• Usine Arkema visée à Lyon par une action écologiste - Non aux polluants « éternels »
    https://ricochets.cc/Usine-Arkema-visee-a-Lyon-par-une-action-ecologiste-Non-aux-polluants-eter

    Des centaines de militants écologistes ont envahi, redécoré et perturbé l’usine Arkema au sud de Lyon qui pollue toute la région et a contaminé l’eau, l’air les sols et les corps des habitants. Dirigeants de l’usine et autorités sont scandalisés, pour eux rien ne doit pouvoir entraver la fabrication et l’utilisation des polluants « éternels » si indispensableq aux profits du système industriel et capitaliste. Diffuser la mort industriel plutôt que renoncer à l’argent et au « progrès » ? (...) #Les_Articles

    / #Ecologie, #Résistances_au_capitalisme_et_à_la_civilisation_industrielle

    https://rebellyon.info/Journees-portes-entr-ouvertes-a-Arkema-25712
    https://reporterre.net/Polluants-eternels-plus-de-300-activistes-ont-envahi-une-usine-d-Arkema

    • Dans cet article, on apprend qu’elle a été mandatée par le Secrétariat d’État chargé des Anciens Combattants et de la Mémoire pour participer à la dernière journée durant laquelle a eu lieu la cession officielle des archives sur Thiaroye au Sénégal. Elle a donc entendu le président Hollande évoquer au moins soixante-dix morts.

      #historienne_de_prefecture

  • Statement of the Board of the German Association of Social and Cultural Anthropology (GASCA) on Academic Freedom in Germany

    As the Executive Board of the German Society of Social and Cultural Anthropology (GASCA), we would like to voice our grave concern over the fact that researchers working in Germany are finding their fundamental rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression increasingly restricted. Both, research and international academic exchange are at risk of being impaired if renowned researchers who work internationally and who come to Germany with different political commitments and persuasions are told that they cannot freely pursue their work or make public statements in Germany.

    We emphasize the absolute necessity of combating antisemitism, racism and islamophobia in Germany and worldwide. However, this cannot be achieved through the surveillance of academics, their academic work or statements they make as private persons, as has now been brought to our attention in several cases from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. We are concerned to see how academics, in particular those who come to Germany from contexts where political discussions are held differently, and/or those who are precariously employed, have to fear for their reputation or feel restricted in their freedom of expression when they comment on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Disputes over the Israel/Palestine conflict cannot be understood exclusively by means of theories of critiques of antisemitism. It is necessary and legitimate to take into account the historical, political, religious, cultural, economic, ethnic and nationalist dimensions of the conflict. The marginalization of academics who exercise their academic freedom and freedom of opinion as enshrined in German Basic Law must not become the vehicle through which debates are shaped in this country; on the contrary, these acts of marginalization prevent necessary debates.

    The terror, war and destruction in Israel/Palestine and the immeasurable suffering on all sides has provoked an intensification of political positioning and polarized public debate. This is particularly true of debates on social media platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly known as Twitter). These intensifications can become problematic if they reduce complex discussions to a few characters and are instrumentalized for simplistic, often tendentious attacks. We are seeing our public sphere shaped by reductionist judgements of socially complex conflict dynamics and indiscriminate accusations of antisemitism that lead increasingly to the breakdown of conversations. This is why we insist that one of the core tasks of universities, research institutes and cultural institutions must be to maintain spaces for difficult discussions in highly polarized social moments. Linked to these tasks is the responsibility to take a stand against all forms of antisemitism, racism and islamophobia, all of which destroy the foundations of democratic coexistence and cooperation. If universities and research institutions do not succeed in cultivating spaces for discussion, including also discussions where we might disagree with each other, and if they cannot counter hasty condemnations with open debates, they contribute to destroying trust in democratic publics and play right into the hands of extremist populism.

    We are deeply concerned over the attacks that renowned and internationally respected intellectuals such as Masha Gessen and Ghassan Hage are facing in Germany. As social and cultural anthropologists in Germany, we are convinced that debates in academic and civil society circles need to renew their commitment to discussion, dissent, and cooperation across difference in order to enable constant shifts in perspective and to challenge epistemic and political certainties. We urge universities and research institutions to commit themselves to building and maintaining spaces for discussion and encounter, which welcome plurality and contradiction. Only in such spaces can variously positioned, carefully reasoned and empirically founded perspectives be developed and mutually criticised, in order for us to learn from each other.

    https://www.dgska.de/stellungnahme-des-vorstands-zur-wissenschaftsfreiheit-in-deutschland
    #liberté_d'expression #Allemagne #liberté_académique #libertés_académiques #recherche #université #Autriche #Suisse #Israël #Palestine #peur #réputation #marginalisation #réseaux_sociaux #Masha_Gessen #Ghassan_Hage

  • Vulnérabilité numérique et harcèlement en ligne des universitaires : une publication
    https://academia.hypotheses.org/55322

    Relayant le travail de veille universitaire du compte Twitter de La Rasbaille, Academia signale la parution dans la revue Feminist Media Studies d’un article scientifique intitulé “Digital vulnerabilities and online harassment of academics, consequences, and coping strategies. An exploratory analysis“ … Continuer la lecture →

  • Kauna, modératrice pour Facebook au Kenya : « J’ai vu beaucoup de suicides en vidéo » - L’Humanité
    https://www.humanite.fr/social-et-economie/facebook/kauna-moderatrice-pour-facebook-au-kenya-jai-vu-beaucoup-de-suicides-en-vid


    Attention, elle parle un peu des contenus à modérer et ça craint.

    Facebook prétend que ces contenus sont majoritairement modérés par des IA…

    C’est un #mensonge et c’est triste. Nous faisons le gros de ce travail. Mais, comme c’est caché, dans le back-office de Facebook, il est impossible de s’en rendre compte si on n’y a pas accès. On apprend à l’algorithme à repérer les contenus problématiques, mais nous devons les vérifier avant de les supprimer. C’est sûr qu’on se sent invisibilisé. Ce système devrait être expliqué, montré à tout le monde : ces entreprises technologiques font faire le travail ingrat à des travailleurs payés à peine plus d’un dollar de l’heure en Afrique.

    #IA

  • #Baptiste_Morizot - La Manufacture d’idées 2023 - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIAtKdX7_jc

    Rencontre avec le philosophe Baptiste Morizot autour de son ouvrage « #L'inexploré », un livre conçu comme une carte nous invitant à retrouver le goût de l’exploration, en déroutant cette notion de son orientation moderne vers les étoiles pour la réincurver vers la #Terre et vers ce qui nous relie à nos #milieux_de_vie (modérateur : Rémi Noyon, L’Obs).
    @La Manufacture d’idées

  • Sony studio Firesprite has been shedding talent amidst accusations of toxic culture, staff say | Eurogamer.net
    https://www.eurogamer.net/sony-studio-firesprite-has-been-shedding-talent-amidst-accusations-of-tox

    Most concerning are reports from sources that two senior leaders from Sony support studio XDev, brought in to help lead Firesprite, have since been accused of sexual discrimination and ageism. A subsequent internal investigation by Sony is said to have resulted in the claims being dismissed as a “misunderstanding”.

    #jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #firespire #sony #xdev #business #ressources_humaines #emploi #discrimination #licenciements

  • L’État refuse de donner 41.000 euros pour sauver Point de Contact, maillon crucial dans la lutte contre la pédocriminalité en ligne

    Malgré ses discours pour défendre les mineurs en ligne, le gouvernement ne semble pas décidé à aider à hauteur de 41.000 euros un acteur clé sur ce sujet. L’association Point de Contact, qui remonte le plus de contenus pédocriminels auprès de Pharos, s’attelle depuis 25 ans à nettoyer le web des contenus illicites. Faute de subvention, il compte déposer le bilan.

    41 000 euros. C’est la somme qui manque à Point de Contact, l’un des acteurs les plus actifs en France dans la lutte contre les contenus illicites en ligne, pour poursuivre sa mission. Depuis 25 ans, cette petite équipe de six personnes épluche des dizaines de milliers de contenus signalés par les internautes, les catégorise, et les fait si besoin retirer du Web et remonter aux autorités. Un travail de fourmi pour tenter de « nettoyer » , ou du moins éponger, le web des contenus problématiques, notamment pédocriminels, haineux, et sexistes. Mais l’association n’est pas parvenue à obtenir cette somme demandée à l’Etat. Son président, Jean-Christophe Le Toquin, a donc annoncé le 29 février sur les réseaux sociaux avoir pris rendez-vous avec le tribunal pour déposer le bilan.

    « Compte tenu de la somme dérisoire que nous demandons, ce n’est pas un problème d’argent, mais un problème de fond » , tranche-t-il.
    . . . . . . .

    Source et suite : https://www.latribune.fr/technos-medias/internet/l-etat-refuse-de-donner-41-000-euros-pour-sauver-point-de-contact-maillon-

    #pédocriminalité #pédophilie #web #haine #sexisme #violophilie #impunité #violences_sexuelles #violence #internet #réseaux_sociaux

  • Le monde selon Elon Musk
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/117797-000-A/le-monde-selon-elon-musk

    Doucumentaire disponible du 27/02/2024 au 26/05/2024 - le contenu de la vidéo correspond à un texte qui se lit en dix minutes. On y apprend surtout une chose : X/Twitter n’est pas le dada d’un milliardaire excentrique mais la clé de voûte d’un empire dont le seigneur correspond assez à l’entrepreneur-surhomme d’Ayn Rand dans Atlas Shrugged . C’est assez flippant que ces énergumènes soient à la tête de puissantes organisations.

