An interesting rift has sprung up between Malta and the rest of the EU over new Frontex draft operational guidelines and may even refuse to participate in Frontex operations. The new guidelines that already allow for the refoulement of refugees (returning them to the country they left from), something that is already abundantly covered by numerous international treaties, state that if it is not possible to return migrants picked up by Frontex vessels to the country they left from, they must be sent to the country hosting the Frontex mission.
International maritime law stipulates that people rescued at sea must be taken to the nearest port, something that Maltese authorities would prefer to happen as Malta is a major host of Frontex operations and already believes that it bears too large a burden of Europe's clandestine migration. It has also had a long running battle with Italy over where migrants intercepted in each other's maritime rescue zones should be taken until Italy's recent deal with Libya to return intercepted boats to the African mainland. "We are not going to accept a situation where those rescued just off Lampedusa, for example, are going to be brought to Malta," Malta's Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici told the German Press Agency dpa.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Monday, 1 February 2010
HMP Morton Hall To Become IRC?
Following the news that the planned expansion of Yarl's Wood detention centre, designed to more than double its size, have been postponed for a year due to budgetary concerns, come the news that HMP Morton Hall, a 392 bed women's open prison near Swinderby in Lincolnshire, could be turned into an immigration detention centre as a short-term stopgap.
Given the government's current financial constraints, this is an obvious option, especially as they have also announced plans to try and reduce the number of women, both north and south of the border. The Tories are also looking at the conversion of Category D open prisons into higher security closed prisons as a cheap replacement for the planned provision of new prison places originally slated to be financed via the sale of 30 Victorian inner city prisons.
Given the government's current financial constraints, this is an obvious option, especially as they have also announced plans to try and reduce the number of women, both north and south of the border. The Tories are also looking at the conversion of Category D open prisons into higher security closed prisons as a cheap replacement for the planned provision of new prison places originally slated to be financed via the sale of 30 Victorian inner city prisons.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
"Factories For Producing Mental Illness"
It's been a while since we updated on Australia and the 'Indonesia Solution', so here it is over three parts.
Professor Patrick McGorry
One of the most interesting events recently was the fact that the 2010 'Australian of the Year' and eminent psychiatrist Professor Patrick McGorry condemned Australia's treatment of asylum seekers in his high profile acceptance speech the day before Australia Day (26 January), labelling them "factories for producing mental illness".
Pat McGorry, head of both the internationally renowned Orygen Research Centre in Melbourne and the federal government's network of Headspace youth mental health centres, was awarded the prize in recognition of his work on the mental health of young people. Having worked extensively with asylum seekers in the 1990s, he is also well versed in the evidence for the adverse effects of immigration detention has on the health and well-being of migrants.
Calling for the speeding up of the processing of asylum applications to be carried out more quickly and for them to be determined whilst the applicant was living within the community, not locked up on some island hundreds of miles away. Detention centres should be closed: "Detention centres were ... you could almost describe them as factories for producing mental illness and mental disorder ... and that's quite clear now with papers in The Lancet and other key journals describing the consequences of immigration detention. It's an absolute disaster that we must not repeat."
"Australia has already set the world back by creating a different model which we are trying to retreat from. And what we have been doing here until very recently, and even now . . . is actually adding to those mental health problems," he added.
Professor McGorry's stance was supported by other experts in the field in the following days, including Jon Jureidini, a psychiatrist who has more than 10 years' experience with refugees, who stated that there was no doubt that detention exacerbated mental disorders. As a minimum, Australia should drop its policy of holding asylum seekers in detention centres off the mainland. "We need to stop offshore processing. If we are going to have mandatory detention, it's essential that people are processed very quickly and people with health concerns need to be housed in the community."
Ironically, the same day Pat McGorry appeared to backtrack on what was obviously direct criticism of the current detention regime, as the government launched a justification of its policy, by claiming that his comments had not been an attack on the federal government's policy and had been taken "somewhat" out of context. "I was congratulating the present Government for digging us out of a very deep hole which we had got ourselves into through successive governments and I guess remote detention in detention centres in the desert was really what I was talking about."
