Or Just Plain Mindless Bureaucracy?
If the US government, who insisted the rest of the world institutes the stringent machine-readable requirements for 'acceptable' forms of passports, are willing to temporarily recognise the Iroquios lacrosse team's non-machine readable passports* to cross their borders, then why are the UK Borders Agency not willing to accept and allow the issuing visas for the team's trip to what should be a prestigious tournament that would reflect well on the UK? Clearly the spirit of fair play did not enter into it but at least the chances of the England team winning their first match in the 2010 World Lacrosse Championship (which was due to be against the Iroqoius) has improved following the decision and has improved their chances of making it out of the first round Blue Division.
* That they and other members of the Iroquois Confederacy have successfully used to travel around the globe for the past 33 years.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
More Racist Shock Tactics
It was inevitable that the yellow press would latch onto the University of Leeds' School of Geography working paper on 'Ethnic Population Projections for the UK and Local Areas, 2001-2051' as an opportunity to launch into a bout of immigration-bashing and/or rekindle the 'immigration-led population boom' scare [see: 'The Myth Of The 70 Million'] that is one of their perennial favourites. Their efforts to push all the right racist buttons (or should that be 'blow the correct dog whistles'?) provided mixed results.
The Express clearly came top of the list in plumbing new depths (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors) with its typically shouty and patently obvious racist headline 'ONE IN 5 BRITONS WILL BE ETHNICS'(sic)*
Getting right down to the nitty gritty, without of course explaining what the Leeds paper is actually about, they essayed:
"ONE in five of Britain’s population will be from an ethnic minority by the middle of the century, an explosive report forecasts today.
The figure will rocket from the current level of eight per cent to 20 per cent over the next 40 years, it concludes.
And the ethnic profile of middle-class suburban and rural areas will change significantly as black and Asian families move out of inner-city areas, it says. Overall, the UK’s total population will soar from its present 61 million to 78 million over the same period."
[Translation: Two and a half times as many foreigners 40 years from now and, to top it all, they'll be moving out of the ghettos that we've managed to restrict them to up til now and moving out to where we leave. Plus they'll continue breeding like rabbits. Woe, woe and thrice woe.]
And just in case you had missed the implication the Express wished to highlight:
"The report, by researchers at the University of Leeds, will fuel fears that Britain faces acute overcrowding in the next generation, intensifying pressure on the Government to curb immigration." Utter tosh, which anyone who has read the Leeds paper knows but what Express reader is likely to do so?
Like so much of their immigration coverage this year, the Mail came a paltry second to the Express' bile and could only manage the rather limp 'One in five Britons 'will be from an ethnic minority by 2051''.
"UK population will rocket to 78million by middle of century
One in five of the population will be from an ethnic minority by the middle of this century, according to a new report.
Researchers concluded that the figure will rocket from the current rate of eight per cent - and that people from minority backgrounds will be living in more affluent areas.
Just one in ten of the population was from an ethnic minority ten years ago."
Rather limp really compared to Desmond's rag. And just to show you how little effort Jack Doyle, the article's author, put in, the next two lines are:
"Researchers at The University of Leeds also concluded that the population of the UK could reach nearly 80million by the middle of this century.
Higher birth rates and people living longer as well as immigration would pushed the population to 78.8million by 2051."
Clearly Mr Doyle is still learning his trade at the Mail and has made the mistake of both qualifying the 80m figure and of allowing that something other than immigration might be a causal factor behind the population growth. No doubt he'll learn his lesson and be parroting the house style fluently before soon.
Compared to both these efforts, Desmond's other 'newspaper' the Star's article was positively wishy washy: 'Changing Faces Of Britain 2050'! Sounds like something out of the national Geographic. Yet none of them managed to plumb the depths of racist stupidity that the Press and Journal, an Aberdeen-based DC Thompson publication, stooped to: 'Immigrants to make up 20% of UK population'. Priceless.
So what about this research project, which we assume none of these well-paid 'journalists' have bothered to read? The Economic and Social Research Council-financed project is part an on-going effort by the Leeds University geography department to "understand demographic changes that the UK’s local ethnic populations presently experience and will experience in the future."