    Twitteur compulsif, Elon Musk s’est offert en 2022 son réseau social préféré, et l’a brutalement façonné selon ses désirs. Cette enquête punchy relate les relations orageuses entre la plate-forme et le milliardaire, et leurs incidences sur le débat public.

    « Certains s’expriment à travers leurs cheveux, moi je me sers de Twitter. » En 2010, l’entrepreneur Elon Musk a rejoint la « conversation mondiale » et s’est vite fait remarquer par ses tweets potaches ou absurdes. Cette notoriété a rejailli sur ses activités industrielles, axées notamment sur la conquête spatiale et les voitures électriques, contribuant à réduire les dépenses marketing de son empire. Mais les relations entre le magnat d’origine sud-africaine et Twitter ont connu des hauts et des bas. Elon Musk, influencé par ses aspirations libertariennes, a souvent vitupéré contre sur ce qu’il considérait comme des atteintes à la liberté d’expression, quand l’équipe dirigeante de Twitter, longtemps accusée de laxisme face aux propos haineux et aux fake news, tentait, elle, de redresser la barre. Il a par exemple volé au secours de Donald Trump en janvier 2021, lorsque le compte Twitter de ce dernier a été supprimé après l’assaut du Capitole. Pour modeler son réseau social favori à sa guise, Elon Musk a fini par se l’offrir en octobre 2022, après une bataille juridique mémorable. Depuis, Twitter, rebaptisé X en 2023, a licencié des milliers de salariés, notamment des modérateurs de contenu, et ouvert les vannes du complotisme et de l’incitation à la haine.

    Choc des cultures
    Selon la recette éprouvée qui fait la force des documentaires d’actualité Frontline, ce film de James Jacoby entremêle témoignages clés et archives récentes. Il nous replonge jour après jour dans un haletant feuilleton qui a mal fini : la reprise en main de Twitter et une « conversation mondiale » qui vire à la polarisation et à la virulence. Plusieurs ex-salariés de la plate-forme livrent d’éclairants témoignages sur l’avant et l’après-Elon Musk, racontant le choc des cultures entre monde industriel et pépite de la tech, les licenciements brutaux et même un inquiétant déchaînement de haine, complaisamment relayé par le réseau social, à l’encontre de l’un d’entre eux, Yoel Roth, en charge du département de la confiance et de la sécurité de la plate-forme au moment du rachat. Retraçant une décennie de relations orageuses entre Twitter et l’impulsif milliardaire, et le débat sur la liberté d’expression et la désinformation qu’elles ont alimenté, cette enquête à l’efficacité anglo-saxonne montre comment la démocratie a perdu quelques plumes dans l’aventure.

    Réalisation : James Jacoby

    Pays : Etats-Unis

    Année : 2023
    Durée : 91 min

    Disponible du 27/02/2024 au 26/05/2024

    Genre : Documentaires et reportages

    #impérialisme #propagande #relatiins_publiques #manipulation #réseaux_sociaux #économie #idéologie #culte_de_la_personne #monopoles #film #documentaire #TV

  • Award-winning documentary ‘#The_Territory’ recounts the struggles and resilience of Indigenous Brazilians

    The story of #Bitaté-Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau and #Ivaneide_Bandeira, known as #Neidinha_Suruí, and their fight against deforestation in the Amazon, told in the documentary “The Territory,” gained international recognition, and now an Emmy Award.

    On January 7, the film won in the category Outstanding Achievement in Documentary Filmmaking at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards, which gives awards in technical and special categories to series and programs.

    On the stage alongside Neidinha and Bitaté were the Indigenous activist Txai Suruí, the executive producer and Neidinha’s daughter, with the American director of the film, Alex Pritz, and other team members.

    To receive the prize in Los Angeles, 63-year-old Neidinha endured over 40 hours of travel from her territory in Rondônia state to California.

    “When they announced [that we won], we didn’t believe it. We were shocked. We couldn’t cry because we were in shock,” the Indigenous activist recalled.

    The documentary, available for streaming on Disney+, has won several awards since its release. Before the Emmy, it won the Audience and Special Jury awards at the 2023 Sundance Festival.

    For Neidinha, the awards served to “burst a bubble”:

    It is a victory for our struggle, for the struggle for human rights and for nature, for the defence of the forest against deforestation, it’s the fight against the marco temporal [time marker, cut-off date for officially recognizing Indigenous lands]. We’ve come a long way. [Now] we see people on the plane talking about the film, wanting to know about our struggle. People we had never met talking about our cause and celebrating. Sometimes films like this reach a niche interest, a bubble, but ‘The Territory’ let us burst that bubble.

    Among the producers of the film is filmmaker Darren Aronofsky, director of “The Whale” (2022).
    Indigenous team

    “The Territory” recounts the struggle of the Indigenous Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau people in Rondônia state in northern Brazil to defend the territory against invasions from land grabbers and farmers.

    It shows the Indigenous people’s apprehension in the face of dangers to the forest and the communities, as well as moments from their daily life in the village. Some of the most powerful moments are scenes with the leader Ari Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau, who was murdered in April 2020.

    The recordings took place during one of the darkest periods in Brazil’s recent history, during the government of Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022), whose policies were considered anti-Indigenous. He vowed not to recognize any more Indigenous territories during his presidency.

    During the Bolsonaro administration, there was a big rise in the number of invasions of Indigenous territories across the country, as well as a dismantling of environmental policies. In Rondônia, where the film is set, Bolsonaro received 70 percent of valid votes in the last election, in 2022, which was won nationally, however, by the incumbent, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

    The piece was filmed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which in Brazil alone caused more than 700,000 deaths. As it was not possible to enter Indigenous areas during this period, Indigenous people themselves carried out the filming.

    Neidinha told Amazônia Real that the recording equipment was left at the territory’s border in plastic bags, and everything was disinfected to avoid risks of disease. The Indigenous people received online guidance on how to use the equipment, as well as receiving instructions on what to film.

    “Bitaté [the Indigenous leader] said, ‘Look, we know how to do better than that, so let’s do it our way,’” Neidinha remembered.

    “The Territory” recounts threats and pressures suffered by the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau Indigenous people who, lacking state assistance, decided to create a group to defend their territory from outside threats.

    The story’s protagonists are the young Indigenous leader Bitaté-Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau and the activist Neidinha, whom Bitaté considers his second mother. Neidinha recalled that neither she nor Bitaté imagined that the documentary would get this far:

    Bitaté once told me: ‘Mum, I didn’t think people would even watch us. I didn’t think our film would come to anything.’ We thought it would be just another documentary, that for us it would be important, but maybe not for the rest of the world. And it was great because National Geographic bought the film and we were amazed. We travelled around several countries presenting the documentary, giving lectures, talking about the Indigenous cause, in the middle of the Bolsonaro period and the pandemic.

    Celebration

    Txai Suruí, her daughter and an energetic activist in Indigenous movements, wrote in an Instagram post that the Emmy win was the “celebration and recognition of the voices and narratives defending the territories, [and of] the resistance and struggle that permeates the lives of Brazil’s Indigenous peoples”.

    The film’s director, Alex Pritz, also commented on the Emmy win, to the outlet Deadline:

    To receive the recognition of our peers, alongside such an incredible group of nominees, is an unbelievable honour. We share this award with communities around the world who are standing up in defence of our planet’s continued habitability and fighting for a better future.

    Bitaté-Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau also posted on Instagram:

    We won, my people deserve it, especially my community, my Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau people, my Pau Association, [and] the work is not only mine, it’s ours! I’m very happy about it, representing my leadership, and that’s it. We won and there is more to come in the future

    Being the son of a mother from the Juma people and a father from the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau people, Bitaté goes between two territories, one in Rondônia and the other in Amazonas state. He is the grandson of Aruká Juma, one of the last of his ethnic group. He became the leader of his people at a young age. In 2021, as a member of the Indigenous group that was part of the Jovens Cidadãos (Young Citizens) blog, he wrote about his relationship with his grandparents.

    Jovens Cidadãos is a project created by Amazônia Real, started in 2018, which led to a section on the outlet’s website, in which the young leaders themselves recounted their stories.
    Inspiration for life

    Neidinha is one of the founders of the Kanindé Association for Ethno-environmental Defence, one of Brazil’s most well-recognized organizations working for Indigenous peoples’ rights. She was born in Acre state and arrived in Rondônia at about six months old. The move came about because her father began working in a rubber plantation inside what is now the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau Indigenous Land, hence the proximity to the Indigenous people of that ethnic group.

    She left the territory at the age of 12 to study. Through magazines, she learned about the old American Far West, and says she sees the same kind of things being repeated in Brazil:

    In these stories, the Indigenous people were always killed and the colonels were the ‘heroes’ for having advanced to the West, which for me is very similar to the advance of colonization in Brazil. The advance into the Amazon is no different to the American Far West.

    The activist says that the success of “The Territory” brought more work, but also threats. However, she points out that the film does not depict heroes or villains.

    I didn’t want a film where we’re the hero and the other side is the villain. We wanted the reality. The film manages to see both the pressure on the Indigenous people and also the pressure on the poor people, who are used [and] manipulated to grab land for the powerful to [then] take.
    It has strengthened my certainty that I am not wrong in my struggle, because there are moments where you are so threatened, so pressured, that you think about backing off, but the reactions of people around the world have strengthened our convictions.

    https://globalvoices.org/2024/02/29/award-winning-documentary-the-territory-recounts-the-struggles-and-res

    #peuples_autochtones #film #documentaire #film_documentaire #Brésil #territoire #forêt #déforestation #résilience #Amazonie #forêt_amazonienne #Txai_Suruí #Bitaté

  • EA cutting 5% of workforce | GamesIndustry.biz
    https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ea-cutting-5-of-workforce

    Electronic Arts today announced that it is laying off approximately 5% of its employees as it leans in on the parts of the business it feels will be the most successful in the years to come.

