• Essayez la dictature ? Interdictions de meetings, répression, censure, dissolutions...
    https://ricochets.cc/Essayez-la-dictature-Interdictions-de-meetings-repression-censure-dissolut

    Cette semaine, de nouveaux records d’autoritarisme et de censure de la part du pouvoir et de ses alliés : conférences pro-palestiniennes interdites et interdiction de la marche contre le racisme à Paris. Les méthodes de dictature et les inversions de réalité à la sauce « orwélienne » (1984) se multiplient, en toute légalité. Dénoncer et se défendre ne suffira pas, comment passer collectivement à l’attaque ? 🚨DICTATURE : APRÈS LES CONFÉRENCES PRO-PALESTINIENNES, L’INTERDICTION DE LA (...) #Les_Articles

    / #Procès,_justice,_répression_policière_ou_judiciaire, Autoritarisme, régime policier, démocrature...

    #Autoritarisme,_régime_policier,_démocrature...

  • The pact kills : l’istituzionalizzazione della fine del diritto d’asilo nell’UE

    Un documento dell’Associazione #Open_Your_Borders di Padova sul nuovo patto europeo sulla migrazione e l’asilo.

    Il 10 aprile il Parlamento europeo ha approvato il Nuovo Patto sulla Migrazione e l’Asilo, frutto di un lungo negoziato cominciato nel 2020 tra Parlamento, Consiglio e Commissione.

    Prima di entrare in vigore, dovrà essere votato anche dal Consiglio dell’UE, l’organo in cui risiedono i rappresentanti dei governi dei 27 stati membri, la cui votazione è attesa entro la fine di aprile.

    In sintesi, questo Nuovo Patto prevede una serie di riforme del sistema di gestione dei flussi migratori e della richiesta di protezione internazionale nel territorio dell’Unione Europea e, in particolare, raccoglie al suo interno dieci proposte di legge che vanno brutalmente a rafforzare l’approccio securitario della ormai consolidata “fortezza Europa”, costituita dalle 27 nazioni, sulle 43 + 7 dell’Europa geografica.

    È evidente che i tempi e i contenuti di questa mossa hanno chiare motivazioni elettoralistiche in vista delle elezioni Europee, con il riposizionamento dei vari partiti nazionali in funzione sia della propria affermazione locale che della futura riaggregazione in probabili inedite coalizioni. Infatti “il Patto” è stato approvato trasversalmente con 301 voti favorevoli, 269 contrari e 51 astensioni.

    La coalizione di centrodestra governativa guidata da Giorgia Meloni è risultata non omogenea, con lo spostamento di Fratelli d’Italia (attualmente all’opposizione in Europa) a favore e con la Lega che ha confermato il proprio voto contrario, probabilmente perché considera la linea adottata troppo moderata e poco sovranista.

    Con motivazioni opposte, si sono schierati contrari anche il PD (che è organico dell’attuale maggioranza in UE) e il Movimento 5 stelle.

    Si rincorrono i toni trionfalistici per la “decisione storica” presa, dipinta come “un enorme risultato per l’Europa”, “un solido quadro legislativo su come affrontare la migrazione e l’asilo nell’Unione europea” e per una fantomatica e propagandistica “vittoria italiana” sottolineata da Meloni, nonostante il tanto criticato Regolamento di Dublino (per cui è il paese di primo ingresso l’unico responsabile di esaminare le richieste di protezione internazionale e di gestire e trattenere al suo interno le persone migranti) sia stato di fatto rafforzato.

    Noi, in questa giornata buia per il diritto d’asilo europeo e per la libertà di movimento internazionale, vediamo solo un consolidamento di pratiche di violazione dei diritti umani, che sono già attuate e condivise da parecchio tempo, sia alle frontiere che nei territori degli Stati dell’Unione Europea, in vista di quello che si prospetta come un inasprimento e allargamento del conflitto mediorientale e di una sempre maggiore instabilità di tutta l’area del Sahel (testimoniato da 7 colpi di Stato in pochi anni e dalla guerra solo apparentemente interna in Sudan che continua nell’indifferenza generale) dove si stanno giocando gli interessi egemonici in Africa dei due blocchi politici ed economici contrapposti, con Stati Uniti e Francia su tutti da un lato, e paesi Brics (Russia, Cina, India, ecc.) dall’altro.

    Con l’Unione Europa dal peso politico inconsistente tra le due parti e i suoi Stati membri che si percepiscono (erroneamente) come meta di approdo per tutti i movimenti di fuga delle popolazioni, i confini esterni dell’Unione diventano in primis la rappresentazione materiale da blindare assolutamente a scopo preventivo.

    Di seguito, analizziamo nello specifico le nuove norme per noi più critiche e problematiche.
    1) Procedure accelerate e sommarie per la richiesta di protezione internazionale

    Il Nuovo Patto divide in maniera importante i percorsi di richiesta di protezione internazionale, con l’applicazione di una procedura accelerata e generalizzata basata soprattutto sulla provenienza geografica legata alla classificazione dei cosiddetti “Stati sicuri” e non sulla storia individuale delle persone.

    Il testo prevede che tali procedure accelerate – che dovrebbero durare al massimo 12 settimane – siano svoltedirettamente nelle zone di frontiera, con il trattenimento di migliaia di persone in centri di detenzione posizionati ai confini degli Stati dell’Unione Europea.

    Lo svolgimento dell’esame approssimativo delle richieste sulla base della nazionalità porterà quindi ad un aumento generalizzato delle espulsioni, limitando la possibilità di richiesta di asilo, in violazione del principio internazionale del non respingimento, ma anche, ad esempio, al diritto alle cure mediche e al ricongiungimento familiare.

    Il criterio basato sullo Stato di provenienza è già stato eccezionalmente usato per velocizzare l’ingresso e l’integrazione diffusa delle persone rifugiate ucraine – però limitato a donne, bambin* e anzian*. Tale applicazione, causata dal conflitto Russia-Ucraina, che evidentemente ci tocca da vicino sia per posizione geografica che etnica, ha però contestualmente escluso l’evacuazione di tutti gli altri “non bianchi” presenti in quel territorio per motivi di lavoro, di studio o in transito migratorio. Anche per questo motivo, utilizzare solamente il criterio di provenienza geografica di origine senza considerare le specificità delle persone nelle procedure accelerate è funzionale alla negazione dell’asilo, in quanto arbitraria e strumentale da parte degli Stati.
    2) Un nuovo regolamento di screening (ovvero l’esercizio della bio-politica)

    Le persone richiedenti asilo non possono scegliere se seguire una procedura tradizionale (che richiede molti mesi) o accelerata, ma vengono divisi e indirizzati in base al loro profilo, stilato attraverso un nuovo e uniforme regolamento di screening obbligatorio inserito nell’Eurodac, creando così una enorme banca dati comune: questa “procedura di frontiera” preliminare, da farsi entro 7 giorni dall’arrivo, comprende identificazione, raccolta dei dati biometrici, controlli sanitari e di sicurezza, controllo di eventuali trasferimenti e precedenti, il tutto a partire dai 6 anni di età. Questa procedura sarà adottata principalmente per le persone richiedenti asilo che per qualche motivo vengono considerati un “pericolo” per i paesi dell’Unione, per coloro che provengono dai paesi considerati “sicuri” e per chi proviene da paesi che, anche per altri motivi, hanno un tasso molto basso (sotto il 20 per cento) di domande d’asilo accolte.
    3) Introduzione del concetto di “finzione del non ingresso”

    Il patto introduce il concetto di “finzione giuridica di non ingresso”, secondo il quale le zone di frontiera sono considerate come non parte del territorio degli Stati membri. Questo interessa in particolare l’Italia, la Grecia e la Spagna per gli sbarchi della rotta mediterranea, mentre sono più articolati “i confini” per la rotta balcanica. Durante le 12 settimane di attesa per l’esito della richiesta di asilo, le persone sono considerate legalmente “non presenti nel territorio dell’UE”, nonostante esse fisicamente lo siano (in centri di detenzione ai confini), non avranno un patrocinio legale gratuito per la pratica amministrativa e tempi brevissimi per il ricorso in caso di un primo diniego (e in quel caso rischiano anche di essere espulse durante l’attesa della decisione che li riguarda). In assenza di accordi con i paesi di origine (come nella maggioranza dei casi), le espulsioni avverranno verso i paesi di partenza.

    Tale concetto creadelle pericolose “zone grigie” in cui le persone in movimento, trattenute per la procedura accelerata di frontiera, non potranno muoversi sul territorio né tantomeno accedere a un supporto esterno. Tutto questo in spregio del diritto internazionale e della tutela della persona che, sulla carta, l’UE si propone(va) di difendere.
    4) L’istituzione di un meccanismo di “solidarietà obbligatoria” e l’esternalizzazione dei confini

    All’interno di una narrazione in cui le persone in movimento sono un onere da cui gli Stati Europei cercano di sottrarsi, viene istituito un meccanismo di “accettazione obbligatoria” di ricollocamento e trasferimento delle persone migranti, ma solo in caso di non precisate impennate di arrivi. Gli Stati potranno però scegliere se “accettare” un certo numero di migranti o, in alternativa all’accoglienza, fornire supporto operativo al paese d’arrivo, inviando del personale o mezzi, oppure pagare una quota di 20mila euro per ogni richiedente che si rifiutano di accogliere, da versare in un fondo comune dell’Unione Europea.

    I soldi versati in questo fondo comune, oltre a poter essere redistribuiti tra i paesi di frontiera (come l’Italia), potranno essere utilizzati per sostenere e finanziare «azioni nei paesi terzi o in relazione ad essi che hanno un impatto diretto sui flussi migratori verso l’UE» ossia paesi, come Libia e Tunisia da cui le persone migranti partono per raggiungere l’Europa.

    Un meccanismo disumanizzante e che trasforma le persone e le garanzie dei diritti umani in merci barattabili con un compenso economico destinabile a rafforzare i confini ancora più esternamente.

    Un ulteriore sviluppo è dato dalla delocalizzazione della zona di frontiera, attraverso la creazione di hotspot al di fuori dei confini nazionali, come nel caso dei futuri centri italiani in Albania.

    L’adozione di questo Nuovo Patto – non ancora definitivo, si ricorda – dimostra come i valori di accoglienza e “integrazione” e il diritto alla libertà di movimento, previsto dall’art. 12 della Dichiarazione Universale dei Diritti Umani, vengano sgretolati di fronte ad una sempre più marcata diffidenza, chiusura e difesa della sovranità nazionale.