Oceanic Viking
The last 16 Oceanic Viking Tamils left Indonesia on 20 January after New Zealand did an about-face and accepted 13 of them for resettlement, with the final 3 making it to their original preferred destination, Australia. The final destination totals were: 28 to the USA, 13 to Canada, 13 to New Zealand, 3 to Norway and 21 to Australia. However, 4 of the Australia-bound Tamils, one a woman with two children, failed to make it past ASIO security checks and remain on Christmas Island. They joined another man who had arrived by boat earlier last year and who had already been refused entry due to 'links with the Tamil Tigers', which is apparently not listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government. This leaves the 5 Tamils, and especially the children, in limbo waiting a third country deciding to accept them. There is also the possibility that some of them Australia may deport them back to Sri Lanka, despite the government claims that would not do so as the four had been deemed 'genuine' refugees.
Interestingly, the Australian government already knew that the 4 Oceanic Viking Tamils had been assessed by ASIO as being 'threats to national security' before they were transferred to Christmas Island, and appears to have been prompted by. The ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) checks have themselves come under scrutiny, with ex-ASIO officers claiming they are open to political influence and should not form the basis of Australia rejecting asylum applications. ASIO have also refused to reveal the 'evidence' that led to their security decision to ban the five. One suggestion is that 'interrogations' carried out by the Sri Lankan navy whilst they were still in Indonesian detention (Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention) may have led to the ban. Sri Lanka have also controversially renewed their calls on sigatories to the Convention to allow their access to intercepted refugees.
The fast-track deal itself continued to attract criticism, not least because Kevin Rudd appeared to have lied about the presence of 'terrorists' amongst the Oceanic Viking Tamils, as most asylum seekers in Indonesia wait four or five years before being resettled but the Oceanic Viking refugees were processed within two months. This has added to the problems over the Merak stand-off, especially as some of the Merak Tamils had family amongst the Oceanic Viking refugees, and on the day the last Oceanic Viking Tamils left Indonesia, the Indonesian government renewed their calls for Australia to help find a solution to the Merak stand-off.
Merak Tamils
The calls by Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, amongst others, for Australia to be "part of the solution" to the impasse that is largely of Australia's creation as they requested the Indonesians intercept the Jaya Lestari on their behalf, have been rejected by the Australian government. "The disembarkation of the passengers on the Merak vessel is a matter for the Indonesian government to resolve," stated a Department on Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson, promising that they would be sending Australia's bizarrely titled Ambassador for People Smuggling, Peter Woolcott, to Indonesia soon. However, 3 weeks after the visit was first announced, he has yet to arrive.
Meanwhile, the Tamil refugees who have now been on board the Jaya Lestari for four months in total, with all but 2 weeks of that in Merak Harbour in West Java, have more or less slipped off the radar. The health situation of some of those on board deteriorated with one facing the loss of his leg and another the possibility of giving birth amongst the 240 other Tamils on board the crowded leaky wooden hulk. Three refugee advocates, 2 Australians and a Canadian who were in Indonesia to meet Indonesian officials and arrange humanitarian supplies for the Tamils, were arrested on 26 January near the Jaya Lestari and questioned for 11 hours. The Indonesians claimed that they entered an exclusion zone around the boat in contavention of their visa conditions and conficated their passports.
They were eventually deported after 3 days without charge and banned from returning for six months. They denied entering the exclusion zone around the boat and claimed that Indonesian police tried to intimidate them by alleging that one of the women, Saradha Nathan, was married to a known people smuggler (she merely shared the same surname). Ms Nathan claimed that the Indonesian were trying to send a message to humanitarian workers not to go there to try and help the Merak Tamils and that she thought "Indonesia is trying to give a message to the Australian government by harassing Australian citizens." The second Australian Pamela Curr agreed, saying: "The senior department of foreign affairs official was quoted in the BBC as saying this is the last time we will do this for Australia - they also said exactly the same thing to us in a private meeting on Friday morning."
Coming soon: Part 2 - Christmas Island hunger strike / Abbott 'plays the race card' & more.
Professor Patrick McGorry
One of the most interesting events recently was the fact that the 2010 'Australian of the Year' and eminent psychiatrist Professor Patrick McGorry condemned Australia's treatment of asylum seekers in his high profile acceptance speech the day before Australia Day (26 January), labelling them "factories for producing mental illness".
Pat McGorry, head of both the internationally renowned Orygen Research Centre in Melbourne and the federal government's network of Headspace youth mental health centres, was awarded the prize in recognition of his work on the mental health of young people. Having worked extensively with asylum seekers in the 1990s, he is also well versed in the evidence for the adverse effects of immigration detention has on the health and well-being of migrants.
