 52 asylum seekers and saw 20 staff members hospitalised after raw sewage contaminated the drinking water.
      No basic protections

      In the same letter, the FBU also expressed concerns about the government’s plans to exempt asylum seeker accommodation from requirements for a Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) license.

      In May this year, the Guardian reported the government plans to exempt asylum seeker accommodation from basic protections that govern HMOs in order to empty hotels of thousands of asylum seekers and transfer them to the private rented sector.

      The proposed changes would lift restrictions on electrical safety and minimum room sizes, and exempt landlords renting to multiple asylum seekers from requiring an HMO license for two years.

      “To strip away the very basic protections currently in place is appalling, allowing rogue landlords to house vulnerable men, women, and children in dangerous accommodation," a Refugee Council spokesperson told MEE.

      Care4Calais CEO Steve Smith told MEE that the plans treated asylum seekers as “second-class citizens.”

      “HMO licences exist for a reason,” Smith said.

      “Without them, people’s lives would be placed in the hands of unscrupulous landlords who are driven by money rather than providing safe and secure housing for tenants.”

      https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/bibby-stockholm-uk-asylum-seekers-board-controversial-barge

    • First occupants of Bibby Stockholm barge taken onboard

      First asylum seekers to be housed on floating accommodation in Portland, Dorset, have arrived

      The first group of asylum seekers due to be housed on the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, Dorset, have been taken onboard.

      Buses were seen arriving at Portland on Monday morning as activists gathered at the entrance with “welcome” signs. About 50 asylum seekers are expected on Monday.

      The UK government wants to use barges and former military bases to accommodate some asylum seekers after the cost of housing them in hotels soared to £1.9bn pounds last year.

      Their arrival came amid confusion over the government’s immigration policies at the start of Rishi Sunak’s “small boats week”, during which the government is planning a series of eye-catching announcements.

      A Home Office minister indicated that up to 500 asylum seekers could be onboard by the end of the week. But No 10 appeared to suggest that the minister had misspoken. The same minister indicated that the Home Office was examining proposals to send asylum seekers to a UK territory in the south Atlantic. However, Whitehall sources said the proposal was not being pursued.

      The Bibby Stockholm was docked off the Dorset coast nearly three weeks ago and had been empty since due to health and safety concerns.

      The minister for safeguarding, Sarah Dines, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that while only a small number of asylum seekers were expected to be housed on the barge at first, it could increase rapidly to its capacity of about 500.

      Pressed on whether all of them could be onboard by the end of the week, Dines said: “Yes, quite possibly it will be 500. We are hoping.”

      She said the increase in the number of people on the ship would be gradual, despite concerns from the Fire Brigades Union that the vessel “is a deathtrap”.

      Later, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “Numbers will increase over time as you would expect for any new asylum facility. My understanding is that the Bibby Stockholm has an upward capacity of 500. We are looking to [reach] that number over time – I don’t think we are aiming to do it by the weekend.”

      Dines also claimed that ministers were “looking at everything” when asked about headlines in national newspapers claiming the government was looking again at sending asylum seekers to Ascension Island.

      Whitehall sources have indicated the plans are not being pursued. The prime minister’s official spokesperson would not comment on “speculation”.

      Ministers have repeatedly said the barge will be better value for British taxpayers and more manageable for local communities – a claim challenged by refugee charities. There has been local opposition to the plan because of concerns about the asylum seekers’ welfare, as well as the potential impact on local services.

      The refugee charity Care4Calais said it had stopped 20 people from being forced to board the barge so far, with referrals coming in from hotels by the hour.

      “None of the asylum seekers we are supporting have gone to the Bibby Stockholm today as legal representatives have had their transfers cancelled,” Steve Smith, the charity’s CEO, said.

      “Among our clients are people who are disabled, who have survived torture and modern slavery and who have had traumatic experiences at sea. To house any human being in a ‘quasi floating prison’ like the Bibby Stockholm is inhumane. To try and do so to this group of people is unbelievably cruel.”

      More than 15,000 asylum seekers have arrived in the UK so far this year after crossing the Channel, official figures show.

      On Friday and Saturday 339 people made the journey after an eight-day hiatus amid poor weather conditions at sea, taking the provisional total for 2023 to date to 15,071.

      Amnesty International UK condemned using the barge to house asylum seekers. Steve Valdez-Symonds, the charity’s refugee and migrant rights director, said: “It seems there’s nothing this government won’t do to make people seeking asylum feel unwelcome and unsafe in this country.

      “Reminiscent of the prison hulks from the Victorian era, the Bibby Stockholm is an utterly shameful way to house people who’ve fled terror, conflict and persecution. Housing people on a floating barge is likely to be re-traumatising and there should be major concerns about confining each person to living quarters the typical size of a car parking space.”

      The government hopes the use of the barge and former military bases to house asylum seekers will reduce the cost of hotel bills.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/first-occupants-of-bibby-stockholm-barge-taken-onboard?CMP=share_btn_tw

    • Bibby Stockholm: Asylum seekers describe life on barge

      Some of the first group of men to board the Bibby Stockholm have described their first 24 hours on the barge.

      One asylum seeker told the BBC it was like a prison and felt there wasn’t enough room to accommodate up to 500 people onboard, as the government plans.

      The Home Office says the barge will provide better value for the taxpayer as pressure on the asylum system from small boats arrivals continues to grow.

      Moored in Portland Port, Dorset, it is the first barge secured under the government’s plans to reduce the cost of asylum accommodation.

      Monday saw the first 15 asylum seekers board the Bibby Stockholm after a series of delays over safety concerns. It will house men aged 18 to 65 while they await the outcome of their asylum applications.

      An Afghan asylum seeker, whom the BBC is not identifying, said: "The sound of locks and security checks gives me the feeling of entering Alcatraz prison.

