Well. I thought my "post-election thoughts" post was going to be the last on this blog for a while. But lets face it, I was never quite going to be able to resist just a few comments on what has been happening over the last few days.
Just a few highlights of what we have gotten out of this godawful dogs dinner:
- The Lib Dems have signed up to the unworkable, draconian and xenophobic 'cap on non EU migration' policy. Well done guys.
- We have a promised referendum on Alternative Vote, which is not proportional and (whether won or lost) will probably bury the chances for a truly fair voting system to the Commons for a generation.
- Eric Pickles is in charge of the CLG, which means he is in charge of housing policy. Thousands and thousands of people are going to find it even harder to find a roof over their head which they can afford.
- There are going to be massive, "shock doctrine" style cuts to the public sector, starting almost immediately. The deadline appears to be the emergency budget, which has been declared to be 50 days away. At least £6 billion will go immediately, with a lot more to follow over the next year. That's massive cuts in public sector pay, benefits, public services - and no cuts to Trident, and no withdrawal from the £4 billion murderfest that is our occupation of Afghanistan.
All this will come to pass - if we let it. Because this governent does not represent a majority of the people. Millions of Lib Dem voters thought they were voting against the Tories, not for them. Lets not wait for years to punish these complacent, right-wing 'tighten your belts, we're all in this together' smug hypocrites at the next election. Lets punish them now. Time to organise.
Showing posts with label migration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label migration. Show all posts
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Another Consensus - On Asylum
I could probably spend the rest of the time from now until the General Election pointing to every way in which the establishment political consensus is dehumanising, immoral and just plain wrong.
Since I'd probably run out of time before I finished, here's just one more example - the continuing attempts to make poverty and deprivation obligatory for asylum seekers. Hot on the heels of the Government's despicable decision to cut asylum seeker benefits to just £5 a day, Rowenna Davis has written this piece on the experiences of one asylum seeker, contrasting it with the view at Conservative Party Conference.
I doubt anyone in the Cabinet, or Shadow Cabinet, has any idea how they would live on £5 a day - but they are happy to proscribe it for others. Disgraceful.
Since I'd probably run out of time before I finished, here's just one more example - the continuing attempts to make poverty and deprivation obligatory for asylum seekers. Hot on the heels of the Government's despicable decision to cut asylum seeker benefits to just £5 a day, Rowenna Davis has written this piece on the experiences of one asylum seeker, contrasting it with the view at Conservative Party Conference.
I doubt anyone in the Cabinet, or Shadow Cabinet, has any idea how they would live on £5 a day - but they are happy to proscribe it for others. Disgraceful.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Caroline Lucas Reacts To Calais Clearances
My outrage at headlines like this has been tempered slightly by the knowledge that at least one political party in this country is standing up for basic human rights and decency. Caroline Lucas, as ever, said it eloquently:
- British and French governments’ plot to deport ‘Jungle’ asylum seekers breaks EU human rights law, says Green Party leader
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, today responded angrily to news that French police have raided the ‘Jungle’ camps in Calais, reportedly detaining 278 people – 132 children of whom are said to be children.
Police have swooped on a squalid tented area known as ‘The Jungle’ outside Calais, home to hundreds of refugees and migrants from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia. Around a fifth of them are thought to be children, living in desperate and dangerous conditions, sleeping rough, with little access to sanitation or resources.
Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP said:
“Today’s mass clearance and destruction of the ‘Jungle’ camps by the French authorities, involving the detention of hundreds of refugees, is simply unacceptable – and must be condemned by the international community.
“Rather than fulfilling their responsibilities to seekers of asylum under both EU and international law, the French and British governments are turning a blind eye to the suffering taking place on their own doorsteps. Home Secretary Alan Johnson‘s glee in the wake of this aggressive police raid is particularly disturbing.
“The plan for mass deportations of these refugees rides roughshod over the European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Geneva Convention. And given that so many facing expulsion are children, the plans may also breach the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
"This short term ‘solution’ is not only inhumane – it will not work. The French are not playing their part in allowing people to claim asylum in Calais, and must commit to making the official procedures for seeking asylum more accessible to those in need. Equally, other EU Member states must recognise their duty to share the responsibility.”