Calling for the speeding up of the processing of asylum applications to be carried out more quickly and for them to be determined whilst the applicant was living within the community, not locked up on some island hundreds of miles away. Detention centres should be closed: "Detention centres were ... you could almost describe them as factories for producing mental illness and mental disorder ... and that's quite clear now with papers in The Lancet and other key journals describing the consequences of immigration detention. It's an absolute disaster that we must not repeat."
"Australia has already set the world back by creating a different model which we are trying to retreat from. And what we have been doing here until very recently, and even now . . . is actually adding to those mental health problems," he added.
Professor McGorry's stance was supported by other experts in the field in the following days, including Jon Jureidini, a psychiatrist who has more than 10 years' experience with refugees, who stated that there was no doubt that detention exacerbated mental disorders. As a minimum, Australia should drop its policy of holding asylum seekers in detention centres off the mainland. "We need to stop offshore processing. If we are going to have mandatory detention, it's essential that people are processed very quickly and people with health concerns need to be housed in the community."
Ironically, the same day Pat McGorry appeared to backtrack on what was obviously direct criticism of the current detention regime, as the government launched a justification of its policy, by claiming that his comments had not been an attack on the federal government's policy and had been taken "somewhat" out of context. "I was congratulating the present Government for digging us out of a very deep hole which we had got ourselves into through successive governments and I guess remote detention in detention centres in the desert was really what I was talking about."
Oceanic Viking
The last 16 Oceanic Viking Tamils left Indonesia on 20 January after New Zealand did an about-face and accepted 13 of them for resettlement, with the final 3 making it to their original preferred destination, Australia. The final destination totals were: 28 to the USA, 13 to Canada, 13 to New Zealand, 3 to Norway and 21 to Australia. However, 4 of the Australia-bound Tamils, one a woman with two children, failed to make it past ASIO security checks and remain on Christmas Island. They joined another man who had arrived by boat earlier last year and who had already been refused entry due to 'links with the Tamil Tigers', which is apparently not listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government. This leaves the 5 Tamils, and especially the children, in limbo waiting a third country deciding to accept them. There is also the possibility that some of them Australia may deport them back to Sri Lanka, despite the government claims that would not do so as the four had been deemed 'genuine' refugees.
Interestingly, the Australian government already knew that the 4 Oceanic Viking Tamils had been assessed by ASIO as being 'threats to national security' before they were transferred to Christmas Island, and appears to have been prompted by. The ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) checks have themselves come under scrutiny, with ex-ASIO officers claiming they are open to political influence and should not form the basis of Australia rejecting asylum applications. ASIO have also refused to reveal the 'evidence' that led to their security decision to ban the five. One suggestion is that 'interrogations' carried out by the Sri Lankan navy whilst they were still in Indonesian detention (Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention) may have led to the ban. Sri Lanka have also controversially renewed their calls on sigatories to the Convention to allow their access to intercepted refugees.
The fast-track deal itself continued to attract criticism, not least because Kevin Rudd appeared to have lied about the presence of 'terrorists' amongst the Oceanic Viking Tamils, as most asylum seekers in Indonesia wait four or five years before being resettled but the Oceanic Viking refugees were processed within two months. This has added to the problems over the Merak stand-off, especially as some of the Merak Tamils had family amongst the Oceanic Viking refugees, and on the day the last Oceanic Viking Tamils left Indonesia, the Indonesian government renewed their calls for Australia to help find a solution to the Merak stand-off.
Merak Tamils
The calls by Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, amongst others, for Australia to be "part of the solution" to the impasse that is largely of Australia's creation as they requested the Indonesians intercept the Jaya Lestari on their behalf, have been rejected by the Australian government. "The disembarkation of the passengers on the Merak vessel is a matter for the Indonesian government to resolve," stated a Department on Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson, promising that they would be sending Australia's bizarrely titled Ambassador for People Smuggling, Peter Woolcott, to Indonesia soon. However, 3 weeks after the visit was first announced, he has yet to arrive.
Meanwhile, the Tamil refugees who have now been on board the Jaya Lestari for four months in total, with all but 2 weeks of that in Merak Harbour in West Java, have more or less slipped off the radar. The health situation of some of those on board deteriorated with one facing the loss of his leg and another the possibility of giving birth amongst the 240 other Tamils on board the crowded leaky wooden hulk. Three refugee advocates, 2 Australians and a Canadian who were in Indonesia to meet Indonesian officials and arrange humanitarian supplies for the Tamils, were arrested on 26 January near the Jaya Lestari and questioned for 11 hours. The Indonesians claimed that they entered an exclusion zone around the boat in contavention of their visa conditions and conficated their passports.