      “My roommate panicked in the middle of the night and felt like he was drowning. There are people among us who have been given heavy drugs for depression by the doctor here.”

      He said he had been given a small room, and the dining hall had capacity for fewer than 150 people.

      “Like a prison, it [the barge] has entrance and exit gates, and at some specific hours, we have to take a bus, and after driving a long distance, we go to a place where we can walk. We feel very bad,” the man added.

      There is 24/7 security in place on board the Bibby Stockholm and asylum seekers are issued with ID swipe cards and have to pass through airport-style security scans to get on and off.

      Asylum seekers are expected to take a shuttle bus to the port exit for security reasons. There is no curfew, but if they aren’t back there will be a “welfare call”.

      The Home Office has said it would support their welfare by providing basic healthcare, organised activities and recreation.

      The first group of men arrived on Monday. The Care4Calais charity said it was providing legal support to a further 20 asylum seekers who refused to move to Portland and are challenging the decision.

      On Tuesday, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Griffiths, said that moving to the barge was “not a choice” and if people choose not to comply “they will be taken outside of the asylum support system”.

      “Many of us entered Britain nine to 11 months ago, by airplane. Some of us applied for asylum at the airport. We did not come by boat,” the Afghan man said.

      "It has been two weeks since we received a letter in which they threatened that if we do not agree to go, our aid and NHS will be cut off.

      “There are people among us who take medicine. We accepted. We waited for two weeks and didn’t even have time to bring clean clothes.”

      Another man who boarded the vessel on Monday told the BBC he had arrived in the UK on an aircraft, had a wife still in Iran and had been in Britain for six months.

      The man - whom the BBC is not identifying - said he had eaten a “good” breakfast which included “eggs, cheese, jam and butter”.

      The government says it is spending £6m per day housing more than 50,000 migrants in hotels.

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “This marks a further step forward in the government’s work to bring forward alternative accommodation options as part of its pledge to reduce the use of expensive hotels and move to a more orderly, sustainable system which is more manageable for local communities.”

      “This is a tried-and-tested approach that mirrors that taken by our European neighbours, the Scottish government and offers better value for the British taxpayer,” they added.

      The Home Office says that by the autumn, they aim to house about 3,000 asylum seekers in places that aren’t hotels - such as the barge, and former military sites Wethersfield, in Essex, and Scampton, in Lincolnshire.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66444120

    • Moment Bibby Stockholm barge migrants are EVACUATED amid fears of Legionnaires’ disease - just DAYS after asylum seekers moved aboard in Dorset

      - All 39 asylum seekers onboard Bibby Stockholm barge were evacuated today
      - It comes after first 15 men boarded vessel in Portland, Dorset, just four days ago

      This the moment asylum seekers were driven away from the Bibby Stockholm after deadly legionella bacteria was found in the migrant barge’s water system.

      All 39 migrants onboard the controversial vessel were evacuated today - just four days after the first 15 men stepped onto it in Portland, Dorset - and are being moved to the same hotel, according to The Independent.

      A 40-seater coach, which had been shuttling migrants to and from Weymouth, was seen leaving today. Inside were two men sat in the middle who turned their faces away from onlookers at the port.

      Other footage of the Bibby Stockholm showed people arriving and leaving this afternoon - with ten people seen walking up a ramp and entering while others left.

      Routine tests of the barge’s water supply were reportedly carried out on July 25 but the results only came back when asylum seekers began boarding the barge on Monday, according to Sky News. The results showed levels of legionella bacteria ’which require further investigation’.

      Home Office sources say they were not made aware of the results until Wednesday, with further tests being carried out on Thursday.

      The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) advised the Government on Thursday evening to remove all six people that arrived on the Bibby Stockholm that day, but the Home Office decided to evacuate all 39 as a precaution.

      The harmful bacteria can cause a serious lung infection called Legionnaires’ disease, which can happen when breathing in tiny droplets of water containing the bacteria.

      Although nobody onboard had shown symptoms of the disease, officials insisted that all migrants be disembarked while further assessments are carried out.

      A letter from the Home Office that was leaked to the Guardian has reportedly informed asylum seekers that they will be tested for Legionnaires diseases if they do begin to show symptoms.

      The migrants will be taken to hotels which are said to be far from Weymouth, where few rooms are available during the height of the school summer holidays.

      One Syrian migrant onboard the barge told MailOnline this afternoon that he had not been given any information and had not been told to leave. He said: ’The place is very empty but no one has said anything to us. We will have to wait and see, but it is worrying.’

      But the migrants were later told they would be evacuated. It comes after health officials ordered six new arrivals to be removed yesterday.

      Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick is said to be holding meetings to discuss the barge, which the Government hoped would house up to 500 migrants. Local councillors have vowed not to see the boat back in use.

      With a capacity of up to 506, the Government is still hoping that use of the Bibby Stockholm, together with former military bases, will help reduce the £6million a day it is spending on hotel bills for asylum seekers.

      But opponents have claimed the barge is unsafe and a ’floating prison’, while lawyers of some migrants due to board this week have successfully argued to allow them to stay in hotels.

      It was only four days ago that the first 15 men were taken onboard the vessel.

      Support workers, who have spoken to some on board, claimed the asylum seekers were not being kept informed about what was happening.

      Heather Jones, of the Portland Friendship Group which is supporting the migrants, said: ’I have had texts and phone conversations from some of them and they are still on board, they haven’t been evacuated yet.

      ’Nobody has told them anything. They have had to ask me what the problem is. One of them was really concerned because he had just drunk a glass of water and he was asking me if he was going to be OK.

      ’I told him it is probably a precautionary measure but they shouldn’t be hearing it from me.

      ’They don’t know where they are being taken to. Hopefully it will be back to the hotels where they have come from.’

      There was a small group of campaigners from Stand Up To Racism at the port entrance holding placards saying ’Legionella death trap’ and ’human rights’.

