Blog

Justice and Peace Scotland’s vice chair, Marian Pallister, reflects on the way the Westminster Government is rocking the boat.

I watched the first of Steve McQueen’s powerful and moving plays on BBC1 last Sunday. Mangrove tells the real-life story of a Black community in London that was harassed by racially prejudiced police officers. When the community tried to stage a peaceful protest, they were kettled and physically attacked while mass arrests were made. The ‘Mangrove Nine’ fought for justice in court – and won.

Fifty years on, and another legal battle with racist overtones has just been fought, again in London. This time, it is the Home Office itself that has come under scrutiny, not what in time would be labelled an ‘institutionally racist’ police force. 

In 1970, the police put the Mangrove Nine in the dock and the Mangrove Nine showed the charges and evidence to not only be false but in some instances downright ludicrous.

In 2020, three potential victims of trafficking brought a case to the High Court to prevent their deportation from the UK. The Eritrean and two Sudanese defendants had sought asylum, were put in immigration detention, and would have been on planes back to the hell they had fled if they hadn’t hired lawyers who were able to show they were the potential victims of trafficking. 

Mr Justice Fordham, who heard the case, said: “It is strongly arguable that the home secretary is acting unlawfully in curtailing asylum screening interviews by asking a narrower set of questions than those that are identified in the published policy guidance.”

I’m shocked by what the potential outcome could have been. 

Since Theresa May was Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016, that nasty phrase ‘hostile environment’ has wormed its way into the national consciousness, until some – influenced also, perhaps, by headlines that talk of “hordes” and “swarms” of refugees and asylum seekers, suggesting the country is “swamped” by these unfortunate people – can’t see past a metaphorical Trump-like wall erected on the Kent beaches.

Priti Patel has followed in her predecessor’s footsteps with what could be argued is an even greater lack of sympathy. And it looks – though I am no legal expert – as if Mr Justice Fordham has found her out at her own game.

He says she is departing from her own published policy to identify victims of trafficking by asking questions about their journeys to the UK. The three who brought the case to the High Court confirmed that no such questions – which would have identified them as potential victims of trafficking – had been asked of them.

The Home Office says that’s because of COVID – that because of the pandemic (really?) asylum seekers have been asked what Mr Justice Fordham called “a narrower set of questions than those identified in the published policy guidance”. And that, he said, is arguably acting unlawfully.

Pope Francis urges us in Fratelli Tutti to engage with our brothers and sisters, to cultivate a culture of encounter. Surely we could at least ask the right questions of folk who’ve escaped nightmare situations, and not blame COVID for skimping on life and death situations.  Such skimping is tantamount to signing death warrants – where’s the justice in that?

Zambian human rights and environmental journalist Mike Mwenda suggests we all get involved to end violence against women and children.  Weekly blog.

FEMALE genital mutilation (FGM) is one of the most gruesome horrors that millions of women carry with them every day. It involves changing or cutting female genitals and there is no medical reason to justify it. Governments, traditional leaders, the church and civil society organisations must constantly work together to end this barbaric practice that mutilates women’s bodies.

Almost every day in my work as a human rights journalist, I hear of thousands of young girls and women across the world forced to undergo the ‘cut’ against their will. At least 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone a form of FGM. If current trends continue, 15 million additional girls between ages 15 and 19 will be subjected to it by 2030.

Tragically, none will ever forget the tremendous physical pain and psychological terror. Their experience will forever remain raw and fresh.

I strongly believe that FGM should never be treated as ‘women’s issue’. It is a violation against human rights, and human rights issues are also men’s issues. We need to encourage men to protect their daughters. We must go on raising awareness of this injustice. If we can end such archaic practices, it will bring us to a peaceful world and closer to a stage of human societal development in which the rights of every person are protected.

Can you imagine what a wonderful world it would be if women had the chance to thrive, be empowered, and given the opportunity to own their bodies and their destiny?