    In its most recent annual report, the publisher gave its headcount as 13,400 as of the end of March 2023, which would put the job losses around 670 people.

    Le site Kotaku liste tous les plans de licenciements lancés en 2024 dans l’industrie du jeu vidéo mondiale :

    https://kotaku.com/game-industry-layoffs-how-many-2024-unity-twitch-1851155818

    #jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #ea #electronic_arts #ressources_humaines #licenciements

  • Il Consiglio d’Europa chiede all’Italia di garantire più protezione alle vittime di tratta

    Nel rapporto del Gruppo di esperti sulla lotta alla tratta di esseri umani (Greta) si chiede alle autorità di aumentare le indagini e le condanne, assicurare strumenti efficaci di risarcimento per le vittime e concentrarsi maggiormente sullo sfruttamento lavorativo. Oltre allo stop del memorandum Italia-Libia. Su cui il governo tira dritto.

    Più attenzione alla tratta per sfruttamento lavorativo, maggiori risarcimenti e indennizzi per le vittime e la necessità di aumentare il numero di trafficanti di esseri umani assicurati alla giustizia. Ma anche lo stop del memorandum Italia-Libia e la fine della criminalizzazione dei cosiddetti “scafisti”.

    Sono queste le principali criticità su cui il Gruppo di esperti del Consiglio d’Europa sulla lotta alla tratta di esseri umani (Greta) a fine febbraio ha chiesto al governo italiano di intervenire per assicurare l’applicazione delle normative europee e una tutela efficace per le vittime di tratta degli esseri umani. “Ogni anno in Italia ne vengono individuate tra le 2.100 e le 3.800 -si legge nel report finale pubblicato il 23 febbraio-. Queste cifre non riflettono la reale portata del fenomeno a causa dei persistenti limiti nelle procedure per identificare le vittime, nonché di un basso tasso di autodenuncia da parte delle stesse che temono di essere punite o deportate verso i Paesi di origine”. Una scarsa individuazione dei casi di tratta che riguarderebbe soprattutto alcuni settori “ad alto rischio” come “l’agricoltura, il tessile, i servizi domestici, l’edilizia, il settore alberghiero e la ristorazione”.

    L’oggetto del terzo monitoraggio di attuazione obblighi degli Stati stabiliti dalla Convenzione del Consiglio d’Europa sulla lotta contro la tratta degli esseri umani era proprio l’accesso alla giustizia per le vittime. Dal 13 al 17 febbraio 2023, il gruppo di esperti si è recato in Italia incontrando decine di rappresentanti istituzionali e di organizzazioni della società civile. La prima bozza del report adottata nel giugno 2023 è stata poi condivisa con il governo italiano che a ottobre ha inviato le sue risposte prima della pubblicazione finale del rapporto. Quello in cui il Greta, pur sottolineando “alcuni sviluppi positivi” dall’ultima valutazione svolta in Italia nel 2019, esprime “preoccupazione su diverse questioni”.

    Il risarcimento per le vittime della tratta è una di queste. Spesso “reso impossibile dalla mancanza di beni o proprietà degli autori del reato in Italia” ma anche perché “i meccanismi di cooperazione internazionale sono raramente utilizzati per identificare e sequestrare i beni degli stessi all’estero”. Non solo. Il sistema di indennizzo per le vittime -nel caso in cui, appunto, chi ha commesso il reato non abbia disponibilità economica- non funziona. “Serve renderlo effettivamente accessibile e aumentare il suo importo massimo di 1.500 euro”. Come ricostruito anche da Altreconomia, da quando è stato istituito questo strumento solo in un caso la vittima ha avuto accesso al fondo.

    Il Greta rileva poi una “diminuzione del numero di indagini, azioni penali e di condanne” osservando in generale una applicazione ristretta di tratta di esseri umani collegandola “all’esistenza di un elemento transnazionale, al coinvolgimento di un’organizzazione criminale e all’assenza del consenso della vittima”. Tutti elementi non previsti dalla normativa europea e italiana. Così come “desta preoccupazione l’eccessiva durata dei procedimenti giudiziari, in particolare della fase investigativa”.

    Il gruppo di esperti sottolinea poi la persistenza di segnalazioni di presunte vittime di tratta “perseguite e condannate per attività illecite commesse durante la tratta, come il traffico di droga, il possesso di un documento d’identità falso o l’ingresso irregolare”. Un problema che spesso porta la persona in carcere e non nei progetti di accoglienza specializzati. Che in Italia aumentano. Il Greta accoglie infatti con favore “l’aumento dei fondi messi a disposizione per l’assistenza alle vittime e la disponibilità di un maggior numero di posti per le vittime di tratta, anche per uomini e transgender” sottolineando però la necessità di prevedere un “finanziamento più sostenibile”. In questo momento i bandi per i progetti pubblicati dal Dipartimento per le pari opportunità, hanno una durata tra i 17 e i 18 mesi.

    C’è poi la difficoltà nell’accesso all’assistenza legale gratuita che dovrebbe essere garantita alle vittime che invece, spesso, si trovano obbligate a dimostrare di non avere beni di proprietà non solo in Italia ma anche nei loro Paesi d’origine per poter accedere alle forme di consulenza legale gratuita. Problematico è anche l’accesso all’assistenza sanitaria. “I professionisti del Sistema sanitario nazionale -scrive il Greta- non sono formati per assistere le vittime di tratta con gravi traumi e mancano mediatori culturali formati per partecipare alla fornitura di assistenza psicologica”.

    Come detto, il focus degli esperti riguarda la tratta per sfruttamento lavorativo. Su cui l’Italia ha adottato diverse misure di protezione per le vittime ma che però restano insufficienti. “Lo sfruttamento del lavoro continua a essere profondamente radicato in alcuni settori che dipendono fortemente dalla manodopera migrante” ed è necessario “garantire risorse che risorse sufficienti siano messe a disposizione degli ispettori del lavoro, rafforzando il monitoraggio dei settori a rischio e garantendo che le condizioni di vita e di lavoro dei lavoratori migranti soddisfare i requisiti previsti dalla normativa al fine di prevenire abusi”.

    Infine il Greta bacchetta il governo italiano su diversi aspetti relativi alla nuova normativa sui richiedenti asilo. “Temiamo che le misure restrittive adottate dall’Italia favoriscano un clima di criminalizzazione dei migranti, con il risultato che molte potenziali vittime della tratta non denunciano i loro casi per paura di detenzione e deportazione”, scrivono gli esperti. Sottolineando la preoccupazione rispetto al “rischio di aumento del numero di richiedenti asilo nei centri di detenzione amministrativa” previsto dagli ultimi provvedimenti normativi che aumenterebbe la possibilità anche per le vittime di tratta non ancora identificate di essere recluse. Un rischio riscontrato anche per il Protocollo sottoscritto con l’Albania per gli impatti che avrà “sull’individuazione e la protezione delle persone vulnerabili salvate in mare”.

    Sul punto, nelle risposte inviate al Greta l’8 febbraio 2024, il governo italiano sottolinea che il protocollo siglato con la controparte albanese “non si applicherà alle persone vulnerabili, incluse le vittime di tratta”. Resta il punto della difficoltà di identificazione fatta subito dopo il soccorso, spesso in condizioni precarie dopo una lunga e faticosa traversata.

    Ma nelle dieci pagine di osservazioni inviate da parte dell’Italia, salta all’occhio la puntualizzazione rispetto alla richiesta del Greta di sospendere il memorandum d’intesa tra Italia e Libia che fa sì che “un numero crescente di migranti salvati o intercettati nel Mediterraneo vengano rimpatriati in Libia dove rischiano -scrivono gli esperti- di subire gravi violazioni dei diritti umani, tra cui la schiavitù, il lavoro forzato e lo sfruttamento sessuale”. Nella risposta, infatti, il governo sottolinea che ha scelto di cooperare con le autorità libiche “con l’obiettivo di ridurre i morti in mare, nel pieno rispetto dei diritti umani” e che la collaborazione “permette di combattere più efficacemente le reti di trafficanti di esseri umani e di coloro che contrabbandano i migranti”. Con il rispetto dei diritti umani, del diritti umanitario e internazionale che è “sempre stata una priorità”. Evidentemente non rispettata. Ma c’è un dettaglio in più.

    Quel contrasto al traffico di migranti alla base anche del memorandum con la Libia, sbandierato a più riprese dall’esecutivo italiano (“Andremo a cercare gli ‘scafisti’ lungo tutto il globo terracqueo”, disse la premier Giorgia Meloni a inizio marzo 2023) viene messo in discussione nel rapporto. Dopo aver sottolineato la diminuzione delle indagini sui trafficanti di esseri umani, il Greta scrive che i “capitani” delle navi che arrivano in Italia “potrebbero essere stati costretti tramite minacce, violenza fisica e abuso di una posizione di vulnerabilità nel partecipare all’attività criminali”. Indicatori che li farebbero ricadere nella “categoria” delle vittime di tratta. “Nessuno, però, è stato considerato come tale”, osservano gli esperti. Si scioglie come neve al sole la retorica sulla “guerra” ai trafficanti. I pezzi grossi restano, nel frattempo, impuniti.

    https://altreconomia.it/il-consiglio-deuropa-chiede-allitalia-di-garantire-piu-protezione-alle-

    #traite_d'êtres_humains #Italie #protection #Conseil_de_l'Europe #exploitation #Greta #rapport #agriculture #industrie_textile #hôtelerie #bâtiment #BTS #services_domestiques #restauration #indemnisation #accès_à_la_santé #criminalisation_de_la_migration #Albanie

  • 52% de policiers et gendarmes interrogés dans une étude considèrent que le succès de la mission prime sur le respect de la loi

    Des policiers et gendarmes ont répondu de manière volontaire à un questionnaire de la Défenseure des droits concernant leur pratique en matière de maintien de l’ordre et de secours à la personne.