      Lynne Hubbard, from the group, said: ’The Home Office have admitted they carried on admitting asylum seekers on the barge even though they found out about legionella on Monday.

      ’They would have been drinking the water and showering in it. That shows pretty clearly what the Government thinks of asylum seekers and how much they value their lives. They are heartless.

      ’An asylum seeker in there we are in contact with told us to get in touch with his family in case he dies of Legionella. That’s how frightened they are.’

      A local Portland councillor slammed the health crisis as a ’farce’ this afternoon.

      Paul Kimbdr, an independent councillor, said he thought the outbreak would mean the end of the barge being used to house asylum seekers.

      ’I just can’t see it being back in use. It’s all been a bit of a farce really,’ he told MailOnline.

      A Home Office spokesman told MailOnline today: ’The health and welfare of individuals on the vessel is our utmost priority.

      ’Environmental samples from the water system on the Bibby Stockholm have shown levels of legionella bacteria which require further investigation.

      ’Following these results, the Home Office has been working closely with UKHSA (the UK Health Security Agency) and following its advice in line with long established public health processes, and ensuring all protocol from Dorset Council’s Environmental Health team and Dorset NHS is adhered to.

      ’As a precautionary measure, all 39 asylum seekers who arrived on the vessel this week are being disembarked while further assessments are undertaken.

      ’No individuals on board have presented with symptoms of Legionnaires’, and asylum seekers are being provided with appropriate advice and support.

      ’The samples taken relate only to the water system on the vessel itself and therefore carry no direct risk indication for the wider community of Portland nor do they relate to fresh water entering the vessel. Legionnaires’ disease does not spread from person to person.’

      Mr Jenrick has previously described the barge as ’perfectly decent accommodation’, but asylum seekers who have spent four nights onboard have contrasting views.

      While one Afghan compared it to the former US maximum security prison Alcatraz, others have said it was ’cramped but comfortable’ with lots of facilities.

      MailOnline understands that the legionella bacteria is believed to have come from the pipes on the vessel – with tests of the water at point of entry coming back with no indication of legionella.

      Six asylum seekers arrived on the barge yesterday, and the UK Health Security Agency last night advised the Home Office to remove this group.

      Home Office sources have insisted that the removal of everyone was a ’further temporary precaution’ aimed to ’reduce the health risk as much as possible’.

      The Home Office is now awaiting the results of follow-up tests which have been carried out on the water system by Dorset Council environmental health officers.

      The UK Health Security Agency will then provide additional advice.

      Sources added that it was not unusual to identify legionella bacteria in warm water systems, which is why they are often subject to regular testing in buildings.

      A Dorset Council spokesman said: ’Dorset Council’s environmental health team and Public Health Dorset are advising the Home Office and its contractors, alongside the UK Health Security Agency and NHS Dorset, following notification of positive samples of Legionella bacteria in the water system on the Bibby Stockholm barge.

      ’No individuals have presented symptoms of Legionnaires’ disease, and there is no health risk to the wider community of Portland.’

      It is understood that the Home Office is managing the search for alternative accommodation for the asylum seekers.

      Dr Laurence Buckman, former chairman of the British Medical Association’s GP Committee, told GB News today: ’If you’re unlucky and your immunity isn’t really tip-top, there is a risk that you will get legionella pneumonia and die from it.

      ’It’s potentially treatable but of course you have to diagnose it first. It lives in water supplies. It lives in sink traps, so a U-bend of a sink will be a problem, and it lives in air conditioning units.

      ’That’s why we have what are called ’scrubbers’ in air conditioning units to wipe out the legionella before the air gets blown onto other people, and why hospitals that get legionella in their sinks have a really big problem. At worst, they have to take the sinks out and replace them and the pipework that goes with them.’

      Steve Smith, chief executive of the charity Care4Calais, said: ’We have always known our concerns over the health and safety of the barge are justified, and this latest mismanagement proves our point.

      ’The Bibby Stockholm is a visual illustration of this Government’s hostile environment against refugees, but it has also fast become a symbol for the shambolic incompetence which has broken Britain’s asylum system.

      ’The Government should now realise warehousing refugees in this manner is completely untenable, and should focus on the real job at hand - processing the asylum claims swiftly, so refugees may become contributing members of our communities as they so strongly wish.’

      Meanwhile Fire Brigades Union general secretary Ben Selby said the outbreak suggested it was ’only a matter of time before either lives are lost or there is serious harm to a detainee.’

      He said: ’The Fire Brigades Union warned the Home Secretary that forcibly holding migrants on this barge was a huge health and safety risk.

      ’This outbreak of Legionella suggests that it’s only a matter of time before either lives are lost or there is serious harm to a detainee.’

      And Alex Bailey, a spokesman for the No To The Barge campaign group, told MailOnline: ’This has become Fawlty Towers at sea.

      ’This was inevitable because of the poor advance planning and preparation, the rush and people in power with little knowledge and pushing the experts to break the rules.

      ’This is just another example of the incompetent way our Government has approached this scheme from start to finish. Robert Jenrick promised the country Bibbly Stockholm was safe. That is not the case.’

      Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: ’Across the country, most people want strong border security and a properly managed and controlled asylum system so the UK does its bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution and conflict, while those who have no right to be here are swiftly returned.

      ’Under this Government, we have neither as gangs are undermining our border security and the asylum system is in chaos.’

      And Kolbassia Haoussou, director of survivor empowerment at Freedom from Torture, said: ’The presence of life-threatening bacteria onboard the Bibby Stockholm is just another shocking revelation that we’ve seen unfold over the past few weeks. This Government’s punitive policies and deliberate neglect of the asylum system is not just cruel, it’s dangerous.’

      Yesterday the Home Office denied the barge was a ’floating prison’ and insisted that those onboard would be ’free to come and go as they want’.

      Gardening in nearby allotments and hiking tours of the area are among the activities which could be offered to those onboard.

