tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/priti-patel-32570/articlesPriti Patel – The Conversation2023-11-13T13:57:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2174532023-11-13T13:57:19Z2023-11-13T13:57:19ZIndia to Africa to the UK: Diasporas don’t influence politics in predictable ways<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/558834/original/file-20231110-17-7nkgue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former UK home secretary Suella Braverman (left) with prime minister Rishi Sunak. Both are of Indian-African descent.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">WPA Pool/Pool</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Leading politicians in the UK, including the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, are of African Indian descent. Other high profile examples include the country’s two most recent home secretaries – Priti Patel, who served from 2019 to 2022, and her successor Suella Braverman, whose tenure ended abruptly on 13 November when she was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/13/suella-braverman-sacked-home-secretary">fired by Sunak</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department">home secretary</a> is responsible for law enforcement in England and Wales, national security and immigration. </p>
<p>Sunak’s grandparents <a href="https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/rishi-sunak-the-unifier-british-pms-origins-maybe-both-indian-and-pakistani-350751-2022-10-25">left the Punjab</a> in northern India for east Africa in the 1930s. His mother was <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rishi-Sunak">born</a> in Tanzania and his father in Kenya. </p>
<p>Patel’s parents were <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-immigration-laws-parents-home-office-brexit-a9343571.html">immigrants</a> from Uganda; she was born in the UK and cherishes her “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/priti-patel-son-sees-put-tell-turn-news/">deeply held British values</a>.” </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/braverman">Braverman</a>, too, was born in Britain. Her mother <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speakers-initiatives/roots-to-parliament/commonwealth-connections/africa2/suella-braverman-mp---mauritius/">grew up in Mauritius</a>, a former French colony, and her father is of Kenyan Indian origin. Braverman calls herself “a child of the British Empire”. </p>
<p>All three are part of the <a href="https://www.policycenter.ma/opinion/indian-diaspora-africa-instrument-new-delhi-soft-power-continent">African Indian diaspora</a>. Do they tell us anything about the cohort of people who have had the same experiences as the children of migrants and as part of a diaspora? </p>
<p>I have <a href="https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/diaspora.20.2.001">researched</a> the Indian and African diasporas and found that, in fact, members of diasporas have supple and dynamic political positions. Sunak, Braverman and Patel, among others, provide real life examples of how diasporic people exhibit a <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45683693.pdf">wide range</a> of political affiliations, outlooks and opinions.</p>
<p>Some researchers used to believe that diasporic and immigrant communities would function as a “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/41262886">unified polity</a>” – they might all <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674737440">vote the same way</a>. This thinking holds true for many whose work focuses on diasporas and politics – but for those, like me, who research diasporas and migration, there’s been a shift in the last decade or so towards <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-04941-6_22-1">more complex understandings</a>. My research is qualitative, allowing me to delve more deeply into the complexity and idiosyncrasy of diasporic communities.</p>
<h2>Diasporas on the move</h2>
<p>An <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254936963_Indian_Ocean_Cosmopolitanism_MG_Vassanji%27s_Hybrid_Parables_of_Kenyan_Nationalism">African Indian</a> is a member of the Indian diaspora whose family is or has recently been Africa-based. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/minority-ethnic-politicians-are-pushing-harsh-immigration-policies-why-representation-doesnt-always-mean-racial-justice-206885">Minority ethnic politicians are pushing harsh immigration policies – why representation doesn't always mean racial justice</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the early 1970s, former Ugandan president Idi Amin implemented several hostile, xenophobic policies. In 1972 he ordered all Indian Ugandans to <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/ugandan-asians-50-years-since-their-expulsion-from-uganda/">leave</a> the country. Many East African Indians, including those from Tanzania and Kenya, emigrated because of <a href="https://microform.digital/boa/posts/category/articles/629/from-the-archive-the-indian-diaspora-in-british-colonial-africa">open discrimination</a> against them, heading to countries like Canada and the UK in greater numbers.</p>
<p>It wasn’t just Amin who drove those of Indian descent from the continent. Throughout the 20th century, and especially <a href="https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2014/how-has-britains-post-war-experience-of-immigration-shaped-the-contemporary-debate-on-integration/">after the second world war</a>, Britain’s colonial subjects started arriving in the UK. In prior centuries, British imperialism and settler colonialism also <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/PubMaterials/978-0-8223-7102-1_601.pdf">spurred</a> many waves of migration, including some of those of the African Indian diaspora.</p>
<p>A diasporic group lives in a geographical location other than their original homeland. Researchers have long been interested in whether members of ethnic or religious diasporas would act as a bloc of unified political actors in influencing their <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594834">homeland politics</a> or the political climate in their <a href="https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/47647461/c6681.pdf">new adoptive countries</a>. </p>
<h2>Dynamic, discursive identity</h2>
<p>Researchers have <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13527258.2019.1570543">highlighted</a> how diasporas can “rediasporise” as children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren move to new locations. Members of diasporas may choose to identify with multiple homelands and host countries over time. </p>
<p>But they may choose to identify with one more than the other or do something else entirely. Take Braverman: although a member of the Indian and African diasporas, she has been outspoken about tightening the UK’s immigration policy. She’s on record as having <a href="https://theprint.in/opinion/sunak-braverman-priti-patel-are-twice-migrants-its-why-they-close-the-door-behind-them/1185299/">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Look at migration in this country – the largest group of people who overstay are Indian migrants.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Expecting her to have an automatic affiliation with her past isn’t reasonable. Recent scholarly work on diasporic identity has sought to understand identity not as static and “essentialist” but dynamic and <a href="https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/17818/1/New%20Orientations%20to%20Identity%20in%20Mobility%20Final%20.pdf">discursive</a>. It is also co-constructed, created as an interplay between the individual and the structures – of race, ethnicity, religion, national context and so on – in which she finds herself. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/idi-amins-economic-war-victimised-ugandas-africans-and-asians-alike-188841">Idi Amin's 'economic war' victimised Uganda's Africans and Asians alike</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Real-life examples like those of Patel, Braverman and Sunak can help diaspora scholars like myself sharpen our analysis of diasporic communities. As scholars, we cannot presume to know how members of diasporas will identify themselves and what their politics will be without doing extensive research. This will build a better understanding of the complex ways that diasporic communities will contribute to society in their new homes. </p>
<p>All we can say for sure is that diasporic identities and identifications are fluid, mobile and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17449057.2023.2199610">creative</a>. Diasporic people cannot be pigeon-holed or put in a box.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217453/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melissa Tandiwe Myambo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Members of diasporas may choose to identify with multiple homelands and host countries over time.Melissa Tandiwe Myambo, Research Associate, Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2073432023-07-13T16:00:47Z2023-07-13T16:00:47ZThe government passed a major immigration law last year – so why is it trying to pass another one?<p>The illegal immigration bill has generated endless controversy on its way to becoming law. The bill, which effectively bans asylum seeking in the UK, has faced heavy criticism for its treatment of children, its approach to modern slavery victims and other provisions that are likely to <a href="https://theconversation.com/illegal-immigration-bill-does-more-than-push-the-boundaries-of-international-law-201332">breach international law</a>.</p>
<p>You might remember a lot of debate only last year over a new immigration act. Priti Patel, then home secretary, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-opening-speech-for-nationality-borders-bill">claimed the Nationality and Borders Act</a> would finally fix the problems that have resulted from a “broken system … of illegal migration”. At the time, she stated it is “heartless and immoral” to let small boat crossings continue. But a year after the act came into force, crossings are still happening, with a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/03/defeats-for-small-boats-bill-in-house-of-lords-as-channel-crossings-set-new-record">record-high</a> number in June 2023. </p>
<p>What’s the difference between these two pieces of legislation?</p>
<h2>Law one: a two-tier asylum system</h2>
<p>The Nationality and Borders Act introduced a <a href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-06-08/hcws837">two-tier system</a> that offered refugees different levels of protection depending on how they entered the UK. Those who arrived via “safe and legal routes” were granted permission to stay. Meanwhile, those who entered irregularly, such as by small boat, <a href="https://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/news/temporary-refugee-permission-introduced">received limited rights</a> including a temporary stay of 30 months, no defined route to settlement and restricted family reunification rights. </p>
<p>The act also included new procedures for <a href="https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0666/">determining the age</a> of young asylum seekers. And it set the stage for the controversial Rwanda plan by providing for offshore processing of asylum claims.</p>
<p>It deemed anyone who arrived irregularly inadmissible for asylum. But if the Home Office was unable to provide proof or actually remove the person, the rules required that they still be admitted into the asylum process.</p>
<h2>Law two: an outright ban</h2>
<p>The illegal migration bill is the most extreme piece of immigration legislation to date, and amounts <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/statement-uk-asylum-bill">to a ban on asylum</a>. It also makes much of the Nationality and Borders Act – passed just a year ago – redundant, though the smaller provisions such as age assessment and offshore processing will remain. </p>
<p>Under the proposed law, anyone who enters the UK irregularly (the majority of asylum seekers) will never have their asylum claims assessed. They and their children will never be granted any permission to stay in the UK. And, the government will immediately move to detain and deport them to their country of origin or another “safe” country. </p>
<p>The bill also stops people who arrived irregularly from accessing modern slavery support, or from using claims of trafficking as a reason that they should not be <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/illegal-migration-bill">removed</a>. This part of the bill faced <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2023/may-2023/lords-scrutinises-illegal-migration-bill/">fierce opposition</a> in the House of Lords and from Conservative backbenchers, leading to a prolonged “ping-pong” between houses. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nationality-and-borders-act-becomes-law-five-key-changes-explained-182099">Nationality and Borders Act becomes law: five key changes explained</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why do we need both?</h2>
<p>The government says the illegal migration bill <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching-factsheet#:%7E:text=The%20Illegal%20Migration%20Bill%20will,asylum%20claim%20will%20be%20considered.">is needed</a> because the asylum system is (still) broken, citing the increase in small boat crossings since 2018.</p>
<p><a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmhaff/199/summary.html">Tighter security</a> in recent years, as well as the pandemic, has made other clandestine routes (such as concealed in a lorry) more difficult. There is some evidence of a <a href="https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-two-thirds-of-small-boat-channel-crossings-would-have-asylum-claims-accepted">snowball effect</a>, in that the success of many small boat migrants being granted asylum has encouraged others to make the risky journey.</p>
<p>The introduction of the illegal migration bill is, in effect, an admission that the Nationality and Borders Act hasn’t worked the way the government hoped it would. The government claims that the new bill will work because: “If people know there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they won’t risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to get here.” </p>
<p>However, <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/uk-policies-to-deter-people-from-claiming-asylum/">decades of research</a> has shown that asylum seekers are rarely aware of the policies of the receiving state. </p>
<h2>Targeting Albanians</h2>
<p>Another reason for introducing the bill is as a direct response to the large number of Albanians crossing in small boats – making up <a href="https://miclu.org/blog/fact-check-albanian-boat-arrivals">just under one third</a> of the crossings in 2022.</p>
<p>The government has claimed that Albanians and others from <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/home-affairs-committee/news/195596/no-case-for-routinely-offering-asylum-to-claimants-from-safe-albania-home-affairs-committee/">“well-established safe countries”</a> are falsely claiming to be victims of trafficking in order to access support they are entitled to under the Modern Slavery Act. Steeped in a history of xenophobia, this has been a common trope through both the Sunak and Johnson administrations with Sunak <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-illegal-migration-13-december-2022#:%7E:text=Prime%20Minister%20Rishi%20Sunak%20made,of%20Commons%20on%20illegal%20migration.&text=Mr%20Speaker%2C%20before%20I%20start,children%20so%20tragically%20in%20Solihull.">singling out Albanians in a speech in December 2022</a> on illegal immigration. </p>
<p>The government’s evidence for this is that Albanians are the top nationality referred to the modern slavery system, despite the country having signed on to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/nationality-and-borders-act-compared-to-illegal-migration-bill-factsheet">an anti-trafficking treaty</a>. </p>
<p>But there is evidence that many Albanians flee due to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/albania-is-a-safe-country-cross-party-mps-group-finds#:%7E:text=Albania%20is%20a%20%E2%80%9Csafe%E2%80%9D%20country,cross%2Dparty%20group%20of%20MPs.">blood feuds</a> between families, for which the Albanian state offers little protection. In a bid to deter Albanians from seeking asylum in the UK, the government signed an agreement with Albania to speed up the return of its citizens. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/modern-slavery-uks-focus-on-genuine-victims-has-failed-survivors-since-the-1800s-192528">Modern slavery: UK's focus on 'genuine' victims has failed survivors since the 1800s</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Albania also has <a href="https://miclu.org/blog/fact-check-albanian-boat-arrivals">longstanding issues</a> related to trafficking, as well as discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ people and ethnic Roma and Egyptian communities. </p>
<h2>Performance politics</h2>
<p>The government has spent the last few years on two major pieces of legislation to deal with the same issue. Both are legally questionable. And what’s more, the Home Office doesn’t have the resources or, arguably, institutional competence to implement them.</p>
<p>Most importantly, both policies are built on a <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/uk-policies-to-deter-people-from-claiming-asylum/">strategy of deterrence</a>, which even the Home Office <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Annex-A-Sovereign-Borders-International-Asylum-Comparisons-Report-Section-1-Drivers-and-impact-on-asylum-migration-journeys.pdf">acknowledges doesn’t work</a>. </p>
<p>Ultimately, both pieces of legislation are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uks-unworkable-immigration-plans-allow-the-government-to-blame-others-for-its-failure-202207">performance politics</a> that have more to do with winning an election than solving policy problems. Stoking the issue of immigration <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13111">plays well politically for the Conservatives</a>, while deflecting from failures on the economy and the NHS.</p>
<p>It is also a mark of the Conservatives’ intra-party factionalism. Suella Braveman wants to make her mark as the toughest home secretary to date. Sunak is desperately distinguishing his administration from his toxic predecessor’s, and wants to be seen to fulfil his promise to “stop the boats”. This will be done at all costs, even through unworkable, unethical and unevidenced policies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erica Consterdine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The illegal migration bill makes much of the Nationality and Borders Act redundant.Erica Consterdine, Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2012652023-03-07T13:50:46Z2023-03-07T13:50:46ZNitrous oxide: Suella Braverman’s call to have the drug reclassified has been rejected by government advisers<p>The UK government’s advisory panel on drugs has rejected a call to ban the sale and possession of nitrous oxide – also known as laughing gas or nos – despite the home secretary’s desire to see the drug banned.</p>
<p>In 2021, the then home secretary Priti Patel asked her independent scientific advisers to review the evidence of harm associated with nitrous oxide. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-council-on-the-misuse-of-drugs">ACMD</a>) has now reviewed the evidence and has not <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publication-of-acmds-review-on-nitrous-oxide">recommended</a> nitrous oxide be placed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA), which would have made possession of the drug for non-exempted purposes a criminal offence.</p>
<p>The current home secretary, Suella Braverman, has made no secret of her <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/26/uk-ban-on-laughing-gas-sale-or-possession-poised-to-go-ahead">view</a> that nitrous oxide should be brought under the MDA. One reason for government interest has been its recent policy focus on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/25/laughing-gas-could-be-banned-from-sale-in-antisocial-behaviour-crackdown">antisocial behaviour</a>. </p>
<p>Discarded nitrous oxide canisters are a highly visible form of littering, and use is often associated with nuisance behaviour in groups of young people hanging out in public places. Three and a half tonnes of these canisters were <a href="https://theconversation.com/nitrous-oxide-neurologists-report-a-worrying-rise-in-young-people-with-paralysis-189722">collected</a> during last year’s Notting Hill festival alone. Targeting nitrous oxide would provide a clear signal of policy intent.</p>
<p>Possession of nitrous oxide for legitimate purposes (use as an anaesthetic, or as a catering product) is <a href="https://theconversation.com/criminalising-nitrous-oxide-users-is-no-laughing-matter-if-it-distracts-from-more-serious-drug-problems-167297">not a criminal offence</a>. In their review, the ACMD acknowledged the potential for the drug to produce health and social harms, but argued that classifying the drug under the MDA - and the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing">penalties</a> this would bring - would be disproportionate, and there was insufficient evidence to justify this. </p>
<p>There are also developments in the UK, supported by the police, to move away from the punishment of drug possession offences towards <a href="https://transformdrugs.org/drug-policy/uk-drug-policy/diversion-schemes">diversionary interventions</a>, such as drug education, and so the recommendation should also be seen in this wider context.</p>
<p>This is the second time that the ACMD has been asked to review the evidence on nitrous oxide. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acmd-advice-on-nitrous-oxide-abuse">last review in 2015</a> reached the same conclusion: that it should not be prohibited.</p>
<h2>Harms are real but very rare</h2>
<p>Nitrous oxide use is not exactly a niche drug, with at least <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2155.full">half a million</a> people using the drug every year, making it the second most popular recreational drug after cannabis. </p>
<p>Some neurologists have expressed <a href="https://theconversation.com/nitrous-oxide-neurologists-report-a-worrying-rise-in-young-people-with-paralysis-189722">concern</a> about the increasing number of people who have been harmed by the drug. However, these patients tend to be those who have used very large amounts of the drug, often over a <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2297">prolonged period</a> of time. </p>
<p>The health <a href="https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.theabn.org/resource/collection/6750BAE6-4CBC-4DDB-A684-116E03BFE634/N2O-SACD_Guidelines_-_ABN_-_12.02_-_1.1.11_-_AP_FINAL_FOR_RELEASE.pdf">problems</a> include paralysis and numbness in the hands and feet. Other neurological problems such as memory loss, poor balance and weakness in the arms and legs have also been found – but again, these are very rare. </p>
<p>In some people these symptoms resolve quickly, but in others they can persist for weeks or months. Historically, there has been a lack of inquiry from doctors about nitrous oxide use, and a hesitancy for patients to disclose it. Recent publicity has helped to raise awareness of this issue in both patients and doctors.</p>
<p>The ACMD highlighted that restricting access to nitrous oxide would be felt by not just those using the drug recreationally. It has a long history of use as an anaesthetic (“gas and air”), a car-fuel additive, and in catering as a propellant and food preservative. </p>
<p>Recent research has also investigated its use as an <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36191556/">antidepressant</a>. If controlled under the MDA, a significant number of people and organisations would be subject to stricter regulations. New laws would still have to facilitate legitimate uses, and resolving this – for example, special licensing of purchasers – would present significant resource and administrative burdens. </p>
<p>Although the ACMD doesn’t recommend controlling the drug under the MDA, they do make some practical <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publication-of-acmds-review-on-nitrous-oxide">suggestions</a> to reduce social and health problems. These include recommending restricting online sales of the drug, through to providing health warnings on packaging used for the drug as has been introduced in other countries such as France. </p>
<p>They also suggest that the government considers giving the police more powers to intervene when they suspect nitrous oxide is about to be used for recreational purposes. Local powers such as Public Spaces Protection Orders could also be introduced to prohibit use in public places, with fixed penalty notices rather than criminal records as punishments. </p>
<p>Littering of canisters is an individual responsibility, but could also be addressed through existing powers, and strategies to improve recycling and responsible waste disposal.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the ACMD is an independent body, and while the home secretary is obliged by law to seek their expert advice, she is at <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27921832">liberty to ignore it</a>. Were this to happen, it would be a political decision. </p>
<p>The drugs policy field is not unique in this regard and decision-makers have to balance a range of considerations and competing interests, so issues of politics cannot be ignored. But if the home secretary introduced stricter controls and punishments, any problems associated with the use of nitrous oxide would not simply go away. There is a high level of demand – and, as the ACMD highlights, control under the MDA can have “significant unintended consequences”, and that is no laughing matter.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harry Sumnall receives and has received funding from public grant awarding bodies for alcohol and other drugs research. He is an unpaid member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Mind Foundation. He is also a former unpaid member of the UK Government Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs referenced in this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says sale and possession of laughing gas for recreational use should not be banned.Ian Hamilton, Honorary Fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of YorkHarry Sumnall, Professor in Substance Use, Liverpool John Moores UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1925282022-12-20T10:04:36Z2022-12-20T10:04:36ZModern slavery: UK’s focus on ‘genuine’ victims has failed survivors since the 1800s<p>The exploitation of tens of thousands of people through modern slavery is a human rights crisis. There are an estimated 130,000 people currently living in <a href="https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/country-studies/united-kingdom/">modern slavery in the UK</a> alone.</p>
<p>In recent remarks, Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the government’s priority is helping <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/news/2022/our-plan-for-law-and-order">“genuine victims”</a> over those who supposedly lie about being modern slavery victims to gain entry to the UK. This is not new. A focus on finding “genuine” victims has been a central message in anti-trafficking policy for well over 150 years – and it has serious implications. </p>