They were eventually deported after 3 days without charge and banned from returning for six months. They denied entering the exclusion zone around the boat and claimed that Indonesian police tried to intimidate them by alleging that one of the women, Saradha Nathan, was married to a known people smuggler (she merely shared the same surname). Ms Nathan claimed that the Indonesian were trying to send a message to humanitarian workers not to go there to try and help the Merak Tamils and that she thought "Indonesia is trying to give a message to the Australian government by harassing Australian citizens." The second Australian Pamela Curr agreed, saying: "The senior department of foreign affairs official was quoted in the BBC as saying this is the last time we will do this for Australia - they also said exactly the same thing to us in a private meeting on Friday morning."
Coming soon: Part 2 - Christmas Island hunger strike / Abbott 'plays the race card' & more.
Border Agency Pay Out For False Imprisonment
A refugee family is to receive thousands of pounds in compensation for false imprisonment, after the Home Office admitted they should have been freed when they applied for a judicial review against deportation. Carmen Quiroga, originally from Bolivia, and her four children, aged three to 11 at the time, spent six weeks in Oakington detention centre in Cambridgeshire in 2004.
Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, representing the family, argued the detention was illegal for reasons because it was not used as a last resort, the welfare of the children was not given priority, in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the use of force in detaining the family was "entirely disproportionate" and that the family had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment in contravention of the European convention on human rights.
The solicitors claimed that being detained in a dawn raid and held at the immigration centre had left the three eldest children with ongoing psychiatric problems. Ms Quiroga gave evidence that the family had suffered verbal abuse and threats from detention centre staff, were denied access to medicines and appropriate children's food and, during two unsuccessful attempts to deport them by plane, were threatened with violence. On one occasion she was also struck by a contracted security guard when she failed to maintain eye contact, as the children looked on.
In an interview with the Guardian, Ms Quiroga also said that: "This case was about being heard, and it's in this way that [I hope] what happened to me won't happen to other people." The trauma, she said, "is not something you are inventing. You feel it, you live it, and it's there all the time." Part of the settlement was an agreement by the Home Office to outline to Quiroga the steps it has taken to prevent the abuse recurring for other families.
Sarah Campbell, research and policy manager at charity Bail for Immigration Detainees, said: "This shocking case demonstrates the serious harm caused to children by detention. We regularly see the horrendous effects detention has on children, many of the children we work with experience depression, weight loss and even self-harm. There is no evidence that the detention of children is necessary for immigration control. The fact that this family had an ongoing legal case while they were in detention, and were eventually granted status to remain in the UK, raises very serious questions about why they were detained at all."
In a typical piece of Border Agency sophistry, David Wood, strategic director of 'criminality' and detention, claimed that: "Treating children with care and compassion is a priority for the UK Border Agency and whenever we take decisions involving children, their welfare comes first," despite all the evidence over the years to the contrary. If "their welfare comes first" why do you continue routinely locking them up?
Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, representing the family, argued the detention was illegal for reasons because it was not used as a last resort, the welfare of the children was not given priority, in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the use of force in detaining the family was "entirely disproportionate" and that the family had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment in contravention of the European convention on human rights.
The solicitors claimed that being detained in a dawn raid and held at the immigration centre had left the three eldest children with ongoing psychiatric problems. Ms Quiroga gave evidence that the family had suffered verbal abuse and threats from detention centre staff, were denied access to medicines and appropriate children's food and, during two unsuccessful attempts to deport them by plane, were threatened with violence. On one occasion she was also struck by a contracted security guard when she failed to maintain eye contact, as the children looked on.
In an interview with the Guardian, Ms Quiroga also said that: "This case was about being heard, and it's in this way that [I hope] what happened to me won't happen to other people." The trauma, she said, "is not something you are inventing. You feel it, you live it, and it's there all the time." Part of the settlement was an agreement by the Home Office to outline to Quiroga the steps it has taken to prevent the abuse recurring for other families.
Sarah Campbell, research and policy manager at charity Bail for Immigration Detainees, said: "This shocking case demonstrates the serious harm caused to children by detention. We regularly see the horrendous effects detention has on children, many of the children we work with experience depression, weight loss and even self-harm. There is no evidence that the detention of children is necessary for immigration control. The fact that this family had an ongoing legal case while they were in detention, and were eventually granted status to remain in the UK, raises very serious questions about why they were detained at all."