      Security measures include 18 guards trained to military standard who work around the clock.

      In total, about 60 staff including cooks and cleaners will be on board the barge run by Landry and Kling, a sub-contractor of Corporate Travel Management (CTM) which also managed vessels in Scotland housing Ukrainians.

      Spaghetti with meatballs, roast turkey, Irish stew and beef pie are on the sample menu to be served in the canteen by Dubai-headquartered offshore firm Connect Catering Services, alongside breakfast and a selection of snacks available 24 hours a day.

      The gym, equipped with treadmills and weights, is still awaiting delivery of rowing machines and exercise bikes. Volleyball, basketball, netball and football can all be played in one of two outside courtyards.

      Most of the 222 bedrooms have twin bunk beds, with cupboard space, a desk, en-suite bathroom, heating and windows which open. But there are also 20 larger rooms which would sleep four people, and two rooms housing six people.

      The bedrooms all have televisions which the operator was told to disconnect but were too costly to remove so can be used only as monitors.

      Instead, residents will be encouraged to socialise or watch programmes and films in one of four communal TV rooms, and can also learn English in a classroom and worship in a dedicated space. A small number of laptops are also available and there is Wi-Fi throughout the barge.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12397201/All-migrants-housed-Bibby-Stockholm-barge-removed.html
      #maladie #légionellose #maladie_du_légionnaire #évacuation

    • Asylum seekers say Bibby Stockholm conditions caused suicide attempt

      Thirty-nine people who were briefly onboard write to Suella Braverman describing their fear and despair

      Thirty-nine asylum seekers who were briefly accommodated on the Home Office’s controversial Bibby Stockholm barge in Dorset have said conditions onboard were so bad that one was driven to attempt suicide.

      A three-page letter sent to the home secretary, Suella Braverman, also sets out the asylum seekers’ fear and despair at being trapped on the barge and appeals to her to help them in their search for safety and freedom in the UK.

      They describe the barge as “an unsafe, frightening and isolated place” but said that as law-abiding people they were fearful of not obeying Home Office instructions. The asylum seekers described the barge as “a place of exile” and said the conditions were “small rooms and a terrifying residence”.

      Some of the asylum seekers have told the Guardian they are too traumatised to return to the barge in Portland.

      According to the letter some people fell ill on the barge.

      The letter says: “Also in a tragic incident one of the asylum seekers attempted suicide but we acted promptly and prevented this unfortunate event. Considering the ongoing difficulties it’s not unexpected that we might face a repeat of such situations in the future.

      “Some friends said they even wished they had courage to commit suicide. Our personal belief is that many of these individuals might resort to this foolishness to escape problems in the future.”

      They said they were the last people to be informed about the legionella bacteria found on the barge and announced by the Home Office on 11 August.

      They said their brief stay on the barge had led to a deterioration in their mental health. “Currently we are staying in an old and abandoned hotel. The sense of isolation and loneliness has taken over us and psychological and emotional pressures have increased significantly.”

      The letter to Braverman concludes with a plea to consider their situation as a priority. “We are individuals who are tired of the challenges that have arisen and no longer have the strength to face them.”

      An Iranian asylum seeker among the 39 has vowed never to return there. He said many of the other men who spent a few days onboard felt the same way.

      “If I had had to stay even one more day on the barge I would have had suicidal thoughts. When I got on to the barge the smell and the stench of seawater was overwhelming,” he said.

      “I developed stomach pains and felt dizzy but I was too scared to refuse to get on. Being on the barge made us feel like criminals and second-class citizens.”

      He added that nobody from the Home Office properly explained the legionella situation to them. “I had to search on Google to find out what it is. Everyone who was on the barge are now all together in one hotel. A few people are coughing and everybody is afraid. When I was having a shower on the barge the water was burning my eyes.

      “Being on that barge will always be a horrific memory in my brain. It’s a completely unfit place. We’re all feeling very upset but are even more upset that the Home Office want to return us to this horror show.

      “I want to ask a question of the people who made the decision to put us on the barge. ‘Would you put a member of your family there even for one day?’ We came to the UK to escape persecution but are facing more persecution here.”

      In response to the letter the Home Office said: “We are following all protocol and advice from Dorset council’s environmental health team, UK Health Security Agency and Dorset NHS, who we continue to work closely with.

      “Further tests are being conducted and we intend to re-embark asylum seekers only when there is confirmation that the water system meets relevant safety standards. The safety of those onboard remains the priority.”
      Bibby Stockholm timeline

      Monday 7 August: The first group of asylum seekers, all men, are taken to the barge by the Home Office. Some lawyers successfully challenged their clients being put onboard. New arrivals said they were shocked by the high walls of the barge, which felt like a ‘floating prison’ and the overwhelming stench of seawater onboard.

      Tuesday 8 August : The reality of life onboard the barge starts to be understood by the men. “My feeling about this ship is negative,” said one. “Right now my strongest feeling is of being humiliated and captured. The government takes revenge on every useful brain and heart. What I mean by revenge is that the British government intends to cover up its political and economic failures by using asylum seekers as an excuse.”

      Thursday 10 August: By this time all the agencies involved with the barge were aware that tests had confirmed legionella onboard the barge on Monday. Dorset council said its officials informed barge contractors the same day they received the test results and that a meeting was held on Tuesday with officials including one from the Home Office. The men continued to shower and use water taps onboard, oblivious to any potential risks to their health.

      Friday 11 August: At 1.54pm the men started seeing messages on social media “that there is a disease problem on the barge and we will need to evacuate”. At about 2pm a text was received that the asylum seekers believed to be from staff onboard the barge telling them not to use the showers for two hours as the shower heads needed to be replaced. At 5pm, a copied text was received from the Home Office describing the bacteria found on the barge and informing the men that they would be leaving the barge at 7pm by bus.