The majority of refugees in the ‘Jungle’ have had no contact with official authorities since entering the EU. Many face a risk of deportation before they have even been interviewed in order to determine whether they are seeking asylum and are, therefore, protected by EU asylum law. They are also often at the mercy of ruthless people traffickers within the camps.
Caroline Lucas MEP concluded:
“Many migrants into France and the UK are fleeing in part from the dire consequences of the West’s foreign policy mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given this reality, you would hope that these governments would take their responsibilities to the international community more seriously.
“It is disgusting that vulnerable people from some of the world’s most troubled countries are treated so inhumanely on European soil. Many residents in the camps are genuine asylum-seekers and not illegal immigrants. It is crucial that those people fleeing persecution and war have free access to the correct information so that they know they can make a genuine claim for asylum.”
In a letter to the European Commission back in July, the UK’s Green MEPs called for an immediate suspension of plans to deport around 1,800 individuals from the ‘Jungle’, warning that the planned action – being taken jointly by the French and British authorities under the Evian Agreement – would be in direct breach of EU and international law on human rights and refugees.
- British and French governments’ plot to deport ‘Jungle’ asylum seekers breaks EU human rights law, says Green Party leader
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, today responded angrily to news that French police have raided the ‘Jungle’ camps in Calais, reportedly detaining 278 people – 132 children of whom are said to be children.
Police have swooped on a squalid tented area known as ‘The Jungle’ outside Calais, home to hundreds of refugees and migrants from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia. Around a fifth of them are thought to be children, living in desperate and dangerous conditions, sleeping rough, with little access to sanitation or resources.
Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP said:
“Today’s mass clearance and destruction of the ‘Jungle’ camps by the French authorities, involving the detention of hundreds of refugees, is simply unacceptable – and must be condemned by the international community.
“Rather than fulfilling their responsibilities to seekers of asylum under both EU and international law, the French and British governments are turning a blind eye to the suffering taking place on their own doorsteps. Home Secretary Alan Johnson‘s glee in the wake of this aggressive police raid is particularly disturbing.
“The plan for mass deportations of these refugees rides roughshod over the European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Geneva Convention. And given that so many facing expulsion are children, the plans may also breach the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
"This short term ‘solution’ is not only inhumane – it will not work. The French are not playing their part in allowing people to claim asylum in Calais, and must commit to making the official procedures for seeking asylum more accessible to those in need. Equally, other EU Member states must recognise their duty to share the responsibility.”
The majority of refugees in the ‘Jungle’ have had no contact with official authorities since entering the EU. Many face a risk of deportation before they have even been interviewed in order to determine whether they are seeking asylum and are, therefore, protected by EU asylum law. They are also often at the mercy of ruthless people traffickers within the camps.
Caroline Lucas MEP concluded:
“Many migrants into France and the UK are fleeing in part from the dire consequences of the West’s foreign policy mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given this reality, you would hope that these governments would take their responsibilities to the international community more seriously.
“It is disgusting that vulnerable people from some of the world’s most troubled countries are treated so inhumanely on European soil. Many residents in the camps are genuine asylum-seekers and not illegal immigrants. It is crucial that those people fleeing persecution and war have free access to the correct information so that they know they can make a genuine claim for asylum.”
In a letter to the European Commission back in July, the UK’s Green MEPs called for an immediate suspension of plans to deport around 1,800 individuals from the ‘Jungle’, warning that the planned action – being taken jointly by the French and British authorities under the Evian Agreement – would be in direct breach of EU and international law on human rights and refugees.
Monday, 3 August 2009
New Labour's Thought Police
I'm not usually one for the hyperbole and overstatement that takes up space in so many political blogs. Right-wing bloggers castigate anyone who puts forward the scientically proven fact of climate change as a conspirator. Left-wing bloggers refer to the Labour Party as 'ZaNuLieBore' and so on. All a bit tiresome, really.
However - I really, honestly, think that the phrase 'thought police' is not an overreaction to this latest piece of genius from the Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas.
A few choice extracts:
New migrants who demonstrate an "active disregard for UK values", possibly including protesting at homecoming parades of troops from Afghanistan, could find their applications for a British passport blocked under new citizenship proposals published today.
But migrants who contribute to the "democratic life of the country" by canvassing for political parties could find the application process speeded up so that it takes one year instead of three.