<p>Many survivors of trafficking and enslavement are forced into criminal activity or enter the UK without documentation as part of their exploitation. Rather than receiving support, they are <a href="https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/police-watchdogs-find-modern-slavery-survivors-are-criminalised-rather-than-recognised-as-victims/">treated as criminals</a> first and victims second because they do not fit the image of an innocent, “genuine” victim.</p>
<p>The new <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023">Nationality and Borders Act</a> has been criticised by <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/as-a-victim-of-trafficking-reclassifying-modern-slavery-as-an-immigration-issue-will-only-make-things-worse">survivors</a>, <a href="https://www.antislavery.org/nationality-and-borders-bill-will-harm-victims-of-modern-slavery/#:%7E:text=The%20Bill%20would%20therefore%20block,allow%20traffickers%20to%20evade%20justice.">charities</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/mo-farah-was-trafficked-to-the-uk-the-governments-new-immigration-law-could-make-it-harder-for-modern-slavery-victims-to-receive-help-184286">academics</a> and former independent anti-trafficking commissioner <a href="https://www.antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/news-insights/iasc-and-victims-commissioner-raise-joint-concerns-about-the-nationality-and-borders-bill/">Dame Sara Thornton</a> for this exact reason. </p>
<p>The law prioritises deterring irregular immigration over safeguarding trafficking victims, which could deter those who have entered the country without documentation from <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/the-uk-government-is-undermining-decades-of-anti-slavery-efforts/">coming forward for fear of punishment</a>. </p>
<p>The UK government is now considering <a href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23154184.tory-mps-call-rishi-sunak-change-modern-slavery-laws/">reforms to the Modern Slavery Act</a> and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a44efa18-22fd-43a3-9f4d-05421d682e9f">pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights</a> altogether. This repeats a pattern of tackling modern slavery by criminalising victims and restricting their rights. The logic driving these decisions is a false dichotomy between “genuine victims” and “criminal abusers”. </p>
<p>Yet of the 12,665 cases reviewed in 2021, the Home Office <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/modern-slavery-national-referral-mechanism-and-duty-to-notify-statistics-uk-end-of-year-summary-2021/modern-slavery-national-referral-mechanism-and-duty-to-notify-statistics-uk-end-of-year-summary-2021">positively identified 90%</a> of claimants as suspected victims of modern slavery or trafficking. This means victims are granted the possibility of further review for <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modern-slavery-how-to-identify-and-support-victims">45 days of state support</a> and legal assistance.</p>
<p>In other words, nine in ten people referred to identification schemes are likely victims. This figure could be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/04/number-of-potential-trafficking-victims-locked-up-in-uk-triples-in-four-years">even higher</a> for 2022. </p>
<p>This shows that these channels are being used appropriately, but the message from government ministers says otherwise. Both <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suella-braverman-modern-slavery-abuse-b2195548.html">Braverman</a> and her predecessor <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-opening-speech-for-nationality-borders-bill">Priti Patel</a> have claimed <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/migrants-modern-slavery-channel-boats-b2242186.html">without evidence</a> that there is rampant abuse of the modern slavery reporting system. </p>
<h2>Victims of ‘white slavery’</h2>
<p>The attitudes and policies of today <a href="http://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/view/264">have their roots</a> in 19th-century social campaigns against “white slavery”. This term was used to describe the forced sexual exploitation of women by “foreign” men.</p>
<p>Most of what we know about <a href="https://profilebooks.com/work/the-disappearance-of-lydia-harvey/">the lives</a> of white slavery victims comes not from their own writings, but from political representations, police reports and the records of anti-white slavery advocates. </p>
<p>These women were portrayed as “ideal victims”, helpless virgins who were abused by unknown men. They were usually depicted as young, <a href="https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/98zxv/stopping-the-traffic-the-national-vigilance-association-and-the-international-fight-against-the-white-slave-trade-1899-c-1909">Anglo-Saxon or Jewish women</a> forced into commercial sexual exploitation. It was unlikely that men, sex workers or anyone who fell outside of this narrative were recorded as victims of white slavery.</p>
<p>The National Vigilance Association (NVA), an English moral reform group founded in 1885, was prominent in the fight against white slavery. It provided housing and work to dozens of victims a year, and also advocated reform of British law on commercial sexual exploitation. </p>
<p>Its annual reports, available at the <a href="https://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=moreTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=BLL01016134886&indx=1&recIds=BLL01016134886&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&vid=BLVU1&mode=Basic&tab=local_tab&dscnt=0&vl(freeText0)=national%20vigilance%20association&dstmp=1670510426857">British Library</a>, present these women as victims who need rescuing. Yet their archives also reveal instances of women refusing help from the NVA or running away from their homes. </p>
<p>Far from being the compliant, “genuine” victim imagined, the instances where survivors rejected NVA assistance show a range of experiences and desires. Victims are no monolithic group. </p>
<p>As opposed to labouring in the NVA laundry house, it is possible that some women preferred to risk earning income on their own terms, through sex work, theatre, or other forms of labour the NVA saw as immoral. These archives show us that victimhood in trafficking has always been complex. Often, the people the NVA helped were not the innocent and respectable victims the organisation publicly presented through their reports. Yet, this image inspired a legal framework that persists today.</p>
<p>As a crime, white slavery went on to be known as “<a href="https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=VII-3&chapter=7&clang=_en">the traffic in women and children”</a> within the League of Nations. By 1949, the UN recognised the crime of severe exploitation as <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-suppression-traffic-persons-and-exploitation">“traffic in persons”</a>. From there trafficking was reworked into the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-prevent-suppress-and-punish-trafficking-persons">2000 Palermo Protocol</a> and the UK’s 2015 Modern Slavery Act. </p>
<p>Throughout, the concept of the “ideal victim” has been beneath the surface of these laws, for instance in the description “women and children”, and has been invoked repeatedly when it benefits a political message.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="close up on hands of immigration officer holding a passport and typing on a keyboard to check details" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501853/original/file-20221219-12-21azhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501853/original/file-20221219-12-21azhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501853/original/file-20221219-12-21azhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501853/original/file-20221219-12-21azhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501853/original/file-20221219-12-21azhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501853/original/file-20221219-12-21azhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501853/original/file-20221219-12-21azhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Critics have raised concerns that the new Nationality and Borders Act prioritises deterring immigration over protecting modern slavery victims.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-immigration-control-officer-verifies-passport-1743490454">Gutu Valerica / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The ‘ideal victim’ lives on</h2>
<p>When Theresa May introduced 2016 Modern Slavery Act while home secretary, she presented it as brand new legislation making the UK a global leader in the fight against trafficking. While it did introduce cutting-edge policy, such as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transparency-in-supply-chains-a-practical-guide">mandating businesses investigate</a> corporate supply chains, this was not the entire story. Aspects of the ideal victim trope linger and have become more salient today as the government amends the law.</p>
<p>It was reported in November that a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/suella-braverman-asylum-seekers-albania-b2235027.html">“white list”</a> of countries may be forthcoming. This echoes a New Labour strategy where asylum seekers from certain countries were fast-tracked for removal, but the <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/how-does-the-asylum-white-list-work-and-what-does-the-government-plan-to-change/">new policy could also remove their the right of appeal</a>. </p>
<p>The new laws and policies only make sense when stratifying victims with broad strokes into worthy or unworthy categories, which is impossible when dealing with a complex issue like trafficking. Restricting safe passages for asylum seekers and trafficking victims also leads to deadlier outcomes, like the four who <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63968941">lost their lives</a> recently attempting to cross English Channel.</p>
<p>The search for “genuine” victims obscures the complex reality many people experience as trafficking and modern slavery survivors. The UK must move away from anti-trafficking policy that places people into hierarchies of victimhood, which it has been doing since the 1800s. It’s time for a new strategy that recognises diversity in victimhood.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Forringer-Beal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Policies designed to help only ‘genuine’ victims of trafficking have a long, fraught history.Anna Forringer-Beal, PhD Candidate, Centre for Multidisciplinary Gender Studies, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1936702022-11-01T17:18:01Z2022-11-01T17:18:01ZThe UK’s asylum system is in crisis, but the government – not refugees – is to blame<p>Kent Police are investigating an attack on a Home Office migrant processing centre in Dover, after incendiary devices <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63453810">were reportedly thrown</a> at the building on Sunday October 30 2022. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63446683">Reports have said</a> that witnesses at the scene described these devices as petrol bombs, with one found in the car of the person, now deceased, who is reportedly suspected of having carried out the attack. </p>
<p>Just days before the attack, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, David Neal, <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/home-affairs-committee/news/173834/minister-questioned-on-channel-crossings/">told</a> the home affairs select committee that he was left “speechless” by his visit to the Home Office’s short-term holding facility in Manston. He described an “alarming” and “really dangerous situation” of overcrowded and insanitary conditions. </p>
<p>The home secretary, Suella Braverman, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11374475/Suella-Braverman-DENIES-blocking-migrants-staying-hotels.html">has claimed</a> the UK’s asylum system is “broken”, stating that <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/11/suella-bravermans-migrant-invasion-claim-hides-her-lack-of-ideas">she aims</a> to stop the “invasion of our southern coast”. For the home secretary to blame asylum seekers for a failing system is concerning. </p>
<p>The Manston facility is a “processing site” at an airfield in Kent. Opened in February 2022, on paper it is intended to hold 1,000 people, each for up to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-secure-site-for-processing-illegal-migrants">five days</a> while they undergo security and identity checks. Neal, however, said he found the camp past “the point of being unsafe”, with 4,000 people now housed there in tented accommodation and for long periods of time. People –- including children –- are sleeping on the floor for weeks. </p>
<p>The facility is fast becoming a public health risk. There have been outbreaks of norovirus, scabies and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/oct/20/diphtheria-outbreak-confirmed-at-asylum-seeker-centre-in-kent">diphtheria</a>, the latter a highly contagious and normally extremely rare disease in the UK. </p>
<p>In his <a href="https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/short-term-holding-facilities-at-western-jet-foil-lydd-airport-and-manston/">report on Manston</a>, published on November 1 2022, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons Charlie Taylor highlights that healthcare processes are lacking, children are being detained for far too long and staff are poorly trained. With a further 700 people moved from Dover to Manston after the Dover attack, we can expect the situation there to get even worse. </p>
<p>This is the latest inappropriate and dangerous quasi-detention centre used to hold asylum seekers in recent years. In 2020, the former military Napier barracks in Folkstone were used for similar purposes.</p>
<p>A House of Lords committee <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-use-of-napier-barracks-to-house-asylum-seekers-regret-motion/">warned</a> of overcrowding, fire risks, “filthy” facilities and buildings so “decrepit” they were deemed unfit for habitation. In June 2021, the high court <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-use-of-napier-barracks-to-house-asylum-seekers-regret-motion/#:%7E:text=In%20June%202021%2C%20a%20judgment,were%20unlawfully%20detained%20under%20purported">declared</a> Napier inadequate for housing asylum seekers and found the Home Office guilty of employing unlawful practices.</p>
<p>By law, save for the tiny number of people selected for <a href="https://refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/refugee-resettlement-facts/">official resettlement</a> from Ukraine or Afghanistan, to claim refugee status, a person must already be in the UK. Without legal channels available, people seeking protection are forced to make dangerous journeys and enter the country illegally. Contrary to the language employed by the Home Secretary, the <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf">1951 refugee convention</a> stipulates that no one should be penalised for entering a country illegally to seek refuge. </p>
<p><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1114683/Detention_General_instructions.pdf">UK policy</a> prescribes that general immigration detention be used for minimal periods, in the last resort and only for (non-vulnerable) adults. Detention in short-term holding facilities is treated slightly differently, but the routine detention of thousands of asylum seekers, including children, for lengthy periods is an aberration of an already problematic practice. </p>
<h2>Disproportionate political attention</h2>
<p>Detaining asylum seekers as a matter of routine is a new practice in the UK. It has come about as a reaction to the increase in small boats crossing the channel and the lack of asylum accommodation caused by a huge backlog of cases at the Home Office. </p>
<p>The small boats receive disproportionate and inaccurate political and media attention. This includes misrepresenting their occupants as “illegal immigrants”. </p>
<p>In fact, however, these people largely go on to claim –- and are usually granted -– refugee protection. The majority of migrants arriving in small boats, including those from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Eritrea, are found to have genuine protection needs warranting <a href="https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-two-thirds-of-small-boat-channel-crossings-would-have-asylum-claims-accepted">refugee status</a>. This includes women and children. It is important to remember, as <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184x15575111">I have pointed out</a> that men are also legitimate refugees, despite the feminised imagery of the “genuine refugee”.</p>
<p>It is true that the numbers of people crossing the channel by small boat are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-home-office-is-now-publishing-stats-on-irregular-migration-heres-what-they-do-and-dont-tell-us-177955">unprecedented</a>. Five years ago, 300 people arrived this way. In 2022, there have already been over <a href="https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/understanding-the-rise-in-channel-crossings">30,000</a>. </p>
<p>However, the UK receives just 0.5% of the world’s asylum claims and far fewer than many other European countries. Germany, for example, received nearly <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/putting-small-boat-crossings-in-perspective/?utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=94d561698d-Asylum+updates&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-94d561698d-116274629&mc_cid=94d561698d&mc_eid=df0d217f99">150,000 asylum claims</a> in 2021. These numbers, in turn, are dwarfed by those from countries further afield. <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-in-turkey">Turkey</a> currently hosts 3.6 million refugees from Syria alone. </p>
<p>The small boat arrivals are also dwarfed by other groups seeking protection in the UK. The UK has taken in over 133,000 people from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2022/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-each-year-including-visitors#british-national-overseas-bno-route">Hong Kong</a> and 195,000 from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ukraine-family-scheme-application-data/ukraine-family-scheme-and-ukraine-sponsorship-scheme-homes-for-ukraine-visa-data--2">Ukraine</a>. </p>
<p>Irregular arrivals by small boat or lorry account for just a quarter of <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/putting-small-boat-crossings-in-perspective/?utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=94d561698d-Asylum+updates&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-94d561698d-116274629&mc_cid=94d561698d&mc_eid=df0d217f99">the total refugee arrivals</a> to the UK. Although the number of asylum applications has risen significantly since 2021, the figure is still close to <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/briefing-the-sorry-state-of-the-uk-asylum-system/">half</a> that of a decade ago. </p>
<h2>A system in crisis</h2>
<p>The UK’s asylum system is indeed in crisis, but not because of those making dangerous journeys to seek protection. To suggest that the terrible conditions people face once they arrive in the UK is their own fault is deeply disingenuous. As Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/01/an-invasion-suella-braverman-refugee-crisis-governments-own-making">has put it</a>, it is a crisis “of the government’s own making”.</p>
<p>The number of people forced to wait over six months for an asylum decision <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/briefing-the-sorry-state-of-the-uk-asylum-system/">has trebled</a> since 2019. The backlog of people awaiting a decision is now a whopping 100,000. </p>
<p>People are waiting years for a resolution, during which they are kept in a dependent limbo of near destitution. They are forbidden from working, forcing them to rely on the Home Office for housing and subsistence. These amounts are tiny: asylum seekers live off <a href="https://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/our-calls-for-increases-to-asylum-support/">£5.80 a day</a>. The overall cost of the asylum system, however, is <a href="https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet-cost-of-asylum-system/">£1.5 billion a year</a>.</p>
<p>These people have a legal right to claim protection from persecution and they are being failed by the UK government. The implications are dire for both them and the public purse. </p>
<p>And the imperatives are clear. When the home secretary blames asylum seekers for the failings of the system, she not only distracts attention from the real causes, she risks fuelling community tensions, normalising xenophobia and ultimately encouraging far-right extremism. </p>
<p>Rather than ineffective and cruel spectacles, such as threatening to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uks-plans-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-raise-four-red-flags-182709">send asylum seekers to Rwanda</a>, the UK needs a functioning asylum system.</p>
<p>Allowing people to live and work in the community while they await asylum decisions would benefit everyone. It would save the huge human and financial costs incurred by overcrowded encampment and forced government dependency.</p>
<p>The government knows that providing safe and legal channels to reach the UK is the ultimate answer. It has shown as much in its response to the war in Ukraine. </p>
<p>The world is turbulent and will only become more so with climate crises. Draconian immigration policies cannot stop people crossing borders. They can only determine how dangerous such journeys are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melanie Griffiths has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/K009370/1). </span></em></p>Short-term Home Office facilities are holding people seeking refuge in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions and for far too long. This crisis has political roots.Melanie Griffiths, Assistant Professor and Birmingham Fellow, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1853632022-06-18T08:19:26Z2022-06-18T08:19:26ZUK government orders the extradition of Julian Assange to the US, but that is not the end of the matter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469587/original/file-20220618-2246-86f16f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Matt Dunham</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On June 17 2022, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel issued a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/17/julian-assange-extradition-to-us-approved-by-priti-patel">statement</a> confirming she had approved the US government’s request to extradite Julian Assange. The Australian founder of Wikileaks faces 18 criminal charges of computer misuse and espionage. </p>
<p>This decision means Assange is one step closer to extradition, but has not yet reached the final stage in what has been a years-long process. Patel’s decision follows a March <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal-march-2022.html">decision to deny leave to appeal</a> by the UK Supreme Court, affirming the High Court decision that accepted assurances provided by the US government and concluded there were no remaining legal bars to Assange’s extradition.</p>
<p>The High Court decision overruled an earlier decision by a District Court that extraditing Assange to the US would be “unjust and oppressive” because the prison conditions he was likely to experience would make him a high risk for suicide. In the High Court’s view, the American government’s assurances sufficiently reduced the risk.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/julian-assanges-extradition-case-is-finally-heading-to-court-heres-what-to-expect-132089">Julian Assange's extradition case is finally heading to court – here's what to expect</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Another appeal ahead</h2>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1537726323858219009">Wikileaks</a> has already announced Assange will appeal the home secretary’s decision in the UK courts. He can appeal on an issue of law or fact, but must obtain leave of the High Court to launch an appeal. This is a fresh legal process rather than a continuation of the judicial stage of extradition that followed his arrest in 2019. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1537726323858219009"}"></div></p>
<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/assange-appeal-against-extradition-include-reported-assassination-plot-2022-06-17/">Assange’s brother has stated</a> the appeal will include new information, including reports of plots to assassinate Assange. </p>
<p>Several legal issues argued before the District Court in 2020 are also likely to be raised in the next appeal. In particular, the District Court decided the question of whether the charges were political offences, and therefore not extraditable crimes, could only be considered by the home secretary. The question of whether and how the home secretary decided on this issue could now be ripe for argument. </p>
<p>Assange’s next appeal will also seek to re-litigate whether US government assurances regarding the prison conditions Assange will face are adequate or reliable. His lawyers will also again demand the UK courts consider the role of role of freedom of expression in determining whether to extradite Assange.</p>
<p>Assange will remain detained in Belmarsh prison while his appeal is underway. The decision of the High Court on his appeal against the home secretary’s decision may potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court. </p>
<p>If, after all legal avenues are exhausted in the UK, the order to extradite stands, Assange could take a human rights action to the European Court of Human Rights. </p>
<p>However, the European Court has rarely declared extradition to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, except in cases involving the death penalty or whole-life sentences. It has not yet considered freedom of expression in an extradition case.</p>
<p>Further appeals could add years more to the saga of Assange’s detention. </p>
<h2>Responses from the Assange family and human rights advocates</h2>
<p>Assange’s wife, Stella Moris, called Patel’s decision a ‘“travesty”. His brother Gabriel Shipton called it “shameful”. They have vowed to fight his extradition through every legal means available. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/irvl0TyVGtw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>According to Secretary General of Amnesty International Agnes <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/jun/18/australia-news-live-updates-federal-government-julian-assange-energy-crisis-nsw-victoria-labor-health-economy?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-62acfdd78f08daac4266b5e1#block-62acfdd78f08daac4266b5e1">Callamard</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Assange faces a high risk of prolonged solitary confinement, which would violate the prohibition on torture or other ill treatment. Diplomatic assurances provided by the US that Assange will not be kept in solitary confinement cannot be taken on face value given previous history.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What role for the Australian government?</h2>
<p>Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus <a href="https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/uk-decision-extradite-julian-assange">responded</a> to the latest development last night. They confirmed Australia would continue to provide consular assistance to Assange: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Australian government has been clear in our view that Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and that it should be brought to a close. We will continue to express this view to the governments of the United Kingdom and United States.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, it remains unclear exactly what form Australia’s diplomatic or political advocacy is taking. </p>