      Saturday 12 August: Relocation to a “disused” hotel. The men begin to process the despair their experience on the barge had left them with. Some said previously they had put their trust in the Home Office to provide them with safety after fleeing danger in their home countries but their time on the barge has destroyed that. “All our hopes are gone. We think now the Home Office is not there to help us. It abandons us to uncertain destiny. The barge has sabotaged hope, trust. Morale among us is at zero.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/25/asylum-seekers-bibby-stockholm-conditions-suicide-attempt

    • Home Office Faces Legal Challenge Against ‘Appalling’ Use of Bibby Stockholm Barge to House Refugees

      “Human beings do not belong in barges or camps. The correct way to house people is to house them in communities.”

      A Labour mayor has launched a legal challenge to Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s use of the Bibby Stockholm barge to accommodate around 500 male asylum-seekers at Portland Port in Dorset, without obtaining planning permission.

      Carralyn Parkes is a Portland Town Councillor and Mayor of Portland, bit is acting in a personal capacity as a local resident. Dorset Council and Portland Port Limited have backed the claim as “interested parties”, meaning that they will have the opportunity to make submissions, file evidence and participate in the case.

      It comes after a deadly legionella strain was found onboard the Bibby Stockholm. It was detected on the first day people boarded on 7 August, with officials evacuating all 39 people onboard that day, the Guardian reported.

      Parkes is asking the Court to declare that the Home Office’s use of the barge as asylum accommodation is capable of constituting ‘development’ under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and therefore that it may amount to a breach of planning control and possible enforcement action by Dorset Council.

      Her claim argues that the Home Office is attempting the ‘technical wheeze’ of using a boat as asylum accommodation in order to circumvent normal planning rules, which would apply if the barge was instead installed on land.

      As a result, local residents’ ability to raise objections to the barge and its use in Portland, via their local authority, is “severely hampered”, her legal team says. It also places the barge outside the reach of “important” legal protections such as limits on overcrowding.

      Carralyn Parkes told Byline Times: “In the 21st century, it’s appalling to think that we’ve even considered housing the most vulnerable people in the world on a barge. The accommodation is wholly unsuitable.

      “If the government had put this through a planning procedure, I’m convinced it would have been denied, as the port is a closed area.”

      She added that infrastructure in Portland is “stretched to breaking point” while the barge was originally produced for 220 people. “Now they’re talking about 500 people. It’s completely overcrowded and there’s no fire safety certificate,” Parkes said.

      “It’s just terrible to think that our country would do something like this to vulnerable people, and to ride roughshod over communities…Human beings do not belong in barges or camps. The correct way to house people is to house them in communities.”

      “Portland is not averse to housing asylum seekers. It’s the actual conditions of housing asylum seekers on the barge that is appalling.”

      Asked if she thought the legal challenge stood a strong chance, she said: “I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t think it’s a chance of being successful. I’m a private individual taking this on board. It’s a huge and daunting task to take on the whole mechanism of the state, the Home Secretary and the Home Office.”

      While she is launching the legal challenge as a private individual rather than a Labour mayor, she added she had support from Labour colleagues locally.

      Parkes also argues that the Home Office has not complied with its environmental impact assessment duties. An appraisal branded “inadequate” by campaigners was only conducted after asylum seekers had been moved onto the barge, and several months after the Home Office had declared its intention of using the barge for that purpose.

      The claim also argues that the Home Office has not complied with its Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, which includes prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race, and a duty to foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic (such as race), and those who do not.

      Parkes and her team argue that the Equality Impact Assessment, conducted only days before the barge came into use, is “woefully inadequate” as it fails to consider the impact of the barge’s operation in radicalising far-right extremism, or the equality impact of segregating rather than integrating asylum seekers into communities.

      A spokesperson for Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors said: “Our client is taking a brave stand against the Home Office’s attempts to circumvent important planning rules and protections to use the Bibby Stockholm barge to accommodate vulnerable asylum seekers.

      “She is asking the Court to rule that proper procedures should be followed and that local people and authorities should be given the opportunity to have their say.”

      Carralyn Parkes is represented by Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors. She is continuing to crowdfund to cover her legal costs and to cover the risk that costs are awarded against her. So far Parkes has raised more than £20,000.

      The next step is for the defendant, the Home Office, and the Interested Parties (Dorset Council and Portland Port Limited) to respond. If they wish to do so, the deadline is 4 October. After that the Court will make a decision on whether Parkes has permission for her judicial review.

      https://bylinetimes.com/2023/09/12/home-office-faces-legal-challenge-against-appalling-use-of-bibby-stockh

    • Bibby Stockholm gets ‘satisfactory’ test results for legionella

      Results revealed in FoI data follow other tests that found unsatisfactory levels of the bacteria on barge

      The Bibby Stockholm barge has had “satisfactory” test results for legionella, after tests initially found the presence of the potentially deadly bacteria, the Guardian has learned.

      The Home Office, which hopes to hold hundreds of people seeking asylum on the barge in Portland, received the most recent legionella results on 4 September and government sources said they were not planning to make the results public. The Guardian obtained the results in freedom of information data from Dorset council.

      In these most recent results, all the water samples tested for legionella were deemed “satisfactory”, although some of the bacteria were identified in two of the samples. In three previous sets of tests, at least some of the samples tested were found to be “unsatisfactory” for legionella.

      The worst results related to samples from 9 August, two days after asylum seekers were briefly put on the barge. They were removed after just four and a half days. In these results, eight of the 11 samples taken were unsatisfactory and three were borderline. Some of the bacteria found was the deadliest strain, legionella pneumophila serogroup 1.

      A second freedom of information request, to Cornwall council, revealed that the barge was not inspected for legionella while in Falmouth for checks and repairs before it was moved to Portland.

      A third freedom of information request revealed that the Home Office has used water safety risk assessments for the Bibby Stockholm that are more than six years out of date. The Home Office said a more up-to-date risk assessment had subsequently been signed off.