"We are investigating how differences in ethnic fertility and mortality shape current and future population trends, how international migration and internal migration impact the size and ethnic composition of local populations. The project team will build projections of ethnic group populations for local areas and use the projection model to explore alternative futures."
This involves the modelling of 5 separate projections based on different sets of assumptions for mortality/fertility/immigration/emigration for 16 ethnic groups, which inevitably display hugely varying end results, even when allowing for 'aggregation effects'. The end point of this modelling is to produce a form of population projection that takes into account differences in the dynamics of the various ethnic groupings selected, the 2 so-called UPTAP (Understanding Population Trends and Processes) models.
And inevitably, the media have focused on the 'worst case scenario', the (UPTAP-EF - emigration flow) model that produces the highest population growth, rather than their other (UPTAP-ER - emigration rate) model. In fact, as the paper points out "UPTAP-EF and UPTAP-ER produce total populations in 2051 that differ by 9.1 millions."
The reasons for these differences and the merits of the different projects are too complex to go into here but we would like to highlight one of the report's conclusions, where it compares its results with previously released ONS estimates for ethnic groups in 2007 [i.e. NPP 2008].
"We compare the latest in this series, for mid-2007, with our projections for mid-2007. The differences over just six years are considerable. Our figure for the England population is 359 thousand greater than that of ONS or 0.70% greater. Our estimates for the White population are larger than those of ONS while our ethnic minority estimates are lower. Some of the lower figures for Asian or Asian British groups or Black or Black British groups may be a result of introducing ethnic specific mortality as these groups had lower life expectancies than the total population.
That we should obtain such different estimates over a very short period is concerning and will need to be investigated in detail. The differences serve to highlight that there is a great deal of uncertainty in estimating the population broken down by ethnicity."
* For other analysis of the Express' obvious racist intent see: Five Chinese Crackers, Enemies of Reason and Tabloid Watch.
The Express clearly came top of the list in plumbing new depths (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors) with its typically shouty and patently obvious racist headline 'ONE IN 5 BRITONS WILL BE ETHNICS'(sic)*
Getting right down to the nitty gritty, without of course explaining what the Leeds paper is actually about, they essayed:
"ONE in five of Britain’s population will be from an ethnic minority by the middle of the century, an explosive report forecasts today.
The figure will rocket from the current level of eight per cent to 20 per cent over the next 40 years, it concludes.
And the ethnic profile of middle-class suburban and rural areas will change significantly as black and Asian families move out of inner-city areas, it says. Overall, the UK’s total population will soar from its present 61 million to 78 million over the same period."
[Translation: Two and a half times as many foreigners 40 years from now and, to top it all, they'll be moving out of the ghettos that we've managed to restrict them to up til now and moving out to where we leave. Plus they'll continue breeding like rabbits. Woe, woe and thrice woe.]
And just in case you had missed the implication the Express wished to highlight:
"The report, by researchers at the University of Leeds, will fuel fears that Britain faces acute overcrowding in the next generation, intensifying pressure on the Government to curb immigration." Utter tosh, which anyone who has read the Leeds paper knows but what Express reader is likely to do so?
Like so much of their immigration coverage this year, the Mail came a paltry second to the Express' bile and could only manage the rather limp 'One in five Britons 'will be from an ethnic minority by 2051''.
"UK population will rocket to 78million by middle of century
One in five of the population will be from an ethnic minority by the middle of this century, according to a new report.
Researchers concluded that the figure will rocket from the current rate of eight per cent - and that people from minority backgrounds will be living in more affluent areas.
Just one in ten of the population was from an ethnic minority ten years ago."
Rather limp really compared to Desmond's rag. And just to show you how little effort Jack Doyle, the article's author, put in, the next two lines are:
"Researchers at The University of Leeds also concluded that the population of the UK could reach nearly 80million by the middle of this century.
Higher birth rates and people living longer as well as immigration would pushed the population to 78.8million by 2051."
Clearly Mr Doyle is still learning his trade at the Mail and has made the mistake of both qualifying the 80m figure and of allowing that something other than immigration might be a causal factor behind the population growth. No doubt he'll learn his lesson and be parroting the house style fluently before soon.