<p>In December 2021, Anthony Albanese <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/02/labor-backbenchers-urge-albanese-to-stay-true-to-his-values-on-julian-assange-trial">said</a> he could not see what purpose was served by the ongoing pursuit of Assange. He is a signatory to a petition to free Assange. Since he was sworn in as prime minister, though, Albanese has resisted calls to demand publicly that the US drop its criminal charges against Assange. </p>
<p>In contrast, Albanese recently made a public call for the release of <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/myanmar-military-junta-using-detained-australian-sean-turnell-as-a-chess-piece-human-rights-watch-says/dotp9nwpn">Sean Turnell</a> from prison in Myanmar. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-book-argues-julian-assange-is-being-tortured-will-our-new-pm-do-anything-about-it-183622">A new book argues Julian Assange is being tortured. Will our new PM do anything about it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In a way, Patel’s decision this week <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61727941.amp">closes</a> a window for stronger advocacy between Australia and the UK. While the matter sat with the UK Home Secretary, the Australian government might have sought to intervene with it as a political issue. Now it seems possible Australia may revert to its long established position of non-interference in an ongoing court process.</p>
<p>Some commentators argue this is insufficient and that Australia must, finally, do more for Assange. Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-18/julian-assange-to-be-extradited-to-us/101164152">said</a> it was high time Australia treated this as the political matter it is, and demand from its allies in London and Washington that the matter be brought to an end. </p>
<p>Barrister Greg Barns <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-18/julian-assange-to-be-extradited-to-us/101164152">likened</a> Assange’s situation to that of David Hicks, who was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Howard government at the time brought him back to Australia. This is not unprecedented. It is important that Australia is able to use the great relationship it has with Washington to ensure the safety of Australians.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These comments suggest that Australia ought to focus any advocacy towards the US government, making a case for the criminal charges and extradition request to be abandoned. At this stage it is impossible to say if the Albanese government has the will to take a stronger stand on Assange’s liberty. The prime minister and foreign minister have certainly <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/05/24/remarks-by-president-biden-and-prime-minister-anthony-albanese-of-the-commonwealth-of-australia-before-bilateral-meeting-tokyo-japan/">invested</a> heavily in foreign relations in the early weeks of their government, with emphasis on the significance of the US alliance. </p>
<p>Perhaps strong advocacy on Assange’s behalf at this time might be regarded as unsettling and risky. The US has had plenty of opportunity, and its own change of government, and yet it has not changed its determination to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment">prosecute</a> Assange. This is despite former President Barack Obama’s decision to <a href="https://theconversation.com/clemency-for-chelsea-manning-but-will-assange-or-snowden-also-find-the-us-merciful-71473">commute</a> the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the whistleblower who provided classified material to Assange for publication through Wikileaks. </p>
<p>Stronger Australian advocacy may well be negatively received. Assange’s supporters will continue to demand that Albanese act regardless, banking on the strength of the Australia-US alliance as capable of tolerating a point of disagreement.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Holly Cullen has done occasional volunteer work with the Australian Labor Party..</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Maguire does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Wikileaks has already announced it will appeal the decision, and the year-long drama could drag on for many years more.Holly Cullen, Adjunct professor, The University of Western AustraliaAmy Maguire, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1851432022-06-15T16:41:52Z2022-06-15T16:41:52ZRwanda deportations: what is the European Court of Human Rights, and why did it stop the UK flight from taking off?<p>A flight chartered to send asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda as part of a new government policy was grounded following an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The plan to deport asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda is intended, the government says, to deter people from making the dangerous journey across the Channel to the UK. This first flight had been scheduled to take off on June 14 with just seven passengers on board. There had been more due to fly but legal action enabled them <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-deportation-flight-home-office-b2099601.html">to be removed</a>. </p>
<p>This decision has already sparked a very negative reaction from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jun/15/rwanda-flight-asylum-echr-priti-patel-boris-johnson-pmqs-uk-politics-latest">UK government</a>, which says that plans for future flights are already underway.</p>
<p>The ECHR issued specific interim measures ordering the UK authorities not to remove one of the asylum seekers for three weeks after the final decision of judicial proceedings that are ongoing in the UK. This in turn triggered national legal mechanisms that prevented the other six from flying to Rwanda. Although the measures indicated are temporary, the ECHR can choose to extend them. </p>
<p>Home secretary Priti Patel pointed out in Parliament that the court did not declare the Rwanda deportation plan <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jun/15/rwanda-flight-asylum-echr-priti-patel-boris-johnson-pmqs-uk-politics-latest#maincontent">to be unlawful</a>. This is correct – the ECHR has not made any such determination. At this point, it only stated that the national and European courts should be given more time to decide this case properly. However, if the UK were to deport the person concerned before the ECHR measures expire or are lifted, it would then be violating international law.</p>
<h2>What is the ECHR?</h2>
<p>The ECHR is a Strasbourg-based human rights court that deals with compliance with the <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf">European convention on human rights</a>. It can deliver legally binding judgments when the human rights of any person under the power of any of its member states are violated – including right to life, prohibition of torture, right to privacy and others. The court is not connected to the European Union, and after Brexit, the UK remains a member.</p>
<p>The court usually deals with violations that happen on the territory of the member state, but with exceptions. Deportation is one such exception – the court can prevent deportation of a person who is under the risk of being tortured in the receiving country. This is a well-established principle of human rights law.</p>
<p>Normally, victims apply to the ECHR after the alleged violation has already happened. However, in some cases when the situation is ongoing, the court can order authorities to act to prevent irreparable harm. When it comes to deportation, the logic is that removing a person from a state that adheres to the European convention on human rights to one that doesn’t makes it very difficult to ensure that their rights will be properly protected.</p>
<p>In this case, the court cited concerns raised by the UN high commissioner for refugees that asylum seekers moved to Rwanda as part of the plan will not be able to access “fair and efficient procedures” related to their refugee status claims. There was no guarantee that they would be able to return to the UK from Rwanda to take part in future judicial proceedings relating to their case. </p>
<p>Interim measures such as these are are legally binding on states but they are only issued in extreme and rare cases in order to prevent serious harm. The court’s interim measures were instrumental in saving Russian opposition activist <a href="https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/08/24/alexei-navalny-evacuated-to-germany-european-court-of-human-rights-orders-interim-measures-against-russia/">Alexei Navalny when he was poisoned in Russia</a>. Most often, interim measures are used when there is a threat of extradition or deportation to the country where the victims could be ill-treated. </p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>Both Patel and prime minister Boris Johnson stated that they are not going to back off from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jun/15/rwanda-flight-asylum-echr-priti-patel-boris-johnson-pmqs-uk-politics-latest#maincontent">Rwanda deportation plan</a>. This probably means that the UK authorities are considering withdrawing from the European convention on human rights altogether. This is something the government has been discussing <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum">for some time</a>. </p>
<p>While no state has withdrawn from the convention in the past 50 years, if the UK does so it would follow Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which will cease to be a party to the European convention this year. Before Russia, the last withdrawal was Greece, which did so temporarily under the rule of a <a href="https://greekreporter.com/2022/04/21/april-21-1967-greek-junta-places-country-in-shackles/">military junta</a> in <a href="https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/parting-paths-russias-inevitable-exit-from-the-council-of-europe/">1967</a>. These are hardly good examples to follow. </p>
<p>The UK helped to build the Strasbourg system of human rights protection after the second world war and has continuously supported it. Hopefully, it will not be the one which destroys it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185143/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The court blocked the UK from deporting asylum-seekers to Rwanda until after cases in the UK are decided.Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Professor in Human Rights Law, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1820992022-04-29T11:50:46Z2022-04-29T11:50:46ZNationality and Borders Act becomes law: five key changes explained<p>At almost the last minute before the parliamentary session ended, after months of pushback from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/04/priti-patels-immigration-bill-suffers-at-least-10-defeats-in-lords">House of Lords</a> and despite vehement protests from those supporting refugees and migrants, the UK government has succeed in introducing the <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023/publications">Nationality and Borders Act</a>.</p>
<p>These are the five significant changes that will dramatically alter asylum and citizenship rules under the new UK law:</p>
<h2>1. Asylum seekers can be sent to Rwanda</h2>
<p>The plan to process asylum claims in <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-uks-plan-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-21st-century-imperialism-writ-large-181501">Rwanda</a> is undoubtedly the biggest headline change brought in by the Nationality and Borders Act. It has been widely condemned by human rights experts.</p>
<p>This route will be used to deal with what the government considers “inadmissable” asylum claims – including people who can no longer be returned to European transit countries following the UK’s exit from the European Union. This is an intensification of the longstanding trend of countries like the UK preferring ever more restrictive, “remote-control” approaches to reduce access to their territory, thereby avoiding asylum claims. Judging by the results of <a href="https://theconversation.com/multibillion-dollar-strategy-with-no-end-in-sight-australias-enduring-offshore-processing-deal-with-nauru-168941">Australia’s similar scheme</a>, this will lead to tragic and harmful consequences for asylum seekers and will also be extremely costly for the UK.</p>
<p>There are doubts about how the Rwanda plan will actually work (legal challenges have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/priti-patel-faces-legal-challenge-over-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan">already been mounted</a>) but the effects are already being felt as fear spreads among asylum seekers awaiting a ruling on their status.</p>
<h2>2. Home secretary can strip your citizenship without warning</h2>
<p>There are many new or enhanced powers for the home secretary included in the new legislation. Perhaps the most notable is the ability to deprive British people of their citizenship without notice. This has not garnered as much attention as the offshoring plans, but could potentially affect <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/the-explainer/2021/12/what-does-the-nationality-and-borders-bill-mean-for-you">millions of people</a>. </p>
<p>The law does not allow the government to leave anyone stateless so the people most at risk from being stripped of their citizenship without notice are those born in other countries or who, for whatever reason, hold dual citizenship.</p>
<p>There is scant protection for these people. Simply being eligible for citizenship of another country may be considered sufficient to safeguard against statelessness – even if, in practice, the state in question is unlikely to cooperate and grant such citizenship.</p>
<h2>3. Asylum seekers can be criminalised</h2>
<p>The new law creates two classes of asylum seeker based on how they arrived in the UK. “Group 1” consists of those who meet new entry requirements; “group 2” is made up of those who do not.</p>
<p>Most people attempting to claim asylum in the UK if they are not able to get a visa (nearly impossible from most countries where asylum seekers come from) will now be designated as “group 2”.</p>
<p>If they arrive in the UK without valid entry clearance they will be committing an offence and will be liable to prosecution. The idea that a person’s right to claim asylum is based on how they reach the UK is significant – and as with nearly all the new law, targets those crossing the English Channel on small boats.</p>
<p>As with much of the political rhetoric around immigration and asylum, the increased use of criminal justice measures is couched in the language of anti-trafficking. By criminalising those who facilitate irregular migration, or the irregular migrants themselves, it is argued that the “evil business of people smuggling” will be disrupted. But evidence suggests that increased enforcement and security tends to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5049707/">backfire</a>. Experts repeatedly point to the more <a href="https://www.jcwi.org.uk/briefing-safe-routes-to-the-uk">obvious solution</a> of providing safe routes. The Nationality and Borders Act serves to make journeys more dangerous rather than doing anything effective to stop them. </p>
<h2>4. People who arrive over the Channel can be treated more harshly</h2>
<p>Under the new law, people designated “group 2” will be treated more harshly. The home secretary can now even provide different types of accommodation to the different groups, depending on how they arrived in the UK or whether they previously broke immigration rules.</p>
<p>The effects of this innovation may end up being more significant than the plan to send people to Rwanda because it is likely to apply to many more people – not only those who can be deported. </p>
<p>The decision-making system in the Home Office is already complicated. Adding another two-tier element to the asylum process will make things even worse. This looks a lot like a deliberate move to further degrade the already low level of support provided. It’s likely to increase the harmful consequences of Home Office decision-making for those caught up in the system. </p>
<h2>5. Protections against modern slavery are being undermined</h2>
<p>The parts of the law which criminalise individuals involved in irregular migration connect with another important element – the assumed nexus between asylum and modern slavery. This matter takes up a significant amount of real estate in the new law.</p>
<p>One might assume provisions here would be aimed at better protecting people who are being exploited, but that would miss the mark. There is a remarkable consistency across the new law in terms of its main goal to stop people crossing the Channel in small boats and to make it easier to remove them if they make it over.</p>
<p>Accordingly, the main thrust of the modern slavery provisions in this new law is to reduce the possibility for people whose asylum claims are considered “inadmissable” to avoid removal by falsely claiming they have been exploited. This, it is claimed, will solve the problem of people using (“abusing”) the system designed to address modern slavery to frustrate attempts at removal.</p>
<p>Again, the impacts of these changes are difficult to gauge, but the shift towards making it harder for people to seek protection from exploitation as a means to reduce asylum claims can hardly be seen as a move to tackle traffickers and protect their victims, however the home secretary wishes to spin it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182099/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Balch receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. </span></em></p>From sending arrivals to Rwanda to stripping citizenship without notice – it’s little wonder the government has had to fight to get this legislation passed.Alex Balch, Senior Lecturer, Department of Politics, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1797952022-04-19T12:19:33Z2022-04-19T12:19:33ZPranks and propaganda: Russian laws against ‘fake news’ target Ukrainians and the opposition, not pro-Putin pranksters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458332/original/file-20220415-22-mhi8p7.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=27%2C0%2C4521%2C3110&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Russian pranksters and anti-free speech advocates Vladimir "Vovan" Kuznetsov, left, and Alexei "Lexus" Stolyarov in Moscow in 2016.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/russian-pranksters-vladimir-vovan-kuznetsov-and-alexei-news-photo/516279026?adppopup=true">Yuri Kadobnovav/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When they launched their war on Ukraine in late February 2022, Russian authorities also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/europe/russia-censorship-media-crackdown.html">unleashed an all-out assault</a> on dissent at home. Within weeks, the Kremlin blocked access to nearly all remaining critical media outlets as well as to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.</p>
<p>As part of the communication crackdown, the Russian parliament – the State Duma – passed draconian laws to limit speech relating to the Russian-Ukrainian war, laws that lawmakers deemed necessary to fight against fake news. In its first move, in early March, the legislature unanimously <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-introduce-jail-terms-spreading-fake-information-about-army-2022-03-04/">criminalized</a> “public dissemination of false information under the guise of truthful messages” about the Russian army. Sentences for violating the law extended up to 15 years in prison. </p>
<p>Later that month, Russian lawmakers <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/russians-who-spread-fake-news-about-officials-abroad-face-jail-interfax-2022-03-25/">expanded</a> the law’s application to include false information about the work of all officials serving abroad, including the National Guard troops, the Federal Security Service or any other state organs involved in the Ukrainian campaign.</p>
<p>The combination of the law’s intentional vagueness and severity is meant to stifle criticism of the Russian invasion. The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/11/russia-fake-news-law-misinformation/">“fake news” laws</a> swiftly <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/03/an-information-dark-age-russias-new-fake-news-law-has-outlawed-most-independent-journalism-there/">devastated</a> <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/28/russias-novaya-gazeta-suspends-operations-after-kremlin-warnings-a77109">media organizations</a> that weren’t already controlled by the state. </p>
<p>The latest series of fake news laws isn’t the Kremlin’s first use of a tragedy to enhance its power. And the earlier instance didn’t need a war to trigger it – it was triggered by pranksters.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An image of a large bearded young man in a yellow shirt is used to illustrate a Moscow Times story whose headline is 'Russia Investigates Ukrainian Blogger for Spreading Fake News About 300 Deaths in Kemerovo Fire.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458336/original/file-20220415-16-rq7iab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ukrainian prankster Evgeniy Volnov made a prank phone call in 2018 that helped pave the way for adoption of repressive news laws in Russia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/03/28/russia-investigates-ukrainian-blogger-spreading-fake-news-about-300-deaths-kemerovo-fire-a60966">Screenshot, The Moscow Times website</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Hoax sparks punitive law</h2>
<p>Russia <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/russia-russian-president-signs-anti-fake-news-laws/">passed</a> its original fake news legislation in March 2019. The law established penalties for spreading “socially significant false information distributed under the guise of truthful messages.” </p>
<p>The law’s passage followed a Ukrainian prankster’s hoax that built on a real tragedy. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43543109">On March 25, 2018, a fire</a> in a shopping mall in the Russian mining city of Kemerovo killed 60 people, most of them children. </p>
<p>Evgeniy Volnov, a Ukrainian <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBfw2HObgGk&t=700s">media provocateur who fancies</a> himself an information warrior against Russia, posed as an emergency services official to prank call the Kemerovo morgue. He told officials there to arrange for 300 incoming bodies. </p>
<p>Volnov then published his phone call, which sparked local residents’ anger at the authorities. Residents then wrongly suspected officials of hiding the real number of victims. In response, the <a href="https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/24346/">Russian Investigative Committee – the main federal investigating authority in Russia – opened</a> a criminal case against Volnov for “inciting hatred or animosity” and <a href="https://sledcom.ru/news/item/1213375/?print=1?print=1">issued</a> a warrant for his arrest in absentia. </p>
<p>The Russian government promptly exploited Volnov’s prank to further curtail domestic freedoms. </p>
<p>In the days after the fire, state officials argued for the need to regulate fake news to safeguard Russian society from destabilization by disinformation. Citing Volnov’s prank, <a href="https://tass.ru/politika/5078947">Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, for example, suggested</a> that foreign governments could use fake news to instigate regime change in Russia. He singled out the Ukrainian government, in which he claimed “representatives of the CIA and the U.S. State Department work in the intelligence services.”</p>
<p>Russia’s most famous <a href="https://meduza.io/en/feature/2016/03/31/if-you-re-sliding-into-totalitarianism-you-might-as-well-do-it-glamorously">pranking duo</a>, Vladimir Kuznetsov – known as Vovan – and Alexey Stolyarov – known as Lexus – spearheaded the media campaign for fake news legislation. </p>
<p>Kuznetsov and Stolyarov’s <a href="https://rutube.ru/channel/23610070/videos/">pranks</a> target foreign high-profile cultural and political figures who oppose the Kremlin’s agenda. Russian media then <a href="https://aif.ru/politics/world/bomba_dlya_nacistov_kak_ministr_oborony_britanii_s_prankerami_govoril">widely</a> <a href="https://www.kp.ru/daily/27370/4562912/">cover</a> <a href="https://rg.ru/2022/03/25/na-videohostingah-opublikovan-prank-s-ministrom-vnutrennih-del-velikobritanii-patel.html">the pranks</a> to present them as evidence for the regime’s mythology of Russia as <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Fortress+Russia%3A+Conspiracy+Theories+in+the+Post+Soviet+World-p-9781509522651">a besieged fortress</a> fending off unending Western scheming against it.</p>
<h2>Pranking politics</h2>
<p>Pranks are mischievous practical jokes played on unsuspecting victims. A classic phone prank involves a caller posing as someone else, usually in front of an audience of co-conspirators, to dupe their targets into doing or saying something silly, revealing or both.</p>
<p>Political pranking is <a href="https://nyupress.org/9780814796290/pranksters/">traditionally thought</a> of as <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/anti-afd-activists-prank-populists-with-hoax-corporate-ads/a-46744218">benign foolery targeting</a> the powerful. My research into pranking politics shows that <a href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2016/03/15/happy-to-be-a-weapon-russian-prank-callers-target-kremlin-opponents-a52163">sometimes pranksters bolster</a> the status quo instead. </p>
<p>Kuznetsov and Stolyarov were the <a href="https://www.piter.com/collection/spisok-bykova/product/vovan-i-leksus-po-kom-zvonit-telefon-2">founding figures</a> of Russia’s phone pranking scene in the 2000s. At the time, the community consisting of teenagers and college students mostly pranked the downtrodden and pop culture celebrities. The jokesters’ aim was to drive their target to angry stupor for the enjoyment of fellow pranksters. </p>
<p>In 2014, upon discovering their shared support for Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea, the veteran pranksters joined forces to dupe Ukrainian and Western elites. The pair pranked Ukrainian President <a href="https://rutube.ru/video/61c3a0eaecab3f7c1750a8277234ff96/">Petro Poroshenko</a>; <a href="https://rutube.ru/video/c88a956b17ef31cba880bfcd8b9ca0dd/">Filaret</a>, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; Kyiv Mayor <a href="https://rutube.ru/video/e355ace7031294480a49b18ee192867f/">Vitali Klitschko</a>; and other Ukrainian leaders. Posing as friendly figures to entice their victims into informal chatter, Kuznetsov and Stolyarov broached a wide range of topics, including nationalism, Russian gas exports and homosexuality. </p>
<p>The pranksters’ goal was to provoke their targets into saying something that Russian media could then spin using <a href="https://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/28/dominant-narratives-in-russian-political-and-media-discourse-during-the-crisis/">the Kremlin’s characterization</a> of <a href="https://ibidem-verlag.de/pdf/00-fedor.pdf">post-2014 Ukraine</a> as an inept, fascist and morally corrupt Western puppet. In 2018, Ukrainian authorities <a href="https://society.fakty.ua/281374-skandalnym-rossijskim-prankeram-zapretili-vezd-v-ukrainu-eksklyuzivnyj-dokument">barred</a> Kuznetsov from entering the country.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A balding light-haired man with a round head, wearing a white shirt, dark tie and black blazer, looking pensive." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/458337/original/file-20220415-14-grnzy1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a number of repressive press laws during his tenure.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/russias-president-vladimir-putin-looks-on-during-talks-with-news-photo/1239931346?adppopup=true">Mikhail Klimentyev/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The law of Vovan and Lexus</h2>