    Con la recrudescenza dei nazionalismi negli Stati Europei e la loro incapacità di agire con una lungimiranza alternativa e una visione decolonializzata nello scacchiere geopolitico, la tutela degli individui e della dignità umana viene “semplicemente” sostituita da inquietanti concetti privi di senso legati alla purezza della nazione e dell’etnia e alla difesa, in modalità securitaria e repressiva, della patria e della tradizione, che si traducono in istituzionalizzazione e normalizzazione dell’agire violento ai confini della UE e in una crescente esternalizzazione della frontiera attraverso il respingimento delle persone razzializzate nell’ultimo Paese di partenza, con l’intento dichiarato di voler scoraggiare la mobilità verso l’Europa.

    https://www.meltingpot.org/2024/04/the-pact-kills-listituzionalizzazione-della-fine-del-diritto-dasilo-nell
    #pacte #asile #migrations #réfugiés #droit_d'asile #procédure_accélérée #pays_sûrs #rétention #frontières #rétention_aux_frontières #screening #Eurodac #procédure_de_frontière #biométrie #fiction_juridique #zones_frontalières #solidarité_obligatoire #externalisation #relocalisation

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur #Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration_et_l’asile :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1019088

    ajouté à la métaliste autour de la Création de zones frontalières (au lieu de lignes de frontière) en vue de refoulements :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/795053

  • UK : Government considers ’Rwanda-like’ deals with four other countries

    The UK’s so-called Rwanda deal, which would see asylum seekers in the UK flown out to Rwanda to be processed, has yet to be passed into law; but already, the government is reportedly considering similar deals with four other countries.

    The UK government’s Rwanda deal, which intends to fly asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda to have their claims assessed there, may pass into law within days despite strong opposition.

    The plan has been highly contested, both within parliament and by organizations supporting migrant and refugee rights.

    But despite facing setbacks for almost two years, the British government is now reportedly also considering striking similar deals with at least four other countries, modelled after the same principle.

    The Times newspaper revealed at the weekend that it had obtained “leaked documents” from government officials, listing Armenia, Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana as potential target countries for the government to set up similar deals to process asylum seekers in third countries.

    The Daily Mail, which reported on the Times’ exclusive, adds that the British Foreign Office was also considering deals with other Latin American countries, including Paraguay, Peru, Brazil and Ecuador, adding, however, that these governments are thought to have “less interest” in signing up to such a scheme compared to the four aforementioned governments.

    According to the reports, bilateral talks on asylum pacts are being scheduled to take place in the foreseeable future.

    ’Reserve list’ of potential partners

    The Daily Mail highlights that a series of other countries are also on a “reserve list,” including Cape Verde, Senegal, Tanzania and Sierra Leone.

    According to the right-wing newspaper, these governments could be “approached, if talks with other, more favored countries didn’t succeed.”

    The leaked information also suggests that other countries such as Morocco, Tunisia and Namibia all “explicitly declined” to enter discussions about becoming third-country processing centers for the UK, and were thus ruled out by UK officials as “non-starters.”

    Some of the information reported suggests that civil servants have laid out specific “feasibility criteria” reported the Daily Mail, which included assessing “the size of the territory and its population.”

    The Daily Mail added that this had resulted in some smaller states such as Suriname and Belize being ruled out.

    ’Following the Rwanda process closely’

    These new plans have, however, reportedly been hampered by fears that the problems that have dogged the Rwanda plan for two years could put potential new partners off.

    Reports highlighting the costs of the Rwanda scheme, compared to the actual number of potential asylum seekers who might eventually be flown, there have also recently drawn increased criticism from political opposition within the UK parliament.

    Armenia, is reported to be waiting for the outcome of the current Rwanda policy to become finalized and public before it decides whether to enter talks with the UK.

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail also reported that officials working at the Home Office expressed fears about the problems the Rwanda Bill is having an impact on discussions with officials at the Foreign Office hoping to expand the model to other countries.

    According to the Daily Mail, one unnamed senior Foreign Office official was reported to have written the following in communications with the Home Office:

    “We are conscious that many potential partner countries are following the UK legal process on the partnership with Rwanda and may be cautious about engaging substantively until this process is satisfactorily resolved.”

    Although the government has not commented directly on specific countries nor confirmed or denied the reports, a government spokesperson told the Daily Mail that the UK was “continuing to work with a range of international partners to tackle global illegal migration challenges.”

    Government focus on passing Rwanda bill first

    The spokesperson continued: “Our focus right now is passing the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which builds on the Illegal Migration Act, and putting plans in place to get flights off the ground as soon as possible.”

    Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak meanwhile met with Rwandan President Paul Kagame last week in London for further talks about the bill.

    At the time, both leaders were reportedly looking forward to seeing planes taking off “in spring” — i.e. within a matter of weeks.

    The Rwanda plan was first announced in spring 2022, and has gone through several iterations under the leadership of various Home Secretaries as part of UK government efforts to actually get a plane carrying asylum seekers to take off from the UK to Rwanda to be processed there.
    From file: Stopping boats from crossing the English Channel is one of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s five main pledges - something he has so far failed to successfully accomplish | Photo: James Manning/AP/picture alliance

    Last week, as the British and Rwandan leaders met, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail also reported that some of the homes earmarked for asylum seekers in Rwanda and built with British funding in a private-public partnership in Rwanda had since been sold off to Rwandan clients.

    Government still looking for airline partner

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reported on April 15, that it is unlikely that any asylum seekers will head to Rwanda “before June” despite the UK government marking spring as the launch window of flights.

    The newspaper added that this was due to the UK government having “so far failed to secure an airline to carry out the flights.”

    In the past, campaigners have targeted airlines which had agreed to operate government deportation flights in a bid to try and stop them participating in such schemes.

    This has resulted in some airline partners withdrawing from potential agreements; others were reported to loathe to have their reputations associated with the scheme.

    In 2022, the Spain-based Privilege Style airline, which had been hired to operate government flights to Rwanda, pulled out of the deal following pressure from campaigners, reports the newspaper.

    Even Rwanda’s state-owned airline, RwandAir, reportedly turned down any involvement with the scheme, states the Daily Mail.
    Political ping-pong

    Before the Easter recess, parliament’s upper house, the House of Lords, pushed the Safety of Rwanda Bill back to the lower house, the House of Commons, with a reinsertion of a number of amendments and recommendations.

    This is part of a parliamentary process in the UK which has become known as ’political ping pong.’

    The bill, now in its final stages, has to be voted on again by the House of Commons before it is then passed to the final Royal Assent stage before it can become law. This requires the signature of the Sovereign, which currently is King Charles III, who cannot break with tradition and reject the bill.

    The divisive Bill is expected to win a majority in the parliament this week but many of the amendments suggested by the Lords have meanwhile caused further ruptures in the ruling Conservative Party, which tabled the bill and the entire Rwanda plan in the first place.

    Some right-wing members of the Conservative Party, such as former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, have declared the bill ineffective if it is allowed to pass with the current amendments.
    New bill ’seeks to respond to [court] findings’

    The British government continues to insist that the “quicker we can begin flights, the quicker we can stop the boats,” meaning migrant boats departing from the French and Belgian coasts for the UK.

    Rishi Sunak, who is currently experiencing new lows in his popularity ratings, has staked part of his and his government’s reputation on making the Rwanda bill work. “Stopping the small boats” from crossing the Channel is one of his five main pledges for this legislature.

    With mere months to go to fresh elections in the UK, it is unclear whether Sunak will succeed in achieving this as his legacy. Even if the Safety of Rwanda Bill passes as expected, it remains uncertain if and how airplanes will be cleared to take asylum seekers to the small African nation.

    According to the government fact sheet on the Safety of Rwanda Bill, the new bill does not seek to override the UK Supreme Court’s judgement which deemed that Rwanda is not safe for migrants, but rather seeks to “respond to its key findings to ensure the policy can go ahead.”

    The bill, says the government, “ensures asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda … are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened — known as refoulement.”

    The new treaty, they say, will also strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system, requiring the country to establish a new appeal body within its court system in order to hear appeals against refusals of asylum or humanitarian protection claims.

    Finally, under the new bill, the government has also set up an independent monitoring committee, which will oblige all signatories to make sure the terms and obligations of the treaty are upheld and adhered to in practice.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/56446/uk-government-considers-rwandalike-deals-with-four-other-countries

    #Arménie #Côte_d'Ivoire #Costa_Rica #Botswana #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #externalisation_de_la_procédure

    –-

    et ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • #PROCHE_ORIENT L’armée israélienne s’est félicitée d’avoir pu compter sur « une coalition défensive d’alliés internationaux », dirigée par les États-Unis avec la Grande-Bretagne, la France et d’autres pays, pour contrer l’attaque iranienne. « C’était la première fois qu’une telle coalition travaillait ensemble contre la menace de l’Iran et de ses mandataires au Moyen Orient », a affirmé lors d’une conférence de presse le porte-parole de l’armée, Daniel Hagari.

  • #PROCHE_ORIENT « Nous avons pris nos responsabilités parce que nous sommes acteurs de la sécurité régionale. Nous avons des bases en Jordanie et aux Emirats Arabes Unis. L’attaque iranienne ne mettait pas seulement en cause d’Israël, mais également portait atteinte à la sécurité de nos forces et mettait en cause l’espace aérien de nos partenaires arabes. »

  • Mars 2024 est le 10e mois consécutif à battre des records de chaleur à l’échelle mondiale
    https://ricochets.cc/Mars-2024-est-le-10eme-mois-consecutif-a-battre-des-records-de-chaleur-a-l

    Nouveaux records de chaleur en France ce samedi 06 avril, et des fournaises un peu partout, après des mois de records battus. Les calamités prévues de longue date s’installent, et semblent même dépasser les pires prévisions. Mais tout va bien, l’Etat-capitalisme dépense un pognon de dingue, ...pour des projets écocidaires, pour des innovations techno « huile sur le feu », et pour mater les récalcitrants. Sécheresses, crues, feux... Les calamités vont empirer en Méditerranée - C’est un (...) #Les_Articles

    / #Catastrophes_climatiques_et_destructions_écologiques, #Procès,_justice,_répression_policière_ou_judiciaire

    https://reporterre.net/Secheresses-crues-feux-Les-calamites-vont-empirer-en-Mediterranee

  • Soirée antirep à #Valence 9 avril 2024
    https://ricochets.cc/Soiree-antirep-a-Valence-9-avril-2024-7442.html

    Dans le cadre du procès de deux militant.e.s du STP26 en date du 10 avril 2024 et de la répression de l’action syndicale partout en France, la CNT26 organise avec l’appui des organisations syndicales de la Drôme une soirée d’information juridique avec Me Raphaël Kempf et Me Alice Becker du Barreau de Paris. Rendez-vous à la Maison des Syndicats de Fontbarlettes, le mardi 9 avril à 18h00. Rendez-vous devant le tribunal de Valence pour soutenir Buffy et Michel le mercredi 10 avril dès 9h00. #Les_Articles

    / Valence, #Procès,_justice,_répression_policière_ou_judiciaire

  • Sainte Soline 2023 : terrorisme d’Etat et violence structurelle du système policier révélés
    https://ricochets.cc/Sainte-Soline-2023-terrorisme-d-Etat-et-violence-structurelle-du-systeme-p

    Défendre par la force et la loi les intérêts privés nuisibles du système productiviste agro-industriel, et attaquer avec brutalité des écologistes, au risque de tuer (pensons à Rémi Fraisse) et en provoquant de nombreux traumatismes et mutilations, qui portent le soucis de l’intérêt général et du bien commun. C’est le boulot de l’Etat et de ses milices armées extrême-droitisées, stimulés par un gouvernement de forcenés ultracapitalistes en cours de fascisation. Pour le gouvernement et son (...) #Les_Articles

    / #Procès,_justice,_répression_policière_ou_judiciaire, Autoritarisme, régime policier, démocrature...