Compared to both these efforts, Desmond's other 'newspaper' the Star's article was positively wishy washy: 'Changing Faces Of Britain 2050'! Sounds like something out of the national Geographic. Yet none of them managed to plumb the depths of racist stupidity that the Press and Journal, an Aberdeen-based DC Thompson publication, stooped to: 'Immigrants to make up 20% of UK population'. Priceless.
So what about this research project, which we assume none of these well-paid 'journalists' have bothered to read? The Economic and Social Research Council-financed project is part an on-going effort by the Leeds University geography department to "understand demographic changes that the UK’s local ethnic populations presently experience and will experience in the future."
"We are investigating how differences in ethnic fertility and mortality shape current and future population trends, how international migration and internal migration impact the size and ethnic composition of local populations. The project team will build projections of ethnic group populations for local areas and use the projection model to explore alternative futures."
This involves the modelling of 5 separate projections based on different sets of assumptions for mortality/fertility/immigration/emigration for 16 ethnic groups, which inevitably display hugely varying end results, even when allowing for 'aggregation effects'. The end point of this modelling is to produce a form of population projection that takes into account differences in the dynamics of the various ethnic groupings selected, the 2 so-called UPTAP (Understanding Population Trends and Processes) models.
And inevitably, the media have focused on the 'worst case scenario', the (UPTAP-EF - emigration flow) model that produces the highest population growth, rather than their other (UPTAP-ER - emigration rate) model. In fact, as the paper points out "UPTAP-EF and UPTAP-ER produce total populations in 2051 that differ by 9.1 millions."The reasons for these differences and the merits of the different projects are too complex to go into here but we would like to highlight one of the report's conclusions, where it compares its results with previously released ONS estimates for ethnic groups in 2007 [i.e. NPP 2008].
"We compare the latest in this series, for mid-2007, with our projections for mid-2007. The differences over just six years are considerable. Our figure for the England population is 359 thousand greater than that of ONS or 0.70% greater. Our estimates for the White population are larger than those of ONS while our ethnic minority estimates are lower. Some of the lower figures for Asian or Asian British groups or Black or Black British groups may be a result of introducing ethnic specific mortality as these groups had lower life expectancies than the total population.
That we should obtain such different estimates over a very short period is concerning and will need to be investigated in detail. The differences serve to highlight that there is a great deal of uncertainty in estimating the population broken down by ethnicity."
* For other analysis of the Express' obvious racist intent see: Five Chinese Crackers, Enemies of Reason and Tabloid Watch.
Monday, 12 July 2010
Brook House IRC: A Sorry Tale
In the latest of a long line of condemnatory inspection reports on the running of the detention estate, Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, has severely criticised the management and staff of outsourcing privateers G4S who run the category B prison-standard Brook House detention centre for running "one of the least safe immigration detention facilities we have inspected, with deeply frustrated detainees and demoralised staff, some of whom lacked the necessary confidence to manage those in their care."
The report highlights serious failings in a number of areas, including bullying; "the worst results ever seen in the IRC estate about levels of safety"; inappropriate use of force by "demoralised staff" on "deeply frustrated detainees"; inappropriate use of isolation in defiance of Detention Centre rules; a lack of purposeful activity; the widespread availability of drugs; problematic access legal advice and representation; a lack of confidence in the complaints system amongst detainees; "clearly inadequate" mental health care; restricted access to education and exercise; and a lack of welfare provision and systematic pre-release support, and goes on to make 188 separate recommendations on how the centre's regime should be improved.
At the core of these failings are a number of problems inherent in the way the detention system operates. Firstly, Brook House was originally designed to operate as a high security short-term handling centre for detainees including ex-prisoners facing imminent deportation. Yet many detainees are held there for far longer than originally envisaged, the routine experience across the detention estate. "The challenge at Brook House was significantly compounded by poor design which built in boredom by providing too little purposeful activity on the erroneous assumption that detainees would be staying only a few days." Thus, 41% had been in Brook House more than 6 months and 15% more than 1 year. The poor design, coupled with the prolonged length of detention, also had a direct effect on the lack of activities available to detainees, and therefore had a direct knock-on effect on discipline.