<p>Because of Kuznetsov’s and Stolyarov’s reputations as patriotic experts in fakery, they took on the role of <a href="https://ura.news/news/1052328807">promoting</a> the <a href="https://www.kp.ru/daily/26811/3847766/">fake news law initiative</a>. <a href="https://ria.ru/20180328/1517450554.html?in=t">Calling</a> Ukrainian prankster Volnov’s prank a “disgusting informational sabotage by Ukrainian nationalists,” the pair vowed to prevent “informational attacks from abroad” by proposing legal solutions in their capacity as members of the State Duma’s advisory Council on Information Society and Media Development. </p>
<p>In explaining the duo’s enthusiasm, <a href="https://www.kp.ru/daily/26811/3847766/">Stolyarov distinguished</a> between their socially “useful fakes,” which uncover hidden truths about domestic and world politics, and what they said were unlawful pranks like Volnov’s that only destabilize society. </p>
<p>The duo’s public support for fake news legislation was so vociferous that <a href="https://www.bfm.ru/news/381070">one critic referred</a> to the initiative as “the law of Vovan, Lexus, and Volodin.” After lobbying for the law in the media, however, the pranksters were sidelined from meaningful participation in its drafting.</p>
<p>Following monthslong parliamentary discussions and revisions, Vladimir Putin signed the fake news proposals into law in March 2019. The law set fines for spreading alleged disinformation ranging from US$450 to $22,900, depending on who was doing the spreading and its consequences – for example, whether it led to bodily harm or death. As critics had warned, <a href="https://meduza.io/en/feature/2019/04/29/how-does-russia-actually-enforce-its-ban-on-fake-news">the authorities applied</a> the law almost exclusively to opposition activists and organizations.</p>
<p>When the COVID-19 pandemic began in spring 2020, Russia <a href="https://ipi.media/new-fake-news-law-stifles-independent-reporting-in-russia-on-covid-19/">used the existing fake news framework to criminalize</a> what it said were coronavirus-related fakes in an effort to curb unwanted coverage of the public health emergency. The law carried a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.</p>
<h2>Pranksters non grata</h2>
<p>Since the renewal of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, Vovan and Lexus again put their pranking talents in the Kremlin’s service. In late March, the duo published pranks with the U.K. Home Secretary <a href="https://rutube.ru/video/a110abfc133cbdfa4b3772a1f7bb973d/">Priti Patel</a> and Secretary of State for Defense <a href="https://rutube.ru/video/2e3a2631dec32df3a3401f4be4187f8a/">Ben Wallace</a>. </p>
<p>[<em>Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-150ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>Posing as Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, the pranksters trolled the U.K. ministers with ridiculous questions surrounding the war. At one point, faux-Shmyhal asked Patel if the British were afraid that neo-Nazis would enter the U.K. among Ukrainian refugees, a reference to the Kremlin’s claim that the goal of its invasion of Ukraine is “denazification.” The startled official replied with an assurance of the Brits’ determination to help in the Ukrainian refugee crisis. </p>
<p>The leading Russian state information agency, RIA Novosti, twisted Patel’s response. The <a href="https://ria.ru/20220324/prank-1779936160.html">headline read</a>: “The U.K. Home Secretary shared with the pranksters her willingness to help neo-Nazis.” </p>
<p>After the U.K. government urged YouTube to block the videos as “Russian propaganda,” the <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/youtube-removes-account-publishing-hoaxes-223136077.html">U.S.-based platform removed</a> the pranksters’ channel as part of its investigation into “influence operations linked to Russia.” </p>
<p>The pranking war rages on.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/179795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stanislav Budnitsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Political phone pranksters played a big part in the passage of draconian laws that strangle free expression in Russia.Stanislav Budnitsky, Postdoctoral Fellow, Russian and East European Institute, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1756972022-01-28T13:13:05Z2022-01-28T13:13:05ZLack of data on citizenship-stripping goes against the Home Office’s duty of transparency<p>A group of lawyers found that <a href="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/how-many-people-have-been-stripped-of-their-british-citizenship-home-office-deprivation/">at least 464 people</a> have had their citizenship removed by the government over the last 15 years. They pieced together the data using freedom of information requests and other publications – a challenge, because the Home Office does not publish the information regularly.</p>
<p>Citizenship-stripping for conduct – when a person’s citizenship is removed because of their behaviour – has been a government power <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40">for decades</a>. Previously, citizenship could only be removed if the individual had done something “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests” of the UK. But the power was expanded in 2006, allowing the government to remove citizenship if the secretary of state believes the deprivation is “conducive to the public good”. </p>
<p>The nationality and borders bill, which is currently going through parliament, expands this further. It would allow the government to strip people of their British citizenship <a href="https://theconversation.com/stripping-british-citizenship-the-governments-new-bill-explained-173547">without notice</a>.</p>
<p>Knowing how often, and in what manner, these decisions are made is important because citizenship-stripping affects the lives of individuals, their families and their communities. The decision to strip people of British citizenship is based wholly on <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40">ministerial discretion</a> – the satisfaction of the minister. Like decisions by all public bodies, ministerial decisions cannot be arbitrary, must operate within reasoned parameters and be just and fair in application.</p>
<p>Citizenship deprivation is ordinarily done for national security or counter-terrorism reasons, so it is possible that lack of transparency is due to a need to protect sources and details of operations. However, operational details are different from providing bare statistics on the use of power. </p>
<p>While it is true that the law recognises the need for some use of exceptional state powers in the area of counter-terrorism, it still requires fairness. For example, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which hears appeals from citizenship cancellation orders, has provision for extraordinary <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1034/contents/made">closed court sessions</a> which are not open to the public. Yet there is still a process in place for sharing information and providing legal representation to those who appeal, for the sake of fairness. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/21/hundreds-stripped-british-citizenship-last-15-years-study-finds">In response</a> to this article, a Home Office spokesperson said: “The Home Office is committed to publishing its transparency report into the use of disruptive powers and will do so in due course. Removing British citizenship has been possible for over a century, and is used against those who have acquired citizenship by fraud, and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals.”</p>
<p>Without more information from the government, it is impossible to evaluate whether the citizenship-stripping decisions have been objectively reasonable and based on evidence. This is also rarely scrutinised in appeals cases, as most citizenship deprivations occur when someone is outside the country. As has been seen in the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0157.html">Shamima Begum case,</a> it is nearly impossible for people to adequately represent their situation in court from conflict areas.</p>
<p>There is legal precedent for government transparency in immigration cases. Courts <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1996/946.html">have directed</a> that people should be told the reason why their naturalisation applications were denied. And more generally, courts have <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-v-secretary-of-806937757">directed</a> that Home Office decision-makers must record their reasoning at the time decisions are made.</p>
<p>Secrecy can also prevent courts from clarifying less clear aspects of the law. Well-reasoned decisions help public bodies withstand legal challenge if they are robust and easily explained.</p>
<h2>Duty of care</h2>
<p>Public authorities generally owe the public a <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/publiclaw/document/393870/55KG-FP91-F18H-K2Y7-00000-00/Claims_against_public_authorities_overview">duty of care</a> to protect individuals from harm.</p>
<p>The government owes a heightened duty of care towards children who are in conflict areas such as Syria and unable to leave because their British parents have had their citizenship cancelled. The <a href="https://globalcit.eu/repatriating-the-forgotten-children-of-isis-fighters-a-matter-of-urgency/">duty towards children</a> is based on their welfare in national laws, as well as best interests in international human rights conventions. Yet, the lack of transparency on citizenship-stripping means not much is known about how many children are affected or what, if anything, is being done to bring them to safety.</p>
<p>Ministerial power should only be exercised for the public good, and negligence can put lives at risk. Public officers acting in bad faith, knowing it would probably cause harm, could be committing <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/misfeasance-in-public-office">misfeasance in public office</a>. Actions for misfeasance require proving intentional misbehaviour and would be difficult to establish for cancellation of citizenship. Nevertheless, it shows that there are limits to ministerial power and discretion. </p>
<p>Given these serious consequences, ministerial discretion must be exercised objectively and with transparency. Oversight bodies, parliament and the public must be able to scrutinise their actions.</p>
<p>It is possible that the lack of available data is just poor recordkeeping or delay on the part of the government. But this secrecy hampers wider public responses to human rights abuses which may take place during counter-terrorism operations. NGOs and investigative journalists can only go so far to bring about accountability while relying on freedom of information requests, personal contacts and anecdotal evidence for data.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175697/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Devyani Prabhat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Knowing the number of people who have had their citizenship removed is crucial to holding a powerful government to account.Devyani Prabhat, Professor in Law, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1751152022-01-19T12:43:35Z2022-01-19T12:43:35ZSending in the Royal Navy is not the answer to small boat migration in the Channel<p>The Home Office has announced a plan to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60021252">bring in the Royal Navy</a> to take charge of policing the English Channel after the number of migrants attempting the crossing in small boats tripled in 2021. Full details of the plan have not been revealed, but appear to involve the navy taking a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/priti-patel-boris-johnson-royal-navy-labour-channel-b1994773.html?r=72263">leadership and planning role</a>, as well as possibly providing additional vessels to augment the Border Force cutters already at sea. </p>
<p>Certainly, at first glance, the navy has the potential to bring more resources to the problem. Border Force currently operates five cutters and six coastal patrol vessels, whereas the navy has many more ships suited to maritime security tasks. These include 16 <a href="https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships/patrol-and-minehunters/archer-class">Archer class patrol vessels</a> and eight of the larger and more capable <a href="https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships/patrol-and-minehunters/river-class">River class offshore patrol vessels</a>. </p>
<p>Yet numbers can be deceiving. The Archers and Rivers are already in high demand. Two of the Rivers, HMS Tamar and HMS Spey, are <a href="https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/09/royal-navys-river-class-opvs-begin-5-year-indo-pacific-deployment/">forward deployed</a> to the Indo-Pacific. Others are assigned to areas of <a href="https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/united-kingdom/overseas-patrol-squadron">longstanding UK interest</a>, such as the Caribbean and the Falklands, or now patrol the UK’s fishing waters following Brexit. Likewise, two of the Archers are deployed to the <a href="https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/mediterranean-and-black-sea/gibraltar-squadron">Gibraltar Squadron</a>, another two assigned to security duties at the <a href="https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/united-kingdom/faslane-patrol-boat-squadron">Faslane nuclear submarine base</a> in Scotland, while the others play important roles with <a href="https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/bases-and-stations/training-establishments/university-royal-naval-units">University Royal Naval Units</a>. </p>
<p>With so many vessels already in use elsewhere, it seems unlikely that the Admiralty will welcome new deployments to the Channel -– especially so soon after an <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/channel-crossings-border-force-fleet-to-get-200m-upgrade-nph6pwnmp">announcement</a> that Border Force is receiving money for an upgraded fleet of cutters. </p>
<h2>Pushing back on pushbacks</h2>
<p>But even if capacity could be found, it’s unclear how naval involvement could help to change the situation in the Channel.</p>
<p>The Home Office’s ambition has been to “push back” small boats – that is using ships to prevent access to British waters and waiting for the French coastguard to return the vessels. Perhaps there is a hope that the Royal Navy will put some backbone into this policy, especially given that Border Force’s union has recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/27/border-force-staff-union-joins-fight-to-block-to-priti-patels-pushback-plans">threatened strikes</a> if pushbacks are implemented.</p>
<p>Any such hopes are likely to be in vain. There is a duty within international law for a ship to attempt the rescue of persons at danger at sea. This is enshrined in <a href="https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf">Article 98</a> of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/ConferencesMeetings/Pages/SOLAS.aspx">elsewhere</a>. The Royal Navy is just as bound by the law of the sea as Border Force.</p>
<p>When navies in other countries have ignored their duties to International Law, tragedies have followed. Thailand’s Royal Navy, for example, has been <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/22/thailand-needs-stop-inhumane-navy-push-backs">widely pilloried</a> for its policy of pushing back Rohingya refugees, with hundreds thought to have <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-migrants-boat-idUSKBN0O31SH20150518">died</a>. </p>
<p>The navy has already indicated that it has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/17/military-to-be-used-to-stem-channel-crossings-as-johnson-seeks-to-stay-pm">little appetite</a> for such pushbacks, and any extra capacity it can bring is most likely to be deployed in search and rescue tasks. </p>
<p>Indeed, saving lives at sea is ingrained in the navy’s ethos and operational history. It played a key role in UK maritime search and rescue until 2015 and <a href="https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/why-navy/humanitarian-aid">humanitarian assistance</a> remains one of its core missions. During wartime, Royal Navy ships regularly rescued the stricken crews of sunken enemy warships where they could, including many from the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5577205/Newly-uncovered-photos-German-sailors-sinking-German-battleship-Bismarck.html">Bismarck</a>.</p>
<h2>What the navy can do</h2>
<p>If the navy cannot easily contribute vessels or engage in pushbacks, its primary contribution may be to share information and help monitor the Channel. In this way, it could serve as part of wider maritime security architecture in which each agency plays its own role in preventing either the crossings or tragedies from occurring.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A Royal Navy training boat in the Solent" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441473/original/file-20220119-23-68c8gt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441473/original/file-20220119-23-68c8gt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441473/original/file-20220119-23-68c8gt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441473/original/file-20220119-23-68c8gt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441473/original/file-20220119-23-68c8gt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441473/original/file-20220119-23-68c8gt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441473/original/file-20220119-23-68c8gt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Royal Navy Archer class patrol vessels could be part of the Channel operations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portsmouth-uk-26th-sep-2018-royal-1526616638">Kevin Shipp / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the announcement, by the UK home secretary, Priti Patel, comes as a surprise because that is exactly what’s already happening. </p>
<p>Since 2010, the UK has invested <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03071847.2021.1981777?journalCode=rusi20">considerable effort</a> in creating an integrated maritime security structure. The Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2020, coordinates the UK’s maritime assets and helps different agencies to work together at sea. Hosted by the navy, it enables cross-agency information sharing through its <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-maritime-security-centre">Maritime Domain Awareness programme</a>.</p>
<p>In essence, the navy is already having an operational impact. It is difficult to see how it can move beyond this or would want to do so. The UK needs to move beyond populist announcements on the small boat problem and develop a response along three lines. </p>
<p>First, it should continue its efforts to develop the maritime security architecture that facilitates interagency working. Second, it needs to foster closer cooperation with France and Belgium to help manage this shared problem of human desperation and misery. </p>
<p>Finally, it should recognise that policing at sea can only address <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-more-small-boats-crossing-the-english-channel-and-why-are-border-forces-struggling-to-stop-them-144466#comment_2306486">symptoms rather than causes</a> of increased Channel crossings. A long-term solution requires the reestablishment of humane and accessible refugee and migration routes into the UK.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175115/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy Edmunds receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Grant no. ES/S008810/1: Transnational Organised Crime at Sea: New Evidence for Better Responses.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Edwards does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Home Office wants the navy to take charge of migrant crossings, but there’s not much value they can add.Timothy Edmunds, Professor of International Security at University of Bristol and Director of the Centre for Global Insecurity, University of BristolScott Edwards, Research Associate, Transnational Organised Crime at Sea, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1745552022-01-13T16:00:50Z2022-01-13T16:00:50ZAsylum seekers: why UK needs to change how it assesses the age of new arrivals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440468/original/file-20220112-13-tljvuh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=142%2C41%2C5455%2C3953&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/photo-xray-film-human-shoulder-1709523028">Lena Si / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the first week of January, the Home Office <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-office-to-introduce-scientific-methods-for-assessing-the-age-of-asylum-seekers">announced that</a> it would set up a committee to advise on the use of scientific methods – such as x-rays and MRI imaging – to determine the age of asylum seekers. </p>
<p>Age assessment is part of the asylum application process when it is unclear whether the person seeking asylum is over 18. It’s vital to get this right from various perspectives. Children who are mistakenly aged as adults will be placed in adult housing, endangering them and denying them support they are entitled to. Conversely, when adults are wrongly aged as minors, they may be claiming support they are not entitled to. </p>
<p>Methods like medical imaging techniques may provide better age estimates than the UK’s current system, which is based on an assessment by social workers in situations where the person’s age is in question. </p>
<p>And as a diagnostic radiographer, I am familiar with the methods involving medical imaging. As an osteoarchaeologist, I use dating methods like dental development to assess the age of skeletal remains. While assessing the age of living individuals is a slightly different scientific process, these methods provide more accurate results than the UK’s current system.</p>
<h2>Current methods</h2>
<p>There are two main reasons why age assessment may be needed in asylum cases. Either the applicant is obviously a child but lacks documentation to prove it. Or the applicant claims to be a minor (without documentation or with documentation that is suspected to be falsified), which is disputed by those handling the case. </p>
<p>Currently, an initial age validity assessment on arrival <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-age-instruction">is conducted</a> by Border Agency staff based on a person’s appearance and demeanour. If their age is disputed, social workers conduct an assessment to determine the applicant’s level of maturity. There are several problems with this process, which <a href="https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/basw_124137-4_0.pdf">has been criticised</a> as too inaccurate, unscientific and biased.</p>
<p>Firstly, these assessments take place without the support of family or anybody known to the potential child. The setting may be unfamiliar and upsetting. Secondly, how someone expresses themselves may not be a good guide to their age, but may be influenced by the experience, past responsibilities (or lack thereof), coping behaviours and past traumas. Children may appear more demure (hence younger) or more resilient (hence older) than their actual age. </p>
<p>Lastly, officials may be assessing the age of children from a variety of foreign countries, with limited understanding of the cultural diversity and responsibilities posed on children, and what it means to grow up in a country of conflict. They may also be using translators for communication. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An x-ray of a hand" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440681/original/file-20220113-25-mg5sew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/440681/original/file-20220113-25-mg5sew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440681/original/file-20220113-25-mg5sew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440681/original/file-20220113-25-mg5sew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440681/original/file-20220113-25-mg5sew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440681/original/file-20220113-25-mg5sew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/440681/original/file-20220113-25-mg5sew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">X-rays of hands and wrists can be used to show skeletal development and determine age.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/xrayed-human-hand-xray-bones-1257889891">LuYago / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scientific alternatives</h2>
<p>Most other European countries already use scientific methods to determine the age of asylum seekers. These include analysis of a combination of dental development, skeletal maturity and pubertal changes.</p>
<p>Dental development is done by using a dental x-ray of the person and then comparing the development of the teeth to images of dental development from children of similar age and same sex. This can then provide what is called a “dental age”. Skeletal maturity is assessed using imaging techniques such as x-rays or computer tomography, a combination of several x-ray images of the body part. </p>
<p>Commonly used is a hand and wrist x-ray, which is compared to a series of developmental charts, again from children of known ages and same sex. This method is already used in the UK for clinical purposes as a reliable method for assessing issues such as growth hormone deficiency, or early or delayed puberty. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/pdf/6379.pdf">have criticised</a> these methods for exposing children to unnecessary radiation that does not have a medical therapeutic purpose, although MRI imaging can be used instead of methods involving radiation. However, the radiation dose from a dental x-ray or a hand and wrist x-ray is very small. A small dental x-ray will yield the same radiation as we get in a day from our environment. </p>
<p>The last method used in some European countries for child age assessment is pubertal changes. This involves a visual inspection of the sexual maturity of breast development in females or genital development in males and pubic and armpit hair development in both sexes. This method has been criticised for being inappropriate and intrusive as it requires the nudity of the asylum seeker, which may cause psychological distress for a young person in an already vulnerable situation. </p>
<p>For all the scientific methods, there are some disagreements on exactly how accurate these methods are for assessing age. Results have differed depending on which method is tested and who they are tested on. Hopefully, the committee appointed by the Home Office will be able to determine which methods would be most appropriate for those arriving in the UK. </p>