The Home Office consultation paper proposes a new category of "probationary citizen" whose application for a British passport can be speeded up or slowed down depending on the points system.
What, exactly is a contribution to the "democratic life" of the country, Mr Woolas? Is it, in your mind, strangely similar to whatever you happen to agree with? Is it, perhaps, determined by whoever is in government at the time? Is this, in fact, a pitiful attempt to pick on the more vulnerable elements of our society, in order to get them to step into line and stop speaking their conscience?
Unbelievable.
Of course, it's worth saying that while the most ridiculous elements of what the Minister had to say have been rightly picked apart today, even more worrying is the underlying reasoning behind the entire proposal. A points system for immigrants, reducing people and human circumstance to their qualifications, education and wealth, should be abhorrent in any sensible society. People should not, must not, be measured simply by the opportunities they have had in life or the pound sterling contribution they might make to our national GDP. They should, instead, be viewed as human beings - people who may have made a thousand contributions to our society that cannot be measured by economics or the crude yardstick of the state.
For the record, if we were forced to have a points system, I'd view having the courage and committment to stand up and protest about what you believe in to be a positive attribute. It's no surprise that Mr Woolas, a time server of the lowest order, takes the opposite view.
ADDENDUM:
This is just one extract from the interview itself. Has the Government decided to derogate from the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and not told anyone?
Interviewer: Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport, you can have one and when you've got one, you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then, don't?
Woolas: In essence, yes. In essence, we are saying that the test that applies to the citizen should be broader than the test that applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that that's a fair point of view, that if you want to come to our country and settle, that you should show that adherence. And incidently, I think part of the mistake in this debate, in the public comment, is the assumption that the migrant doesn't accept that point of view. The vast majority, in my experience, do want to show that they are aspiring to intergrate and to support our way of life.
It appears Mr Woolas doesn't understand that the freedom to protest is part of 'our way of life'. Maybe he should leave the country.
However - I really, honestly, think that the phrase 'thought police' is not an overreaction to this latest piece of genius from the Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas.
A few choice extracts:
New migrants who demonstrate an "active disregard for UK values", possibly including protesting at homecoming parades of troops from Afghanistan, could find their applications for a British passport blocked under new citizenship proposals published today.
But migrants who contribute to the "democratic life of the country" by canvassing for political parties could find the application process speeded up so that it takes one year instead of three.
The Home Office consultation paper proposes a new category of "probationary citizen" whose application for a British passport can be speeded up or slowed down depending on the points system.
What, exactly is a contribution to the "democratic life" of the country, Mr Woolas? Is it, in your mind, strangely similar to whatever you happen to agree with? Is it, perhaps, determined by whoever is in government at the time? Is this, in fact, a pitiful attempt to pick on the more vulnerable elements of our society, in order to get them to step into line and stop speaking their conscience?
Unbelievable.
Of course, it's worth saying that while the most ridiculous elements of what the Minister had to say have been rightly picked apart today, even more worrying is the underlying reasoning behind the entire proposal. A points system for immigrants, reducing people and human circumstance to their qualifications, education and wealth, should be abhorrent in any sensible society. People should not, must not, be measured simply by the opportunities they have had in life or the pound sterling contribution they might make to our national GDP. They should, instead, be viewed as human beings - people who may have made a thousand contributions to our society that cannot be measured by economics or the crude yardstick of the state.
For the record, if we were forced to have a points system, I'd view having the courage and committment to stand up and protest about what you believe in to be a positive attribute. It's no surprise that Mr Woolas, a time server of the lowest order, takes the opposite view.
ADDENDUM:
This is just one extract from the interview itself. Has the Government decided to derogate from the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and not told anyone?
Interviewer: Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport, you can have one and when you've got one, you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then, don't?
Woolas: In essence, yes. In essence, we are saying that the test that applies to the citizen should be broader than the test that applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that that's a fair point of view, that if you want to come to our country and settle, that you should show that adherence. And incidently, I think part of the mistake in this debate, in the public comment, is the assumption that the migrant doesn't accept that point of view. The vast majority, in my experience, do want to show that they are aspiring to intergrate and to support our way of life.
It appears Mr Woolas doesn't understand that the freedom to protest is part of 'our way of life'. Maybe he should leave the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