Another problem, which is common to all facets of the detention estate, is the inevitable bureaucratic ineptitude of such systems where, for example, ten Zimbabweans were found to be being held at the centre, despite the suspension of enforced removals to Harare. One of these had been in detention for three years and four months. Such problems can be laid directly at the door of the UK Borders Agency. However, many of the problems the Inspectorate found at Brook House were as a direct result of the way G4S operates.
G4S has done very nicely out of running parts of the last year, contributing a tidy sum to the £500m in pre-tax profit it made last year on an overall group turnover of £7bn. And like most other outsourcing companies, it maximises its profits by cutting its running costs to the bone: employing poorly trained staff on the lowest wages at at the lowest staffing levels they can get away with. The consequence is a high staff turnover and low morale. This was exacerbated at Brook House by what the report terms "an outbreak of serious disorder the previous summer", an incident that the company and UKBA played down at the time.
The result is what appears to be a general lack of communication between staff and prisoners and "a high level of spontaneous use of force in response to incidents on wings and in the separation unit", something that appears to relate directly to the staff's own perceived lack of control over the detainees. The inspection also found "[t]here was little confidence in the complaints system. There were some long delays in replies to complaints, which were often unhelpful and likely to frustrate." Compared to the standard detention estate comparator, Brook House residents made significantly more complaints 39% vs. 33%, but only 16% (4) of the 25 non-English speaking respondents (against 44% of the 129 English speakers). This appears in large part due to the fact that, whilst complaint forms were available in 8 languages, the actual instructions on how to complain were only available in English.*
Detainees and visitors to Brook House have complained about the way the centre operates from day one and nothing much has changed. In fact, the situation has deteriorated and it's time that the government cut its losses and closed this expensive white elephant. It has the perfect excuse: give G4S the elbow and save some of our hard earned taxes.
* Additionally, "significantly fewer non-English speakers (32%) than English speakers (56%) reported being treated well or very well by escort staff and 36% compared with 52% by reception staff. Significantly more non-English speakers (80%) than English speakers (66%) reported feeling unsafe."
The report highlights serious failings in a number of areas, including bullying; "the worst results ever seen in the IRC estate about levels of safety"; inappropriate use of force by "demoralised staff" on "deeply frustrated detainees"; inappropriate use of isolation in defiance of Detention Centre rules; a lack of purposeful activity; the widespread availability of drugs; problematic access legal advice and representation; a lack of confidence in the complaints system amongst detainees; "clearly inadequate" mental health care; restricted access to education and exercise; and a lack of welfare provision and systematic pre-release support, and goes on to make 188 separate recommendations on how the centre's regime should be improved.
At the core of these failings are a number of problems inherent in the way the detention system operates. Firstly, Brook House was originally designed to operate as a high security short-term handling centre for detainees including ex-prisoners facing imminent deportation. Yet many detainees are held there for far longer than originally envisaged, the routine experience across the detention estate. "The challenge at Brook House was significantly compounded by poor design which built in boredom by providing too little purposeful activity on the erroneous assumption that detainees would be staying only a few days." Thus, 41% had been in Brook House more than 6 months and 15% more than 1 year. The poor design, coupled with the prolonged length of detention, also had a direct effect on the lack of activities available to detainees, and therefore had a direct knock-on effect on discipline.
Another problem, which is common to all facets of the detention estate, is the inevitable bureaucratic ineptitude of such systems where, for example, ten Zimbabweans were found to be being held at the centre, despite the suspension of enforced removals to Harare. One of these had been in detention for three years and four months. Such problems can be laid directly at the door of the UK Borders Agency. However, many of the problems the Inspectorate found at Brook House were as a direct result of the way G4S operates.
G4S has done very nicely out of running parts of the last year, contributing a tidy sum to the £500m in pre-tax profit it made last year on an overall group turnover of £7bn. And like most other outsourcing companies, it maximises its profits by cutting its running costs to the bone: employing poorly trained staff on the lowest wages at at the lowest staffing levels they can get away with. The consequence is a high staff turnover and low morale. This was exacerbated at Brook House by what the report terms "an outbreak of serious disorder the previous summer", an incident that the company and UKBA played down at the time.