    Plus de la moitié des policiers ou gendarmes (51,8%) considèrent que mener à bien leur mission est prioritaire sur le respect de la loi, selon une étude dévoilée mardi 27 février par la Défenseure des droits. Il s’agit d’un questionnaire rempli de manière volontaire et anonyme par 976 gendarmes et 655 policiers répartis sur sept départements. L’institution met en avant les perceptions « contrastées » des pratiques professionnelles des forces de l’ordre au sein de ces dernières.

    Si l’usage de la force pour obtenir des aveux est réprouvé par plus de 9 répondants sur 10, près de 6 sur 10 considèrent que dans « certains cas » (non précisés), l’utilisation de plus de force que ce qui est prévu dans les textes devrait être tolérée. Cette opinion est encore plus fortement répandue chez les policiers (69,1%, contre 54,2% chez les gendarmes). Une vision répressive du métier confirmée par le fait que plus de la moitié d’entre eux, policiers et gendarmes confondus, estiment que leur mission première est de faire respecter la loi, et d’arrêter les « délinquants », plutôt que de secourir les personnes en danger (un sur quatre), ou encore protéger les institutions républicaines (4%). Par ailleurs, seul un gendarme sur trois et moins d’un policier sur quatre (23,3%) pense que l’on peut faire confiance aux citoyens pour se comporter comme il faut.

    Les forces de l’ordre se considèrent aussi insuffisamment formées

    Les membres des forces de l’ordre interrogés pointent également du doigt le manque de formation au sein de leurs rangs : un sur cinq affirme connaître « bien » ou « parfaitement » la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, tandis que près de la moitié d’entre eux (45,7%) s’estime insuffisamment formée en matière de droits des citoyens et de règles de déontologie.

    L’étude révèle enfin l’œil critique qu’exercent les professionnels sur les contrôles d’identité : près de 40% des policiers et des gendarmes jugent que les contrôles fréquents ne sont pas ou peu efficaces pour garantir la sécurité d’un territoire.

    https://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/police/plus-d-un-policier-ou-gendarme-sur-deux-considere-que-le-succes-de-sa-m

    #France #police #gendarmes #forces_De_l'ordre #étude #Défenseur_des_droits #maintien_de_l'ordre #mission #respect_de_la_loi #secours_de_personne_en_danger #formation #droits_fondamentaux #droits_humains #déontologie #contrôles_d'identité

  • C’est quoi ”le terrier de lapin”, cette menace qui touche les plus jeunes - Geeko
    https://geeko.lesoir.be/2024/02/20/cest-quoi-le-terrier-de-lapin-cette-menace-qui-touche-les-plus-jeunes

    Faisant directement référence à Alice au pays des merveilles, le phénomène inquiète de plus en plus et touche particulièrement les plus jeunes. Plusieurs entités ont entamé une lutte pour contrer cette menace. ”Le terrier de lapin”, ce nom peut paraître de prime abord amusant. Pourtant, il désigne un phénomène sur les réseaux sociaux qui inquiète...

    -- Permalien

    #psychologie #internet #société #réseauxsociaux

  • PlayStation Laying Off 900 Across Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla, And More, Closing London Studio - Game Informer
    https://www.gameinformer.com/news/2024/02/27/playstation-laying-off-900-across-insomniac-naughty-dog-guerrilla-and-

    Sony Interactive Entertainment has announced layoffs at various PlayStation first-party studios, including Insomniac Games (Marvel’s Spider-Man), Naughty Dog (The Last of Us Part II), Guerrilla Games (Horizon Forbidden West), and Firesprite. It is also closing London Studio, the team behind PlayStation VR’s Blood & Truth and VR Worlds. In a statement released by head of PlayStation Studios Hermen Hulst, he seems to cite overgrowth as the reason for the layoffs. 

    PlayStation’s Technology, Creative, and Support teams are also affected by these layoffs, according to Hulst. He writes, “These are in addition to some smaller reductions in other teams across PlayStation Studios.” These layoffs will result in an 8 percent reduction of staff, or around 900 people losing their jobs.

    #jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #sony #playstation #ressources_humaines #licenciements

  • Jason Schreier sur X : « BREAKING : PlayStation is laying off around 900 people across the world, the latest cut in a brutal 2024 for the video game industry » / X
    https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1762463887369101350

    Oscar Lemaire sur X : « On parle beaucoup de crise dans l’industrie du jeu vidéo en ce moment, je rappelle quand même que la division jeux vidéo de Sony, qui vient d’annoncer 900 licenciements, connaît un bénéfice 63% supérieur à ce qu’elle gagnait à la même époque dans le cycle de la PS4. » / X
    https://twitter.com/oscarlemaire/status/1762513609156972888

    #jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #sony #playstation #ressources_humaines #licenciements

  • Rotta balcanica: i sogni spezzati nella Drina
    https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Bosnia-Erzegovina/Rotta-balcanica-i-sogni-spezzati-nella-Drina-229948

    Nelle acque del fiume Drina, in Bosnia Erzegovina, decine di migranti sono morti nel tentativo di avvicinarsi al sogno di una vita migliore in quell’Europa che li respinge. Volontari del Soccorso alpino di Bijeljina e attivisti sono impegnati nel difficile recupero dei corpi

    • Rotta balcanica : i sogni spezzati nella Drina

      Nelle acque del fiume Drina, in Bosnia Erzegovina, decine di migranti sono morti nel tentativo di avvicinarsi al sogno di una vita migliore in quell’Europa che li respinge. Volontari del Soccorso alpino di Bijeljina e attivisti sono impegnati nel difficile recupero dei corpi.

      “Finora non mi è mai capitato di sognare uno dei corpi ritrovati, non ho mai avuto incubi. Proprio mai. Credo sia una questione di approccio. Soltanto chi non ha la coscienza pulita fa incubi”, afferma Nenad Jovanović, 37 anni, membro della squadra del Soccorso alpino di Bijeljina.

      Negli ultimi sei anni, Jovanović ha partecipato alle operazioni di recupero di oltre cinquanta corpi di migranti nell’area che si estende dal villaggio di Branjevo alla foce del fiume Drina [nella Bosnia orientale], tutti di età inferiore ai quarant’anni, annegati nel tentativo di entrare in Bosnia Erzegovina dalla Serbia, per poi proseguire il loro viaggio verso altri paesi europei, in cerca di un posto sicuro per sé e per i propri familiari.

      “Ogni volta che scoppia un nuovo conflitto in Medio Oriente, in Afghanistan, Iraq o altrove, assistiamo ad un aumento degli arrivi di migranti in cerca di salvezza nei paesi dell’Unione europea. Purtroppo, per alcuni di loro la Drina si rivela un ostacolo insormontabile. Il loro è un destino doloroso che può capitare a chiunque”, spiega Nenad Jovanović.

      Durante le operazioni di recupero dei corpi, Jovanović più volte è stato costretto a gettarsi nel fiume in piena, rischiando la propria vita.

      “Recentemente abbiamo recuperato il corpo di un uomo proveniente dall’Afghanistan. Era in acqua da circa un anno. I pescatori che per primi lo avevano notato non erano nemmeno sicuri che si trattasse di un corpo umano. Potete immaginare lo stato in cui si trovava”, afferma Jovanović.

      Un suo collega, Miroslav Vujanović, si sofferma sull’aspetto umano del lavoro del soccorritore. “A prescindere dallo stato di decomposizione, cerchiamo in tutti in modi possibili di recuperare il corpo nelle condizioni in cui lo troviamo. Nulla deve essere perso, nemmeno i vestiti. Perché siamo tutti esseri umani. Nel momento del recupero di un corpo magari non pensi alla sua identità, cerchi di fare il tuo lavoro in modo professionale e basta. Poi però quando torni a casa e vedi tua moglie e i figli, inizi a chiederti chi fosse quell’uomo e se anche lui avesse una famiglia. È del tutto normale riflettere su queste cose. Sono però pensieri intimi, che tendiamo a tenere dentro”.

      I volontari del Soccorso alpino di Bijeljina hanno partecipato anche alle operazioni di ricerca e assistenza alle popolazioni colpite dal terremoto nella regione di Banovina (in Croazia) nel 2020 e alle vittime del terremoto che l’anno scorso ha devastato la Turchia. In tutte queste operazioni sono stati costretti ad utilizzare le attrezzature prese in prestito o noleggiate, perché le autorità locali non rispettano gli accordi di cooperazione stipulati con altri paesi. Del resto, la Bosnia Erzegovina è il paese delle assurdità. Lo confermano anche i nostri interlocutori, aggiungendo che a volte si sentono incompresi anche dai loro familiari.

      “Mia moglie spesso si chiede come io possa fare questo lavoro. Oppure invito ospiti a casa per la celebrazione del santo della famiglia, e proprio quando stiamo per tagliare il pane tradizionale, mi chiama la polizia dicendo di aver trovato un cadavere nella Drina. Quindi, mi scuso con gli ospiti, chiedo loro di rimanere e vado a fare il mio lavoro. Non è un lavoro facile, ma per me la più grande soddisfazione è sapere che quel corpo recuperato sarà sepolto degnamente e che la famiglia della vittima, straziata dalla sofferenza, finalmente troverà pace”, spiega Nenad Jovanović.