      Apart from the legionella bacteria found on the barge, concerns have been raised about planning, fire safety and plumbing breaches. Legal actions are under way relating to these issues.

      A spokesperson for the Home Office barge contractor CTM confirmed that repairs to the plumbing were under way after an inspection by Wessex Water found failings.

      In media interviews on Wednesday, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, said “various procedures” needed to be completed before people could return to the Bibby Stockholm but that government had done “really well” with its work on the barge.

      Beyond Borders Totnes & District, an organisation that is supporting some of the men taken off the barge, said none wanted to return there. “They found the barge intolerable and claustrophobic. It is utterly prison-like,” a spokesperson said.

      The Home Office said: “We are pleased to confirm that the latest tests have shown that there are no health risks from legionella on the Bibby Stockholm, with individuals set to return to the barge in due course.

      “The welfare of asylum seekers is of paramount importance. It is right we went above and beyond UK Health Security Agency advice and disembarked asylum seekers as a precautionary measure whilst the issue was investigated.”

      Home Office sources added that an agreed programme of work including a complete flush and chlorination of the water had been undertaken and that a water control plan was in place with regular water testing to continue.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/22/bibby-stockholm-gets-satisfactory-test-results-for-legionella

  • Firm managing hotels for UK asylum seekers posts bumper profits

    Three directors of #Clearsprings_Ready_Homes share dividends of almost £28m, as profits rise sixfold

    A company contracted by the UK Home Office to manage hotels and other accommodation for asylum seekers increased its profits more than sixfold last year, with its three directors sharing dividends of almost £28m.

    Clearsprings Ready Homes has a 10-year contract to manage asylum seeker accommodation in England and Wales, a mix of hotel accommodation that the #Home_Office says is costing it more than £5m a day, and shared housing.

    Clearspringsboosted its profits from £4,419,841 to £28,012,487 to the year ending 31 January 2022, with dividends jumping from £7m to £27,987,262.

    It has been reported that the home secretary, Suella Braverman, allowed numbers to increase at Manston, the Home Office’s processing centre in Ramsgate, Kent, instead of moving people to hotels. However, hotel use is still high. Home Office accommodation providers get better terms on their contracts once the asylum seeker population rises above 70,000, as it has been for more than a year.

    Asylum seekers in hotels receive just over £1 a day, £8.24 a week, to buy essentials.

    Clearsprings’ latest annual accounts provide a buoyant financial forecast for the company in its Home Office contract, which runs until September 2029.

    The annual accounts report states: “Demand for accommodation has remained high, contingency including hotels has increased.”

    The reportadds that turnover and operating profits were boosted this year by an increase in the number of people seeking asylum. It says: “The number of arrivals per year is expected to continue at a high level for the foreseeable future. Due to the long-term nature of the contract and the pre-agreed rates the price risk is considered minimal.”

    Graham O’Neill, the policy manager at the Scottish Refugee Council, condemned the steep rise in profits for #Clearsprings and said public money could be better used.

    “The Home Office is effectively passing billions of the Treasury’s monies for asylum accommodation to private bodies with no plan to grip this. Much of this money ends up as bumper profits and dividends for private companies, directors and shareholders.

    “By definition this profit is not going where it should: into good social housing in communities, into local services so they may support refugees and local people. It is blindingly obvious that this is neither sustainable nor in the public interest. We need swift high-quality asylum decisions and public monies for public good into communities; not into private profit and dividends. The new PM [Rishi Sunak] needs to grip this as that is the solution.”

    Clearsprings and Home Office have been approached for comment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/31/firm-managing-hotels-for-uk-asylum-seekers-posts-bumper-profits

    #business #accueil #privatisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #hôtels #hébergement #dividendes #profit #prix #coût

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • Airline hired for UK’s #Rwanda deportations pulls out of scheme

    Exclusive: #Privilege_Style causes problem for Home Office as it bows to pressure from campaigners

    A charter airline hired to remove people seeking refuge in the UK to Rwanda has pulled out of the scheme after pressure from campaigners.

    A plane operated by Privilege Style first attempted to fly asylum seekers to the east African country in June but was grounded by an 11th hour ruling by the European court of human rights.

    The Mallorca-based carrier had become known as the UK government’s “airline of last resort” for its willingness to conduct deportation flights that other airlines refused.

    But after an email campaign by torture survivors and refugee organisations, Privilege Style has said it will no longer operate flights to Rwanda.

    The development will leave the UK government in a fix. Two other charter airlines that previously conducted deportation flights, Titan Airways and AirTanker, have already ruled themselves out of the scheme.

    In a letter to the charity Freedom from Torture, which has led the campaign under the hashtag #StopTheFlights, Privilege Style said it “hereby wishes to communicate the following: that it will not operate flights to Rwanda in the future. That it has never flown to Rwanda since the one flight scheduled for June 2022 (which is the reason for this controversy) was suspended.”

    The UK signed a £120m deal with the Rwandan government in April to outsource the UK’s asylum system as it sought to find a solution to a growing number of refugees entering the UK via small boats in the Channel.

    The deal meant people who had arrived in the UK by irregular means, such as by small boat, could be forced on to charter planes and flown to the east African country.

    It was criticised by human rights organisations because of Rwanda’s record as an authoritarian state that repeatedly imprisons, tortures and murders alleged political opponents.

    Privilege Style’s statement followed an escalation in public protests against it by campaigners. Last week, activists from Freedom from Torture presented the firm with “worst airline of the year” award at the carrier’s headquarters in Palma in front of the media.

    According to the carrier, its VIP customers include several Spanish companies and top Spanish football clubs.

    Campaigners targeted Privilege Style outside the Real Madrid v Barcelona match last week in Madrid, holding banners reading: “Don’t fly with Privilege Style while they profit from refugees’ pain.”