The result is what appears to be a general lack of communication between staff and prisoners and "a high level of spontaneous use of force in response to incidents on wings and in the separation unit", something that appears to relate directly to the staff's own perceived lack of control over the detainees. The inspection also found "[t]here was little confidence in the complaints system. There were some long delays in replies to complaints, which were often unhelpful and likely to frustrate." Compared to the standard detention estate comparator, Brook House residents made significantly more complaints 39% vs. 33%, but only 16% (4) of the 25 non-English speaking respondents (against 44% of the 129 English speakers). This appears in large part due to the fact that, whilst complaint forms were available in 8 languages, the actual instructions on how to complain were only available in English.*
Detainees and visitors to Brook House have complained about the way the centre operates from day one and nothing much has changed. In fact, the situation has deteriorated and it's time that the government cut its losses and closed this expensive white elephant. It has the perfect excuse: give G4S the elbow and save some of our hard earned taxes.
* Additionally, "significantly fewer non-English speakers (32%) than English speakers (56%) reported being treated well or very well by escort staff and 36% compared with 52% by reception staff. Significantly more non-English speakers (80%) than English speakers (66%) reported feeling unsafe."
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
East Timor Unlikely To Host 'Regional Processing Centre'
East Timor appears to be rather cool on the idea of Australia fobbing off its problem with 'boat people' off on to the country. Its Deputy Prime Minister Jose Luis Guterres has already said that it is very likely the proposal would be rejected "because we don't have [the right political and social] conditions in East Timor." Also Fretilin MP Jose Teixeira has said his party did not support the proposal, adding that the president Jose Ramos-Horta had no constitutional power when it came to immigration issues.
Now the Law Council of Australia has warned the Federal Government that its plan to process asylum seekers in East Timor will be a legal minefield. For example, what level of legal advice would be available to asylum seekers under its new policy, though this may not be a problem post-election if the opposition Liberals get in as they have already said they will withdraw legal support for asylum seekers. They also prefer going back to the Naruu option, the island used in the original 'Pacific Solution' and that is not a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention.
Australian PM Julia Gillard, who has promised to "relentlessly pursue" her idea of a new off-shore processing centre has already been in touch with the New Zealand and Indonesian governments to support her 'regional solution' but is facing strong opposition in New Zealand, as well as her own country, to the idea. Her position however has been strengthened by the UNHCR's callow decision to give into pressure from the Sri Lankan government and countries like Australia who have lobbied for a change in the organisation's advice on the treatment of Tamil asylum seekers.
On Monday the UNHCR issued new 'Eligibility Guidelines For The Sri Lankan Asylum–Seekers', which state that: "In light of the improved human rights and security situation in Sri Lanka, there is no longer a need for group-based protection mechanisms or for a presumption of eligibility for Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity originating from the north of the country," and they are therefore ''no longer in need of international protection under broader refugee criteria or complementary forms of protection solely on the basis of risk or indiscriminate harm.'' In light of this the government will lift its three-month freeze on processing asylum seekers from Sri Lanka today, and those stuck in the system will no doubt be fast-tracked for return.
Now the Law Council of Australia has warned the Federal Government that its plan to process asylum seekers in East Timor will be a legal minefield. For example, what level of legal advice would be available to asylum seekers under its new policy, though this may not be a problem post-election if the opposition Liberals get in as they have already said they will withdraw legal support for asylum seekers. They also prefer going back to the Naruu option, the island used in the original 'Pacific Solution' and that is not a signatory of the UN Refugee Convention.
Australian PM Julia Gillard, who has promised to "relentlessly pursue" her idea of a new off-shore processing centre has already been in touch with the New Zealand and Indonesian governments to support her 'regional solution' but is facing strong opposition in New Zealand, as well as her own country, to the idea. Her position however has been strengthened by the UNHCR's callow decision to give into pressure from the Sri Lankan government and countries like Australia who have lobbied for a change in the organisation's advice on the treatment of Tamil asylum seekers.