      Recentemente, Jovanović, insieme ai suoi colleghi Miroslav Vujanović e Safet Omerbegić, ha partecipato ad una cerimonia di commemorazione in memoria dei migranti scomparsi e morti ai confini d’Europa. In quell’occasione sono state inaugurate le lapidi delle tombe dei sedici migranti sepolti nel nuovo cimitero di Bijeljina, situato nel quartiere di Hase. Trattandosi di corpi non identificati, ciascuna delle lastre in marmo nero reca incise, a caratteri dorati, la sigla N.N e l’anno della morte.

      Nel cimitero è stato piantato anche un filare di alberi in memoria delle vittime e sono state collocate due targhe commemorative con la scritta: “Non dimenticheremo mai voi e i vostri sogni spezzati nella Drina”. L’iniziativa è stata realizzata grazie al sostegno dell’associazione austriaca «SOS Balkanroute» e di Nihad Suljić, attivista di Tuzla, che da anni fornisce assistenza concreta ai rifugiati e partecipa alle procedure di identificazione e sepoltura dei morti.

      “Per noi è un grande onore e privilegio sostenere simili progetti. Si tratta di un’iniziativa pionieristica che può fungere da modello per l’intera regione. Per quanto possa sembrare paradossale, siamo contenti che queste persone, a differenza di tante altre, abbiano almeno una tomba. Abbiamo voluto che le loro tombe fossero dignitose e che non venissero lasciate al degrado, come accaduto recentemente a Zvornik”, sottolinea Petar Rosandić dell’associazione SOS Balkanroute.

      Rosandić spiega che la sistemazione delle tombe dei migranti nei cimiteri di Bijeljina e Zvornik è frutto di un’iniziativa di cooperazione transfrontaliera a cui hanno partecipato anche le comunità religiose di Vienna. Queste comunità, che durante la Seconda guerra mondiale erano impegnate nel salvataggio degli ebrei, oggi partecipano a diversi progetti a sostegno dei migranti lungo le frontiere esterne dell’UE.

      “Sulle lastre c’è scritto che si tratta di persone non identificate, ma noi sappiano che in ogni tomba giace il corpo di un giovane uomo i cui sogni si sono spezzati nella Drina. Ognuno di loro aveva una famiglia, un passato, i propri desideri e le proprie aspirazioni. Il loro unico peccato, secondo gli standard europei, era quello di avere un passaporto sbagliato, quindi sono stati costretti a intraprendere strade pericolose per raggiungere i luoghi dove speravano di trovare serenità e un futuro migliore”, afferma l’attivista Nihad Suljić.

      Suljić poi spiega che nel prossimo periodo i ricercatori e gli attivisti si impegneranno al massimo per instaurare una collaborazione con diverse istituzioni e organizzazioni. L’obiettivo è quello di identificare le persone sepolte in modo da restituire loro un’identità e permettere alle loro famiglie di avviare un processo di lutto.

      “Questi monumenti neri sono le colonne della vergogna dell’Unione europea – commenta Suljić - non è stata la Drina a uccidere queste persone, bensì la politica delle frontiere chiuse. Se avessero avuto un altro modo per raggiungere un posto sicuro dove costruire una vita migliore, sicuramente non sarebbero andati in cerca di pace attraversando mari, fiumi e fili spinati. Le loro tombe testimonieranno per sempre la vergogna e il regime criminale dell’UE”.

      Suljić ha invitato i cittadini dell’UE che hanno partecipato alla cerimonia di commemorazione a Bijeljina a chiamare i governi dei loro paesi ad assumersi la propria responsabilità.

      “Non abbiamo bisogno di donazioni né di corone di fiori. Vi invito però a inviare un messaggio ai vostri governi, a tutti i responsabili dell’attuazione di queste politiche, per spiegare loro le conseguenze delle frontiere chiuse, frontiere che uccidono gli esseri umani, ma anche i valori europei”.

      Dalla chiusura del corridoio sicuro lungo la rotta balcanica [nel 2015], nell’area di Bijeljina, Zvornik e Bratunac sono stati ritrovati circa sessanta corpi di migranti annegati nel fiume Drina. Stando ai dati raccolti da un gruppo di attivisti e ricercatori, nel periodo compreso tra gennaio 2014 e dicembre 2023 lungo il tratto della rotta balcanica che include sei paesi (Macedonia del Nord, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia Erzegovina, Croazia e Slovenia) hanno perso la vita 346 persone in movimento. Trattandosi di dati reperiti da fonti pubbliche, i ricercatori sottolineano che il numero effettivo di vittime con ogni probabilità è molto più alto. In molti casi, la tragica sorte dei migranti è direttamente legata ai respingimenti effettuati dalle autorità locali e dai membri dell’agenzia Frontex.

      “La morte alle frontiere è ormai parte integrante di un regime di controllo che alcuni autori definiscono un crimine in tempo di pace, una forma di violenza amministrativa e istituzionale finalizzata a mantenere in vita un determinato ordine sociale. Molte persone morte ai confini restano invisibili, come sono invisibili anche le persone scomparse. I decessi e le sparizioni spesso non vengono denunciati, e alcuni corpi non vengono mai ritrovati”, spiega Marijana Hameršak, ricercatrice dell’Istituto di etnologia e studi sul folklore di Zagabria, responsabile di un progetto sui meccanismi di gestione dei flussi migratori alle periferie dell’UE.

      In assenza di un database regionale e di iniziative di cooperazione transfrontaliera, sono i volontari e gli attivisti a portare avanti le azioni di ricerca di persone scomparse e i tentativi di identificazione dei corpi. Al termine della cerimonia di commemorazione, a Bijeljina si è tenuta una conferenza per discutere di questo tema.

      “Molte famiglie non sanno a chi rivolgersi, non hanno mai ricevuto indicazioni chiare. Finora le istituzioni non hanno mai voluto impegnarsi su questo fronte. Spero che a breve ognuno si assuma la propria responsabilità e faccia il proprio lavoro, perché non è normale che noi, attivisti e volontari, portiamo avanti questo processo”, denuncia Nihad Suljić.

      A dare un contributo fondamentale è anche Vidak Simić, patologo ed esperto forense di Bijeljina. Dal 2016 Simić ha eseguito l’autopsia e prelevato un campione di DNA di circa quaranta corpi di migranti, per la maggior parte rinvenuti nel fiume Drina.

      “Questa vicenda mi opprime, non mi sento bene perché non riesco a portare a termine il mio lavoro. Credo profondamente nel giuramento di Ippocrate e lo rispetto. Le leggi e altre norme mi obbligano a conservare i campioni per sei mesi, ho deciso però di conservarli per tutto il tempo necessario, in attesa che il sistema venga cambiato. La mia idea è di raccogliere tutti questi campioni, creare profili genetici individuali, pubblicarli su un sito appositamente creato in modo da aiutare le famiglie – in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Algeria, Marocco e in altri paesi – che cercano i loro cari scomparsi.

      Lo auspicano anche il padre, la madre, la sorella e i fratelli di Aziz Alimi, vent’anni, proveniente dall’Afghanistan, che nel settembre dello scorso anno, nel tentativo di raggiungere la Bosnia Erzegovina dalla Serbia, aveva deciso di attraversare la Drina a nuoto con altri tre ragazzi. Poco dopo la sua scomparsa, nello stesso luogo da dove Aziz per l’ultima volta aveva contattato uno dei suoi fratelli, è stato ritrovato un corpo.

      Dal momento che non è stato possibile identificare il corpo per via del pessimo stato in cui si trovava, i familiari di Aziz, che nel frattempo hanno trovato rifugio in Iran, hanno inviato un campione del suo DNA in Bosnia Erzegovina. Ripongono fiducia nelle istituzioni e nei cittadini bosniaco-erzegovesi per garantire ad Aziz almeno una sepoltura dignitosa.

      Ai presenti alla conferenza di Bijeljina si è rivolta anche la sorella di Aziz, Zahra Alimi, intervenuta con un videomessaggio. “Non abbiamo parenti in Europa che possano aiutarci e davvero non sappiamo cosa fare. Per favore aiutateci, nostro padre è affetto da un tumore e nostra madre ha sofferto molto dopo aver appreso la triste notizia [della scomparsa di Aziz]. Possiamo contare solo su di voi”.

      https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Bosnia-Erzegovina/Rotta-balcanica-i-sogni-spezzati-nella-Drina-229948
      #route_des_Balkans #Balkans #rivière #Bosnie-Hezégovine #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_aux_frontières #morts_aux_frontières #Bijeljina #Branjevo #Nenad_Jovanović #Nenad_Jovanovic #Serbie #frontières #commémoration #mémoire #cimetière #tombes #SOS_Balkanroute #Nihad_Suljić #Nihad_Suljic #dignité #monument #responsabilité

  • 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

  • Les méfaits de l’automobile : Un examen global des dommages causés par l’automobilité aux personnes et à l’environnement
    http://carfree.fr/index.php/2024/02/22/les-mefaits-de-lautomobile-un-examen-global-des-dommages-causes-par-lautomob

    Voici un article scientifique paru dans le Journal of Transport Geography de février 2024. Ecrit par les chercheurs Patrick Miner, Barbara M. Smith, Anant Jani, Geraldine McNeill et Alfred Gathorne-Hardy, Lire la suite...