    #Autoritarisme,_régime_policier,_démocrature...
    https://etrevert.net/terrorisme-detat
    https://reporterre.net/53-des-Francais-desapprouvent-la-violence-des-forces-de-l-ordre-a-Sainte
    https://reporterre.net/Un-an-apres-Sainte-Soline-les-blesses-racontent-leurs-sequelles
    https://reporterre.net/REP-Un-an-apres-Sainte-Soline-les-antibassines-entre-tristesse-colere-et
    https://reporterre.net/Les-cinq-lecons-politiques-a-tirer-de-Sainte-Soline
    https://reporterre.net/Serge-tombe-dans-le-coma-a-Sainte-Soline-La-police-a-recu-carte-blanche

  • Dominique Costagliola : « J’ai reçu des menaces, mais si c’était à refaire je le referais » – L’Express
    https://www.lexpress.fr/sciences-sante/sciences/dominique-costagliola-jai-recu-des-menaces-mais-si-cetait-a-refaire-je-le-r
    https://www.lexpress.fr/resizer/obcHjmEfxcRvs9jCE5IRAM1uqvc=/1200x630/filters:focal(2752x1480:2762x1490)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/lexpress/EY5RPSGIZNC2NA6UYDMDG2GUEY.jpg

    Avez-vous l’impression que votre combat en faveur de la rationalité et la méthode scientifique a porté ses fruits ? Accorde-t-on aujourd’hui plus d’importance à ces questions ?

    Je ne suis pas convaincue que l’on ait fait beaucoup de progrès, notamment parce que des comportements qui auraient dû être punis ne l’ont pas été. Il est sidérant qu’une enquête ait pu être lancée contre moi sans aucune base, alors que des chercheurs qui n’ont pas respecté les lois relatives aux études sur la personne humaine n’ont subi aucune conséquence d’aucun type.

    Qu’auriez-vous attendu ?

    Que l’on punisse ceux qui étaient punissables ! Quand des gens ne respectent pas la loi, il est logique qu’ils soient incriminés. Or il ne s’est rien passé. Je parle de scientifiques dont certains sont toujours en poste. C’est incompréhensible.

  • Rwanda trips by UK ministers and officials have already cost over £400,000

    Sending ministers and officials to Rwanda has cost the government more than £400,000 before a single deportation flight has taken off, figures show.

    Ministers have spent a total of £413,541 on travel in the two years since the policy to send asylum seekers to Kigali started to be developed.

    The total, calculated by the Labour party, is based on government transparency releases. It includes trips by senior government officials and a succession of ministers and home secretaries including James Cleverly, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel.

    This week it emerged that Cleverly spent £165,561 on chartering a private jet for a one-day trip to sign a new treaty with Rwanda in December. The cost of the flight was published in a transparency document on Thursday.

    The shadow immigration minister, Stephen Kinnock, said: “Having clearly decided that committing £600m of taxpayers’ money to the Rwandan government for just 300 refugees wasn’t insulting enough, it now emerges that three home secretaries have blown hundreds of thousands of pounds on their various publicity stunts in Rwanda. This government’s enthusiasm for wasting taxpayers’ money knows no bounds.

    “Labour would redirect the cash set aside for Rwanda into a cross-border police unit and security partnership to smash the criminal smuggler gangs at source, and introduce a new returns unit to quickly remove those with no right to be here.”

    A succession of legal challenges have prevented the Rwanda policy, which would send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on small boats to the east African country for processing, from being implemented.

    The plan was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022 but is yet to become operational two years later.

    The government insists that flights to Rwanda will take off this spring, after a bill intended to overcome legal hurdles to the policy becomes law.

    However, ministers have delayed the passage of the bill until after Easter, with the final votes on it expected to take place in mid-April. The government has yet to find an airline to operate the flight.

    Asked why he was waiting another three weeks to push the legislation through, Rishi Sunak said his plan to stop Channel crossings “is working”.

    “People should not be able to jump the queue, come here illegally, put pressure on local services, undermine our sense of fairness and ultimately put their lives at risk as they are exploited by gangs,” he told broadcasters. “That’s why I am determined to stop the boats. Our plan is working, the numbers last year were down by a third. That’s never happened before, that shows that we are making progress.”

    He added that the UK needed Rwanda flights as a “deterrent” to “finish the job”.

    Cleverly’s flight to Rwanda in December was to sign a new treaty that established a new appeal body, to be made up of judges with asylum expertise from a range of countries, to hear individual cases.

    The flights alone of the home secretary’s 24-hour trip cost more than four times the total cost of Braverman’s last visit in March 2023. Her trip cost just over £40,000, with flights at £35,041, hotels £4,301, transport £248 and “engagement” £2,056, the Daily Mirror reported last year.

    The government said Rwanda’s asylum system would be monitored by an independent committee, whose powers to enforce the treaty would be beefed up. The committee would develop a system to enable relocated people and their lawyers to lodge complaints.

    The government was criticised earlier this month for planning to spend £1.8m on each of the first 300 asylum seekers it plans to send to Rwanda. The overall cost of the scheme stands at more than half a billion pounds, according to the figures released to the National Audit Office.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/rwanda-trips-uk-ministers-officials-cost-over-400000

    #coût #Rwanda #externalisation #UK #Angleterre #préparation #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    –—

    ajouté à la #métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Des cerveaux humains de 12 000 ans découverts dans un état de conservation exceptionnel - Ça m’intéresse
    https://www.caminteresse.fr/histoire/des-cerveaux-humains-de-12-000-ans-decouverts-dans-un-etat-de-conservat

    Lors d’une vaste opération de recensement des cerveaux humains les mieux préservés naturellement, des chercheurs ont découvert qu’il existait des organes fossilisés vieux de 1 000 à 12 000 ans. Depuis, ils enquêtent sur leurs mystérieuses conditions de conservation.

    On dirait une vieille noix desséchée. Il s’agit en réalité d’un cerveau humain qui a survécu aux affres du temps, pendant un millénaire. Cette incroyable découverte n’est pas la seule réalisée par Alexandra Morton-Hayward et son équipe de l’Université d’Oxford, qui a même découvert des organes encore plus anciens, datant de 12 000 ans maximum, conservés dans les archives archéologiques mondiales !
    Une gigantesque archive cérébrale

    Ces taphonomistes, des spécialistes de la fossilisation d’un organisme humain, animal, ou végétal après sa mort, se sont lancés dans le projet de répertorier tous les cerveaux humains gardés dans les musées et les universités pour étudier leur état de conservation. Comme ils l’expliquent dans leur étude publiée dans Proceedings of the Royal Society B, ils ont identifié dans la littérature scientifique mondiale plus de 4 400 cerveaux préservés dans différents environnements, sur tous les continents. Ces archives, qui remontent jusqu’au milieu du XVIIe siècle, remettent en question l’idée communément admise selon laquelle le cerveau est toujours l’un des premiers organes à se décomposer après la mort.

    En effet, un corps en décomposition qui n’a pas été embaumé, momifié, congelé, va perdre ses tissus mous, qui vont se liquéfier, ne laissant visible que son squelette. Que ces tissus mous aient été préservés est rare, et il est encore plus rare qu’il s’agisse d’un cerveau. Pourtant, parmi les cerveaux préservés qui ont été retrouvés, près d’un tiers (1 300) était la seule trace de tissu mou ayant survécu sur le squelette. Et cela a aussi été le cas sur certains des plus vieux organes retrouvés.
    Un mystérieux mécanisme de conservation

    Pourquoi ces cerveaux, qui étaient censés être réduits en poussière, se sont-ils fossilisés ? Cela ne peut pas être lié aux seules conditions naturelles de conservation, car ils ont été retrouvés dans des endroits très divers : fosse commune de la guerre civile espagnole, tombe préhistorique, épave, tumulus néolithique, désert, rives d’un lac, volcan endormi... Il y avait même des têtes décapitées. Ils appartenaient à toutes catégories de population (moines, guerriers, famille royale, explorateurs, enfants etc.). Les chercheurs pensent donc qu’il pourrait exister un mécanisme de préservation spécifique au système nerveux central, qui se déclencherait parfois lors d’un contact avec quelque chose de présent dans l’environnement, et qui permettrait au cerveau de se durcir.

    Les scientifiques tâtonnent encore, mais poursuivent leurs recherches, car ces immenses archives démontrent clairement qu’il existe certaines circonstances dans lesquelles le cerveau peut survivre pendant un nombre exceptionnel d’années. "Que ces circonstances soient environnementales ou liées à la biochimie unique du cerveau, c’est au centre de nos travaux en cours et futurs, explique Alexandra Morton-Hayward à Newsweek. Leur étude s’intéresse notamment à l’analyse moléculaire de ces vestiges exceptionnels, aux restes de lipides, de protéines ou de glucides qui pourraient subsister dans ces cerveaux et nous donner des réponses. « Nous découvrons un incroyable nombre d’anciennes biomolécules de toutes sortes préservées dans ces cerveaux archéologiques, et c’est passionnant d’explorer tout ce qu’elles contiennent, et à quel point elles peuvent nous parler de la vie et de la mort de nos ancêtres. »

    Human #brains preserve in diverse environments for at least 12 000 years #ProcB #OpenAccess https://t.co/S581ZlPFL3 #Palaeontology #Evolution @MortonHayward @ErinSaupe pic.twitter.com/1JJlRMAvsS
    — Royal Society Publishing (@RSocPublishing) March 20, 2024

    Mais il existe un obstacle dans l’accès à ces cerveaux, considérés à juste titre comme des découvertes exceptionnelles, déplore la chercheuse à Oxford. Moins d’1% d’entre eux seraient étudiés de près, rapporte Newsweek, ce qui limite beaucoup les découvertes scientifiques qu’ils pourraient permettre.

  • Une clinique de FIV a importé des embryons atteints d’hémophilie en Israël – enquête Renee Ghert-Zand - Time of israel

    Une enquête secrète menée conjointement pendant plusieurs mois par le ministère de la Santé et la division des fraudes de la police israélienne à Tel Aviv a révélé que le personnel soignant d’une clinique de fécondation in vitro (FIV) avait importé des ovules humains fécondés de Géorgie atteints d’une grave maladie génétique, l’hémophilie B. Les employés savaient que les embryons étaient contaminés, mais les ont implantés chez plusieurs femmes israéliennes qui suivaient un traitement de FIV.