In a typical piece of Border Agency sophistry, David Wood, strategic director of 'criminality' and detention, claimed that: "Treating children with care and compassion is a priority for the UK Border Agency and whenever we take decisions involving children, their welfare comes first," despite all the evidence over the years to the contrary. If "their welfare comes first" why do you continue routinely locking them up?
Saturday, 30 January 2010
What Planet Are These People On?
Under the wonderfully inane headline 'Geert Wilders is not 'far Right' ', the Telegraph has an article bemoaning "the lack of British media interest in Geert Wilders’s martyrdom in Amsterdam." Martyrdom? It then castigates "the Equality Gestapo" for prosecuting Wilders for ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’ in what he calls the "show trial of the century", even if it is only a decade old. Or as Ed West (yes, we've never heard of him either) puts it "on trial for “insulting” Islam by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, and for saying that Moroccans commit many street robberies in the Netherlands."
This drivel comes from someone who then proceeds to call the Dutch "retarded", label the Holocaust denial legislation "stupid", claim that the BNP is "not “fascist” in any meaningful sense" and that "Wilders’ Freedom Party* is not in any sense ‘far-Right”." He is also the person that came out with this wonderful piece of sophistry: "The Richard Dawkins-led anti-religious movement in many way resembles the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, on both Left and Right, which hated religion as rival sources of loyalties, and sought to drive it out." Guilty of the crime of Reductio Ad Hitlerum Ed? Surely not?
* Surely this cannot be the same Ed West who wrote 'We Need A Freedom Party Of Britain'?
This drivel comes from someone who then proceeds to call the Dutch "retarded", label the Holocaust denial legislation "stupid", claim that the BNP is "not “fascist” in any meaningful sense" and that "Wilders’ Freedom Party* is not in any sense ‘far-Right”." He is also the person that came out with this wonderful piece of sophistry: "The Richard Dawkins-led anti-religious movement in many way resembles the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, on both Left and Right, which hated religion as rival sources of loyalties, and sought to drive it out." Guilty of the crime of Reductio Ad Hitlerum Ed? Surely not?
* Surely this cannot be the same Ed West who wrote 'We Need A Freedom Party Of Britain'?
Daily Express - Better Never Than Late
Today saw the Express catching up with yesterday's old news, and repeating the same errors as in the Mail and Telegraph, but adding their own brand of outrage. "French authorities were last night accused of shamelessly washing their hands of the battle to prevent illegal immigration to Britain" we 'learnt' under the banner 'England Is Where We All Want To End Up...'*
"The row flared as a new base camp was opened yesterday in Calais to help migrants illegally enter Britain. Ironically, it is in the town’s Place d’Angleterre – England Square." Err, no it's not (see yesterday).
"Last night Tories slammed the camp and the massive influx into Britain as “an example of Gordon Brown’s lax immigration policy”." Two birds with one stone there. Needless to say one of the two Tories 'slamming' the 'camp' was Damien Green. The other was Philip Davies, MP for Shipley, West Yorks (who?), who is quoted as saying: “One of the main reasons they come is because they know once inside Britain their chances of being kicked out are nil.” Just as the 68,000 people who were deported or 'departed voluntarily' (i.e. left before they could be deported) in 2008 if the "chances of being kicked out are nil".
The article then went on to commit exactly the same errors as the other 2 articles (local charities, being dubbed Sangatte II, etc.) except they embroidered on the previous untruths by saying: "The facility will provide FOOD, shelter and asylum-claim advice...", where did they get that one from?
We're afraid we have to agree with Andrew Green, sole member of MigrantBotch, on this one: “This is getting increasingly ridiculous." It cetainly is but he obviously couldn't resist offering a quote when the Express rang him up (I bet he's definitely on speed-dial).
The bottom line is that there is currently (if you'll excuse the pun) no electricity or water in the building and nobody will so much as moved a blanket into the building until Monday!
* Note the nonsensical caption "Immigrants hanging around an old building in Calais" stuck onto a photo of migrants waiting in a queue for food in Calais.
"The row flared as a new base camp was opened yesterday in Calais to help migrants illegally enter Britain. Ironically, it is in the town’s Place d’Angleterre – England Square." Err, no it's not (see yesterday).
"Last night Tories slammed the camp and the massive influx into Britain as “an example of Gordon Brown’s lax immigration policy”." Two birds with one stone there. Needless to say one of the two Tories 'slamming' the 'camp' was Damien Green. The other was Philip Davies, MP for Shipley, West Yorks (who?), who is quoted as saying: “One of the main reasons they come is because they know once inside Britain their chances of being kicked out are nil.” Just as the 68,000 people who were deported or 'departed voluntarily' (i.e. left before they could be deported) in 2008 if the "chances of being kicked out are nil".