    #Argumentaires #Destruction_de_la_planète #Etalement_urbain #Fin_de_l'automobile #Insécurité_routière #Pollution_automobile #Réchauffement_climatique #Ressources #automobilité #économie #environnement #justice #monde #mort #mortalité #nuisances #pollution #recherche #routes #santé #science #sécurité_routière #société #violence

  • Quand le #comité_d’éthique du #CNRS se penche sur l’#engagement_public des chercheurs et chercheuses

    #Neutralité ? #Intégrité ? #Transparence ?

    Le Comité d’éthique du CNRS rappelle qu’il n’y a pas d’#incompatibilité de principe, plaide pour un « guide pratique de l’engagement » et place la direction de l’institution scientifique devant les mêmes obligations que les chercheurs.

    Avec la crise climatique, la pandémie de covid-19, l’accroissement des inégalités, le développement de l’intelligence artificielle ou les technologies de surveillance, la question de l’#engagement public des chercheurs est d’autant plus visible que les réseaux sociaux leur permettent une communication directe.

    Cette question dans les débats de société n’est pas nouvelle. De l’appel d’#Albert_Einstein, en novembre 1945, à la création d’un « #gouvernement_du_monde » pour réagir aux dangers de la #bombe_atomique à l’alerte lancée par #Irène_Frachon concernant le #Médiator, en passant par celle lancée sur les dangers des grands modèles de langage par #Timnit_Gebru et ses collègues, les chercheurs et chercheuses s’engagent régulièrement et créent même des sujets de #débats_publics.

    Une question renouvelée dans un monde incertain

    Le #comité_d'éthique_du_CNRS (#COMETS) ne fait pas semblant de le découvrir. Mais, selon lui, « face aux nombreux défis auxquels notre société est confrontée, la question de l’engagement public des chercheurs s’est renouvelée ». Il s’est donc auto-saisi pour « fournir aux chercheurs des clés de compréhension et des repères éthiques concernant l’engagement public » et vient de publier son #rapport sur le sujet [PDF].

    Il faut dire que les deux premières années du Covid-19 ont laissé des traces dans la communauté scientifique sur ces questions de prises de paroles des chercheurs. Le COMETS avait d’ailleurs publié en mai 2021 un avis accusant Didier Raoult alors que la direction du Centre avait rappelé tardivement à l’ordre, en août de la même année, et sans le nommer, le sociologue et directeur de recherche au CNRS Laurent Mucchielli, qui appelait notamment à suspendre la campagne de vaccination.

    Le COMETS relève que les chercheurs s’engagent selon des modalités variées, « de la signature de tribunes à la contribution aux travaux d’ONG ou de think tanks en passant par le soutien à des actions en justice ou l’écriture de billets de blog ». Il souligne aussi que les #réseaux_sociaux ont « sensiblement renforcé l’exposition publique des chercheurs engagés ».

    La présidente du comité d’éthique, Christine Noiville, égrène sur le site du CNRS, les « interrogations profondes » que ces engagements soulèvent :

    « S’engager publiquement, n’est-ce pas contraire à l’exigence d’#objectivité de la recherche ? N’est-ce pas risquer de la « politiser » ou de l’« idéologiser » ? S’engager ne risque-t-il pas de fragiliser la #crédibilité du chercheur, de mettre à mal sa réputation, sa carrière ? Est-on en droit de s’engager ? Pourrait-il même s’agir d’un devoir, comme certains collègues ou journalistes pourraient le laisser entendre ? »

    Pas d’incompatibilité de principe

    Le comité d’éthique aborde les inquiétudes que suscite cet engagement public des chercheurs et pose franchement la question de savoir s’il serait « une atteinte à la #neutralité_scientifique ? ». Faudrait-il laisser de côté ses opinions et valeurs pour « faire de la « bonne » science et produire des connaissances objectives » ?

    Le COMETS explique, en s’appuyant sur les travaux de l’anthropologue #Sarah_Carvallo, que ce concept de neutralité est « devenu central au XXe siècle, pour les sciences de la nature mais également pour les sciences sociales », notamment avec les philosophes des sciences #Hans_Reichenbach et #Karl_Popper, ainsi que le sociologue #Max_Weber dont le concept de « #neutralité_axiologique » – c’est-à-dire une neutralité comme valeur fondamentale – voudrait que le « savant » « tienne ses #convictions_politiques à distance de son enseignement et ne les impose pas subrepticement ».

    Mais le comité explique aussi, que depuis Reichenbach, Popper et Weber, la recherche a avancé. Citant le livre d’#Hilary_Putnam, « The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays », le COMETS explique que les chercheurs ont montré que « toute #science s’inscrit dans un #contexte_social et se nourrit donc de #valeurs multiples ».

    Le comité explique que le monde de la recherche est actuellement traversé de valeurs (citant le respect de la dignité humaine, le devoir envers les animaux, la préservation de l’environnement, la science ouverte) et que le chercheur « porte lui aussi nécessairement des valeurs sociales et culturelles dont il lui est impossible de se débarrasser totalement dans son travail de recherche ».

    Le COMETS préfère donc insister sur les « notions de #fiabilité, de #quête_d’objectivité, d’#intégrité et de #rigueur de la #démarche_scientifique, et de transparence sur les valeurs » que sur celle de la neutralité. « Dans le respect de ces conditions, il n’y a aucune incompatibilité avec l’engagement public du chercheur », assure-t-il.

    Liberté de s’engager... ou non

    Il rappelle aussi que les chercheurs ont une large #liberté_d'expression assurée par le code de l’éducation tout en n’étant pas exemptés des limites de droit commun (diffamation, racisme, sexisme, injure ...). Mais cette liberté doit s’appliquer à double sens : le chercheur est libre de s’engager ou non. Elle est aussi à prendre à titre individuel, insiste le COMETS : la démarche collective via les laboratoires, sociétés savantes et autres n’est pas la seule possible, même si donner une assise collective « présente de nombreux avantages (réflexion partagée, portée du message délivré, moindre exposition du chercheur, etc.) ».

    Le comité insiste par contre sur le fait que, lorsque le chercheur s’engage, il doit « prendre conscience qu’il met en jeu sa #responsabilité, non seulement juridique mais aussi morale, en raison du crédit que lui confère son statut et le savoir approfondi qu’il implique ».

    Il appuie aussi sur le fait que sa position privilégiée « crédite sa parole d’un poids particulier. Il doit mettre ce crédit au service de la collectivité et ne pas en abuser ».

    Des #devoirs lors de la #prise_de_parole

    Outre le respect de la loi, le COMETS considère, dans ce cadre, que les chercheurs et chercheuses ont des devoirs vis-à-vis du public. Notamment, ils doivent s’efforcer de mettre en contexte le cadre dans lequel ils parlent. S’agit-il d’une prise de parole en nom propre ? Le thème est-il dans le domaine de compétence du chercheur ? Est-il spécialiste ? A-t-il des liens d’intérêts ? Quelles valeurs sous-tendent son propos ? Le #degré_de_certitude doit aussi être abordé. Le Comité exprime néanmoins sa compréhension de la difficulté pratique que cela implique, vu les limites de temps de paroles dans les médias.

    Une autre obligation qui devrait s’appliquer à tout engagement de chercheurs selon le COMETS, et pas des moindres, est de l’asseoir sur des savoirs « robustes » et le faire « reposer sur une démarche scientifique rigoureuse ».

    Proposition de co-construction d’un guide

    Le COMETS recommande, dans ce cadre, au CNRS d’ « élaborer avec les personnels de la recherche un guide de l’engagement public » ainsi que des formations. Il propose aussi d’envisager que ce guide soit élaboré avec d’autres organismes de recherche.

    La direction du CNRS à sa place

    Le Comité d’éthique considère en revanche que « le CNRS ne devrait ni inciter, ni condamner a priori l’engagement des chercheurs, ni opérer une quelconque police des engagements », que ce soit dans l’évaluation des travaux de recherche ou dans d’éventuelles controverses provoquées par un engagement public.

    « La direction du CNRS n’a pas vocation à s’immiscer dans ces questions qui relèvent au premier chef du débat scientifique entre pairs », affirme-t-il. La place du CNRS est d’intervenir en cas de problème d’#intégrité_scientifique ou de #déontologie, mais aussi de #soutien aux chercheurs engagés « qui font l’objet d’#attaques personnelles ou de #procès_bâillons », selon lui.

    Le comité aborde aussi le cas dans lequel un chercheur mènerait des actions de #désobéissance_civile, sujet pour le moins d’actualité. Il considère que le CNRS ne doit ni « se substituer aux institutions de police et de justice », ni condamner par avance ce mode d’engagement, « ni le sanctionner en lieu et place de l’institution judiciaire ». Une #sanction_disciplinaire peut, par contre, être envisagée « éventuellement », « en cas de décision pénale définitive à l’encontre d’un chercheur ».

    Enfin, le Comité place la direction du CNRS devant les mêmes droits et obligations que les chercheurs dans son engagement vis-à-vis du public. Si le CNRS « prenait publiquement des positions normatives sur des sujets de société, le COMETS considère qu’il devrait respecter les règles qui s’appliquent aux chercheurs – faire connaître clairement sa position, expliciter les objectifs et valeurs qui la sous-tendent, etc. Cette prise de position de l’institution devrait pouvoir être discutée sur la base d’un débat contradictoire au sein de l’institution ».

    https://next.ink/985/quand-comite-dethique-cnrs-se-penche-sur-engagement-public-chercheurs-et-cherc

    • Avis du COMETS « Entre liberté et responsabilité : l’engagement public des chercheurs et chercheuses »

      Que des personnels de recherche s’engagent publiquement en prenant position dans la sphère publique sur divers enjeux moraux, politiques ou sociaux ne constitue pas une réalité nouvelle. Aujourd’hui toutefois, face aux nombreux défis auxquels notre société est confrontée, la question de l’engagement public des chercheurs s’est renouvelée. Nombre d’entre eux s’investissent pour soutenir des causes ou prendre position sur des enjeux de société – lutte contre les pandémies, dégradation de l’environnement, essor des technologies de surveillance, etc. – selon des modalités variées, de la signature de tribunes à la contribution aux travaux d’ONG ou de think tanks en passant par le soutien à des actions en justice ou l’écriture de billets de blog. Par ailleurs, le développement des médias et des réseaux sociaux a sensiblement renforcé l’exposition publique des chercheurs engagés.