    Selon les informations publiées lundi par le ministère de la Santé, l’affaire a commencé par une enquête interne au sein du ministère lorsque celui-ci a reçu des informations selon lesquelles des ovules de donneuses porteuses de la mutation génétique de l’hémophilie B avaient été fécondés à la clinique BIRTH en Géorgie et importés en Israël.

    L’hémophilie B, également appelée déficit en facteur IX (FIX) ou maladie de Christmas, est une maladie génétique causée par l’absence ou la déficience du facteur IX, une protéine de la coagulation. La maladie est généralement transmise génétiquement de parent à enfant, bien qu’un tiers des cas surviennent de manière spontanée.

    L’hémophilie B provoque des saignements plus longs que d’habitude. Les saignements peuvent être internes, au niveau des articulations et des muscles, ou externes, à la suite de coupures mineures, d’interventions dentaires ou de traumatismes. La quantité de FIX dans le sang d’une personne détermine si son hémophilie et ses risques de saignement sont mineurs, modérés ou graves.

    Après avoir mené son enquête, le ministère de la Santé a transmis ses conclusions à la police. L’unité de lutte contre la fraude de la police de Tel Aviv a mené une enquête sous couverture avec l’aide du Directorat des Renseignements de la police, du ministère de la Santé et du bureau de la Procureure générale de l’État.

    L’enquête a permis d’identifier deux personnes travaillant dans une clinique de FIV anonyme qui, à diverses reprises, ont importé des ovules fécondés pour les implanter chez des femmes israéliennes au cours des derniers mois. Le personnel soignant, tant en Géorgie qu’en Israël, est soupçonné d’avoir su que les embryons étaient affectés.


    Illustration : Un laboratoire dans une clinique de FIV. (Crédit : Richard Drew/AP Photo)

    Le ministère de la Santé a ordonné l’arrêt immédiat de l’importation d’ovules fécondés en provenance de la clinique de Géorgie. Il a également ordonné aux directeurs de toutes les cliniques de FIV en Israël d’identifier les femmes israéliennes pour lesquelles les embryons ont été importés et de les amener à prendre des décisions en connaissance de cause sur la suite à donner à leur grossesse.

    Les suspects devaient subir d’autres interrogatoires lundi et devaient être présentés au tribunal de Tel Aviv pour que les procureurs demandent leur maintien en détention si nécessaire.

    Cette affaire fait suite à plusieurs scandales récents concernant des Israéliens cherchant à fonder ou à agrandir leur famille par FIV, le plus notoire étant la naissance en 2022 d’une petite fille https://fr.timesofisrael.com/les-parents-biologiques-dun-bebe-ne-dune-confusion-de-fiv-identifi à des parents n’ayant aucun lien génétique avec elle.

    Cette confusion, au centre hospitalier Assuta de Rishon Lezion, a été découverte lorsqu’il a été établi que le fœtus, alors in utero , présentait des problèmes de santé et qu’il a donc été soumis à divers examens. Les résultats ont montré que ni la femme qui portait l’enfant ni son partenaire ne pouvaient être ses parents biologiques.


    Le centre hospitalier Assuta, à Rishon Lezion. (Crédit : Capture d’écran Google Maps)

    Les parents biologiques du bébé ont été identifiés l’année dernière après une série de tests génétiques, a révélé le tribunal des Affaires familiales de Rishon Lezion au début du mois de mars.

    Contrairement au cas actuel de fraude présumée, l’erreur a été attribuée à la surcharge de travail du personnel et au non-respect du protocole.

    #embryons #reproduction #erreurs #procréation #fertilité #ovules #FIV #fœtus #bébés

    Source : https://fr.timesofisrael.com/une-clinique-de-fiv-a-importe-des-embryons-atteints-dhemophilie-en

    • Le ministère de la Santé ordonne la fermeture d’une clinique de FIV de Tel Aviv Renee Ghert-Zand - Time of israel

      Le ministère de la Santé a ordonné dimanche la fermeture immédiate de la clinique de fécondation in vitro (FIV) L.B. à Tel Aviv à la suite d’un contrôle inopiné effectué par des fonctionnaires dans le cadre d’une enquête criminelle en cours et de poursuites judiciaires pour fraude présumée de la part du personnel soignant.

      Ce contrôle inopiné a été effectué après que de nouvelles plaintes ont été déposées contre la clinique et que le contrôle a mis au jour de graves problèmes posant un danger immédiat pour la santé publique.

      Des allégations selon lesquelles un propriétaire de la clinique aurait sciemment importé de Géorgie des embryons atteints d’une grave maladie génétique, l’hémophilie, ont été signalées mi-mars. Certains de ces embryons avaient déjà été implantés chez des patientes, une femme ayant donné naissance à un bébé atteint d’hémophilie et une autre ayant accouché d’un enfant mort-né à 20 semaines de grossesse.

      Le contrôle inopiné a révélé de graves manquements indiquant que la clinique fonctionnait en violation des lois israéliennes relatives à la procréation assistée.

      Après avoir initialement dissimulé l’identité du propriétaire de la clinique de FIV L.B. accusé de fraude, le tribunal de Tel Aviv l’a désigné le 22 mars comme étant le professeur David Bider.

      Source : https://fr.timesofisrael.com/le-ministere-de-la-sante-ordonne-la-fermeture-dune-clinique-de-fiv

  • La police applique trop souvent la peine de mort sans procès pour un simple refus d’obtempérer !
    https://ricochets.cc/La-police-applique-trop-souvent-la-peine-de-mort-sans-proces-pour-un-simpl

    En france, rouler sans casque sur un scooter expose à la peine de mort sans procès. Pour la plupart des flics et de leurs soutiens de droite extrême et d’extrême droite, le refus d’obtempérer est un crime impardonable, et ils s’octroient le droit d’appliquer la peine de mort sans procès ni jugement. Les flics font la loi et appliquent les peines à leur guise, protégés/encouragés/stimulés/absouts par le gouvernement, des médias extrême droitisés (Cnews en tête) et nombre de puissants, tous (...) #Les_Articles

    / #Procès,_justice,_répression_policière_ou_judiciaire, Autoritarisme, régime policier, démocrature...

    #Autoritarisme,_régime_policier,_démocrature...

  • Von der Leyen’s EU group plans Rwanda-style asylum schemes

    Centre-right European People’s party says it wants to create deportation deals with non-EU countries to head off rise of far right.

    The European Commission chief, #Ursula_von_der_Leyen, has given her support to controversial migration reforms that would involve deporting people to third countries for asylum processing and the imposition of a quota system for those receiving protection in EU countries.

    Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s party (EPP), said the policies – similar to the UK’s Rwanda scheme – had been worked out with all the parties in the EPP political group, which includes von der Leyen’s Christian Democrat Union in Germany.

    Warning that “the far right wants to destroy Europe from the inside”, Weber said the EPP would be “crystal clear” about its desire to reduce immigration in the campaign for the European elections in June.

    Asked if von der Leyen – who is expected to be nominated as the EPP’s candidate for European Commission president at its annual congress in Romania – backed these policies, Weber said: “All the programmatic positions of the European People’s party are [supported] also by Ursula von der Leyen … We do this as a team together.

    He added: “What European people expect from us – and here the European People’s party will be, in the campaign, crystal clear – you have to lower the numbers of arrivals. And we have to separate the visitors who are refugees and asylum seekers who should get the protection they need.”

    The policy is seen as an initiative to head off the rise of far-right and extremist parties such as the AfD in Germany. It envisages the EU doing a series of deals with non-EU states with a view to deporting people who have arrived via irregular migration routes for asylum processing in those “safe” third countries.

    The draft law advocating the fundamental change in European asylum regime will be considered at the EPP’s annual congress in Bucharest on Wednesday as part of the party’s manifesto discussions.

    The hardening of migration policy is likely to inflame tensions within the parliament and create external political risks for von der Leyen, who must represent the interests of the entire EU and not one political bloc in parliament, where the EPP is the largest grouping.

    She is expected to be formally selected as the EPP’s official candidate for the European Commission presidency in a vote in Romania on Thursday, meaning that it will back her for a second term in office.

    One Brussels insider said “the socialists will go mad with this” – a reference to the Socialists and Democrats, the second-biggest voting bloc in the European parliament.

    Sophie in ’t Veld, a Dutch MEP and the lead representative for the liberal Renew group on the parliament’s committee for civil liberties, justice and home affairs, called the measure “yet another unsavoury EPP chunk of red meat, meant to attract the far-right vote”.

    She added: “It will not work. All the EPP strategy has achieved over the past years is making the far right bigger. So if they know it doesn’t work, why do they stubbornly repeat the same tactics each time?”

    The EPP represents centre-right parties across Europe, including government parties in Greece, Poland, Ireland, Latvia, Croatia, Lithuania, Sweden, Romania, Finland and Luxembourg.

    Its manifesto says: “We want to implement the concept of safe third countries. Anyone applying for asylum in the EU could also be transferred to a safe third country and undergo the asylum process there.” However, in what could be seen as an effort to set itself apart from the UK’s controversial Rwanda policy, the manifesto stresses that the “criteria for safe countries shall be in line with the core obligations of the Geneva refugee convention and the European convention on human rights”.

    It says that neither of the conventions “include the right to freely choose the country of protection”.

    Developing the theme further, it says that after the “implementation of the third country concept”, it proposes the EU then “admit a quota of people in need of protection through annual humanitarian quotas of vulnerable individuals”.

    The publication of the manifesto and the launch of the EPP campaign could be start of a tricky period for von der Leyen. “I don’t think she will have any difficulty among member states, but the parliamentary vote is another game altogether,” said one diplomat.

    While very little legislation is left to negotiate, the bumps on the road to June act as a reminder of how von der Leyen came to power in 2019 – as a last-minute compromise candidate who was voted in with a wafer-thin majority.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/eu-group-european-peoples-party-von-der-leyen-migration-reforms

    #UE #externalisation #Union_européenne #EU #procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #modèle_australien #Rwanda #Rwanda-style

    –—

    ajouté à la #métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda

    Le gouvernement britannique a promis de faire baisser l’immigration. Sa solution : délocaliser son système d’asile au Rwanda pour dissuader les arrivées clandestines, en particulier via la Manche. Pour l’instant, la justice bloque le projet. Alors, l’exécutif propose une loi qui affirme que le Rwanda est un pays sûr. Mais le processus parlementaire vient de se compliquer lors de l’examen à la #Chambre_des_Lords.

    Les Lords britanniques ont approuvé mercredi soir une dizaine d’amendements au projet de loi sur la sécurité du Rwanda. La plupart avec une marge de plus de 100 voix.

    Parmi ces amendements, la possibilité pour les tribunaux britanniques d’intervenir dans l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile. C’est le principal revers pour le gouvernement, qui a présenté ce texte précisément pour contourner les injonctions judiciaires.

    Les membres de la Chambre haute ont également voté pour renforcer les protections pour les mineurs non accompagnés, les victimes de l’esclavage moderne et les anciens collaborateurs des services britanniques.