On Monday the UNHCR issued new 'Eligibility Guidelines For The Sri Lankan Asylum–Seekers', which state that: "In light of the improved human rights and security situation in Sri Lanka, there is no longer a need for group-based protection mechanisms or for a presumption of eligibility for Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity originating from the north of the country," and they are therefore ''no longer in need of international protection under broader refugee criteria or complementary forms of protection solely on the basis of risk or indiscriminate harm.'' In light of this the government will lift its three-month freeze on processing asylum seekers from Sri Lanka today, and those stuck in the system will no doubt be fast-tracked for return.
Queer Sort Of Asylum Policy
The High Court today is due to rule on the case of two gay refused asylum seekers who have taken the government to court over their blatantly discriminatory asylums policy. We say blatantly discriminatory not just because a set of criteria are being applied to gay and lesbian people that is not being applied to people who, say, fear persecution in the home countries because of their political or religious convictions, but because this policy is doubly discriminatory.
Being gay or lesbian is not a 'lifestyle choice', which ones political or religious affiliations effectively are (however 'sincerely' these 'beliefs' are held). And deciding whether or not to avoid that persecution by keeping one's 'affiliations' secret is therefore a moral choice. Whereas behaving so as to conceal ones sexuality is wholly different, and current Home Office policy is tantamount to telling someone who has been persecuted because of the colour of their skin that they so go home and avoid the racial discrimination they have been suffering by using skin whitening compounds!
This is just another way of the government narrowing the criteria of who is and who isn't a 'good' migrants and further derogating itself from both the letter and the spirit of the international treaties and conventions on asylum that it is a signatory to. A case of any excuse will do as long as it achieves the desired ends, keeping as many 'bad' foreigners out as possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The on-line version of the Evening Standard has a comment equating the case of the Iranian asylum seeker's situation to those 'committing' adultery in his country, saying adulterers have to be discrete in order to avoid being stoned if caught and that the same is true of gay people (who wish not to be 'found out'). He then goes on to compound his stupidity by going on to say that in order for him to settle in some mythical "totally gay country", he would lie about not being straight in order to survive and nobody could prove he wasn't queer. Unless of course he was caught having sex with a woman.
This in a nutshell is the rationale of the government's discriminatory anti-queer position; if you don't step into the light no one can tell if you are different or not. You can continue to be gay, just don't risk having any sort of sexual relationship.
STOP PRESS:
The High Court has found in favour of "T" and "J", with the judgement saying "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is."
Being gay or lesbian is not a 'lifestyle choice', which ones political or religious affiliations effectively are (however 'sincerely' these 'beliefs' are held). And deciding whether or not to avoid that persecution by keeping one's 'affiliations' secret is therefore a moral choice. Whereas behaving so as to conceal ones sexuality is wholly different, and current Home Office policy is tantamount to telling someone who has been persecuted because of the colour of their skin that they so go home and avoid the racial discrimination they have been suffering by using skin whitening compounds!
This is just another way of the government narrowing the criteria of who is and who isn't a 'good' migrants and further derogating itself from both the letter and the spirit of the international treaties and conventions on asylum that it is a signatory to. A case of any excuse will do as long as it achieves the desired ends, keeping as many 'bad' foreigners out as possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The on-line version of the Evening Standard has a comment equating the case of the Iranian asylum seeker's situation to those 'committing' adultery in his country, saying adulterers have to be discrete in order to avoid being stoned if caught and that the same is true of gay people (who wish not to be 'found out'). He then goes on to compound his stupidity by going on to say that in order for him to settle in some mythical "totally gay country", he would lie about not being straight in order to survive and nobody could prove he wasn't queer. Unless of course he was caught having sex with a woman.
This in a nutshell is the rationale of the government's discriminatory anti-queer position; if you don't step into the light no one can tell if you are different or not. You can continue to be gay, just don't risk having any sort of sexual relationship.
STOP PRESS:
The High Court has found in favour of "T" and "J", with the judgement saying "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is."