The article then went on to commit exactly the same errors as the other 2 articles (local charities, being dubbed Sangatte II, etc.) except they embroidered on the previous untruths by saying: "The facility will provide FOOD, shelter and asylum-claim advice...", where did they get that one from?
We're afraid we have to agree with Andrew Green, sole member of MigrantBotch, on this one: “This is getting increasingly ridiculous." It cetainly is but he obviously couldn't resist offering a quote when the Express rang him up (I bet he's definitely on speed-dial).
The bottom line is that there is currently (if you'll excuse the pun) no electricity or water in the building and nobody will so much as moved a blanket into the building until Monday!
* Note the nonsensical caption "Immigrants hanging around an old building in Calais" stuck onto a photo of migrants waiting in a queue for food in Calais.
Friday, 29 January 2010
Not That Old 'Sangatte II' Thing Again Peter?
News of the opening of the Kronstadt Hanger in Calais, an autonomous space organised for activists and migrants alike by No Borders and SôS Soutien aux Sans Papiers, has broken via articles in yesterday's Voix du Nord and Nord Littoral. In response our old 'friend', the fantasist and so-called journalist Peter Allen, has latched onto the story and distorted it in his own inimitable fashion for the Mail and Telegraph. (He gets paid twice for this rubbish?) So here we will dissect the relevant pieces of his articles, focusing on the Mail piece.
"A vast new welcome centre for Britain-bound illegal migrants has opened in Calais." - It is not a welcome centre, it is an unconverted empty hangar. The current plans for it are for it to be used as a meeting and information centre, where migrants will be given support and solidarity, away from the constant harassment and brutality of the French police. There are currently no plans to turn it into an accommodation centre a la Sangatte, nor would anyone involved in setting it up want to. But then again, we wouldn't expect the readers of the Mail and Telegraph to understand the concept of solidarity, ignorance and blind self-interest are far more their style. Sangatte was an unmitigated disaster whose only function was to try and get the French government out of an impasse, effectively passing the buck onto the Red Cross and abrogating their international responsibilities to the migrants.
"Local charities were today accepting the first new residents of the 2,000 sq ft hangar close to the French town’s ferry port." - It is not being organised by local charities, those involved are the expressly political campaign groups of No Borders and SôS Soutien aux Sans Papiers. Neither is it open "accepting the first new residents" (See above and the organisers' press release. They should know!)
"It is already being dubbed ‘Sangatte II’ after the former Red Cross centre which attracted thousands of illegal foreigners before it was razed to the ground in 2002." - The only person who is calling it Sangatte II is Allen himself, as he has labelled any and every structure that is in the slightest way associated with migrants in Calais.** He even called 2 prefabricated shower units Sangatte II recently. His source for his two article two local Calais newspapers, which he read in his eerie in Paris. He certainly has not talked to anybody involved in the project and they in turn certainly would not want to talk to a renown liar about the activities of activists and migrants in Calais (though of course he would disguise the fact that he worked for the Mail/Telegraph/Express as his fellow yellow press workers have often done in the past), just look back through this blog. [For example: Why Let The Facts Spoil A Good Story (Again)?]
"And the fact that the new hangar is on Place d’Angleterre, or England Square*, has not been lost on the charity workers." - It is NOT on Place d’Angleterre, it is on the corner of Rue de Cronstadt and Rue de Moscou. But why let the truth spoil a good story? And the "charity workers" as he calls them are more interested in the fact that it is on Rue de Cronstadt and have named it Kronstadt Hanger.
"‘It’s very appropriate,’ said one. ‘England is where almost everyone who stays here will want to end up. We’ll be able to look after hundreds at a time.’" - I repeat, Allen has NOT talked to anyone involved. That is not to say that he hasn't talked to someone in Calais about it and they gave him that quote. They may even have been a 'charity worker' (sic) but they certainly were not involved in the Kronstadt Hanger. NB. This is a regular Mail trick, the non-naming of a source. Again, why let the truth spoil a good story.
"News of the latest building comes just eight months after France’s Immigration Minister Eric Besson said he would make the town ‘watertight’ to those trying to get to Britain."