    No flights have taken off yet to Rwanda because of legal challenges in the high court.

    On 14 June, a Privilege Style Boeing 767 was due to take seven asylum seekers to Kigali from a military airport at Boscombe Down, Wiltshire. The day before it had taken tourists from Tenerife, Spain, to Düsseldorf.

    But the flight, which cost the UK taxpayer about £500,000, was cancelled at the last minute following a decision by the European court.

    Liz Truss, the outgoing prime minister, had pledged to continue the scheme. Candidates considering running to be prime minister – including Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt and Boris Johnson – are expected to support the deportations.

    Last month, a detailed review by the charity Medical Justice found many asylum seekers threatened with removal to Rwanda may have been tortured or trafficked into the UK.

    Kolbassia Haoussou, a torture survivor and a director at Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a victory for people power – for thousands who took action and for the torture survivors who stood up against the UK government’s cruel ‘cash for humans’ Rwanda scheme.

    “When I fled torture and persecution in central Africa, the UK gave me sanctuary and a chance to rebuild my life. It breaks my heart to see the government turning their back on people like me in their hour of need, and that private companies are profiting from their suffering.

    “Privilege Style’s decision to no longer fly torture survivors to Rwanda sends a message to the aviation industry: if you try and cash in on the pain of refugees, you will be held to account.”

    A Home Office spokesperson said: “We remain committed to our world-leading Migration Partnership with Rwanda, which will see those who come to the UK through dangerous, illegal and unnecessary routes relocated to Rwanda to rebuild their lives there.

    “Rwanda is a safe and secure country with a strong track record of supporting asylum seekers and we will continue to robustly defend the partnership in the courts. We do not comment on operational matters.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/21/airline-hired-uk-rwanda-deportations-pulls-out-privilege-style
    #UK #Angleterre #procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #pays_tiers #Rwanda #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #avions #compagnie_aérienne

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • Letter of support for #Uju_Anya after she was targeted by Jeff Bezos and her employer for her criticism of the Queen’s commitments to colonial violence

    Dear Supporters of Dr. Uju Anya,

    Dr. Uju Anya is a world-renowned Nigerian-Trinidadian-American Associate Professor of Second Language Acquisition at Carnegie Mellon University. Her groundbreaking research focuses on the experiences of African American students in world language education. She brings attention to systemic barriers that African American students face in accessing world language education and the marginalization they experience in world language classrooms. Yet, her research isn’t only focused on these challenges. Her work points to concrete ways of making world language education more equitable. The significance and quality of her scholarship can be seen in the fact that her widely-cited book, Racialized Identities in Second Language Language: Speaking Blackness in Brazil (https://www.routledge.com/Racialized-Identities-in-Second-Language-Learning-Speaking-Blackness-in/Anya/p/book/9780367197469), was awarded the prestigious 2019 American Association for Applied Linguistics First Book Award (https://www.aaal.org/first-book-award).

    Dr. Anya has also been at the forefront of leading efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in the field of applied linguistics, a field that has struggled to diversify and that remains white dominated. She mentors Black students and other students of color, as well as assume leadership roles in a range of professional organizations, such as the American Association for Applied Linguistics where she amplifies the voices of emerging scholars of color. She has also been able to amass a broad social media presence on Twitter that showcases her love of Black people across the Diaspora, her passion for uplifting the voices LGBTQA+ persons, and a space for collective joy.

    The Issue

    On September 8, 2022, shortly before Queen Elizabeth II died at the age of 96, Dr. Anya tweeted her feelings about the queen’s death. As a Black woman who was born in Nigeria, whose family has been directly harmed by the insidious impacts of British imperialism, genocide, and white supremacy, Dr. Anya expressed her pain on her personal Twitter account. Not only did Queen Elizabeth II sit on a throne of Indigenous and Black blood, embedded in the overall legacy of the British monarchy, her actual government presided over and directly facilitated the genocide that Dr. Anya’s parents and siblings barely survived (https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-04-29-how-britains-labour-government-facilitated-the-massacre-). This genocide entailed the massacre of more than 3 million Igbo people, including other family members of Dr. Anya. While within public discourse, the term “colonizer” can appear to be an abstract term that people have only read about in history books, Dr. Anya experienced the reverberations of colonial white supremacy first hand. Thus, Queen Elizabeth II was not figuratively but literally her colonizer, and the colonizer of millions of people across the world—and particularly countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Indian Ocean territories. As if these atrocities weren’t enough, during her tenure, Queen Elizabeth II oversaw ​​the brutal detainment camps in colonial Kenya (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/world/africa/queen-africa-british-empire.html), banned ‘’coloured or foreign’ staff in the palace (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-rev), and committed her career to the “service of our great imperial family’’ in a 1947 speech in South Africa (https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-monarchy-has-benefited-from-colonialism-and-slavery-1). Over the course of more than 70 years, the imperial reign of Queen Elizabeth II was inextricably tied to the legacy of the British Empire’s commitment to white supremacy and colonialism.

    Dr. Uju Anya’s tweet, again sent from her personal Twitter account, quickly went viral—largely due to an outpouring of global support from others harmed by the British colonial regime. At the same time, there was also a torrent of criticism as well as targeted harassment directed against Dr. Anya. While “going viral” is not an uncommon occurrence for Dr. Anya or any public intellectual, having a tweet picked up by billionaire Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos was however extraordinary. Bezos did not condemn the words and sentiment of Dr. Anya’s tweet, which would’ve been his right to free speech. Instead, he vilified her by suggesting that her pedagogical, activist, and scholarly contributions are “supposedly” not “working to make the world better.” We beg to differ, as would the many students with improved experiences in world language education and the increasing number of African American students entering applied linguistics because they now see themselves within historically white spaces precisely because of the groundwork laid by Dr. Anya. Although this particular tweet would’ve been highly inappropriate from any person in power, it is particularly pernicious as an attack against a Black Nigerian-Trinidadian-American Professor, coming from a man that has amassed his wealth through global domination and exploitation without regard for the most vulnerable and precarious humans on our planet (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/26/amazon-workers-are-rising-up-around-the-world-to-say-enough). This is, frankly, not dissimilar to the British monarchy’s colonial project—Bezos simply remixed the colonial schema through neoliberal racial capitalism, exploitation, and greed.