      Dans le même temps, de forts questionnements s’expriment dans le monde de la recherche. Nombreux sont ceux qui s’interrogent sur les modalités de l’engagement public, son opportunité et son principe même. Ils se demandent si et comment s’engager publiquement sans mettre en risque leur réputation et les valeurs partagées par leurs communautés de recherche, sans déroger à la neutralité traditionnellement attendue des chercheurs, sans perdre en impartialité et en crédibilité. Ce débat, qui anime de longue date les sciences sociales, irrigue désormais l’ensemble de la communauté scientifique.

      C’est dans ce contexte que s’inscrit le présent avis. Fruit d’une auto-saisine du COMETS, il entend fournir aux chercheurs des clés de compréhension et des repères éthiques concernant l’engagement public.

      Le COMETS rappelle d’abord qu’il n’y a pas d’incompatibilité de principe entre, d’un côté, l’engagement public du chercheur et, de l’autre, les normes attribuées ou effectivement applicables à l’activité de recherche. C’est notamment le cas de la notion de « neutralité » de la science, souvent considérée comme une condition indispensable de production de connaissances objectives et fiables. Si on ne peut qu’adhérer au souci de distinguer les faits scientifiques des opinions, il est illusoire de penser que le chercheur puisse se débarrasser totalement de ses valeurs : toute science est une entreprise humaine, inscrite dans un contexte social et, ce faisant, nourrie de valeurs. L’enjeu premier n’est donc pas d’attendre du chercheur qu’il en soit dépourvu mais qu’il les explicite et qu’il respecte les exigences d’intégrité et de rigueur qui doivent caractériser la démarche scientifique.

      Si diverses normes applicables à la recherche publique affirment une obligation de neutralité à la charge du chercheur, cette obligation ne fait en réalité pas obstacle, sur le principe, à la liberté et à l’esprit critique indissociables du travail de recherche, ni à l’implication du chercheur dans des débats de société auxquels, en tant que détenteur d’un savoir spécialisé, il a potentiellement une contribution utile à apporter.

      Le COMETS estime que l’engagement public doit être compris comme une liberté individuelle et ce, dans un double sens :

      -- d’une part, chaque chercheur doit rester libre de s’engager ou non ; qu’il choisisse de ne pas prendre position dans la sphère publique ne constitue en rien un manquement à une obligation professionnelle ou morale qui lui incomberait ;

      -- d’autre part, le chercheur qui s’engage n’a pas nécessairement à solliciter le soutien de communautés plus larges (laboratoire, société savante, etc.), même si le COMETS considère que donner une assise collective à une démarche d’engagement présente de nombreux avantages (réflexion partagée, portée du message délivré, moindre exposition du chercheur, etc.).

      S’il constitue une liberté, l’engagement nécessite également pour le chercheur de prendre conscience qu’il met en jeu sa responsabilité, non seulement juridique mais aussi morale, en raison du crédit que lui confère son statut et le savoir approfondi qu’il implique. En effet, en s’engageant publiquement, le chercheur met potentiellement en jeu non seulement sa réputation académique et sa carrière, mais aussi l’image de son institution, celle de la recherche et, plus généralement, la qualité du débat public auquel il contribue ou qu’il entend susciter. Le chercheur dispose d’une position privilégiée qui crédite sa parole d’un poids particulier. Il doit mettre ce crédit au service de la collectivité et ne pas en abuser. Le COMETS rappelle dès lors que tout engagement public doit se faire dans le respect de devoirs.

      Ces devoirs concernent en premier lieu la manière dont le chercheur s’exprime publiquement. Dans le sillage de son avis 42 rendu à l’occasion de la crise du COVID-19, le COMETS rappelle que le chercheur doit s’exprimer non seulement en respectant les règles de droit (lois mémorielles, lois condamnant la diffamation, l’injure, etc.) mais aussi en offrant à son auditoire la possibilité de mettre son discours en contexte, au minimum pour ne pas être induit en erreur. A cet effet, le chercheur doit prendre soin de :

      situer son propos : parle-t-il en son nom propre, au nom de sa communauté de recherche, de son organisme de rattachement ? Quel est son domaine de compétence ? Est-il spécialiste de la question sur laquelle il prend position ? Quels sont ses éventuels liens d’intérêts (avec telle entreprise, association, etc.) ? Quelles valeurs sous-tendent son propos ? ;
      mettre son propos en perspective : quel est le statut des résultats scientifiques sur lesquels il s’appuie ? Des incertitudes demeurent-elles ? Existe-t-il des controverses ?

      Le COMETS a conscience de la difficulté pratique à mettre en œuvre certaines de ces normes (temps de parole limité dans les médias, espace réduit des tribunes écrites, etc.). Leur respect constitue toutefois un objectif vers lequel le chercheur doit systématiquement tendre. Ce dernier doit également réfléchir, avant de s’exprimer publiquement, à ce qui fonde sa légitimité à le faire.

      En second lieu, les savoirs sur lesquels le chercheur assoit son engagement doivent être robustes et reposer sur une démarche scientifique rigoureuse. Engagé ou non, il doit obéir aux exigences classiques d’intégrité et de rigueur applicables à la production de connaissances fiables – description du protocole de recherche, référencement des sources, mise à disposition des résultats bruts, révision par les pairs, etc. Le COMETS rappelle que ces devoirs sont le corollaire nécessaire de la liberté de la recherche, qui est une liberté professionnelle, et que rien, pas même la défense d’une cause, aussi noble soit-elle, ne justifie de transiger avec ces règles et de s’accommoder de savoirs fragiles. Loin d’empêcher le chercheur d’affirmer une thèse avec force dans l’espace public, ces devoirs constituent au contraire un soutien indispensable à l’engagement public auquel, sinon, il peut lui être facilement reproché d’être militant.

      Afin de munir ceux qui souhaitent s’engager de repères et d’outils concrets, le COMETS invite le CNRS à élaborer avec les personnels de la recherche un guide de l’engagement public. Si de nombreux textes existent d’ores et déjà qui énoncent les droits et devoirs des chercheurs – statut du chercheur, chartes de déontologie, avis du COMETS, etc. –, ils sont éparpillés, parfois difficiles à interpréter (sur l’obligation de neutralité notamment) ou complexes à mettre en œuvre (déclaration des liens d’intérêt dans les médias, etc.). Un guide de l’engagement public devrait permettre de donner un contenu lisible, concret et réaliste à ces normes apparemment simples mais en réalité difficiles à comprendre ou à appliquer.

      Le COMETS recommande au CNRS d’envisager l’élaboration d’un tel guide avec d’autres organismes de recherche qui réfléchissent actuellement à la question. Le guide devrait par ailleurs être accompagné d’actions sensibilisant les chercheurs aux enjeux et techniques de l’engagement public (dont des formations à la prise de parole dans les médias).

      Le COMETS s’est enfin interrogé sur le positionnement plus général du CNRS à l’égard de l’engagement public.

      Le COMETS considère que de manière générale, le CNRS ne devrait ni inciter, ni condamner a priori l’engagement des chercheurs, ni opérer une quelconque police des engagements. En pratique :

      – dans l’évaluation de leurs travaux de recherche, les chercheurs ne devraient pas pâtir de leur engagement public. L’évaluation de l’activité de recherche d’un chercheur ne devrait porter que sur ses travaux de recherche et pas sur ses engagements publics éventuels ;

      – lorsque l’engagement public conduit à des controverses, la direction du CNRS n’a pas vocation à s’immiscer dans ces questions qui relèvent au premier chef du débat scientifique entre pairs ;

      – le CNRS doit en revanche intervenir au cas où un chercheur contreviendrait à l’intégrité ou à la déontologie (au minimum, les référents concernés devraient alors être saisis) ou en cas de violation des limites légales à la liberté d’expression (lois mémorielles, lois réprimant la diffamation, etc.) ; de même, l’institution devrait intervenir pour soutenir les chercheurs engagés qui font l’objet d’attaques personnelles ou de procès bâillons.

      – au cas où un chercheur mènerait des actions de désobéissance civile, le CNRS ne devrait pas se substituer aux institutions de police et de justice. Il ne devrait pas condamner ex ante ce mode d’engagement, ni le sanctionner en lieu et place de l’institution judiciaire. A posteriori, en cas de décision pénale définitive à l’encontre d’un chercheur, le CNRS peut éventuellement considérer que son intervention est requise et prendre une sanction.

      Plus généralement, le COMETS encourage le CNRS à protéger et à favoriser la liberté d’expression de son personnel. Il est en effet de la responsabilité des institutions et des communautés de recherche de soutenir la confrontation constructive des idées, fondée sur la liberté d’expression.