There is also the issue of child sexual abuse.  With schools closed during the COVID-19 health crisis, this has been an increased risk - in some cases because children have spent more time on the Internet. This crisis is more likely to erode the tremendous progress many countries have made in curtailing such abuse. But determining the scale of child sexual abuse is complicated. Not only is it difficult to define abuse cross culturally, but also because of its hidden nature in many societies. 

A victim’s dependent relationship to the culprit makes it much more difficult for abuse to be reported. Even if children are able to articulate their experience and to recognise that they have been sexually abused, they fear that reporting the abuse could result in rejection by parents or guardians. In many instances, protection of the family’s reputation tends to come before protecting the rights, welfare and wellbeing of the victim.

It’s a global problem that cuts across class, religion, traditions and boundaries. I strongly believe that to address this epidemic of child sexual abuse requires a coordinated response from all societies to recognise and accept the burden rather than drafting policies that aim to minimise its impact on victims. Otherwise, like FGM, it will remain a silent scourge for generations to come.

It horrifies me that in FGM and child sexual abuse, human rights are violated every day with impunity. I look forward to a world free from injustice; a world full of love, care, protection and support for every human being. These acts of violence against women and children must concern every one of us. Together we can end them. Come on - we can do this. 

Grace Buckley, Justice & Peace Scotland’s European Rep, reflects on the many difficulties facing asylum seekers in the UK.

In the recent Conversation on Migration hosted by Justice & Peace Scotland, one of the speakers, Alex Holmes, said he had posed this question to asylum seekers he had met in Calais. 

If we were to ask the question of asylum seekers in the UK recently, the answer would be – whatever and wherever the Home Office and its accommodation providers say it is.

Asylum seekers are sent to a number of cities under the Home Office dispersal scheme. They are not given a choice about where they go, unless they can show medical grounds for wanting to be in a particular area. Scotland has 8.6%, who are mostly in Glasgow. 

Current Home Office contracts for accommodation will run until 2029 and are worth £9bn, no small amount. In Scotland the provider is Mears. Hotel/hostel accommodation is used as initial accommodation, for a maximum of 35 days, until homes can be made available. However, with the advent of lockdown under COVID, over 340 asylum seekers in Glasgow were moved out of their homes into hotels.

The reasons for the move were not clear – Mears and Home Office claimed it was for reasons of health and safety but there is a view that it was about cost.

The asylum seekers then lost the minimal financial support they had been receiving, so they couldn’t buy phone top-ups or small snacks, access public transport or save to buy clothes. They lost the small freedoms they had to live normal lives - to cook their own food, choose when to eat, do their own cleaning. New asylum seekers who have been put straight into hotels could not register with GPs from this temporary accommodation.

It is not clear what form of vulnerability assessments were made before the move, and mental health issues are rife. One man was so scared that he felt he couldn’t go into public areas of the hotel or go outside. He has now been moved to a flat in Easterhouse and thinks he is in heaven by comparison. 

Tragically there has been one suicide and also the well-publicised incident in the centre of Glasgow in which six people were stabbed and an asylum seeker shot dead. Asylum seeker support charities have reported difficulties in being allowed contact with asylum seekers in the hotels and have to phone them to come out and get food or other items.

One asylum seeker has described the current arrangements as detention in all but name. Now those coming into the UK via the English Channel are put into redundant barracks in Kent and there are concerns that this is making it difficult for supporting charities to offer advice and assistance, as well as giving anti-migrant groups a focal point for their actions.

Where we go next is not clear. 

Will costs decide when/if asylum seekers get back to dispersed accommodation or continue in hotels/hostels? Is it the government’s intention to keep new asylum seekers in detention-like conditions and away from any chance of integrating in local communities? In light of the recent denigrating and inflammatory comments of both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister about “do-gooders” and “lefty human rights lawyers”, I for one do not feel optimistic about the future of our asylum system.