"But since then the humanitarian situation has deteriorated to such an extent that both the government and Calais council fear urgent action is needed." - Something which we have been arguing about even before the Pashtun 'Jungle' was cleared. But then again, the French government and Calais council always knew this outcome was inevitable. So it is not the extent that the "humanitarian situation has deteriorated" that has caused them to be worried, it is the accompanying bad publicity.
"While they have not yet given official approval to the new centre, the charities who are renting it believe they will turn a blind eye. ‘We don’t envisage any legal problems,’ said a spokesman for the SOS refugee and homeless charity." - They can't give official approval because it has not been applied for!
"‘This is a humanitarian gesture – we’re putting the shelter at the disposal of the migrants." - For someone who lives in Paris and can supposedly speak and, one would hope, understands French, Allen has again put works into Rodolphe Nettier's mouth. He did not mention any "humanitarian gesture" in either article and all he said was that it would be made "available to Calaisiennes and Calaisiennes for migrants" i.e. those supporting migrants. To quote the Nord Littoral article: "This is not a humanitarian approach, hastens to clarify it. We will not turn into France Terre d'Asile, or even the distribution of meals or the care of migrants. We just give them a shelter, a kind of refuge. To help them self-organise."
"‘There are showers, bathrooms and toilets. It will be heated and there will be blankets and beds.’" - There are two showers, a sink and toilets. It is an old warehouse. It is not heated and there are no beds. Again, these are Allen's fabrications. Looks at the two articles yourselves. But of course the above quotes are not directly ascribed to Rudolphe, they are from an unnamed spokesman. How convenient. In fact, in the Telegraph he makes it explicit that he was quoting one of "the charity’s employees". So he has actually done some original work on the article, not just rehashed someone else's work. Just a pity that the one person he talked to clealry knew nothing about it (not even the actual location).
"Rodolphe Nettier, president of SOS, said : ‘We have initially rented the hangar for a few months, but hope to keep it open for much longer. The first migrants are due today.’" - Unfortunately, Nettier and the paper got this wrong. This is an autonomous space that will be self-organised. For those of you only used to hierarchical structures, autonomous self-organised spaces are run by those that use them, and no decision has been made on the ground so far as far as we know that indicates that "the first migrants (will arrive) today." In fact, those that are likely to be involved in using and running the Krondstadt will not be meeting until after this afternoon's Board of Migrants meeting with the mayor at 14:30.
"Mr Nettier said the building was very secure – something which will make it difficult for the police to raid and arrest the migrants." - It is also private property, a fact which ideally should prevent the police from entering at will, but which in past experience has not proved sufficient a barrier to their harassment.
"There will be no restrictions on who can use the welcome centre, said Mr Nettier." - Again, he did not say that and is another fabrication and he could not claim this anyway, given that the space will be self-organising.
You get the picture. You certainly can't trust everything you read in the paper, especially if it comes with the by-line: by Peter Allen.
* The Mail article is even headlined ''Sangatte II' opens by Calais ferry port ... and it's on street called England Square'.
** See: MailWatch #7 - 'Sangatte II' or Not 'Sangatte II', That Is The Question and More Smoke About The Fire.
"A vast new welcome centre for Britain-bound illegal migrants has opened in Calais." - It is not a welcome centre, it is an unconverted empty hangar. The current plans for it are for it to be used as a meeting and information centre, where migrants will be given support and solidarity, away from the constant harassment and brutality of the French police. There are currently no plans to turn it into an accommodation centre a la Sangatte, nor would anyone involved in setting it up want to. But then again, we wouldn't expect the readers of the Mail and Telegraph to understand the concept of solidarity, ignorance and blind self-interest are far more their style. Sangatte was an unmitigated disaster whose only function was to try and get the French government out of an impasse, effectively passing the buck onto the Red Cross and abrogating their international responsibilities to the migrants.
"Local charities were today accepting the first new residents of the 2,000 sq ft hangar close to the French town’s ferry port." - It is not being organised by local charities, those involved are the expressly political campaign groups of No Borders and SôS Soutien aux Sans Papiers. Neither is it open "accepting the first new residents" (See above and the organisers' press release. They should know!)
"It is already being dubbed ‘Sangatte II’ after the former Red Cross centre which attracted thousands of illegal foreigners before it was razed to the ground in 2002." - The only person who is calling it Sangatte II is Allen himself, as he has labelled any and every structure that is in the slightest way associated with migrants in Calais.** He even called 2 prefabricated shower units Sangatte II recently. His source for his two article two local Calais newspapers, which he read in his eerie in Paris. He certainly has not talked to anybody involved in the project and they in turn certainly would not want to talk to a renown liar about the activities of activists and migrants in Calais (though of course he would disguise the fact that he worked for the Mail/Telegraph/Express as his fellow yellow press workers have often done in the past), just look back through this blog. [For example: Why Let The Facts Spoil A Good Story (Again)?]