<p>In 2018, the European Asylum Support Office published <a href="https://www.easo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/easo-practical-guide-on-age-assesment-v3-2018.pdf">updated guidelines</a> for member countries. They recommended using the least intrusive and most accurate methods of age assessment, which can vary between cases – for example, you may have better data on dental records for making comparisons with children from a particular age and country or better data for hand and wrist x-rays for others. The guidance also recommends using a combination of methods, and not just an assessment of psychological or developmental maturity.</p>
<p>Establishing an advisory committee for age assessment of asylum seekers in the UK will begin to bring the UK in line with procedures followed by European countries. Incorporating more methods and having the flexibility to choose between methods most applicable to the person being assessed can only be an improvement to current methods.</p>
<p>The committee set up by the Home Office will be led by Professor Dame Sue Black, who I trained under for my degree in forensic anthropology at the University of Dundee. Her experience as a forensic anthropologist is second to none in the UK – her appointment should ensure a confidence in the scientific advice and recommendations deriving from this committee.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charlotte Primeau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The use of scientific processes would be a huge improvement on the UK’s current methods for assessing the age of asylum seekers.Charlotte Primeau, Postdoctoral research associate in osteoarchaeology, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1735472021-12-14T14:00:53Z2021-12-14T14:00:53ZStripping British citizenship: the government’s new bill explained<p>A restrictive new immigration law being debated in parliament has huge implications, not only for people seeking asylum in Britain but also for British citizens.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023">nationality and borders bill</a> is now in the House of Lords for readings after passing through the House of Commons. The bill makes it a criminal offence to arrive in the UK without permission, with a maximum sentence of up to four years. The bill lets the UK send asylum seekers to a “safe third country”, and can allow for offshore processing centres overseas instead of considering their asylum claims in the UK. </p>
<p>In November, home secretary Priti Patel <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023">introduced a provision</a> that would allow the government to strip people of their British citizenship without notice, which was debated for <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/nationality-and-borders-bill-what-priti-patel-immigration-plan-explained-1341687">nine minutes</a> in the House of Commons before passage on December 8.</p>
<p>Citizenship stripping can take place for public interest reasons, mostly connected to national security and counter-terrorism. These decisions come into effect even before appeals can be processed, so it is crucial for the affected person to be notified. The UK has had a <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06820/">recent, significant rise</a> in citizenship deprivations. Most have taken place when the British citizen is <a href="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/british-nationals-citizenship-deprivation/">already overseas</a>, so they would be unlikely to know about cancellation orders and would find it difficult to appeal. </p>
<p>A well-known recent case is that of Shamima Begum, who went to Syria at the age of 15, and had her citizenship removed. In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf">recent judgment</a>, the supreme court held that Begum could not return to the UK to challenge her deprivation order in person. While Begum had a right to a fair hearing, this right did not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public.</p>
<p>The British Nationality Act 1981 requires the secretary of state to give a person written notice of a decision to deprive them of their British citizenship before a deprivation order can be made. Clause 9 in the new bill exempts the government from giving notice if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so, or in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or is otherwise in the public interest.</p>
<p>This gives the government enormous power over British citizens who have another nationality or who may have been born elsewhere. Effectively, naturalised citizens can be made stateless without notice. The government, however, <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-12-07/debates/E3398434-EA4E-4717-9BF5-92B8962F82D1/NationalityAndBordersBill">claims</a> that it will not make anyone stateless and will not affect their right to appeal.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/17/new-bill-quietly-gives-powers-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice">abrupt addition</a> of this provision is particularly concerning, as it was not mentioned in consultations or included in the original bill. </p>
<h2>Why now?</h2>
<p>Patel’s attempt in clause 9 to take away notice requirements appears to be a direct reaction to <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/D4-v-SSHD-judgment.pdf">the case of D4</a>, a British citizen who was in Syria to allegedly join Islamic State. Her citizenship was cancelled in 2019 and a notice of that decision was placed on her home office file as per a 2018 regulation. D4 knew nothing of the decision to deprive her of her citizenship. </p>
<p>In July 2021, the high court decided that this was not enough notice for removing citizenship. The court found that the 2018 regulation went beyond the powers granted by parliament with regards to serving notice. The judge considered it unlawful – a private act of putting something in a drawer and locking it, rather than actually notifying anyone.</p>
<p>The new clause 9 contains a subsection that renders the provision about secret deprivations retroactive as well, so as to wholly neutralise the effect of the court’s judgment in D4.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A person handing or taking away a British passport" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437522/original/file-20211214-17-1kvyuyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437522/original/file-20211214-17-1kvyuyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437522/original/file-20211214-17-1kvyuyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437522/original/file-20211214-17-1kvyuyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437522/original/file-20211214-17-1kvyuyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437522/original/file-20211214-17-1kvyuyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437522/original/file-20211214-17-1kvyuyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The new bill allows the government to take away citizenship without notice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-handing-new-post-brexit-blue-1911595108">Max_555 / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new bill could affect an estimated <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/12/exclusive-british-citizenship-of-six-million-people-could-be-jeopardised-by-home-office-plans">6 million Britons</a> who were born elsewhere or have another nationality. This provision makes these citizens far more vulnerable, despite the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationality-and-borders-bill-deprivation-of-citizenship-factsheet/nationality-and-borders-bill-deprivation-of-citizenship-factsheet">assertion</a> that these powers are rarely used, and only against the “very worst”.</p>
<p>The government claims that the vast majority of these millions of people are very unlikely to be in war areas fighting against British interests. Yet these powers are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1743872116655305">framed widely</a> and could indeed be used far beyond the national-security emergency scenario. </p>
<p>Citizenship stripping orders are not obtained from any court or tribunal and are based entirely on the discretion of the home secretary. UK law empowers the home secretary to deprive nationality of British citizens who have another nationality, if the secretary deems it “conducive to the public good”. The home secretary can also deprive naturalised citizens of their citizenship – even if this results in their statelessness – if the home secretary finds “reasonable grounds that the person is able to become a citizen of another state”. </p>
<p>Currently, <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/patels-citizenship-stripping-bill-would-accelerate-uk-race-to-the-bottom/">no other country</a> can make its own citizens stateless by depriving them of citizenship without notice.</p>
<p>The UK’s citizenship deprivation practice affects minorities and those of migrant heritage much more than it does white British nationals born in Britain. The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf">Begum case</a> demonstrated that an appeal against deprivation orders can remain indefinitely <a href="https://verfassungsblog.de/a-paean-to-judicial-self-restraint/">suspended</a>. Taking away notification requirements will make appeals even harder. Even without this change, deprivation laws risk alienating minority communities, but with it, potential challenges in courts will be eliminated at source.</p>
<p><em>This piece has been updated to clarify the nature of the nine minutes of debate on the bill on December 8.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Devyani Prabhat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The new nationality and borders bill would give the government huge powers over British citizens.Devyani Prabhat, Professor in Law, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1726392021-11-26T15:55:08Z2021-11-26T15:55:08ZChannel deaths: the UK has clear legal responsibilities towards people crossing in small boats<p>At least 27 people have drowned in the English Channel attempting to cross in a small boat. There were three children, seven women, one of whom was pregnant, and 17 men. </p>
<p>Although a joint search and rescue operation was seemingly launched in the narrow maritime area between the UK and France (which is only 20 miles wide), the highly equipped authorities of both coastal states were not able to intervene in time to save the victims.</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/channel-deaths-the-uk-has-clear-legal-responsibilities-towards-people-crossing-in-small-boats-172639&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The British government has responded to these deaths by calling on France to <a href="https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1463973204456878080?s=20">take back anyone who attempts the crossing</a>. </p>
<p>Speaking in parliament following the tragedy, Home Secretary Priti Patel placed heavy emphasis on the French government’s responsibility for the tragedy, which she said was <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVfW2jO5JXc">“not a surprise”</a>.</p>
<p>Regardless of how these people got there, the UK has clear legal responsibilities to anyone who finds themselves in trouble in the Channel. However much French authorities bolster their own efforts, the UK is obliged by multiple international conventions to maintain robust search and rescue operations in the area. </p>
<h2>What are the UK’s obligations?</h2>
<p>It is not legal to send boats crossing the Channel back to France. Pushbacks are illegal (regardless of whether smugglers use smaller or larger vessels to transport migrants), and states have an obligation under the <a href="https://onboard-aquarius.org/uploads/2018/08/SAR-Convention-1979.pdf">International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue</a> to disembark everyone rescued or intercepted at sea at a place of safety, which can only be on <a href="https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Facilitation/Documents/MSC.167%20(78).pdf">dry land</a>.</p>
<p>The UN Special Rapporteur for the Human Rights of Migrants has <a href="https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/47/30">concluded</a> that this is because every person has a right to have their protection claim individually assessed before removal. And in January 2021, the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26691&LangID=E">UN Human Rights Committee</a> established that Italy was liable for failing to cooperate in saving the lives of more than 200 people who drowned in waters that fall into Malta’s search and rescue jurisdiction, because Italian authorities had knowledge of the distress event and did not intervene in due time.</p>
<p>The UK has responsibilities towards people coming towards its shoreline on boats. According to Article 98(1) of <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf">the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea</a>, nations have a duty to provide assistance to people in distress. It states that they should “proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance”.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Maritime-Search-and-Rescue-(SAR).aspx">International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue</a> states that a rescue operation can be effectively considered concluded only when the shipwrecked are disembarked at a place of safety.</p>
<p>The duty under this convention is one without qualification. Any person in distress “regardless of [their] nationality or status […] or the circumstances in which they are found” should be rescued.</p>
<p>Crucially in the case of the UK, Article 98(2) of the <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf">UN Convention on the Law of the Sea</a> requests states to promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of effective search and rescue services. “Every coastal state” is obliged to do this and is responsible for its violation if the inadequacy or inefficiency of its search and rescue service contributes to loss of life at sea. </p>
<p>Therefore, regardless of whether France boosts its shoreline patrols to prevent people from entering the water in the first place, the UK must continue to rescue people at sea.</p>
<p>The English Channel is a highly <a href="https://ecre.org/channel-uk-practices-pushbacks-as-france-ngos-and-the-un-deem-turn-around-tactics-unsafe-and-unlawful/">monitored area</a>. On top of naval patrol, it is subject to aerial surveillance. Drones operate in the area and thermal cameras are deployed to seek out people. Once the maritime rescue coordination centre of a coastal state has knowledge of a distress event at sea, it has a duty to intervene – a duty, which exists even if the boat calls from the outside of its territorial waters or search and rescue areas.</p>
<p>Once a boat enters UK territorial waters, the UK’s primary responsibility for search and rescue is triggered. Nor is there any grey area when it comes to the Dover Strait – the narrowest part of the Channel across which most flimsy migrant boats travel. Here, there are no international waters. France and the UK are so close that as soon as vessels leave French waters, they enter UK waters. The UK’s primary responsibility is triggered the moment a boat leaves French waters. </p>
<h2>A duty to work together</h2>
<p>The UK and France also have a duty of cooperation under the <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx">International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea</a> and the Search and Rescue Convention to prevent loss of life at sea and ensure completion of a search and rescue operation. This includes a responsibility on both sides to contact the other’s authorities as soon as they receive information about people in danger and to cooperate on search and rescue operations for anyone in distress at sea.</p>
<p>Despite media coverage, European countries, including the UK, are not facing a migration crisis comparable to that of <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2015/12/5683d0b56/million-sea-arrivals-reach-europe-2015.html">2015</a>, when more than a million refugees reached Europe by sea. Even if they were, and even during a public health emergency, their discretion in determining how to react is not absolute.</p>
<p>A duty to protect life exists for governments, not only under refugee and human rights law, but also under the law of the sea on search and rescue. Whatever the political pressures at home, the UK has signed up to multiple conventions that require it to cooperate to provide prompt assistance, save lives, and deliver the shipwrecked to a place of safety.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Schumann Fellow and a WiRe (Women in Research) Fellow at Münster University</span></em></p>Talk of sending people back distracts from the UK’s clear responsibilities towards anyone who attempts the crossing.Mariagiulia Giuffré, Reader (Associate Professor) in Law, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1693862021-10-12T14:13:16Z2021-10-12T14:13:16ZPriti Patel’s ‘activist travel bans’ are another blow to human rights in the UK<p>Home Secretary Priti Patel is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tougher-penalties-for-protests-causing-disruption-on-motorways">proposing new police powers</a> and tougher penalties for protesters, including giving courts the power to ban activists with a “history of disruption” from travelling to particular protests. </p>
<p>Patel justifies this by saying that some protest, like the recent <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/insulate-britain-pm-calls-climate-change-activists-irresponsible-crusties-as-members-continue-to-block-roads-across-uk-12426377">obstruction of motorways</a> by climate activists, causes “<a href="https://www.thejusticegap.com/priti-patel-to-announce-new-powers-for-courts-to-prevent-people-attending-protests/">disruption and misery across our communities</a>”. This kind of rhetoric rests on a false divide between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” forms of protest, a distinction <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0261018317753087">research</a> has shown police apply arbitrarily in the field. </p>
<p>The penalty for “obstructing a highway” will also increase from a £1,000 fine to an <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58777041">unlimited fine, six months imprisonment or both</a>. These proposals will become a part of the controversial <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839">Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill</a>, currently making its way through parliament. They represent a step in the wrong direction for democracy and human rights. </p>
<p>Human rights scholars <a href="https://twitter.com/val_aston/status/1445303812013625344?s=20">note</a> that Patel’s proposals interfere with Article 11 of the <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights</a> – codified in UK law as part of the Human Rights Act (1998) – which protects freedom of assembly and association. As independent police monitoring group <a href="https://netpol.org/2021/10/05/explainer-new-protest-proposals/">Netpol summarises</a>, they are also a departure from government-endorsed UN guidance on international human rights and contravene precedents set by the <a href="https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/55.html">House of Lords</a>. </p>
<p>The policing bill already represents an authoritarian expansion of executive and police powers. It will introduce a maximum sentence of up to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet">ten years in prison</a> for “public nuisance” and allow police to impose <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56391988">maximum noise levels</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56400751">start and finish times</a> on protests. It will increase fines and punishments for “unauthorised” encampments, further criminalising <a href="https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/03/how-the-police-bill-threatens-britains-gypsy-and-traveller-communities">Gypsy and Traveller communities</a>, and will give the home secretary the power to define “<a href="https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/defend-our-freedom-to-protest-why-the-police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-is-dangerous">serious disruption</a>”.</p>
<p>The bill has been widely criticised by <a href="https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/leading-organisations-join-condemnation-of-policing-bill/">charities, NGOs, academics, human rights groups</a> and even some <a href="https://twitter.com/PolicingCrowds/status/1412146013561831426?s=20">former senior police</a>. </p>
<h2>Powerful police</h2>
<p>Aside from being draconian, this bill is also unnecessary. The police and courts already have <a href="https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05013/SN05013.pdf">more than enough power</a> to restrict protest under the Public Order Act (1986). Police also use a vast array of criminal offences such as “aggravated trespass” and “obstruction of a highway” to this end to detain protesters. Not to mention the proliferation of “conspiracy to” charges which have been <a href="https://shura.shu.ac.uk/17704/3/Thirlaway-Conspiracy%28AM%29.pdf">used against protesters</a>.</p>
<p>In recent years, <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.uk/stansted-15-tell-their-story-through-film">anti-deportation activists</a> were prosecuted under obscure terror-related legislation, and archaic laws were used to imprison <a href="https://theconversation.com/anti-fracking-activists-released-on-appeal-but-criminalisation-of-nonviolent-protest-is-new-norm-104429">anti-fracking activists</a>. Both verdicts were rightly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/02/stansted-15-quashed-conviction-terrorists-deportation-hostile-environment">quashed</a> at <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/17/court-quashes-excessive-sentences-of-fracking-protesters">appeal</a>. Observers <a href="https://netpol.org/black-lives-matter/">raised concerns</a> about police treatment of activists during Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.</p>
<p>A recent parliamentary inquiry found the police had <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-protest-laws-sarah-everard-bristol-b1875735.html">breached fundamental rights</a>, using “excessive force” to disperse a peaceful vigil following Sarah Everard’s murder. Everard was abducted, raped and murdered by a serving police officer, Wayne Couzens, who the Crown Prosecution Service said may have exploited <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/29/sarah-everard-trial-wayne-couzens-sentencing-live-news/">COVID powers</a> to arrest her. Police would later use similar powers to detain women at the vigil in her memory. </p>
<p>Repression by police also takes more secretive forms. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742837.2020.1770073">My own research</a> has explored the corrosive impact of <a href="https://thesociologicalreview.org/magazine/may-2020/visual-sociology/spycops-comic/">undercover policing on activism</a>. Since 1968, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2018/oct/15/uk-political-groups-spied-on-undercover-police-list">more than 1,000 mostly left-wing groups</a> have been spied on and <a href="https://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/our-stories/">dozens of women</a> have been deceived into sexual relationships with undercover police officers or “spycops”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/inquiry-into-undercover-police-who-had-sexual-relationships-with-their-targets-is-finally-underway-but-can-their-actions-ever-be-justified-151118">Inquiry into undercover police who had sexual relationships with their targets is finally underway – but can their actions ever be justified?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>An independent court investigating state surveillance recently <a href="https://ipt-uk.com/judgments.asp">ruled that</a> the Metropolitan police violated five different conventions of European human rights law in targeting activist <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-58749590">Kate Wilson</a>, who was deceived into such a relationship. </p>
<p>Despite an ongoing <a href="https://www.ucpi.org.uk/">public inquiry</a> into undercover policing practices, the government recently passed the <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2783">Covert Human Intelligence Sources Criminal Conduct Act</a> which critics claim potentially gives spies license to <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/human-rights-groups-voice-fears-over-licence-to-kill-for-spies-xjn8brv0v">rape and murder</a>. </p>
<h2>Bad apples?</h2>
<p>I <a href="https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/1518">have found that</a> politicians, police and the media tend to explain away misconduct with a narrative of “rotten apples”, or in Metropolitan police commissioner Cressida Dick’s own words, “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/08/cressida-dick-admits-there-are-bad-uns-in-the-metropolitan-police">occasional bad ‘uns</a>”.</p>
<p>On the contrary, the proposed travel bans draw even more attention to the longstanding structural issues within the police. These have already been highlighted by <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/spy-cops-metropolitan-police-relationship-b1930489.html">spied-on activists</a>, <a href="https://www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/new-blog-1/2020/11/6/long-road-to-justice">victims of sexual misconduct</a> and detained protesters.</p>
<p>Following significant pressure, the home secretary has launched an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inquiry-launched-into-issues-raised-by-couzens-conviction">inquiry</a> into issues raised by Couzens’ conviction. Given the <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/neville-stephen-lawrence-undercover-policing-inquiry-a4573389.html">slow pace and lack of transparency</a> of the undercover policing inquiry, many aren’t holding their breath. </p>
<p>Grassroots protests imploring parliament to <a href="https://www.sistersuncut.org/2021/04/01/kill-the-bill-weekend-of-action/">“kill the bill”</a> are a source of hope. Campaigners rightly join the dots between the connected issues of police power, institutional sexism and racism, human rights and democracy. Instead of making it harder to protest, these are the issues the government must address. A good start would be the National Police Chiefs’ Council adopting Netpol’s <a href="https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.198.70/561.6fe.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Charter-for-Freedom-of-Assembly-Rights.pdf">Charter for Freedom of Assembly Rights</a> to protect protest rights going forward.</p>
<p>Patel’s talk of the “disruption and misery” caused by protesters needs to be reconciled with a stark reality. We cannot even begin to conceive of the scale of disruption and misery that will accompany <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/">global ecological catastrophe</a> unless urgent action is taken on climate change. </p>
<p>Disruptive protest is an essential feature of democratic society and a fundamental human right. Without disruption, protest becomes a futile performance. These new proposals suggest that this government views the only “acceptable” protest as one that does not disrupt, nor achieve, anything.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169386/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathan Stephens-Griffin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The home secretary’s proposals are a step away from democracy.Nathan Stephens-Griffin, Senior Lecturer, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1676792021-09-10T14:08:54Z2021-09-10T14:08:54ZTurning back migrant boats: what does the international law of the sea say?<p>The Home Office has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58504016">unveiled plans</a> to use “turnback” tactics in the English Channel, with the border force compelling small boats carrying migrants to return to French waters. </p>