    The strength of Bezos’ platform is no secret either. With over 5 million followers on Twitter, Bezos has the capacity to impress hundreds of millions of people with a single tweet. Bezos also utilizes his reputation and mass fortune to support university projects across the globe. In the last decade Bezos has made donations to countless universities, including Carnegie Mellon University—Dr. Anya’s home institution. This financial paper trail is highly relevant to Professor Anya’s treatment and the university’s subsequent statement. Now, Dr. Anya faces violent threats, harassment, and abuse.

    Reflections on CMU’s Statement on Dr. Anya’s Tweet

    As colleagues at other institutions, one thing that sticks out to us is that universities have nothing to gain by calling out individual employees on free speech—especially when they can be seen doing it selectively—as is the case for CMU. Professor Anya’s twitter clearly states: “Views are mine.” Yet, her institution took up the charge to admonish a Black woman professor, calling her response to her lived experiences of the real and tangible impacts of colonialism and white supremacy, "offensive and objectionable.” This is unacceptable and dehumanizing. Simultaneously, the institution arguing that Professor Anya’s critical reflections were "not representative of the level of discourse at CMU ’’ forces us to ask: Where is the space for this sort of discourse if not within the free speech that academia purports to uplift? Where else is it safe for students, scholars, and thinkers alike to openly express the horrors of white supremacy, colonial atrocities and genocide? “Who is the ‘we’ referenced here?” asks UPenn Professor, Dr. Nelson Flores (https://twitter.com/nelsonlflores/status/1568217467058544643). And, importantly, “What are the standards of discourse when somebody is speaking truth to their oppressors?”

    (https://twitter.com/ProfeRandolph/status/1568238263579693061?s=20&t=zDodej-DbG_rmHMhjurGtg).

    We also note the strikingly different institutional response to the social media activity of Richard Grenell, a CMU-affiliated senior fellow and Trump official who used his Twitter platform to spread hateful messages and conspiracy theories that have been characterized as sinophobic and antisemitic. When student groups and community members expressed outrage and alarm, CMU President Farnam Jahanian refused to condemn Grennell’s statements and instead expressed strong support for his first amendment rights (https://www.cmu.edu/leadership/president/campus-comms/2020/2020-11-18.html).

    As a counter example to CMU’s deplorable response, Syracuse University’s Chancellor and Dean issued a statement in support of their colleague and employee (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/14/syracuse-offers-unequivocal-support-targeted-professor), Dr. Jenn Jackson (another Black woman violently threatened and abused after a viral tweet). Her institution immediately denounced the violent threats against her, refused to sanction or discipline her, and honored her right to free speech. While we by no means think this process was or is perfect, we cite this to note that other peer-institutions have responded in more humane and supportive ways to their Black female faculty. CMU had a choice and their response was a deliberate betrayal against one of their own highly regarded and respected scholars. It has further exposed her to threats of violence.

    Forward and Onward

    The British Monarchy and “The Royal Family” are much more than the weddings, the kids, and the racialized intrafamily drama that American pop culture has seen over the past decade. The British Monarchy has caused and is directly responsible for widespread irreparable harm in the past, now in the present, and likely in the future because the impacts of white supremacy and settler colonialism are insidious. It is inappropriate, harmful, and ahistorical to admonish colonized people or “tell them how they should feel about their colonizer’s health and wellness” as University of Michigan tenured professor, Dr. Ebony Elizabeth Thomas astutely tweeted.

    More than our thoughts and prayers, we request actionable support to be shown towards Professor Uju Anya. We ask university officials at CMU to consider what harms are both elided from critical discourse and reproduced in the classroom when they choose to stand on the side of the oppressor. Universities must be intentional about how they respond to public discourse and critically evaluate who they are targeting and/or harming by their response or lack of response. We call on universities to stop being reactive when issues of structural oppression are called to their attention and take seriously its impacts on staff, faculty, students, and families.

    In closing, we echo Dr. Nelson Flores’ tweet from September 9th (https://twitter.com/nelsonlflores/status/1568242131067625472), which asks, “Whose deaths are mourned versus ignored or celebrated,” and who gets to decide?

    Signed,

    Chelsey R. Carter, PhD, MPH (Assistant Professor, Yale University)

    Nelson Flores, PhD (Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania)

    Sirry Alang, PhD (Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh)

    Crystal M. Fleming, PhD (Professor, Stony Brook University)

    Dick Powis, PhD (Postdoctoral Fellow, University of South Florida)

    https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRFMu3jSCsN44H13pWc_hkLBNwKLmXvWd63U7nXIu1JYPwygdDS6nWuWHeIcG5HUr8lyw_1W_YUJniJ/pub?urp=gmail_link

    #lettre_ouverte #violence_coloniale #critique #monarchie #Elizabeth_II #UK #Angleterre #colonialisme #colonisation #ne_critiquez_pas_la_monarchie

    ping @cede @karine4 @_kg_

  • Shamima Begum ‘smuggled into Syria for Islamic State by Canadian spy’ | Shamima Begum | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/31/shamima-begum-smuggled-into-syria-for-islamic-state-by-canadian-spy
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a66a23c1eb371d1f8b3c3f43ad7aaac67a5ffb68/0_557_1449_869/master/1449.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-ali

    Shamima Begum was smuggled into Syria for Islamic State at the age of 15 by a Canadian spy whose role was covered up by the police and Britain’s security services, it has been claimed in a book out this week.