    Un amendement réclame enfin la publication de données chiffrées de la part du gouvernement, qui n’a toujours pas indiqué combien de demandeurs d’asile il comptait envoyer au Rwanda.

    Le vote de ces amendements – qui affaiblissent le texte du gouvernement – va rallonger la navette parlementaire : les députés doivent valider le texte dans les mêmes termes pour qu’il soit adopté. De quoi retarder l’entrée en vigueur du partenariat avec le Rwanda promis par l’exécutif depuis deux ans.


    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/55697/royaumeuni--les-lords-mettent-un-frein-au-projet-de-delocaliser-le-sys

    #UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #offshore_asylum_processing #Rwanda

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda - InfoMigrants
    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/55697/royaumeuni--les-lords-mettent-un-frein-au-projet-de-delocaliser-le-sys

    Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda
    Par RFI Publié le : 08/03/2024
    Le gouvernement britannique a promis de faire baisser l’immigration. Sa solution : délocaliser son système d’asile au Rwanda pour dissuader les arrivées clandestines, en particulier via la Manche. Pour l’instant, la justice bloque le projet. Alors, l’exécutif propose une loi qui affirme que le Rwanda est un pays sûr. Mais le processus parlementaire vient de se compliquer lors de l’examen à la Chambre des Lords.
    Les Lords britanniques ont approuvé mercredi soir une dizaine d’amendements au projet de loi sur la sécurité du Rwanda. La plupart avec une marge de plus de 100 voix.Parmi ces amendements, la possibilité pour les tribunaux britanniques d’intervenir dans l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile. C’est le principal revers pour le gouvernement, qui a présenté ce texte précisément pour contourner les injonctions judiciaires.
    Les membres de la Chambre haute ont également voté pour renforcer les protections pour les mineurs non accompagnés, les victimes de l’esclavage moderne et les anciens collaborateurs des services britanniques.
    Un amendement réclame enfin la publication de données chiffrées de la part du gouvernement, qui n’a toujours pas indiqué combien de demandeurs d’asile il comptait envoyer au Rwanda. Le vote de ces amendements – qui affaiblissent le texte du gouvernement – va rallonger la navette parlementaire : les députés doivent valider le texte dans les mêmes termes pour qu’il soit adopté. De quoi retarder l’entrée en vigueur du partenariat avec le Rwanda promis par l’exécutif depuis deux ans.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#royaumeuni#rwanda#asile#expulsion#payssur#politiquemigratoire#droit#sante

  • Rwanda : UK to pay at least $470m to Rwanda for asylum deal, watchdog says

    Rwanda will receive at least**$**470million from the UK as part of the plan to have asylum seekers in the UK relocate there.

    The UK government’s spending watchdog National Audit Office (NAO) on Friday revealed up to $190, 000 will also be paid for each person sent to the east African country over a five-year period.

    The NAO report comes after MPs have been calling for greater transparency over the cost of the scheme. But the amounts have been criticised by Labour which called it a “national scandal”.

    In January, Rwandan President Paul Kagame suggested U.K. efforts to introduce an asylum deal with his country are taking too long to implement after criticism of the plan have brought about protests, lawsuits and rulings that have halted it. A Supreme Court ruling in November described the plan as ’illegal’.

    Britain’s Home Secretary James Cleverly and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta signed a new treaty in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital, in December.

    Under the five-year deal, the UK would be able to send individuals who arrive in the country illegally to Rwanda to claim asylum there.

    Britain and Rwanda first signed the deal in April 2022.

    https://www.africanews.com/2024/03/01/rwanda-uk-to-pay-at-least-470m-to-rwanda-for-asylum-deal-watchdog-says
    #financement #aide_financière #Rwanda #externalisation #asile #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #migrations

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • Delayed appeal trial of the Moria 4 set for 4 March 2024

    PRESS RELEASE , 6 February 2024, Mytilini, Lesvos

    On Monday 4 March 2024, R.F.M., S.M.H, S.A.M.S. and H.W., four of the six Afghan defendants who were accused and convicted for the fires that destroyed Moria refugee camp in September 2020, will appear before the Mixed-Jury Court of Appeals of the North Aegean in Lesvos, to challenge their conviction, represented in part by lawyers of the Legal Centre Lesvos. This appeal trial was originally scheduled to take place a year ago on 6 March 2023, but was postponed, without the ability to make any significant objection and arguments for their case.

    On 13 June 2021, at the first instance trial the four had been convicted of “arson with danger to human life” by the Mixed Jury Court of Chios in an unfair trial that disregarded the basic procedural and substantive safeguards. Indicatively: 1) Under the pretext of COVID-19 measures, lawyers – trial observers of international organisations, a lawyer-representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), journalists of the domestic and international press, as well as the public were excluded from the courtroom. 2) None of the essential documents of the trial was translated into a language that the defendants could understand, and as a result they could not understand the charges against them. Further, during the trial, the interpretation provided to them by the court was inadequate. 3) Their conviction was based solely on the testimony of a witness who did not appear in court and who could not be cross examined. All four were sentenced to 10 years in prison, with no mitigating circumstances accepted. For three and a half years now, the four young men have been imprisoned in Greece. More details about the first instance trial can be found in an earlier post by the defence lawyers, which was released following the trial.

    As a reminder, the fires that destroyed Moria camp in September 2020 came four and a half years after the EU-Turkey “Deal” turned the Aegean islands into prison islands for those forced to cross the border from Turkey, and Moria camp became the notorious symbol of the EU’s migration policies. Rather than recognising the destruction of Moria camp as an inevitable consequence of the “hotspot approach” and of the clear mismanagement of a camp with a lack of infrastructure that posed deadly dangers to residents, in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic; the Greek state arrested six young Afghan teenagers, namely, the “Moria 6”, and presented them as the sole criminally responsible for the fires.

    Following their arrest, the case of the Moria 6 was separated, as two of the accused were registered as minors at the time of their arrest and were tried in a Court for Minors, and the other four were tried as adults. The two who were arrested as minors are also represented by the Legal Centre Lesvos, and saw their conviction confirmed on appeal in June 2022, and in the Supreme Court in October 2023.

    As Legal Centre Lesvos, we hope that, despite the complete disregard to basic principles of justice at the first instance trial, the defendants will finally be able to present again the exculpatory evidence they had presented at their first court after almost three years, and that all four will finally be acquitted and released from prison.

    We welcome your presence at the court on 4 March 2024 to observe and follow the trial and ensure that the four defendants are supported.

    Press Contacts

    Vicky Aggelidou, vicky@legalcentrelesvos.org

    Lorraine Leete, lorraine@legalcentrelesvos.org

    https://legalcentrelesvos.org/2024/02/06/delayed-appeal-trial-of-the-moria-4-set-for-4-march-2024
    #justice #Moria #Grèce #Lesbos #procès #incendie #feu #réfugiés #migrations

    –-

    ajouté au fil de discussion sur cet incendie :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/876123

    voir aussi :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/993810
    https://seenthis.net/messages/889353
    https://seenthis.net/messages/884157
    https://seenthis.net/messages/877116
    https://seenthis.net/messages/875743

    et la métaliste sur les incendies dans des #camps_de_réfugiés :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/851143

  • Comment l’UE a fermé les yeux sur le refoulement illégal de migrants par la #Bulgarie avant son adhésion à Schengen

    Des documents internes de Frontex révèlent des violations répétées. Malgré des alertes répétées, la Commission européenne salue les « résultats excellents » de la Bulgarie, qui s’apprête à rejoindre l’espace Schengen.

    Au printemps 2022, Ali, un Syrien de 16 ans, entre dans un centre d’accueil à Sofia (Bulgarie) pour demander une protection au titre de l’asile et un regroupement familial avec sa mère et ses cinq autres frères et sœurs, restés en Syrie et au Liban.

    Mais les choses ne se passent pas comme prévu. Au lieu de voir sa demande traitée, il est emmené dans un endroit qui, dit-il, « ressemble à une prison ». Pendant la nuit, comme une cinquantaine d’autres personnes, il est embarqué dans une voiture de la police des frontières et reconduit jusqu’à la frontière turque, à 300 kilomètres de là, sans recevoir la moindre information sur ses droits à l’asile.

    « Ils nous ont fait marcher jusqu’à une #clôture équipée de caméras. Après avoir franchi la clôture, il y avait comme un canal. En même temps, ils frappaient les gens, se remémore le garçon. Ils ont tout pris et m’ont frappé dans le dos, sur la tête. Après cela, ils m’ont jeté dans le canal. » Le groupe est invité à retourner en #Turquie et ne jamais revenir.

    Les refoulements, une « pratique courante »

    Les témoignages de refoulements (ou pushbacks, en anglais) comme celui d’Ali sont généralement réfutés par le gouvernement bulgare. Mais de nombreux abus ont été documentés par l’organe de surveillance des droits humains de Frontex au cours des dix-huit derniers mois, selon une série de documents internes de l’agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes consultés par le réseau Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) et publiés par Le Monde. Ces documents, obtenus grâce aux lois de transparence européennes, décrivent avec force détails des #brutalités commises par des agents bulgares participant aux opérations de Frontex : coups de bâton, #déshabillage de force, #vols d’effets personnels, #agressions verbales et #blessures graves infligées par des chiens, etc.

    Les documents montrent également que les preuves étayant ces pratiques illégales ont été dissimulées non seulement par les autorités bulgares, mais aussi par les hauts fonctionnaires de Frontex et de la Commission européenne. Dans le même temps, l’exécutif européen saluait les « excellents » progrès réalisés par la Bulgarie en matière de #gestion_des_frontières, facilitant l’adhésion du pays à l’espace Schengen – les contrôles aux frontières aériennes et maritimes seront levés le 31 mars, tandis que les contrôles terrestres restent en place pour l’instant.

    Les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) de défense des droits humains locales et internationales alertent depuis de nombreuses années sur les refoulements violents en Bulgarie. Selon des données compilées par le Comité Helsinki de Bulgarie, 5 268 refoulements, touchant 87 647 personnes, auraient eu lieu au cours de la seule année 2022.

    Plusieurs experts affirment que la plupart des 325 000 entrées de migrants que le gouvernement bulgare revendique avoir « empêchées » depuis 2022 sont en fait des refoulements illégaux. « Ces personnes ont été interceptées à l’intérieur du pays. Nous ne parlons donc pas d’entrées empêchées, mais de retours », explique Iliyana Savova, directrice du programme pour les réfugiés et les migrants du Comité Helsinki de Bulgarie. « C’est un secret de Polichinelle que les gens sont repoussés. De tels ordres existent », admet, sous le couvert de l’anonymat, un haut fonctionnaire du gouvernement bulgare.

    Les preuves s’accumulent tellement que le Bureau des droits fondamentaux de Frontex (FRO) considère « établi » que les refoulements, « impliquant souvent des niveaux élevés de #violence et d’autres #traitements_inhumains_ou_dégradants », sont « une pratique régulière de la police des frontières bulgare », selon un bilan des « rapports d’incidents graves » couvrant la période 2022-2023 obtenu dans le cadre de cette enquête.