<p>The move is the latest in a series of strict immigration policies by Home Secretary Priti Patel, following the introduction of a <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/nationality-and-borders-bill/">controversial</a> nationality and borders bill in July that seeks to criminalise arrival in the UK without permission. </p>
<p>The practice of turnback or pushback of migrant boats is not new. Australia, Greece and Italy have all <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/30/australias-asylum-boat-turnbacks-are-illegal-and-risk-lives-un-told">been criticised</a> for similar policies, with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants calling it a <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27200&LangID=E">“cruel and deadly”</a> practice that states must end immediately. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/09/priti-patel-to-send-boats-carrying-migrants-to-uk-back-across-channel">More than 13,500</a> people have crossed the English Channel so far in 2021. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan highlights why people risk their lives making dangerous journeys in small, unsafe boats. </p>
<p>As the Strait of Dover is the <a href="https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-navigation/the-strait-of-dover-the-busiest-shipping-route-in-the-world/">busiest shipping route</a> in the world, pushbacks could be extremely dangerous. <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/migrant-crisis-priti-patel-planning-to-send-uk-bound-migrant-boats-back-to-france-12402671">Reports suggest</a> that the UK’s turnback policy is only applicable to “sturdier, bigger migrant boats” and in “very limited circumstances”. The government says it has legal advice that allows it to do so under maritime law.</p>
<h2>Is it legal?</h2>
<p>It is a fundamental and longstanding obligation of international and maritime law to render assistance to persons in distress at sea. Article 98 of the <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm">UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982</a> (LOSC) mandates that every state require its ships “to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost”.</p>
<p>The convention also places a duty on states to operate an effective search and rescue service and to cooperate with neighbouring states. The <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201184/volume-1184-I-18961-English.pdf">International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea</a> and the <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201405/volume-1405-i-23489-english.pdf">International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue</a> also recognise this obligation to assist.</p>
<p>Gérald Darmanin, the French interior minister, has <a href="https://twitter.com/GDarmanin/status/1435901947681427458?s=20">stated</a> that France would not accept any practice that breaches the law of the sea. Indeed, implementing a blanket “turn back boats” policy would be to break international law. </p>
<p>The UK government claims it can lawfully utilise this practice in a limited and specific way – certain boats in particular circumstances – but is yet to confirm how Patel has become <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/09/priti-patel-to-send-boats-carrying-migrants-to-uk-back-across-channel">“the first home secretary to establish a legal basis”</a> for this.</p>
<p>Foreign vessels have a right of innocent passage in a state’s territorial sea (up to 12 miles from shore) under article 17 LOSC. If passage is not innocent, such as when domestic immigration laws are breached, states can take necessary steps to prevent passage. For seaworthy vessels, this is generally unproblematic. It may be that the UK government expects to rely on some iteration of this principle. </p>
<p>But if a vessel determines and justifies that it is in distress, it can enter the state’s territorial sea, according to an exception in article 18 LOSC. The duty to render assistance is also still applicable, even where the state believes that migration offences have been committed by those in peril.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/09/france-won-t-be-blackmailed-over-uk-s-migrant-boat-pushback-plan">France says</a> that a turnback policy would negatively impact its cooperation with the UK. There are no international waters in the Dover Strait, the narrowest part of the Channel, which is divided between the UK and France’s territorial waters. France simply may not permit the UK into their territorial waters if returning migrants by force, triggering a stand-off. </p>
<h2>Human rights</h2>
<p>Beyond the law of the sea, when officials start to exercise effective control over another vessel at sea, by rescuing or physically towing boats back, human rights obligations come into play. </p>
<p><a href="https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-109231%22%5D%7D">Hirsi Jamaa v Italy</a>, a case considered by the European Court of Human Rights, involved Italian authorities’ interception of migrants at sea, forcibly returning them to Libya. The court concluded that the applicants were under the “continuous and exclusive <em>de jure</em> and <em>de facto</em> control of the Italian authorities” during the transfer, meaning Italy had an obligation to protect their human rights. </p>
<p>Human rights at sea expert Sofia Galani also <a href="https://brill.com/view/journals/estu/35/2/article-p325_6.xml?language=en">affirms</a> that people in the territorial waters of a state are within its jurisdiction for the purposes of human rights, which the state must respect and protect.</p>
<p>Such rights would include giving people access to a procedure that determines their refugee status, and ensuring that there is no collective expulsion of people. In the Hirsi case, the court held that Italian authorities violated the European Convention on Human Rights by not examining each applicant’s individual situation. </p>
<p>When officials turn back boats, they risk breaching the rights and obligations enshrined in international human rights law. The exercising of these rights is not affected by any potential migration offences that may have been committed. There could also be breaches of <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/uk/3b66c2aa10">refugee law</a> depending on the circumstances, such as the principle of <em>non-refoulement</em>, which prevents states from forcing asylum seekers and refugees back to a place where they may face persecution.</p>
<p>There is no obligation in international law to seek asylum in the first safe country, and there are <a href="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/why-do-the-migrants-in-calais-want-to-come-to-the-uk/">many reasons</a> why individuals choose not to do so.</p>
<p>Political sociologist Lucy Mayblin states that there is <a href="https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2021/07/nationality-and">virtually no way</a> for refugees to safely and legally travel to the UK, due to carriers being fined if they transport individuals without visas, and tight controls at the UK border in France. People are left feeling that they have no choice but to make risky journeys. </p>
<p>In taking a hardline approach to immigration through border security and policing, the UK must ensure it adheres to the clear obligations within human rights and refugee law, as well as the law of the sea.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167679/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hayley Roberts does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The latest border protection move from the UK government could breach international law.Hayley Roberts, Senior Lecturer in Public International Law, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1672972021-09-06T11:54:51Z2021-09-06T11:54:51ZCriminalising nitrous oxide users distracts from more serious drug problems<p>In England and Wales, it is not illegal to possess nitrous oxide – but that could soon change. The UK’s home secretary, Priti Patel, has asked her scientific advisers to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nitrous-oxide-home-secretarys-letter-to-the-acmd">review</a> the evidence on the harm associated with its use. </p>
<p>Commonly known as “laughing gas”, this odourless <a href="https://theconversation.com/britain-has-the-highest-use-of-laughing-gas-in-world-but-is-this-hippy-crack-dangerous-61096">substance</a> is used in medicine, as an anaesthetic, and in catering to make whipped cream. It is the whipped-cream chargers that people buy for recreational use. The gas is usually inhaled by discharging a canister containing small amounts of the gas into a balloon. </p>
<p>It takes effect quickly and produces brief euphoria. Some users will want to repeat this, but for the vast majority of people, use is restricted to a few episodes a year. Some clinical case <a href="https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bcp.14779">reports</a> suggest very heavy patterns of use, but these are rare and may be more likely in those able to source large amounts of the gas, including diversion from legitimate medical supplies. </p>
<p>Patel has made it clear that she is ready to take “tough action” on its use, arguing that young people are at risk of physical harm when using the drug and that it has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58426792">“devastating” effects</a> on communities. This is part of a new strategy of paying <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-middle-class-cocaine-b1903337.html">closer attention</a> to so-called “recreational” use of substances. It appears that she intends to make possession a criminal offence. </p>
<p>Supplying this drug for approved non-medical uses is already illegal under legislation introduced in 2016 under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/contents/enacted">Psychoactive Substances Act</a>. The better known Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing">the ABC classification system</a>) introduces possession offences and affords police and regulators greater powers. </p>
<p>Existing legislation was meant to restrict the availability to medical and catering uses, but many loopholes exist, which means it is easy to buy the drug online. The law currently only applies to anyone supplying the drug for psychoactive use. As a result, catering suppliers warn customers that it is illegal to supply products if it’s going to be inhaled for its psychoactive effects, but this approach has been <a href="https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/nitrous-oxide-wigan-hindley-police-17816534">ineffective</a>.</p>
<p>The UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) reviewed the harms of nitrous oxide in 2015 and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acmd-advice-on-nitrous-oxide-abuse">advised</a> that it did not warrant control under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. Since 2015, there is better awareness and clarification of potential harms, but no new evidence has emerged that would necessarily warrant a new review. </p>
<p>Repeated and heavy use of nitrous oxide can <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518054/">cause vitamin B12 deficiency</a>, which can lead to nerve damage. These cases seem to be mostly associated with very heavy use (dozens of canisters consumed a day over several months), or occupational exposure (dentists and anaesthetists). </p>
<p>On average, <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/008203deathsinvolvingnitrogenandnitrousoxideinenglandandwales2001to2016">five people die</a> every year using nitrous oxide, with an increase in deaths recorded as the number of people using it has increased in recent years. But most deaths are a result of accidental suffocation and have resulted after plastic bags or other devices have been placed over the head when inhaling the gas, or inhaling directly from large highly pressurised canisters. While no drug is without harm, inhaling nitrous oxide through balloons significantly reduces the risk of suffocation. </p>
<h2>What would a new law achieve?</h2>
<p>Tightening access to nitrous oxide in 2016 doesn’t appear to have had any effect on demand, as almost one in ten 16 to 24-year-olds <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/drugmisuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020">reported</a> using nitrous oxide in 2019-20. In this light, it might be understandable that the government wants to take a new approach. This raises important questions as to the purpose and function of drug laws. </p>
<p>Discarded canisters are a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56608533">visible and unpleasant littering problem</a>, but this should be seen in the context of existing littering laws, cuts to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-englands-new-litter-strategy-is-actually-a-bit-rubbish-81202">local littering budgets </a>, and the lack of places to recycle the canisters at nighttime venues. </p>
<p>If reduction of harm is the main concern, then this is rarely achieved through drug laws. These often <a href="https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-020-00434-8">lead</a> to the emergence of potentially more harmful substances, more risky use behaviour, and hesitancy in seeking help as users fear legal repercussions. There will also be tricky regulatory pathways to navigate if the catering industry faces burdensome new barriers. </p>
<p>It may be reasonable to conclude that a focus on nitrous oxide may be more about appearing “tough on drugs” than addressing serious drug harm. There are several ways this could be done without <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.12406">ratcheting</a> up penal sanctions. The giant online retailers could actively remove listings. Catering suppliers could clamp down on bulk purchases by limiting how many nitrous oxide canisters can be bought at once, and restricting sales to approved or registered purchasers. </p>
<p>There is scope to improve medical professionals’ knowledge of harm associated with the gas so that timely treatment can be offered. Local authorities could also be encouraged to use existing powers on <a href="https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/no-laughing-matter/">anti-social behaviour</a>. Although with cuts to <a href="https://www.cieh.org/ehn/public-health-and-protection/2019/may/mounting-evidence-that-budget-cuts-harming-eh-service/">local enforcement and environmental health teams</a> it may be tempting to offload enforcement to equally stretched police forces. </p>
<p>The ACMD will no doubt provide a thorough and considered review of the harms of nitrous oxide in their recommendations to the home secretary, but it is then the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21165676">minister’s decision </a> on how to act on this advice. </p>
<p>The recent <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-drugs-phase-two-report">Dame Carol Black Review </a> identified a drug treatment system that was “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57757709">on its knees</a>”, with record high numbers of drug deaths. Many people are struggling to achieve meaningful recovery from drug use, and there are worrying signs of increases in the use of the most harmful substances in young people as drug prevention and education activities have disappeared. </p>
<p>Facing this ongoing public health crisis, is it right that so much resource and effort will be expended on nitrous oxide?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167297/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harry Sumnall receives and has received funding from public grant awarding bodies for alcohol and other drugs research. He is an unpaid member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Mind Foundation, and a former unpaid member of the UK Government Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The home secretary, Priti Patel, has ordered a review of nitrous oxide. But is this the right drug to get ‘tough’ on?Ian Hamilton, Honorary Fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of YorkHarry Sumnall, Professor in Substance Use, Liverpool John Moores UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1648902021-07-21T18:54:58Z2021-07-21T18:54:58ZOfficial Secrets Act: home secretary’s planned reform will make criminals out of journalists<p>The UK government has proposed <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/legislation-to-counter-state-threats">new legislation</a> to counter state threats, including an overhaul of the Official Secrets Act. According to the Home Office, the new legislation <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/986013/Consultation_Document_-_Legislation_to_Counter_State_Threats.pdf">is necessary</a> because “the existing legislation does not sufficiently capture the discernible and very real threat posed by state threats”.</p>
<p>If passed, this new legislation has <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/official-secrets-act-reform-harsher-penalties-for-journalists/">serious consequences for journalism</a> and its ability to hold governments to account. This is because the proposed bill includes a major crackdown on “unauthorised disclosures”, or leaks of sensitive information. </p>
<p>Much hard-hitting investigative journalism is based on such leaks. High-profile examples of stories based on unauthorised disclosures include <a href="https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5521">Edward Snowden’s revelations</a> in 2013 of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1">activities of US and UK spy agencies</a>, including major global surveillance programmes, in 2013. The leaks led to a broader debate about the role of the state in facilitating mass surveillance. </p>
<p>Unauthorised disclosures also paved the way for the <a href="https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/the-duck-house-the-moat-and-the-toaster-a-decade-of-dodgy-expenses-claims-37941047.html">2009 MPs’ expenses scandal</a>. This provided evidence of widespread abuse of the parliamentary expenses system, including MPs taking advantage of a generous second home allowance, and charging the public purse for £1,700 floating duck houses and £2,000 for moat cleaning. </p>
<p>These leaks brought to light important information in the public interest, and led to widespread resignations and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48187096">legislative and policy change</a>, including the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.</p>
<p>The Official Secrets Act has been used in the past to prosecute individuals responsible for disclosing sensitive information. For example, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/04/davidshayler.richardnortontaylor">David Shayler</a>, an MI5 agent, was found guilty of releasing documents about the spy agency’s activities to the Daily Mail in 1997. </p>
<p>However, as the Home Office consultation makes clear, the proposed law enables harsher punishments for journalists and their sources. In a remarkable twist, it equates investigative journalism <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/proposed-secrecy-law-journalism-spying-home-office-public-interest-whistleblowing">with spying</a>. The consultation suggests that the Home Office does “not consider that there is necessarily a distinction in severity between espionage and the most serious unauthorised disclosures”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1417512623608778753"}"></div></p>
<p>At the same time, the Home Office takes a dim view of the need to protect journalists. In response to the Law Commission’s proposal to introduce a <a href="https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Introducing-a-Public-Interest-Disclosure-Defence-amended-version.pdf">“public interest” defence</a> which would provide protection to journalists, the consultation document argues that “these proposals could in fact undermine our efforts to prevent damaging unauthorised disclosures”.</p>
<p>To highlight the serious threat posed by such disclosure, it proposes an increase in prison terms for such offences, from two years and up to 14 years. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1417758200913334274"}"></div></p>
<p>This represents a direct threat to the ability of journalists and their sources to make public information about wrongdoing in the public interest.</p>
<h2>Press freedom under threat</h2>
<p>The legislation arrives at a fraught moment for press freedom around the world. Recent years have seen growing <a href="https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2873">physical and legal threats</a> to journalists, against the backdrop of a rise of authoritarian and populist regimes. In that context, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1706688">national security laws</a> often provide the grounds for prosecution of journalists and others who may hold governments to account. </p>
<p>Over the past two decades, scholars have identified the rise of “<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GHO493HCDXQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA277&dq=securitization+surveillance&ots=G2f23bN_ZE&sig=uTYzZZ6wdoW8CPZqeavGIECakV4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=securitization%20surveillance&f=false">securitisation</a>” – a process whereby claims about national security come to override any other concerns, and are used widely to limit the scope for dissent and challenge. </p>
<p>The new law should be seen as part of a broader project on the part of Priti Patel’s Home Office to cut down civil liberties by legislative means. For example, the <a href="https://www.bigissue.com/latest/social-activism/how-priti-patels-new-policing-bill-threatens-your-right-to-protest/">Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill</a>, which was recently passed in Parliament, allows for police to shut down protests in England and Wales at will. </p>
<p>Such laws are not merely pieces of paper. Instead, they are frequently used to crack down on critical voices. In 2019, 15 activists were convicted of a terrorism offence after chaining themselves around an immigration removal flight at Stansted Airport. While the conviction was later <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-55859455">overturned</a>, the case highlighted the potential for creative and politically charged interpretations of security-related laws. </p>
<p>The Official Secrets Act reforms, if passed, are likely to have a significant chilling effect on journalists and their sources. As <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2016.1251329?casa_token=gr0JuBrJr18AAAAA%3AQvJgnyJrc3fJmQO-lCzYCeNcYrhauqXmTxmvmzOpr3wBdGt2qcn6T5X0nxYezcgoxtujUL0ulpQ-Mw">research</a> has shown, the threat of prosecution and prison makes sources more reluctant to share sensitive information in the public interest, and makes journalists less likely to pursue such information in the first place. </p>
<p>The Home Office has responded to concerns about the chilling effect of the proposed legislation, stressing that journalists will “remain free to hold the Government to account.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164890/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karin Wahl-Jorgensen received funding in 2009 from Public Concern at Work, the whistleblowing charity (now re-named Protect) to investigate the media representation of whistleblowers. Between 2014 and 2016, she was a co-investigator on the project, "Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society: UK State-Media-Citizen Relations after the Snowden Leaks,” funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Public interest disclosures are necessary in a functioning democracy. These reforms would make it harder to hold power to account.Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Professor and Director of Research Development and Environment, School of Journalism, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1578152021-03-25T17:21:47Z2021-03-25T17:21:47ZWhy Priti Patel’s plans to overhaul the asylum system make no legal sense<p>In what’s been called the most significant overhaul to the asylum system in decades, Home Secretary Priti Patel <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-statement-on-the-new-plan-for-immigration">has announced</a> a number of controversial plans to deny refugees who use illegal routes to the UK universal rights to asylum. </p>
<p>Under the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972472/CCS207_CCS0820091708-001_Sovereign_Borders_FULL_v13__1_.pdf">new plans</a>, the home office has said it will “stop illegal arrivals gaining immediate entry into the asylum system if they have travelled through a safe country – like France”. Other measures include introducing “life sentences for people smugglers” and increasing “the maximum sentence for illegally entering the UK”. </p>
<p>These proposals to reform the asylum system with a focus on <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56500680">“fairness”</a> are legally incoherent. As far back as 1999, former supreme court justice Simon Brown recognised that it was “<a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo991018/text/91018-26.htm">well nigh impossible</a>” for asylum seekers to enter the UK lawfully. Under the current rules, it’s not possible to apply for asylum until you arrive at the borders of the state you’re entering. </p>
<p>At that point the international obligation of non-refoulement operates, which means asylum seekers can’t be returned to their country of origin until their claim has been fully assessed and there’s deemed to be no risk of harm. The <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/4ca34be29.pdf">Refugee Convention</a>, ratified by 145 countries, also prohibits turning away refugees who enter illegally, providing they can show they’ve come directly from a place of persecution and there’s good cause for their actions. </p>
<p>It’s very important to understand how “entering illegally” arises. Asylum seekers often struggle to obtain official identity documents from the state they’re being persecuted by, and can’t travel legitimately without such documents. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/24/enacted">Carriers’ liability legislation</a> also penalises airlines, train operators and lorry drivers who assist unauthorised entrants, including asylum seekers. </p>
<p>So because it’s not possible to obtain an asylum visa to enter the UK or any other country, the only option for someone wishing to claim asylum is to engage in deception. Even those who intend to seek asylum after arriving through other legal migration channels (as students or visitors, for example) are defined as “illegal entrants” who have “exercised deception”. This “deceptive” entry then works to damage credibility, undermining asylum claims.</p>
<p>Under the UK’s <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents">Human Rights Act 1998</a>, the state is obliged to prevent people from being returned to places of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or cruel and unusual punishment. This obligation is absolute and applies without exception, which means the return of an asylum seeker whose case hasn’t been fully determined would be a clear violation of the Human Rights Act. This is <a href="https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22fulltext%22:%5B%22Soering%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-57619%22%5D%7D">well established</a> by the <a href="https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/ecthr-chahal-v-united-kingdom-application-no-2241493-15-november-1996">case law</a> of the European Convention on Human Rights. </p>