"And the fact that the new hangar is on Place d’Angleterre, or England Square*, has not been lost on the charity workers." - It is NOT on Place d’Angleterre, it is on the corner of Rue de Cronstadt and Rue de Moscou. But why let the truth spoil a good story? And the "charity workers" as he calls them are more interested in the fact that it is on Rue de Cronstadt and have named it Kronstadt Hanger.
"‘It’s very appropriate,’ said one. ‘England is where almost everyone who stays here will want to end up. We’ll be able to look after hundreds at a time.’" - I repeat, Allen has NOT talked to anyone involved. That is not to say that he hasn't talked to someone in Calais about it and they gave him that quote. They may even have been a 'charity worker' (sic) but they certainly were not involved in the Kronstadt Hanger. NB. This is a regular Mail trick, the non-naming of a source. Again, why let the truth spoil a good story.
"News of the latest building comes just eight months after France’s Immigration Minister Eric Besson said he would make the town ‘watertight’ to those trying to get to Britain."
"But since then the humanitarian situation has deteriorated to such an extent that both the government and Calais council fear urgent action is needed." - Something which we have been arguing about even before the Pashtun 'Jungle' was cleared. But then again, the French government and Calais council always knew this outcome was inevitable. So it is not the extent that the "humanitarian situation has deteriorated" that has caused them to be worried, it is the accompanying bad publicity.
"While they have not yet given official approval to the new centre, the charities who are renting it believe they will turn a blind eye. ‘We don’t envisage any legal problems,’ said a spokesman for the SOS refugee and homeless charity." - They can't give official approval because it has not been applied for!
"‘This is a humanitarian gesture – we’re putting the shelter at the disposal of the migrants." - For someone who lives in Paris and can supposedly speak and, one would hope, understands French, Allen has again put works into Rodolphe Nettier's mouth. He did not mention any "humanitarian gesture" in either article and all he said was that it would be made "available to Calaisiennes and Calaisiennes for migrants" i.e. those supporting migrants. To quote the Nord Littoral article: "This is not a humanitarian approach, hastens to clarify it. We will not turn into France Terre d'Asile, or even the distribution of meals or the care of migrants. We just give them a shelter, a kind of refuge. To help them self-organise."
"‘There are showers, bathrooms and toilets. It will be heated and there will be blankets and beds.’" - There are two showers, a sink and toilets. It is an old warehouse. It is not heated and there are no beds. Again, these are Allen's fabrications. Looks at the two articles yourselves. But of course the above quotes are not directly ascribed to Rudolphe, they are from an unnamed spokesman. How convenient. In fact, in the Telegraph he makes it explicit that he was quoting one of "the charity’s employees". So he has actually done some original work on the article, not just rehashed someone else's work. Just a pity that the one person he talked to clealry knew nothing about it (not even the actual location).
"Rodolphe Nettier, president of SOS, said : ‘We have initially rented the hangar for a few months, but hope to keep it open for much longer. The first migrants are due today.’" - Unfortunately, Nettier and the paper got this wrong. This is an autonomous space that will be self-organised. For those of you only used to hierarchical structures, autonomous self-organised spaces are run by those that use them, and no decision has been made on the ground so far as far as we know that indicates that "the first migrants (will arrive) today." In fact, those that are likely to be involved in using and running the Krondstadt will not be meeting until after this afternoon's Board of Migrants meeting with the mayor at 14:30.
"Mr Nettier said the building was very secure – something which will make it difficult for the police to raid and arrest the migrants." - It is also private property, a fact which ideally should prevent the police from entering at will, but which in past experience has not proved sufficient a barrier to their harassment.
"There will be no restrictions on who can use the welcome centre, said Mr Nettier." - Again, he did not say that and is another fabrication and he could not claim this anyway, given that the space will be self-organising.
You get the picture. You certainly can't trust everything you read in the paper, especially if it comes with the by-line: by Peter Allen.
* The Mail article is even headlined ''Sangatte II' opens by Calais ferry port ... and it's on street called England Square'.
** See: MailWatch #7 - 'Sangatte II' or Not 'Sangatte II', That Is The Question and More Smoke About The Fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)