    Un lanceur d’alerte en mission discrète

    Pour l’Union européenne (UE), la situation est d’autant plus problématique que son agence des frontières collabore directement sur le terrain avec les forces de sécurité bulgares. Depuis 2022, dans le cadre de l’opération conjointe #Terra, Frontex a déployé des équipes de #gardes-frontières, des véhicules de patrouille et des #caméras_de_thermovision pour aider les autorités bulgares dans leurs activités de #surveillance aux frontières turque et serbe.

    En août 2022, un #rapport inquiétant atterrit sur le bureau de Jonas Grimheden, le chef du FRO. Il émane d’un agent de Frontex qui a mené une enquête de sa propre initiative lors d’un déploiement de six mois à la frontière avec la Turquie. Il révèle que les agents de Frontex sont tenus intentionnellement à l’écart des zones où les migrants sont généralement appréhendés et repoussés. « Lorsque des situations se produisent, le collègue local reçoit les indications pour déplacer l’équipe Frontex, en évitant certaines zones, note le lanceur d’alerte. Ils ont pour instruction d’empêcher Frontex de voir quoi que ce soit, pour éviter qu’ils rédigent un rapport officiel. »

    Pour l’eurodéputée écologiste Tineke Strik, cheffe de file d’un groupe d’eurodéputés chargé de surveiller Frontex, ces conclusions soulèvent de sérieux doutes quant à la capacité de l’agence à garantir le respect des droits humains dans le cadre de ses activités : « Il est étonnant qu’une agence de l’UE soit toujours incapable de faire respecter le droit européen après tant d’enquêtes institutionnelles, de rapports, de recommandations et d’avertissements. »

    Dans les mois qui suivent le rapport du lanceur d’alerte, Jonas Grimheden fait part de ses préoccupations croissantes concernant la conduite des agents frontaliers bulgares aux échelons supérieurs de Frontex, dont le siège se trouve à Varsovie.

    L’agence s’attache alors à restaurer sa réputation, ternie par la révélation de sa complicité dans les refoulements illégaux de migrants en Grèce. En avril 2022, son directeur, Fabrice Leggeri – qui vient de rallier le Rassemblement national en vue des élections européennes –, a été contraint de démissionner après avoir été reconnu coupable par l’Office européen de lutte antifraude d’avoir dissimulé des refoulements de bateaux de migrants en mer Egée.

    Aija Kalnaja, qui lui a succédé à la direction de Frontex pour un court intérim, semble prendre les avertissements du FRO au sérieux. En février 2023, elle exprime de « vives inquiétudes » dans une lettre adressée à Rositsa Dimitrova, alors cheffe de la direction des frontières bulgare, recommandant aux autorités du pays d’accorder au corps permanent de l’agence l’accès aux « contrôles de première ligne et aux activités de surveillance des frontières ».

    Dans sa réponse, #Rositsa_Dimitrova assure que « le respect des droits fondamentaux des ressortissants de pays tiers est une priorité absolue ». Disposée à organiser des séances d’information et des formations à l’intention de ses gardes-frontières, la responsable bulgare explique que chaque violation présumée des droits est examinée par une commission constituée par ses soins. Insuffisant, pour le FRO, qui préférerait un contrôle rigoureux par un « organisme indépendant opérant en dehors de la structure institutionnelle du ministère de l’intérieur bulgare ». Cinq agents ont été sanctionnés pour avoir violé leur code de conduite éthique au cours des dix premiers mois de 2023, précise aujourd’hui le ministère de l’intérieur bulgare.

    Une lettre jamais envoyée

    Au début de 2023, le Néerlandais Hans Leijtens est nommé à la tête de Frontex. On peut alors s’attendre à ce que ce nouveau directeur, engagé publiquement en faveur de la « responsabilité, du respect des droits fondamentaux et de la transparence », adopte une position ferme à l’égard des autorités bulgares. « Ce sont des pratiques du passé », déclare-t-il après sa nomination, en référence aux antécédents de Frontex en matière d’aide aux refoulements en Grèce.

    Soucieux de saisir l’occasion, Jonas Grimheden, à la tête du FRO, lui écrit deux jours après sa prise de fonctions, en mars 2023. Le courriel contient un projet de lettre « que vous pouvez envisager d’envoyer, en tout ou en partie », à Rositsa Dimitrova. La lettre rappelle les « allégations persistantes de retours irréguliers (appelés “refoulements”), accompagnées de graves allégations de #mauvais_traitements et d’#usage_excessif_de_la_force par la police nationale des frontières à l’encontre des migrants » et demande des enquêtes indépendantes sur les violations des droits. Ce brouillon de lettre n’a jamais quitté la boîte de réception d’Hans Leijtens.

    Quelques semaines plus tard, en mars 2023, le #FRO envoie un rapport officiel au conseil d’administration de Frontex, évoquant le « risque que l’agence soit indirectement impliquée dans des violations des droits fondamentaux sans avoir la possibilité de recueillir toutes les informations pertinentes et d’empêcher ces violations de se produire ».

    M. Leijtens a-t-il fait part aux autorités bulgares des conclusions du FRO ? Sollicité, le service de presse de Frontex explique que « les discussions directes ont été jugées plus efficaces », sans pouvoir divulguer « les détails spécifiques des discussions ».

    Une contrepartie pour Schengen ?

    Alors que ce bras de fer se joue en coulisses, sur la scène politique, la Bulgarie est érigée en élève modèle pour le programme de contrôle des migrations de la Commission européenne, et récompensée pour le durcissement de ses #contrôles_frontaliers, en contrepartie de l’avancement de sa candidature à l’entrée dans l’espace Schengen.

    En mars 2023, la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, annonce un #projet_pilote visant à « prévenir les arrivées irrégulières » et à « renforcer la gestion des frontières et des migrations », notamment par le biais de « #procédures_d’asile_accélérées » et d’#expulsions_rapides des migrants indésirables. La Commission sélectionne deux pays « volontaires » : la #Roumanie et la Bulgarie.

    Pour mettre en œuvre le projet, la Commission accorde à la Bulgarie 69,5 millions d’euros de #fonds_européens, principalement destinés à la surveillance de sa frontière avec la Turquie. « Toutes les activités menées dans le cadre de ce projet pilote doivent l’être dans le plein respect de la législation de l’UE et des droits fondamentaux, en particulier du principe de non-refoulement », précise d’emblée la Commission.

    Pourtant, à ce moment-là, l’exécutif bruxellois est parfaitement conscient de la situation désastreuse des droits humains sur le terrain. Deux mois avant le lancement du projet, en janvier 2023, deux hauts fonctionnaires de la direction des affaires intérieures (DG Home) ont rencontré à Stockholm la patronne des gardes-frontières bulgares « pour discuter des préoccupations du FRO concernant les allégations de #violations_des_droits_fondamentaux », révèle un compte rendu de la réunion.

    Au fil de l’avancement du projet pilote, les signaux d’alerte se multiplient. En septembre 2023, Jonas Grimheden alerte une nouvelle fois le conseil d’administration de Frontex sur des « allégations répétées de (…) refoulements et d’usage excessif de la force » par les agents bulgares. Si son rapport salue la participation des agents de Frontex aux « activités de patrouille terrestre de première ligne », il rappelle que ces derniers « continuent d’être impliqués dans un nombre limité d’interceptions » de migrants.

    Au cours du projet, deux documents sur les « droits fondamentaux » aux frontières extérieures de la Bulgarie ont circulé au sein de la DG Home. La Commission européenne a refusé de les communiquer au BIRN, arguant que leur divulgation mettrait en péril la « confiance mutuelle » avec le gouvernement bulgare.

    « Les résultats sont excellents »

    La participation de la Bulgarie au projet pilote de la Commission semble avoir joué un rôle crucial pour faire avancer son projet de rejoindre Schengen – un objectif prioritaire depuis plus d’une décennie. Il coïncide en tout cas avec un changement de ton très net du côté de Bruxelles et Varsovie, qui ont dès lors largement balayé les inquiétudes concernant les mauvais traitements infligés à grande échelle aux migrants.

    « Les résultats sont excellents », annonce Ylva Johansson lors d’une conférence de presse en octobre 2023. La commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, chargée des migrations, salue les efforts déployés par la Bulgarie pour empêcher les migrants « irréguliers » d’entrer sur le territoire de l’UE, appelant à prendre la « décision absolument nécessaire » d’admettre la Bulgarie dans l’espace Schengen. Cette décision est alors bloquée depuis des mois par les Pays-Bas et l’Autriche, qui exigent des contrôles plus stricts à la frontière terrestre avec la Turquie. Quelques semaines auparavant, Ursula von der Leyen avait salué la Bulgarie, qui « montre la voie à suivre en mettant en avant les meilleures pratiques en matière d’asile et de retour ». « Faisons-les enfin entrer, sans plus attendre », avait réclamé la présidente de la Commission.

    Selon Diana Radoslavova, directrice du Centre pour le soutien juridique, une ONG sise à Sofia, la fermeture effective de la frontière avec la Turquie est indispensable à l’entrée de la Bulgarie dans l’espace Schengen. « [Les autorités] sont prêtes à tout pour respecter cette injonction, y compris au prix de violations extrêmes des droits de l’homme », estime l’avocate. « Tant que la Bulgarie coopère en bonne intelligence avec la protection des frontières et la mise en œuvre du projet pilote, la Commission regarde ailleurs », ajoute l’eurodéputée Tineke Strik.

    Pour défendre la candidature de Sofia à l’espace Schengen, la Commission européenne s’est appuyée sur le rapport d’une mission d’enquête rassemblant les experts de plusieurs agences de l’UE et des Etats membres, dépêchés en novembre 2023 en Bulgarie pour évaluer son état de préparation à l’adhésion. La mission n’aurait trouvé aucune preuve de violation des obligations en matière de droits humains prévues par les règles européennes, y compris en ce qui concerne « le respect du principe de non-refoulement et l’accès à la protection internationale ».

    Ce rapport n’a pas dissipé les inquiétudes de Jonas Grimheden, qui affirme que ses services font encore « régulièrement » part de leurs « préoccupations » au conseil d’administration de Frontex, « auquel participe la Commission européenne ».
    Cette enquête a été produite en collaboration avec le réseau Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), qui a reçu un soutien financier de la Fondation Heinrich-Böll. Son contenu relève de la seule responsabilité des auteurs et ne représente pas les points de vue et les opinions de la fondation.

    La réponse de Frontex et de la Commission européenne

    Un porte-parole de Frontex déclare que l’agence prend « très au sérieux » les « préoccupations concernant les refoulements ». « Dans les cas où des violations sont signalées, la question est transmise au directeur exécutif et, si nécessaire, discutée lors des réunions du conseil d’administration avec des représentants des Etats membres. Toutefois, ces discussions ne sont pas publiques, conformément à notre politique de confidentialité visant à garantir un dialogue franc et efficace. »

    Dans une réponse écrite, la Commission européenne rappelle « l’importance de maintenir des éléments de contrôle solides tout en renforçant les actions de suivi et d’enquête ». « Les autorités bulgares, comme celles de tous les Etats membres de l’UE, doivent respecter pleinement les obligations découlant du droit d’asile et du droit international, notamment en garantissant l’accès à la procédure d’asile », explique un porte-parole.