<p>The home secretary’s move to disregard that seems to suggest ignorance of the law. Her position also undermines the principle of hospitality that traditionally made the UK appear tolerant and welcoming for people who fear persecution. It’s this same perception that is one of the <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Chance-or-choice-2010.pdf">most common pull factors</a> cited by asylum seekers who arrive in the UK. </p>
<h2>Asylum applications in the UK</h2>
<p>The rationale for the proposals is also questionable. There <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html">hasn’t been</a> a significant increase in asylum applications over the last decade. And the UK receives less applicants than other European states of comparable size, with France and Germany receiving over four times the number of applications according to 2020 statistics compiled by the UNHCR. The number of arrivals in the UK in 2020 was actually <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2020/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to">down 18%</a> on the previous year. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2019/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to">Around half</a> of all asylum applications lead to protection in the UK. Before this right is recognised, however, many have to appeal, highlighting <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Asylum-Statistics-Feb-2020.pdf">significant problems</a> with first-instance decisions succeeding. </p>
<p>For nationals of some countries, including Iran, Syria, Vietnam and Eritrea, the refugee recognition rate is <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/">well over 70%</a>. There’s a real risk of serious harm if people from these countries are returned (even in the event that return is considered a practical option), which suggests a genuine need for protection.</p>
<h2>A broken system</h2>
<p>The bigger problem is the asylum system itself. Since the Home Office <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/07/home-office-abandons-six-month-target-for-asylum-claim-decisions">abandoned its</a> decision-making target of six months for straightforward applications, delays have increased significantly. Many people now wait over a year for their first substantive interview. </p>
<p>I recently <a href="https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/40406/">spoke to a man</a> who had been waiting for a full interview for 18 months and two claimants with fresh asylum claims who had been waiting for over two years for a decision. In those cases, it may be years before a final decision is reached, leaving people unable to work while those with a current asylum claim are expected to survive on <a href="https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get">£5 a day</a>. </p>
<p>Due to the pandemic, many asylum seekers are also now confined in windowless hotel rooms without any <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/03/after-the-glasgow-hotel-attack-a-week-of-shock-anger-and-compassion">cooking facilities</a>, while others are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/16/former-military-barracks-used-to-house-asylum-seekers-to-shut">detained in army barracks</a>. But despite announcements to close the Penally Barracks in Kent after inspectors declared it “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-56418361">run-down and unsuitable</a>” for accommodation, its sister site, which is also in Kent, has been revealed to have packed asylum seekers into dormitories. This has resulted in <a href="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-03-04/revealed-home-office-knew-housing-refugees-at-run-down-barracks-risked-mass-covid-infection">197 cases of COVID-19</a> as well as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4_lVAL-VO8">protests in response</a> to the inhumane conditions.</p>
<p>Last year’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/windrush-lessons-learned-review">independent review</a> into the Windrush affair, in which large numbers of Commonwealth citizens were revealed to have been wrongly deported, denied rights or detained by the UK, explains a lot about existing shortfalls in the system. Authored by Wendy Williams, Inspector for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, the review shed a great deal of light on the hostile environment and its impact on the asylum and immigration system. </p>
<p>In fact, this environment in which settling and remaining in the UK has been madde as difficult as possible for immigrants was identified as the source of <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-windrush-scandal-wendy-williams-lessons-learned-review-a9578201.html">many flawed</a>) asylum and immigration policies, ranging from deportation of British citizens to refusal of life-saving medical medical treatment. Williams <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/14/windrush-report-author-attacks-home-office-response">observed</a> that there had been <a href="https://workpermit.com/news/wendy-williams-blasts-home-office-windrush-report-response-20201018">no significant change</a> despite the home secretary’s paper commitment to address the damning findings.</p>
<p>This is the reality of the UK’s asylum system that the home secretary is refusing to acknowledge. Although strong reminders of the need to recognise these issues have come from far and wide, including the UNHCR and refugee charities (most of which have expressed <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56500680">complete dismay</a> at Patel’s announcement), it seems the home secretary is adamant about pushing forward. Where evidence of fairness is in all of this remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157815/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen O'Nions does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The human rights act dictates that the UK is obliged to protect asylum seekers. So why is the home secretary ignoring it?Helen O'Nions, Associate Professor, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1482012020-10-15T13:18:35Z2020-10-15T13:18:35ZWhen government ministers denigrate lawyers, their real target is the rule of law<p>I am always suspicious when members of government begin to denigrate lawyers, and even more so when this happens alongside what seems to be a concerted attempt to reshape the relationship between government authority and law. This is not because lawyers are not worthy of criticism; of course they (we) are. Rather, it is because the critique of lawyers is too often a critique of what lawyers enable: the limitation of government through the application of law. </p>
<p>Recent remarks from the British prime minister and <a href="https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1312839169190891520">home secretary</a> about how lawyers are thwarting and frustrating the administration of justice have to be seen in the context of this government’s general posture towards the rule of law. Over recent months, the government has launched an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-independent-panel-to-look-at-judicial-review">inquiry into judicial review</a> in order to ensure that it is “not open to abuse or delay” and that the “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-independent-panel-to-look-at-judicial-review">right balance is struck between citizen’s rights and effective governance</a>”. It has pressed ahead with one piece of legislation that enables impunity for soldiers violating <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/overseas-operations-bill-uk-government-bend-rules-torture-soldiers">international law</a> (including torture) overseas, and <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/internal-market-bill-breaks-international-law">another</a> piece of Brexit-related legislation that it admits places the UK in violation of its international legal obligations. </p>
<p>Contemporaneously with this, the home secretary seems to be <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54349796">seriously considering</a> “off-shoring” the processing of asylum applications, perhaps as far away as Ascension Island, seemingly inspired by the <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/nauru-report/">Australian government’s use of Nauru</a> to detain asylum seekers. The Australian policy has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/08/un-body-condemns-australia-for-illegal-detention-of-asylum-seekers-and-refugees">roundly condemned</a> by human rights bodies. It seems, however, that it is the feasibility of such a proposal, rather than its legality (or, indeed, respect for human dignity), that will determine whether the UK follows suit.</p>
<h2>The law and power</h2>
<p>Given this broader context, the home secretary and prime minister’s attacks on “lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders” are more than mere rhetorical flourishes in conference speeches to the party faithful. They tell us something about how this government sees the law and the ability of people to avail of legal processes to restrain government action. </p>
<p>It seems increasingly clear that this government resents anything that limits its capacity to follow its policy preferences, whether that is an international agreement to which it has already committed, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/rebel-tory-mps-fail-in-bid-to-get-more-say-over-covid-restrictions">accountability to parliament</a>, or the application of the law. </p>
<p>But the truth is that law is supposed to limit what the government can do. And we are supposed to be able to avail of the law – including in cases in which we are represented by lawyers – in order to ensure that the government is limited by that law and accountable under it. That is how public law works.</p>
<p>This does not mean, however, that the law fatally undermines a government’s capacity to deliver on its policy choices. Instead, it means that the government must either shape its policy choices within what is legally permissible, or change the law to ensure that its preferences can be accommodated. When it comes to domestic law, parliament can amend the existing law by passing legislation. It can even deliberately <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/19">pass legislation that violates our rights</a> and pass law that is inconsistent with the UK’s international obligations. </p>
<p>Lawyers do not prevent parliament from doing that, even if we (rightly) point out that this is what is happening and create a political environment where such actions are uncomfortable for the government. When the government has a parliamentary majority – as this one does – it is even easier for it to change the law to suit its desired policy objectives or to respond to a court finding, although of course, it cannot change the outcome in a particular case that has gone through the courts. Given all of this, it is hardly too much to expect that the government would accept that legal proceedings and adverse judgments are simply part of governing. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1312839169190891520"}"></div></p>
<p>Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law, of course, but the UK is a powerful actor in international relations. It has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, is party to treaty negotiations, and has had an extensive influence on the development of international law (<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/imperialism-sovereignty-and-the-making-of-international-law/8AFA91E6F502B2C4996BB14E1A548E7A">not least as a legacy of its imperial past</a>). That the state would be bound by the international law to which it expressly agreed, and which it helped to form, is part and parcel of statehood in what the UK has traditionally called “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/global-britain-supporting-the-rules-based-international-system">a rules based international order</a>”. </p>
<p>The crux of the matter, however, is that this is a government that does not seem inclined to play by the rules. It simply does not want to accept that there are some things it may not do, that it is accountable, that it is limited by law, that if it wants to loosen those limitations, it must do so transparently and democratically through parliament. Recent attacks on law and lawyers are a reaction to being bound by these principles. They are manifestations of the government’s resentment at having to explain itself, and at not being allowed simply to act as it wishes. </p>
<p>Those lefty do-good lawyers Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are so concerned about are a vital part of the fabric of our parliamentary democracy based on the rule of law. This is precisely why they continue to denigrate them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148201/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona de Londras does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Those lefty do-good lawyers Johnson and Patel are so concerned about are a vital part of parliamentary democracy based on the rule of law. This is precisely why they continue to denigrate them.Fiona de Londras, Professor of Global Legal Studies, Birmingham Law School, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1473252020-10-02T14:53:02Z2020-10-02T14:53:02ZShipping asylum seekers offshore may boost Priti Patel’s hardline image, but Australian example shows it’s not a policy that works<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/361153/original/file-20201001-18-1n7g3mw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C83%2C3952%2C2431&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/Steve Parsons</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It has been reported that the home secretary, Priti Patel, has been considering sending migrants who arrive in the UK via the English Channel to islands in the Atlantic. While Downing Street later pushed back on the idea of using the far-flung territories of Ascension Island and St Helena as sites of immigration detention, the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/9baaf989-f64d-417d-90c5-b0ea8f78bf0c">Financial Times</a> reported that it was nevertheless considering offshore immigration processing sites. </p>
<p>Although much of this rhetoric is for show, to bolster the government’s – and Patel’s – image as taking a hard line on immigration, the story is nonetheless a reminder of how often the UK government looks to Australia for inspiration on how to clamp down on immigration. The idea of introducing an “Australian-style points-based immigration system” has long been touted as the goal in post-Brexit Britain. Ministers now also appear to be looking with admiration at Australia’s policy of turning back asylum seekers at sea and introducing offshore immigration detention. </p>
<p>The St Helena idea may simply be a political play to make any subsequent decisions to ship migrants somewhere else, closer to home, look less extreme. But, either way, we must consider the implications of emulating an Australian approach to migration control in the UK.</p>
<p>While asylum seekers crossing the Channel make up a small minority of asylum cases in the UK, the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to travel to the UK by sea is reported by unofficial sources to be higher this year than <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-54266961">previous years</a>. </p>
<p>Human rights organisations <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/11/safe-asylum-routes-proposed-to-cut-channel-crossings">argue</a> that expanding safe and legal avenues of asylum would significantly reduce the number of people engaging in perilous maritime journeys to seek protection. But instead of committing to humanitarian resettlement schemes, which ceased during the pandemic, the government is focusing on ways to make the English Channel <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAQAlK1-EgE&ab_channel=GuardianNews">“unviable”</a> for migrants.</p>
<p>And indeed, former Australian prime minister – and soon to be British trade envoy – Tony Abbott has contributed to this discussion. Abbott was responsible for the implementation of the militarised programme Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia. This began in 2013 and involves government forces intercepting boats approaching Australia, forcing them to either turn back to their port of departure or taking them to offshore detention centres, where people are kept <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/detention-policies/#:%7E:text=Australia's%20detention%20policies%20are%20some,there%20is%20no%20independent%20review.">indefinitely</a>. Abbott has written in the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/31/channel-crossings-will-continue-long-illegal-migrants-allowed/">British press</a> trumpeting his success and arguing for the UK to emulate his policy.</p>
<h2>What happens in Australia</h2>
<p>While <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309132512460903">Australia</a> is not the only country to use offshore detention, it is renowned for the severity of its policies. Australia removes asylum seekers to immigration detention centres in Manus Island, an island of Papua New Guinea, and Nauru, an island in Micronesia. These centres keep individuals physically distanced from Australia, which prevents them from being able to claim asylum <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049182.2015.1066240">there</a>. Asylum seekers can languish in these offshore detention sites for years.</p>
<p>UN officials have condemned the inhuman conditions at these detention centres. In 2017 and 2018, a UN body found multiple cases in which Australia’s detention of asylum seekers and refugees constituted illegal and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/08/un-body-condemns-australia-for-illegal-detention-of-asylum-seekers-and-refugees">arbitrary detention</a>.</p>
<p>A main function of Operation Sovereign Borders is the interception of boats at sea and their forced return to offshore immigration or their origin. This conflicts with the Refugee Convention (1951) and Protocol (1967) in a number of ways, not least by denying a right to asylum.</p>
<p>A central principle of the Refugee Convention and Protocol is Article 33, which stipulates that people seeking asylum are protected against return to a place where their life or freedom may be jeopardised on account of race, religion, or nationality. Known as <em>non-refoulement</em>, this is also a principle in the UN Convention Against Torture. In 2014, the Australian government declared its obligation to <em>non-refoulement</em> irrelevant under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014A00135">domestic law</a>.</p>
<h2>Where the UK is heading</h2>
<p>The UK has been removing asylum seekers to France this year as part of a <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/">European Union policy</a> that allows one member state to return asylum seekers to another. When the UK leaves the EU on December 31, however, this policy will no longer apply. There is nothing yet to suggest France would be willing to continue to accept these asylum seekers. Lawyers have also recently exposed how the UK has been removing asylum seekers to France <a href="https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2020/07/confined-border">illegally</a> without providing an asylum procedure.</p>
<p>As the UK decides its policy, we may expect Patel to take inspiration from Australia in finding inventive ways to circumvent international norms on asylum. Australia has, for example, legalised the detention of asylum seekers at sea for the <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/32228-2/">purposes of relocation</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian minister for home affairs has confirmed that Operation Sovereign Borders returned 827 people to their country of departure or origin between September 2013 and <a href="https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/peterdutton/Pages/operation-sovereign-borders-reinforced.aspx">September 2018</a>. It is thus vital to note that the Australian government has not stopped people taking to the sea to seek asylum. It has, however, devised a policy that breaches multiple conventions on human rights. Beyond the bluster, this can hardly be an example to follow.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147325/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andonea Jon Dickson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What’s really going when the home secretary gets out her map of far-flung British territories?Andonea Jon Dickson, PhD Candidate, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1441482020-09-09T12:04:21Z2020-09-09T12:04:21ZThe UK immigration system is broken – coronavirus and Brexit will make it even worse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357022/original/file-20200908-24-rwf21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=31%2C35%2C2964%2C2209&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A detainee holds a hand against her cell window at Yarl's Wood Detention Centre, Bedford.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bedfordshire-uk-08-aug-2015-detainee-351707972">Pete Maclaine/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870.2012.692799">Long waiting times</a> for asylum seekers, the tightening of rules for <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-visa-rules-tightened-by-government/2014823.article">student visas</a> – and more recently, <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gYRREyjC1LW9Mk4fReeS848kHbtPK2ao/view">convoluted procedures</a> for EU citizens – are just some of the issues with the UK immigration system. A system that will likely get even worse given the impact of Brexit and the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2020/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to">backlog of cases</a> created by the coronavirus pandemic.</p>
<p>This all comes at a time when the UK immigration system is undergoing significant change. Freedom of movement for EU citizens will come to a stop by the end of 2020 in the UK. And a new <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-points-based-immigration-system-will-lead-to-care-crisis-143299">points-based system</a> is being introduced.</p>
<p>This could lead to more delays, backlogs, refused visa requests and an increase in enforced removals and detention of asylum seekers by immigration officials. As it stands, in 2019, 48% of asylum seekers were <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/deportation-and-voluntary-departure-from-the-uk/">forcibly returned</a> to their home country – with 98% of those made to return kept in detention while in the UK.</p>
<p>And according to The British Educational Research Association, international students are also <a href="https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/international-students-and-covid-19-what-is-the-current-advice">at risk</a> of removal given their inability to study during lockdown. </p>
<h2>Who gets to stay</h2>
<p>Part of the problem in all of this is that the UK immigration system aims to create a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/hostile-environment-the-uk-governments-draconian-immigration-policy-explained-95460">hostile environment</a>” that makes staying in the UK as difficult as possible for people. Access to work is restricted as is housing, healthcare and bank accounts, with zero attention paid to the integration of asylum seekers. The hope is that people choose to “voluntarily leave”.</p>
<p>The UK also lacks a clear stance on the <a href="https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2017/is-voluntary-return-the-new-way-forward-for-managing-irregular-migration/">enforced return</a> of travellers and migrants to their place of origin. The UK has not signed the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0115&from=EN">EU Return Directive</a> which provides criteria as to when return migration should occur. And instead, the government has said it will formulate its <a href="https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/02/returning-migrants-EU-130220_10371.pdf">own policy</a> in this area. </p>
<p>The focus of which is likely to remain on <a href="https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2017/is-voluntary-return-the-new-way-forward-for-managing-irregular-migration/">controlling immigration</a>, so will likely build upon the present circumstances whereby enforced removal of asylum seekers is used to serve political purposes and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/24/british-hypocrisy-migrants">reduce immigration numbers</a> – with seemingly little regard for migrants’ circumstances.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Protest placards outside immigration detention centre." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357025/original/file-20200908-20-nwf5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357025/original/file-20200908-20-nwf5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357025/original/file-20200908-20-nwf5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357025/original/file-20200908-20-nwf5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357025/original/file-20200908-20-nwf5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357025/original/file-20200908-20-nwf5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357025/original/file-20200908-20-nwf5no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Morton Hall immigration detention centre, which has seen high levels of self-harm and violence, is to close and revert to being a prison.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/morton-halllincolnshireuk-january-20th-2018-eighty-1277329099">Ian Francis/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Back in 2007, a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/return-migration/11._uk_emn_ncp_return_country_study_final_12apr07not_for_publishing_en.pdf">report</a> for the European Migration Network stated that more research needs to be carried out on enforced and voluntary returns within the UK. The report highlighted how, without this, it would be difficult for evidence-based changes to be made. </p>
<p>But research still remains limited and unsystematic. And the Home Office statistics still lack considerable detail – with often only <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/deportation-and-voluntary-departure-from-the-uk/">limited information</a> available as to the reasons for a person’s removal. </p>
<h2>Windrush legacy</h2>
<p>The Windrush scandal is a prime example of this issue. <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/commonwealth-migrants-arriving-1971-year-ending-june-2017/">The Migration Observatory</a> estimates that 57,000 migrants who arrived in UK before 1973 were put at risk of deportation, homelessness and unemployment. In some cases people were also refused <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/windrush-scandal-nhs-cancer-treatment-high-court-legal-challenge-ruling-home-office-a8675781.html">NHS medical treatment</a>.</p>
<p>The Home Office believes that 160 Windrush migrants have been incorrectly detained or deported since 2002. The 2018 government-sponsored <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874022/6.5577_HO_Windrush_Lessons_Learned_Review_WEB_v2.pdf">Windrush Lessons Learned Review</a> has since emphasised the need to improve monitoring and evaluating of immigration policy with a focus on equality and human rights. It also suggests measures should tackle the “target-driven” culture within the Home Office, along with a simplification of the system.</p>