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Australia To Reintroduce 'Pacific Solution'...
...Or At Least A New 'Improved' Version Of It
We haven't mentioned Australia in recent posts but that doesn't mean that we haven't ben keeping a weather eye on what has been happening in that part of the southern hemisphere. There has been the massive increase in the numbers of detained migrants crammed onto Christmas Island, many of whom have been transferred to the mainland Curtin detention centre in Western Australia, a ex-mining camp widely referred to in the Australian press as a 'hell hole', and there is even talk of reopening the notorious Woomera camp. The rampant overcrowding and ever increasing length of time spent in detention has also led to a massive increase in incidence of self-harm amongst the detainees.
2010 is also an election year in Australia and this has lead not only to the anti-immigration arms race but also to the palace coup that saw Julie Gillard oust Kevin Rudd as prime minister, who was seen to be 'not tough enough' on the 'boat people' despite his 3-month long suspension of the processing of asylum visas for Afghan and Sri Lankan refugees. This, along with general governmental intransigence on asylum issues, was meant to act as a deterrent to more boats arriving as well as acting as a electoral boost but has merely become a major cause of the aforementioned overcrowding.
The Liberal (sic) opposition have been having a field day out of all this, with Tony Abbott, Liberal party leader, proposing to bring back a revamped version of the 'Pacific Solution'. So much so that the Labor party had haemorrhaged support to the Liberals (42% of Labor supporters apparently going for the 'PS'). Now that Gilliard is in discussions with the East Timorese President Jose Ramos Horta to use the island as a new asylum processing centre, the [arty is loosing left wing support to the Greens. Sneakily, Gillard has sought to involve New Zealand in what she is terming a 'regional processing centre', thus trying to defuse opposition within her own party whilst still hoping to remove "the incentive, once and for all, for the people smugglers to send boats to Australia." Shit, it has even won over the UNHCR and been cautiously welcomed by 'refugee advocates' as it involves the UN and, unlike Naruu which was the locus of the original 'PS' camp, East Timor is a signatory to the Refugees Convention.
We haven't mentioned Australia in recent posts but that doesn't mean that we haven't ben keeping a weather eye on what has been happening in that part of the southern hemisphere. There has been the massive increase in the numbers of detained migrants crammed onto Christmas Island, many of whom have been transferred to the mainland Curtin detention centre in Western Australia, a ex-mining camp widely referred to in the Australian press as a 'hell hole', and there is even talk of reopening the notorious Woomera camp. The rampant overcrowding and ever increasing length of time spent in detention has also led to a massive increase in incidence of self-harm amongst the detainees.
2010 is also an election year in Australia and this has lead not only to the anti-immigration arms race but also to the palace coup that saw Julie Gillard oust Kevin Rudd as prime minister, who was seen to be 'not tough enough' on the 'boat people' despite his 3-month long suspension of the processing of asylum visas for Afghan and Sri Lankan refugees. This, along with general governmental intransigence on asylum issues, was meant to act as a deterrent to more boats arriving as well as acting as a electoral boost but has merely become a major cause of the aforementioned overcrowding.
The Liberal (sic) opposition have been having a field day out of all this, with Tony Abbott, Liberal party leader, proposing to bring back a revamped version of the 'Pacific Solution'. So much so that the Labor party had haemorrhaged support to the Liberals (42% of Labor supporters apparently going for the 'PS'). Now that Gilliard is in discussions with the East Timorese President Jose Ramos Horta to use the island as a new asylum processing centre, the [arty is loosing left wing support to the Greens. Sneakily, Gillard has sought to involve New Zealand in what she is terming a 'regional processing centre', thus trying to defuse opposition within her own party whilst still hoping to remove "the incentive, once and for all, for the people smugglers to send boats to Australia." Shit, it has even won over the UNHCR and been cautiously welcomed by 'refugee advocates' as it involves the UN and, unlike Naruu which was the locus of the original 'PS' camp, East Timor is a signatory to the Refugees Convention.