    L’institution précise qu’« il a été convenu de renforcer davantage le mécanisme national indépendant existant pour contrôler le respect des droits fondamentaux », mais qu’« il est de la responsabilité des Etats membres d’enquêter sur toute allégation d’actes répréhensibles ».

    Le Médiateur européen enquête actuellement sur la décision de la Commission de refuser la communication aux journalistes de BIRN de deux documents de la DG Home sur les « droits fondamentaux » aux frontières extérieures de la Bulgarie. Dans l’attente de l’enquête, la Commission a refusé de dire si ces documents avaient été pris en considération lorsqu’elle a émis des évaluations positives du programme pilote et de la conformité de la Bulgarie avec les règles de Schengen.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/02/26/comment-l-ue-a-ferme-les-yeux-sur-le-refoulement-illegal-de-migrants-par-la-

    #refoulements #push-backs #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #opération_Terra

  • Jury convicts #Ibrahima_Bah : Statement from Captain Support UK

    Following a three-week trial, Ibrahima Bah, a teenager from Senegal, has been convicted by an all-white jury at Canterbury Crown Court. The jury unanimously found him guilty of facilitating illegal entry to the UK, and by a 10-2 majority of manslaughter by gross negligence. This conviction followed a previous trial in July 2023 in which the jury could not reach a verdict.

    Ibrahima’s prosecution and conviction is a violent escalation in the persecution of migrants to ‘Stop the Boats’. Observing the trial has also made it clear to us how anti-black racism pervades the criminal ‘justice’ system in this country. The verdict rested on the jury’s interpretation of generic words with shifting meanings such as ‘reasonable’, ‘significant’, and ‘minimal’. Such vagueness invites subjective prejudice, in this case anti-black racist profiling. Ibrahima, a teenage survivor, was perceived in the eyes of many jurors to be older, more mature, more responsible, more threatening, with more agency, and thus as more ‘guilty’.
    Why Ibrahima was charged

    Ibrahima was arrested in December 2022 after the dinghy he was driving across the Channel broke apart next to the fishing vessel Arcturus. Four men are known to have drowned, and up to five are still missing at sea. The court heard the names of three of them: Allaji Ibrahima Ba, 18 years old from Guinea who had travelled with Ibrahima from Libya and who Ibrahima described as his brother; Hajratullah Ahmadi, from Afghanistan; and Moussa Conate, a 15 year old from Guinea.

    The jury, judge, defense, and prosecution agreed the shipwreck and resultant deaths had multiple factors. These included the poor construction of the boat, water ingress after a time at sea, and later everyone standing up to be rescued causing the floor of the dinghy ripping apart. A report by Alarm Phone and LIMINAL points to other contributing factors, including the lack of aerial surveillance, the failure of the French to launch a search and rescue operation when first informed of the dinghy’s distress, and the skipper of Arcturus’ delay in informing Dover Coastguard of the seriousness of the wreck. Nonetheless, the Kent jury has decided to exclusively punish a black teenaged survivor.

    What the jury heard

    Many of the other survivors, all of whom claimed asylum upon reaching the UK, testified that Ibrahima saved their lives. At the moment the dinghy got into danger, Ibrahima steered it towards the fishing vessel which rescued them. He was also shown holding a rope to keep the collapsed dinghy alongside the fishing vessel while others climbed onboard. One survivor told the court that Ibrahima “was an angel”.

    The story told by witnesses not on the dinghy contrasted greatly to that of the asylum seekers who survived. Ray Strachan, the captain of the shipping vessel Arcturus offered testimony which appeared particularly prejudiced. He described Ibrahima using racist tropes – “mouthy”, not grateful enough following rescue, and as behaving very unusually. He complained about the tone in which Ibrahima asked the crew to rescue his drowning friend Allaji, who Strachan could only describe as being “dark brown. What can you say nowadays? He wasn’t white.” Strachan also has spoken out in a GB News interview against what he considers to be the “migrant taxi service” in the Channel, and volunteered to the jury, “It wasn’t my decision to take them to Dover. I wanted to take them back to France.” This begs the question of whether Strachan’s clearly anti-migrant political opinions influenced his testimony in a way which he felt would help secure Ibrahima’s conviction. It also raises the question if jury members identified more with Strachan’s retelling than the Afghans who testified through interpreters, and to what extent they shared some of his convictions.

    When Ibrahima took the stand to testify in his defense he explained that he refused to drive the rubber inflatable after he was taken to the beach and saw its size compared to the number of people expecting to travel on it. He told how smugglers, who had organised the boat and had knives and a gun, then assaulted him and forced him to drive the dinghy. The other survivors corroborated his testimony and described the boat’s driver being beaten and forced onboard.

    The prosecutor, however, sought to discredit Ibrahima, cross-examining him for one-and-a-half days. He demonised Ibrahima and insisted that he was personally responsible for the deaths because he was driving. Ibrahima’s actions, which survivors testified saved their lives, were twisted into dangerous decisions. His experiences of being forced to drive the boat under threat of death, and following assault, were disbelieved. The witness stand became the scene of another interrogation, with the prosecutor picking over the details of Ibrahima’s previous statements for hours.

    Ibrahima’s account never waivered. Yes he drove the dinghy, he didn’t want to, he was forced to, and when they got into trouble he did everything in his power to save everybody on board.
    Free Ibrahima!

    We have been supporting, and will continue to support, Ibrahima as he faces his imprisonment at the hands of the racist and unjust UK border regime.

    This is a truly shocking decision.

    We call for everybody who shares our anger to protest the unjust conviction of Ibrahima Bah and to stand in solidarity with all those incarcerated and criminalised for seeking freedom of movement.

    https://captainsupport.net/jury-convicts-ibrahima-bah-statement-from-captain-support-uk

    #scafista #scafisti #UK #Angleterre #criminalisation_de_la_migration #migrations #réfugiés #procès #justice #condamnation #négligence #Stop_the_Boats #verdict #naufrage #responsabilité #Arcturus

    • “NO SUCH THING AS JUSTICE HERE”. THE CRIMINALISATION OF PEOPLE ARRIVING TO THE UK ON ‘SMALL BOATS’

      New research shows how people arriving on small boats are being imprisoned for their ‘illegal arrival’. Among those prosecuted are people seeking asylum, victims of trafficking and torture, and children with ongoing age disputes.

      This research provides broader context surrounding the imprisonment of Ibrahima Bah, a Senegalese teenager, who has recently been found ‘guilty’ of both facilitating illegal entry and manslaughter. He was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment on Friday 23rd February. In their statement, Captain Support UK argue that “Ibrahima’s prosecution and conviction is a violent escalation in the persecution of migrants to ‘Stop the Boats’.”

      The research

      This report, published by the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford and Border Criminologies, shows how people have been imprisoned for their arrival on a ‘small boat’ since the Nationality and Borders Act (2022) came into force. It details the process from sea to prison, and explains how this policy is experienced by those affected. Analysis is based on observations of over 100 hearings where people seeking asylum were prosecuted for their own illegal arrival, or for facilitating the arrival of others through steering the dinghy they travelled on. The report is informed by the detailed casework experience of Humans for Rights Network, Captain Support UK and Refugee Legal Support. It also draws on data collected through Freedom of Information requests, and research interviews with lawyers, interpreters, and people who have been criminalised for crossing the Channel on a ‘small boat’.

      Background

      In late 2018, the number of people using dinghies to reach the UK from mainland Europe began to increase. Despite Government claims, alternative ‘safe and legal routes’ for accessing protection in the UK remain inaccessible to most people. There is no visa for ‘seeking asylum’, and humanitarian routes to the UK are very restricted. For many, irregular journeys by sea have become the only way to enter the UK to seek asylum, safety, and a better life.

      Soon after the number of people arriving on small boats started to increase, the Crown Prosecution Service began to charge those identified as steering the boats with the offences of ‘illegal entry’ or ‘facilitation’. These are offences within Section 24 and Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. However, in 2021, a series of successful appeals overturned these prosecutions. This was on the basis that if the people on a small boat intended to claim asylum at port, there was no breach of immigration law through attempted ‘illegal entry’. The Court of Appeal found that those who arrive by small boat and claim asylum do not enter illegally, as they are granted entry as an asylum seeker.

      In response, in June 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act expanded the scope of criminal offences relating to irregular arrival to the UK. First, the offence of ‘illegal arrival’ was introduced, with a maximum sentence of 4 years. Second, the offence of ‘facilitation’ was expanded to include circumstances in which ‘gain’ was difficult to prove, and the maximum sentence was increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. During Parliamentary debates, members of both Houses of Parliament warned that this would criminalise asylum seeking to the UK.

      Who has been prosecuted since the Nationality and Borders Act (2022)?

      New data shows that in the first year of implementation (June 2022 – June 2023), 240 people arriving on small boats were charged with ‘illegal arrival’ off small boats. While anyone arriving irregularly can now be arrested for ‘illegal arrival’, this research finds that in practice those prosecuted either:

      – Have an ‘immigration history’ in the UK, including having been identified as being in the country, or having attempted to arrive previously ( for example, through simply having applied for a visa), or,
      – Are identified as steering the dinghy they travelled in as it crossed the Channel.

      49 people were also charged with ‘facilitation’ in addition to ‘illegal arrival’ after allegedly being identified as having their ‘hand on the tiller’ at some point during the journey. At least two people were charged with ‘facilitation’ for bringing their children with them on the dinghy.

      In 2022, 1 person for every 10 boats was arrested for their alleged role in steering. In 2023, this was 1 for every 7 boats. People end up being spotted with their ‘hand on the tiller’ for many reasons, including having boating experience, steering in return for discounted passage, taking it in turns, or being under duress. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, both offences target people with no role in organised criminal gangs.

      The vast majority of those convicted of both ‘illegal arrival’ and ‘facilitation’ have ongoing asylum claims. Victims of torture and trafficking, as well as children with ongoing age disputes, have also been prosecuted. Those arrested include people from nationalities with a high asylum grant rate, including people from Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, and Syria.

      Those imprisoned are distressed and harmed by their experiences in court and prison

      This research shows how court hearings were often complicated and delayed by issues with interpreters and faulty video link technology. Bail was routinely denied without proper consideration of each individual’s circumstances. Those accused were usually advised to plead guilty to ‘illegal arrival’ at the first opportunity to benefit from sentence reductions, however, this restricted the possibility of legal challenge.

      Imprisonment caused significant psychological and physical harm, which people said was particularly acute given their experiences of displacement. The majority of those arrested are imprisoned in HMP Elmley. They frequently reported not being able to access crucial services, including medical care, interpretation services including for key documents relating to their cases, contact with their solicitors, immigration advice, as well as work and English lessons. People shared their experiences of poor living conditions, inadequate food, and routine and frequent racist remarks and abuse from prison staff as ‘foreign nationals’.