<p>A compensation scheme has also been set up. But has proved to be not fit for purpose – with nine in ten Windrush applicants still <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/windrush-compensation-payout-delay-home-office-a9692251.html">awaiting payment</a>. The scheme has also been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/27/windrush-payout-scheme-not-fit-for-purpose-say-lawyers">criticised</a> for its complicated bureaucratic procedures and the lack of legal aid given to applicants.</p>
<h2>A changing system?</h2>
<p>In a bid to tackle some of these criticisms, the government <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/priti-patel-takes-action-to-implement-windrush-recommendations">has promised</a> mandatory training for all Home Office staff on the history of migration and race in the UK. It’s hoped that this, along with a higher proportion of BAME employees in senior roles, will offer a more compassionate “people not cases” approach. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Protestors outside immigration detention centre." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357029/original/file-20200908-16-6d17th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357029/original/file-20200908-16-6d17th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357029/original/file-20200908-16-6d17th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357029/original/file-20200908-16-6d17th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357029/original/file-20200908-16-6d17th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357029/original/file-20200908-16-6d17th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357029/original/file-20200908-16-6d17th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Around a third of immigration detainees are held for longer than 28 days.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/morton-halllincolnshireuk-january-20th-2018-eighty-1277329126">Ian Francis/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The government has also committed to opening up the Home Office to greater scrutiny and to impact assessments on the potential implications of policies. But this all contrasts sharply with Brexit and the UK goverenment’s overall aggressive approach towards immigration. </p>
<p>Just look at the way the <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/05/06/there-are-cracks-in-the-eu-settlement-scheme-who-will-fall-through-them/">EU Settlement Scheme</a> – for EU citizens who want to remain in the UK – has been rolled out. Along with the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gYRREyjC1LW9Mk4fReeS848kHbtPK2ao/view">significant impact</a> it has had upon people’s mental health, wellbeing and sense of belonging in Britain. And problems accessing the scheme have only got worse as a result of COVID-19. </p>
<p>The UK parliament has reacted strongly against the conservative government’s approach to this settlement scheme, fearing discrimination of EU citizens and another “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/07/eu-parks-post-brexit-demands-avoid-early-clash-boris-johnson-ursula-von-der-leyen">Windrush catastrophe</a>”. </p>
<p>Ultimately though a system that seems to disregard <a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/is-england-fairer-2016-most-disadvantaged-groups-migrants-refugees-asylum-seekers.pdf">fundamental human rights</a> in the way it <a href="https://www.ippr.org/files/2020-09/access-denied-hostile-environment-sept20.pdf">regulates and processes people</a> is bound to continue creating vulnerability for migrants. And no doubt the impact of Brexit and the pandemic will only make this worse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144148/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zana Vathi receives funding from IMISCOE as part of the Research Initiative 'Revisiting Return Migration in Shifting Geopolitics'.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samantha Carney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This is a system that will likely become even worse given the impact of Brexit and the backlog of cases created by the pandemic.Zana Vathi, Reader in Social Sciences, Edge Hill UniversitySamantha Carney, PhD Candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant in Social Sciences, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1448172020-08-26T11:02:17Z2020-08-26T11:02:17ZI’ve been watching desperate people seek protection in Europe for 20 years – it’s time the narrative, and policies, changed<p>Despite the exceptional circumstances of 2020, it is just like any other year in one way. Like clockwork, just as summer arrives, we are bombarded with stories of the “<a href="https://rmx.news/article/article/beginning-of-an-invasion-says-farage-as-record-number-of-migrants-reach-uk-shores-over-the-weekend">migrant invasion</a>”. This year the pictures are of people crossing the channel in <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8630473/Migrants-make-desperate-Channel-dash-dinghy-caught-Border-Force.html">flimsy boats</a>. Priti Patel, the UK’s home secretary, has appointed a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-appoints-small-boat-commander">Clandestine Channel Threat Commander</a> to reduce the number of people crossing. Something, she tells us, must be done.</p>
<p>We’ve been here before. Many times.</p>
<p>The summer of 2015 was marked by an endless stream of images of small boats making the perilous crossing across the Mediterranean. More than a million people were fleeing Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea and elsewhere. They were <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/protection/operations/56bb369c9/press-coverage-refugee-migrant-crisis-eu-content-analysis-five-european.html">often depicted</a> as “chancers”, “cheats” and would-be “terrorists”. There was a flurry of compassion when the lifeless body of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/shocking-image-of-drowned-syrian-boy-shows-tragic-plight-of-refugees">Aylan Kurdi</a> was washed up on a Turkish beach, but it was short lived.</p>
<p>In the summer of 2016 the focus shifted to the “The Jungle” – a makeshift camp close to Calais where residents were <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/21/europe/calais-jungle-migrant-camp-explainer/index.html">living in dire conditions</a>. Utterly frustrated by their inability to secure protection in France, they hid in the backs of lorries or under trains in an effort to cross the Channel. Theresa May, then home secretary, promised to invest in fencing, CCTV, flood lighting and infrared detection technology to secure the port. </p>
<p>A new “control and command centre” was set up to “relentlessly pursue” people-smuggling gangs. An extra 500 police were deployed with sniffer dogs to hunt down those described by then British prime minister David Cameron as a “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33716501">swarm</a>” trying to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/15/david-cameron-says-migrants-trying-to-break-in-to-uk-illegally">break into</a>” the UK illegally.</p>
<h2>Why history matters</h2>
<p>Even then, the summertime scare stories were nothing new. It was the summer of 2002, shortly after I started working at the UK Home Office, that the annual ritual of the “migrant invasion” first began. </p>
<p>Sitting at my desk, I was handed a stapled bundle of photocopied newspaper clippings. The stories were almost exclusively about Sangatte, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/23/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices1">a Red Cross centre close to Calais </a> that had attracted the attention of the British media over the slow news days that summer. Then, as now, images of people trying to cross the channel were accompanied by headlines implying invasion. Ministers were called away from their holidays to discuss the “crisis”. It was clear that most of those at Sangatte were fleeing conflict and persecution. Quietly, and without too much fuss, around 2,000 refugees – mostly Afghans and Iraqi Kurds – were brought to the UK and given work permits and a chance to rebuild their lives.</p>
<p>The centre at Sangatte was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2533415.stm">eventually dismantled</a> and the news moved on. Meanwhile those who weren’t allowed to enter the UK relocated to a makeshift camp in the woods near an industrial area that was known as “The Jungle”. The rest, as they say, is history.</p>
<p>Nearly 20 years later here we are again, only now the narrative has hardened further still. There is no pragmatic policymaking or acknowledgement that many of those crossing the Channel in search of protection come from countries in which there is well-documented conflict and human rights abuse. There is no admission that it is actually impossible for anyone to legally enter the UK in order to claim asylum, as is their right under international law. No acknowledgement that people are not obligated under international law to claim asylum in the first country they arrive in. This policy has been developed primarily by the EU to prevent so-called “asylum shopping” and, ultimately, to keep people out of the wealthier countries of northern Europe that are harder to reach.</p>
<p>What’s more, there is virtually no recognition of the extensive body of research what drives migrants to make the choices they do – including <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwixm4fVua_rAhVylYsKHVbuDPAQFjAFegQICBAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk%2F20110218144353%2Fhttp%3A%2Frds.homeoffice.gov.uk%2Frds%2Fpdfs2%2Fhors243.pdf&usg=AOvVaw35KNfv8DByH_QyuQ_KreFN">research commissioned by the Home Office</a> when I worked there. </p>
<p>This research has repeatedly shown that only a very small proportion of the millions of people displaced globally claim asylum in Europe, <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/08/15/britains-migrant-invasion-that-wasnt">far fewer still in the UK</a>. An estimated 85% move to countries in the Global South because they lack the resources, social connections or inclination to travel further afield. </p>
<p><a href="https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/publications/deciding-where-to-go-policies-people-and-perceptions-shaping-dest">Those who travel to Europe </a> often do so because of connections with friends or family members who can help them to rebuild their lives, because they speak a specific language or because of an opportunity – or necessity – that arose during the journey. Without understanding all this, <a href="https://www.mideq.org/en/resources-index-page/understanding-migrant-decision-making-implications-policy/">migration policies cannot be effective</a>.</p>
<p>It’s clear that while people need to be safe, this is not, in and of itself, sufficient. People also need <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/syrian-refugee-who-crossed-channel-and-now-works-in-nhs-recalls-terrifying-journey-in-message-projected-on-to-white-cliffs-of-dover-12053677">hope</a> and the possibility of a life beyond misery and destitution. Having travelled so far and lost so much, it is hope that drives them forward. After all, <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/migrants-in-calais-jungle-still-willing-to-risk-their-lives-crossing-channel-despite-migrant-death-12053445">they have nothing else to lose</a>.</p>
<h2>Access to protection</h2>
<p>Until everyone has the same access to protection, people will continue to risk everything for this hope of a better future. Poorer people in particular are less able to access opportunities for protection – and their chances are <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/united-states-refugee-resettlement-some-countries-religions-face-bigger-hits">getting slimmer every year</a>. </p>
<p>Even those who are able to travel find that decisions about their future will be determined not only by their personal experiences but by their nationality and the country in which their claim for protection is made. Asylum seekers continue to face a lottery in Europe, with the chances of securing protection <a href="https://www.asylumineurope.org/news/25-01-2019/asylum-statistics-2018-changing-arrivals-same-concerns">varying dramatically from one country to another</a> – even for those coming from the same country. For example, 94.2% of Iraqis claiming asylum in Italy in 2018 were recognised as refugees compared with 26% in Sweden and 12% in Bulgaria. Hardly surprising, then, that those refused protection in one country are willing to take their chances elsewhere.</p>
<p>Buying fencing, CCTV and infrared detection technology or sending boats into the Channel to intercept desperate people does absolutely nothing to address these issues. If, as we keep being told, there is a “migrant invasion” then we need to find better ways to win the war.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144817/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heaven Crawley receives funding from UKRI</span></em></p>Talk of an ‘invasion’ is exactly what prevents meaningful action.Heaven Crawley, Research Professor, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1444452020-08-19T09:55:18Z2020-08-19T09:55:18ZHow the coronavirus pandemic may be shaping our feelings about people crossing the Channel in small boats<p>Ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s recently engaged in an unlikely exchange with the British government. In a <a href="https://twitter.com/benandjerrysUK/status/1293214277621489666">series of tweets</a>, the company pleaded with the home secretary to show more compassion towards immigrants who take on the dangerous journey across the English Channel to seek asylum in the UK, stating that “<a href="https://twitter.com/benandjerrysUK/status/1293218782668881930">people cannot be illegal</a>”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1293218782668881930"}"></div></p>
<p>In response, Home Office insiders branded the ice cream an “<a href="https://news.sky.com/story/ben-jerrys-tackle-home-secretary-over-migrant-crossings-and-get-a-chilly-response-12047420">overpriced junk food</a>”. The exchange emerged as <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8359253/Priti-Patel-wants-new-powers-curb-illegal-migrants-sneaking-UK-calls-law-change.html">the home secretary</a> called to change the UK asylum laws to help deter future Channel crossings. </p>
<p>Politicians are not the only ones who are concerned about the Channel arrivals. Major news outlets such as the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53704809">BBC Breakfast team</a> and <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/terrified-migrants-who-paid-thousands-for-boat-to-uk-left-stranded-in-channel-after-running-out-of-fuel-12046511">Sky News</a> provided a detailed coverage of the migrants arriving on British shores in small boats. </p>
<p>Given the ongoing coronavirus crisis across the UK, what is behind the sudden interest in asylum seekers entering the country? After all, the 4,000 crossings made this year represent <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/august2019#:%7E:text=In%20the%20year%20ending%20March%202019%2C%20612%2C000%20people%20moved%20to,since%20the%20end%20of%202016.&text=For%20the%20past%20year%2C%20net,EU8%20citizens%20leaving%20than%20arriving">less than 2%</a> of total migration to the UK in 2019. It may have something to do with the recent economic crisis in the UK caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Research on the subject, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41269-017-0067-8">including my own work</a>, shows that economic insecurity and rises in unemployment can lead to negative attitudes towards immigrants and other minority groups. In short, both politicians and the news outlets are taking advantage of a wider trend among the UK population. </p>
<h2>Why do crises increase prejudice?</h2>
<p>According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK entered the largest economic recession on record between April and June, when its economy <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/coronavirusandtheimpactonoutputintheukeconomy/june2020">shrank by 20.4%</a>. The government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-extends-furlough-scheme-until-october">job retention scheme</a> is also due to end in October, so unemployment is expected to rise by a staggering <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-unemployment-level-coronavirus-impact-bank-england-survey-a9598701.html">3.5 million people</a>. With businesses struggling even after the lockdown restrictions were eased, economists warn that recovery will take a long time.</p>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40878-019-0127-5#ref-CR4">Academic research</a> shows that economic downturns lead to negative views of those who do not belong to our social groups. There are two main explanations for this. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/18/1/17/435155">The first theory</a> claims that crises lead to economic competition between social groups and increases hostility between them. In times of high unemployment and economic uncertainty, like the one caused by the coronavirus pandemic, people worry that they might have to compete with migrants and asylum seekers for limited resources, such as jobs, benefits or health services. During the pandemic, the number of jobs has sharply decreased and the access to health care has been limited. This competition could drive hostile attitudes towards migrants crossing the Channel. </p>
<p>The second theory states that people displace their fear and frustration caused by the crisis onto a more vulnerable group, treating them as scapegoats. When people feel unsafe, they look for worldviews that are simple and uncomplicated to restore a sense of order in their lives.</p>
<p>Black-and-white thinking of this kind is often encouraged by more nationalist and patriotic groups who believe that some people are less deserving of living in a particular country than others. This theory is particularly convincing because we also know that, in times of crisis, people are worried about more than economic competition – they also worry about the cultural impact of migration. That has little to do with how many jobs are available or how strained health services might be, so it instead reflects this sense of finding an outlet for fear. </p>
<p>Regardless of which theory we prefer to explain the rise in prejudice in times of economic crisis, many studies confirm that economic downturns lead to an increase in negative views of immigrants. These findings are also reflected in a recent <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2020/08/11/f4dc7/1">YouGov poll</a>, which shows that 49% of the British population have little or no sympathy for migrants attempting to cross the Channel. This is in comparison to 44% of Britons who feel some or a great deal of sympathy for the migrants.</p>
<p>With this in mind, it is worth remembering that the sudden increase in interest in the Channel crossings might have little to do with the scale of migration. Instead, it likely reflects the level of uncertainty and insecurity felt by the British people in the wake of an unprecedented health and economic crisis.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144445/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara Yoxon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At times of economic crisis, our feelings towards migrants can become hardened.Barbara Yoxon, Lecturer in Politics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1444662020-08-14T13:06:09Z2020-08-14T13:06:09ZWhy are more small boats crossing the English Channel – and why are border forces struggling to stop them?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352783/original/file-20200813-14-mi2sjg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C41%2C3919%2C2595&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> Kirsty O'Connor/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The number of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats has increased significantly – up to <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-channel-migrant-crossings-five-times-higher-than-last-year-12047812">4,343 this year compared with 857</a> in the same period last year. The number of lurid headlines calling for action has also increased significantly but the issue is not always well understood. Calls to strengthen UK border security at sea often misapprehend the tensions and difficulties involved.</p>
<p>There is a reason more boats are suddenly arriving now. It is a direct consequence of a series of disruptions to the established routes, both legal and illegal, by which refugees and asylum seekers have sought to enter the UK. Legal options have been curtailed with the reported suspension of the <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/refugee-crisis-coronavirus-resettlement-scheme-home-office_uk_5f2d1621c5b64d7a55f1d6e6">refugee resettlement scheme</a> due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Clandestine routes have also been disrupted by pandemic restrictions, with less freight being moved between France and the UK and fewer flights taking place.</p>
<p>For migrants fleeing often extreme insecurity or deprivation, getting to the UK offers a chance of security. When safer routes have closed or become more difficult, small boats have become the most viable option for desperate people. They offer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/if-i-die-that-is-ok-calais-refugees-nowhere-to-turn">a solution of sorts</a>, albeit one that is fraught with danger.</p>
<h2>A testing time for maritime security</h2>
<p>The crossings highlight the different problems at play in UK maritime security and the difficult and sometimes contradictory demands these place on UK government agencies.</p>
<p>The first of these is humanitarian. The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, and vulnerable people attempting to cross it in small and overcrowded boats do so at considerable risk to their lives. </p>
<p>The UK has both moral and legal obligations to protect the safety of lives at sea in its extensive maritime <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/593127/mca_uksar.pdf">Search and Rescue Zone</a>. Such tasks are the responsibility – indeed the whole mandate – of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/maritime-and-coastguard-agency">Maritime and Coastguard Agency</a> and <a href="https://rnli.org/">Royal National Lifeboat Association</a> (RNLI) among others.</p>
<p>The second is the need to patrol the UK’s borders – a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/08/13/support-RAF-Navy-English-Channel-migrant-crossing">politically charged</a> issue in recent years. The arrival of these small boats places fresh strains on cash strapped local authorities responsible for looking after the people who come in on them at a time when demands on their resources are already high. Border policing at sea is the responsibility of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/border-force">UK Border Force</a> in collaboration with local police forces and other agencies.</p>
<p>The third pressure is organised crime. While migrants themselves are the most visible people in this situation, their movements are often facilitated by <a href="https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/03/05/media-factsheet-small-boats/">organised criminal groups</a> in the UK, Belgium and France. These groups provide the boats and instructions to the migrants. In places like the Mediterranean, the networks smuggling people also smuggle <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/smuggling-probe-focuses-on-fuel-tankers-trail-1457576358">illicit goods</a>. There is concern this could also happen in this case.</p>
<p>So any maritime security enforcement that targets migrants also needs to be backed up by investigations into the criminal networks that enable these movements. The National Crime Agency leads <a href="https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/organised-immigration-crime">Project INVIGOR</a> to tackle this problem.</p>
<p>UK maritime security agencies face the difficult task of navigating between these three problems: protecting lives at sea, policing UK borders and addressing the organised networks that facilitate these movements. Doing so is not easy, not least because each of the organisations involved may be working on a different problem with different priorities. </p>
<p>Anecdotally, such differences have led to tensions between agencies and problems of coordination. Adding the navy to the mix, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/08/alarm-fingerprinting-custody-channel-migrants-uk">as has been proposed</a>, may add some extra capacity, but will do little to resolve these underlying tensions.</p>
<h2>What should be done?</h2>
<p>Maritime security and policing has historically been neglected in the UK and there are <a href="http://www.safeseas.net/brexit-how-the-uk-is-preparing-to-secure-its-seas-outside-the-eu/">key capacity gaps</a> that need addressing in the context of the country’s exit from the EU and evolving challenges at sea. </p>
<p>There is a need to invest in new patrol and surveillance assets, not just for search and rescue at sea and policing the UK’s borders, but also to counter other maritime threats and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X20300270?via%3Dihub">blue crimes</a> such as illegal fishing or narcotics trafficking by sea. Strengthening coordination and trust building between agencies is critical in order to manage these demands.</p>
<p>Cooperation with EU partners, particularly France, is also vital both in handling the problem of small boats at sea, but also to tackle the criminal networks that facilitate these movements. Despite his Darth Vader-like job title, the new <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-appoints-small-boat-commander">Clandestine Channel Threat Commander</a> is in actual fact a well-respected civil servant with significant cross-agency maritime experience and sensitivity. His appointment shows that the UK is taking maritime security more seriously.</p>
<p>Either way, the UK’s moral and legal responsibilities to protect life at sea must not be compromised by politically driven demands to strengthen maritime borders. Historically, the UK has a proud record in maritime search and rescue, but the risk of a tragedy is real if crowded and unsafe boats are forcibly turned away at sea. </p>
<p>Between 2014 and 2018, the Mediterranean became a graveyard for an estimated <a href="https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean">19,000 people</a> attempting to make it to Europe by sea. The same thing must not happen in the English Channel.</p>
<p>Even so, maritime security responses alone cannot substitute for sustainable migration policy. In the absence of such measures and legal options for entering the UK, desperate people will continue to do desperate things and adaptive criminal networks will help them to do so. In essence, any long-term solution to the problems posed by migration at sea is ultimately likely to lie on the land.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144466/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Edwards receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Grant no. ES/S008810/1: Transnational Organised Crime at Sea: New Evidence for Better Responses.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy Edmunds receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Grant no. ES/S008810/1: Transnational Organised Crime at Sea: New Evidence for Better Responses.</span></em></p>With normal routes disrupted by the pandemic, more people are driven to dangerous tactics.Scott Edwards, Research Associate, University of BristolTimothy Edmunds, Professor of International Security at University of Bristol and Director of the Centre for Global Insecurity, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.