Tory Anti-Immigration Taliban Out In Force
The East Midlands anti-immigration Taliban were out in force yesterday in parliament introducing two bill designed to save 'our precious bodily fluids' from being 'sapped and impurified' by the introduction of 'nasty foreigners'. Philip Hollobone and Peter Bone, Tory MPs for the neighbouring Kettering and Wellingborough constituencies, led a cohort of right-wing Tory MPs* who clearly consider themselves the true voice of Torydom, that have put forward a swathe of Presentation Bills on such subjects as the repeal of the Human Rights Act, a referendum for withdrawal from the EU, a return to compulsory national service, the right to kill burglars, a 'taxation freedom day' and the abolition of the TV licence.
Hollobone is the bandwagon-jumper responsible for the Islamophobic Face Covering (Regulations) private member's bill, which had its first Commons' reading last week, and his latest effort is the Return of Asylum Seekers (Applications from Certain Countries) Bill. This law is aimed to "provide for the immediate return of asylum seekers to countries designated as safe", a particular bugbear, nay obsession, of his. Though the actual text of the bill has not been published (as far as we know - at least we have been unable to find it on the web), the plan appears to be to extend the 'non-suspensive' provision of section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to all refused asylum claims and to get people straight on planes back to their countries of origin irrespective of whether there are any binding agreements between the UK government and the governments of those countries. Basically mass forced collective deportations, counter the EU and international law.
Added to that, Sven-lookalike Peter Bone added his own but even more bizarre prospective law, supported by a ragbag of die-hard Thatcherites, entitled the Human Trafficking (Border Control) Bill to require "border control officers to stop and interview potential victims of trafficking notwithstanding entitlements under European Union law to free movement of persons". Whilst the meaning of this law is somewhat obscure (no available text again), it would seem that Bone has become jealous of the Arizona legislation allowing police to stop people who look like Mexicans and check their immigration status and might be seeking to introduce his own particular version of this via this effectively 'Trojan horse' legislation. After all, everyone knows how what at first appears to be a new apparently narrowly focused law is progressively adapted and widened to further erode civil liberties. This could just be one such pieces of 'slippery slope' legislation.
* Including fruit loops such as Chichester MP Christopher Chope and the aptly named Mark Reckless and David Nuttall. Apparently, Hollobone, Bone and Chope took it in relays overnight on Sunday to secure first place in the queue to introduce 28 right-whinge bills that look likely to drive a stake into the LibCon alliance of the undead at some point in the near future.
Hollobone is the bandwagon-jumper responsible for the Islamophobic Face Covering (Regulations) private member's bill, which had its first Commons' reading last week, and his latest effort is the Return of Asylum Seekers (Applications from Certain Countries) Bill. This law is aimed to "provide for the immediate return of asylum seekers to countries designated as safe", a particular bugbear, nay obsession, of his. Though the actual text of the bill has not been published (as far as we know - at least we have been unable to find it on the web), the plan appears to be to extend the 'non-suspensive' provision of section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to all refused asylum claims and to get people straight on planes back to their countries of origin irrespective of whether there are any binding agreements between the UK government and the governments of those countries. Basically mass forced collective deportations, counter the EU and international law.
Added to that, Sven-lookalike Peter Bone added his own but even more bizarre prospective law, supported by a ragbag of die-hard Thatcherites, entitled the Human Trafficking (Border Control) Bill to require "border control officers to stop and interview potential victims of trafficking notwithstanding entitlements under European Union law to free movement of persons". Whilst the meaning of this law is somewhat obscure (no available text again), it would seem that Bone has become jealous of the Arizona legislation allowing police to stop people who look like Mexicans and check their immigration status and might be seeking to introduce his own particular version of this via this effectively 'Trojan horse' legislation. After all, everyone knows how what at first appears to be a new apparently narrowly focused law is progressively adapted and widened to further erode civil liberties. This could just be one such pieces of 'slippery slope' legislation.
* Including fruit loops such as Chichester MP Christopher Chope and the aptly named Mark Reckless and David Nuttall. Apparently, Hollobone, Bone and Chope took it in relays overnight on Sunday to secure first place in the queue to introduce 28 right-whinge bills that look likely to drive a stake into the LibCon alliance of the undead at some point in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)