      Children with age disputes are being imprisoned for their arrival on small boats

      Research (see, for example, here) by refugee support organisations has highlighted significant flaws in the Home Office’s age assessment processes in Dover, resulting in children being aged as adults, and treated as such. One consequence of this is that children with ongoing age disputes have been charged as adults with the offences of ‘illegal arrival’ and ‘facilitation’ for their alleged role in steering boats across the Channel.

      Humans for Rights Network has identified 15 age-disputed children who were wrongly treated as adults and charged with these new offences, with 14 spending time in adult prison. This is very likely to be an undercount. The Home Office fails to collect data on how many people with ongoing age disputes are convicted. These young people have all claimed asylum, and several claim (or have been found to be) survivors of torture and/or trafficking. The majority are Sudanese or South Sudanese, who have travelled to the UK via Libya.

      Throughout the entirety of the criminal process, responsibility lay with the child at every stage to reject their ‘given’ age and reassert that they are under 18. Despite this, the Courts generally relied on the Home Office’s ‘given age’, without recognition of evidence highlighting clear flaws in these initial age enquiries. Children who maintained that they were under 18 in official legal proceedings faced substantial delays to their cases, due to the time required by the relevant local authority to carry out an age assessment, and delays to the criminal process. Due to this inaction, several children have decided to be convicted and sentenced as adults to try to avoid spending additional time in prison.

      These young people have experienced serious psychological and physical harm in adult courts and prisons, raising serious questions around the practices of the Home Office, Border Force, Ministry of Justice, magistrates and Judges, the CPS, defence lawyers, and prison staff.

      Pour télécharger le rapport :
      Full report:https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/No%20such%20thing%20as%20justice%20here_for%20publication.pdf
      Summary : https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/SUMMARY_No%20such%20thing%20as%20justice%20here_for%20publication.pd

      https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/news/report-launch-no-such-thing-justice-here
      #rapport

    • Ibrahima Bah was sentenced to nine years for steering a ‘death trap’ dinghy across the Channel. Was he really to blame?

      The young asylum seeker was forced into piloting the boat on which at least four people drowned. Under new ‘stop the boats’ laws, he’s responsible for their deaths – but others say he’s a victim

      In the dock at Canterbury crown court, Ibrahima Bah listened closely as his interpreter told him he was being sentenced to nine years and six months in prison.

      In December 2022, Bah had steered an inflatable dinghy full of passengers seeking asylum in the UK across the Channel from France. The boat collapsed and four people were confirmed drowned – it is thought that at least one other went overboard, but no other bodies have yet been recovered.

      Bah’s conviction – four counts of gross negligence manslaughter and one of facilitating a breach of immigration law – is the first of its kind. The Home Office put out a triumphant tweet after his sentencing, with the word “JAILED” in capital letters above his mugshot. According to the government, Bah’s sentence is proof that it is achieving one of Rishi Sunak’s main priorities: to “Stop the Boats”. But human rights campaigners are less jubilant and fear his conviction will be far from the last.

      Of the 39 passengers who survived that perilous journey in December 2022, about a dozen were lone children. Bah is a young asylum seeker himself, from Senegal. The judge determined he is now 20; his birth certificate says he is 17. Either way, he was a teenager at the time of the crossing. So how did his dream of a new life in the UK end up here, in this courtroom, being convicted of multiple counts of manslaughter?

      As with so many asylum seekers, details about Bah’s life are hazy and complicated. He has had little opportunity to speak to people since he arrived in the UK because he has been behind bars. His older sister, Hassanatou Ba, who lives in Morocco, says the whole family is devastated by his imprisonment, especially their mother. Hassanatou says her brother – the only son in the family, and the only male after the death of their father – has always been focused on helping them all.

      “He is gentle, kind and respectful, and loves his family very much,” she says. “He always wanted to take care of all of us. He knew about the difficulties in our lives and wanted our problems to stop.”

      In court, the judge, Mr Justice Johnson KC, noted that Bah’s early upbringing was difficult and that he was subjected to child labour. His initial journey from Senegal was tough, too, as he travelled to the Gambia, then Mali (where the judge acknowledged he had been subjected to forced labour), Algeria and Libya before crossing the Mediterranean to reach Europe. The risk of drowning in a flimsy and overcrowded boat in the Mediterranean is extremely high, with more than 25,000 deaths or people missing during the crossing since 2014. The Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority found there were reasonable grounds to conclude Bah was a victim of modern slavery based on some of his experiences on his journey. He told the police the boat journey was “terrifying”, and took four days and four nights in an “overcrowded and unsuitable” vessel.

      Bah and his fellow travellers were rescued and taken to Sicily. From there, he travelled to France and met Allaji Ba, 18, from Guinea, who became his friend and who he has described as his “brother”. The pair spent five months in Bordeaux before travelling to Paris, then Calais, then Dunkirk, spending three months in an area known as the Jungle – a series of small, basic encampments. The refugees who live there are frequently uprooted by French police. The vast original Calais refugee encampment – also known as the Jungle – was destroyed in October 2016, but the camps still exist, albeit in more compact and makeshift forms. Some people have tents, while others sleep in the open air, whatever the weather.

      In the Jungle, Bah met a group of smugglers. He was unable to pay the going rate of about £2,000 for a space on a dinghy to come to the UK, so instead he agreed to steer the boat in exchange for free passage. Smugglers don’t drive boats themselves: they either offer the job to someone like Bah, who can’t afford to pay for their passage; force a passenger to steer; or leave it to the group to share the task between them.

      When Bah saw how unseaworthy and overcrowded the boat was, he refused to pilot it, and in court, the judge accepted there was a degree of coercion by the smugglers. Bah said smugglers with a knife and a gun assaulted him, and other survivors corroborated his account of being beaten after refusing to board the boat.

      Once the dinghy was afloat, survivors have said the situation became increasingly terrifying. Out at sea, under a pitch black sky, the dinghy began taking in water up to knee level. It was when the passengers saw a fishing vessel, Arcturus, that catastrophe struck, with some standing up, hoping that at last they were going to be saved from what they believed was certain drowning.

      At Bah’s trial, witnesses gave evidence about his efforts to save lives by manoeuvring the stricken dinghy towards the fishing trawler, so that people could be rescued.

      One witness said that if it hadn’t been for Bah, everyone on board would have drowned. “He was trying his best,” he said. Another survivor called him an “angel” for his efforts to save lives, holding a rope so others could be hoisted to safety on the fishing vessel and putting the welfare of others first. The judge acknowledged that Bah was one of the last to leave the dinghy and tried to help others after he did so, including his friend Ba, “who tragically died before your eyes”.

      The dinghy was described by the judge as a “death trap”; he also recognised that the primary responsibility for what happened that night rests with the criminal gangs who exploit and endanger those who wish to come to the UK. He noted that Bah was “significantly less culpable” than the gangs and did not coerce other passengers or organise the trip.

      “Everything that has happened to Ibrahima since he was forced to drive the boat in 2022 has been bad luck,” says Hassanatou. “In fact, Ibrahima’s whole journey has been suffering on top of suffering.”

      Had Bah made the journey just a few months earlier, he would not be in this courtroom today. His conviction was made possible by recent changes in the law – part of the Conservative government’s clampdown on small boats. In June 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act (NABA) expanded the scope of criminal offences relating to irregular arrival to the UK. The offence of “illegal arrival” was introduced, with a maximum sentence of four years. This criminalises the act of arriving in the UK to claim asylum – and effectively makes claiming asylum impossible since, by law, you have to be physically in the country to make a claim.

      At the same time, the pre-existing offence of “facilitation” – making it possible for others to claim asylum by piloting a dinghy, for example – was expanded, with the maximum sentence increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. Hundreds of people, including children and victims of torture and smuggling, have subsequently been jailed for the first offence and a handful for the second.

      The reasons Bah and thousands of others are forced into this particularly deadly form of Russian roulette on the Channel is due to government policy not to provide safe and legal routes for those who are fleeing persecution. Last year, the government went further than NABA with the Illegal Migration Act, making any asylum claim by someone arriving by an “irregular” means, such as on a small boat, inadmissible. It is hard to overstate the significance of this change. The right to claim asylum was enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Convention after the horrors of the second world war – and has saved many lives. The UK is still signed up to that convention, but the Illegal Migration Act now makes it almost impossible to exercise that essential right, and has been strongly criticised by the UN.

      None of these legal changes are stopping the boats. Although the number of Channel crossings fell by 36% last year, much of that reduction was due to 90% fewer crossings by Albanians (there had been a spike in the numbers of Albanians coming over in 2022). Those fleeing conflict zones are still crossing in large numbers, and according to a report by the NGO Alarm Phone, measures introduced to stop the boats are likely to have increased the number of Channel drownings.

      Most asylum seekers do not seek sanctuary in the UK but instead head to the nearest safe country. Those who do come here often have family in the UK, or speak English. The decisions people make before stepping into a precarious dinghy on a beach in northern France are not a result of nuanced calculations based on the latest law to pass through parliament. “I come or I die,” one Syrian asylum seeker told me recently, when I asked about his decision to make a high-risk boat crossing after experiencing torture in his home country.

      Some lawyers who have followed Bah’s case and the broader implications of the new legislation are worried about these developments. “There is now no legal way to claim asylum,” one lawyer says.

      “The use of manslaughter in these circumstances is completely novel and demonstrates how pernicious the new laws are. It is the most vulnerable who end up piloting the boats and asylum seekers have no knowledge that the law has changed.”

      Bah’s case has also caused consternation among campaigners. “The conviction of Ibrahima Bah demonstrates a violent escalation in the prosecution of people for the way in which they arrive in the UK,” reads a joint statement from Humans for Rights Network and Refugee Legal Support, two of the organisations supporting Bah. They also point out that Bah had already spent 14 months in prison without knowing how long he would remain there, after a previous trial against him last year collapsed when the jury failed to reach a verdict.

      “He too is a survivor of the shipwreck he experienced in December 2022,” the statement continues. “Imprisonment has severely impacted his mental health and will continue to do so while he is incarcerated. Ibrahima navigated a horrific journey to the UK in the hope of finding safety here through the only means available to him and yet he has been punished for the deaths of others seeking the same thing, sanctuary.”

      The organisation Captain Support is helping 175 people who face prosecution as a result of the new laws to find legal representation. A letter-writing campaign calling for Bah to be freed has been launched.

      Hassanatou says she is struggling to comprehend the UK’s harsh laws towards people like her little brother, and she fears his age will make it particularly difficult for him to cope behind bars. He will be expected to serve two-thirds of his sentence in custody, first in a young offenders’ institute and then in an adult jail.

      In his sentencing remarks the judge said to Bah: “This is also a tragedy for you. Your dream of starting a new life in the UK is in tatters.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/12/ibrahima-bah-teenage-asylum-seeker-manslaughter