      Si le CNRS venait à décider de s’engager en tant qu’institution, c’est-à-dire s’il prenait publiquement des positions normatives sur des sujets de société, le COMETS considère qu’il devrait respecter les règles qui s’appliquent aux chercheurs – faire connaître clairement sa position, expliciter les objectifs et valeurs qui la sous-tendent, etc. Cette prise de position de l’institution devrait pouvoir être discutée sur la base d’un débat contradictoire au sein de l’institution.

      Pour télécharger l’avis :
      https://comite-ethique.cnrs.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/AVIS-2023-44.pdf

      https://comite-ethique.cnrs.fr/avis-du-comets-entre-liberte-et-responsabilite-engagement-public

      #avis

  • #Resettlement of refugees : EU framework

    On 13 July 2016, as part of the reform of the common European asylum system and the long-term policy on better migration management, the European Commission presented a proposal to provide for a permanent framework with standard common procedures for resettlement across the EU, to complement current national and multilateral resettlement initiatives. Resettlement is a tool to help displaced persons in need of protection reach Europe safely and legally, and receive protection for as long as necessary. It is a durable solution that includes selection and transfer of refugees from a country where they seek protection to another country. In addition to providing refugees with international protection, its aim is to strengthen solidarity and responsibility-sharing between countries. For a resettlement to take place, the United Nations Refugee Agency has to determine an applicant is a refugee according to the 1951 Geneva Convention, and has to identify resettlement as the most appropriate solution. Although the European Parliament and the Council reached a partial provisional agreement on the proposal in summer 2018, the Council was unable to endorse it, nor could it agree on a mandate for further negotiations. The co-legislators finally reached an agreement on 15 December 2022. On 8 February 2024, Coreper approved the provisional agreement, which will now have to be formally adopted by both institutions before it can enter into force. Fifth edition. The ’EU Legislation in Progress’ briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure.

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2016)589859
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #EU #UE #Europe #relocalisation #2024

    • La construction des prix à la SNCF, une socio-histoire de la tarification. De la #péréquation au yield management (1938-2012)

      Cet article analyse les conditions de production et de légitimation des systèmes de prix des billets de train en France, depuis la création de la SNCF en 1938. Initialement fondé sur le principe d’un tarif kilométrique uniforme, le système historique de péréquation est lentement abandonné au cours des décennies d’après-guerre, au profit d’une tarification indexée sur les coûts marginaux. Au tournant des années 1980-1990, ce paradigme est lui-même remplacé par un dispositif de tarification en temps réel – le yield management – visant à capter le maximum du surplus des consommateurs. Les transformations des modèles tarifaires à la SNCF, qui s’accompagnent d’une redéfinition de la notion éminemment polymorphe de service public ferroviaire, résultent du travail de quelques acteurs de premier plan. Ces « faiseurs de prix », qui mobilisent les instruments de la discipline économique et usent de leur capacité d’influence, agissent dans des contextes (politiques, sociaux, techniques et concurrentiels) particuliers, qui rendent possibles, nécessaires et légitimes les innovations qu’ils proposent.

      https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-sociologie-2014-1-page-5.htm

      #Jean_Finez

    • Noël : est-ce vraiment moins cher de réserver son train SNCF 3 mois à l’avance ?

      C’est un fait : les tarifs des trajets en train pour la période de Noël ont explosé entre octobre et fin décembre 2023. Nous avons suivi, semaine après semaine, leur évolution. Voici les résultats, parfois surprenants, de notre enquête.

      « Plus on réserve un train à l’avance, plus les prix sont bas. » La phrase de la SNCF semble logique. Mais est-elle vérifiée ? À l’approche des fêtes de Noël, nous avons décidé de nous lancer dans une petite enquête. Numerama a relevé les tarifs d’une vingtaine de trajets en train à travers la France, sur les douze dernières semaines, pour en mesurer l’évolution.

      Nous avions une question principale : est-ce vrai qu’il vaut mieux réserver son billet de train trois mois à l’avance, pour le payer moins cher ? Suivie d’une autre : comment les tarifs évoluent-ils à travers le temps, et à quel rythme les trains deviennent-ils complets ?

      Nous avons choisi arbitrairement dix allers-retours à travers la France. La date est toujours la même, pour simuler un voyage pour les fêtes de fin d’année : un aller le 22 décembre, un retour le 27 décembre. Nous avons choisi un train par jour et suivi l’évolution du tarif des billets chaque semaine, à compter du mercredi 4 octobre, soit la date de l’ouverture des ventes (qui avaient d’ailleurs mis en panne SNCF Connect).
      Prendre ses billets tôt pour Noël permet d’éviter le pire

      Après douze semaines de relevés et une agrégation des données, le premier constat est clair : les tarifs ont énormément augmenté sur cette période. Il est évident que, même s’il y a des exceptions, il reste très intéressant de prendre son billet le plus tôt possible. C’est d’ailleurs ce que la SNCF nous a confirmé, par mail : « Plus on réserve à l’avance, plus les prix sont bas. Le mieux est donc de réserver dès l’ouverture des ventes, ou alors dans les semaines qui suivent. »

      Sur ce graphique, nous avons matérialisé la hausse de tous les trajets confondus. À part une ou deux exceptions (en TER), tous les billets ont augmenté, parfois beaucoup. Certains trajets se sont retrouvés complets très vite — nous les avons matérialisés avec un petit rond barré sur le graphique ci-dessous.

      Les prix peuvent parfois varier du simple au double. Le trajet Nantes-Bordeaux, par exemple, est passé de 58 euros à 136 euros (dernières places en première classe), soit une augmentation de 164 %. Un Strasbourg-Paris a terminé à 153 euros, au lieu de 93 euros il y a trois mois.

      Des hausses de prix jusqu’à 150 %

      Au global, les TGV sont les trains qui subissent les plus grosses hausses à travers le temps, sauf quelques exceptions (Marseille-Nice n’a pas changé d’un iota au fil des 12 semaines, par exemple).

      Sur cette carte réalisée par l’équipe design de Numerama, Adèle Foehrenbacher et Claire Braikeh, on observe quels sont les trajets qui ont subi la plus forte hausse (en rouge foncé), par rapport à ceux qui n’ont pas beaucoup bougé sur 3 mois (en rose).

      Pour les retours de Noël sur la journée du 27 décembre, les trajets les plus onéreux sont les mêmes (Paris-Toulouse, Paris-Strasbourg, Nantes-Bordeaux).

      Certains billets sont moins chers quelques jours avant le départ

      Lorsque nous avons commencé cette enquête, nous nous sommes demandé s’il serait possible qu’un billet devienne moins cher à l’approche de la date du voyage, ce qui est plutôt contre-intuitif. Une occurrence est venue, sur la dernière semaine, être l’exception qui confirme la règle : le trajet Paris-La Rochelle (en jaune ci-dessous) est devenu, au dernier moment, moins cher à l’approche du voyage, par rapport au tarif d’il y a trois mois.

      Autre cas curieux : nous avons constaté au fil des semaines une variation à la baisse sur le trajet Nancy-Grenoble, avec une correspondance. « Ce phénomène est extrêmement rare », nous assure la SNCF. « Nancy-Grenoble n’est pas un train direct. Il se peut que l’un des deux trains se remplissent moins vite et que des petits prix aient été rajoutés à un moment donné », explique-t-on. Le voyage a fini par augmenter de nouveau, pour devenir complet deux semaines avant le départ.

      Le trajet n’est pourtant pas le seul exemple. Prenons le trajet en TER et Train NOMAD Caen-Le Havre. Le 4 octobre, le voyage revenait à 38,4 euros. Surprise ! Dès la semaine suivante, il est tombé à 18 euros, pour rester fixe pendant plusieurs mois. Jusqu’au 13 décembre, où le prix a re-grimpé jusqu’à 48 euros — l’horaire du train de départ ayant été modifié de quelques minutes. Ici, ce n’est pas la SNCF, mais les conseils régionaux qui valident les prix. Par mail, l’établissement régional des lignes normandes nous assure que « la baisse des prix 15 jours après l’ouverture des ventes est impossible ». C’est pourtant le constat que nous avons fait, dès une semaine après l’ouverture.

      Pourquoi de telles hausses ?

      Cela fait plusieurs années que la SNCF a commencé à modifier la manière dont elle décide des tarifs, selon le journaliste spécialisé Gilles Dansart. La compagnie aurait décidé de « faire payer beaucoup plus cher à mesure que l’on s’approche de la date de départ du train », alors qu’auparavant, elle se calquait sur la longueur des kilomètres parcourus pour étalonner ses prix, a-t-il analysé sur France Culture le 21 décembre.

      Contactée, la SNCF nous explique : « Les prix sont les mêmes que pour n’importe quelles dates. Il n’y a pas de prix spécifiques pour Noël. Ce qui fait évoluer les prix, c’est le taux de remplissage et la demande. À Noël les trains se remplissent plus vite et les paliers maximum peuvent être atteints plus rapidement. »

      Ces paliers sont un véritable enjeu, lorsque l’on voit que certains trajets se retrouvent complets très rapidement — le Paris-Toulouse du 22 décembre s’est en effet retrouvé complet, selon nos constats, en à peine une semaine, début octobre.

      En 10 ans, la SNCF a perdu 105 TGV, soit 30 000 sièges, a calculé récemment France 2 dans un reportage. « On n’arrivait plus à remplir les TGV, il y avait des taux d’occupation à moins de 60 % », a expliqué à leur micro Christophe Fanichet, directeur général de SNCF Voyageurs.

      Cette politique de financement de la SNCF ne va pas aller en s’arrangeant pour les voyageurs et voyageuses : l’entreprise a déjà entériné une augmentation du prix des TGV pour 2024, rappelle le Parisien.

      https://www.numerama.com/vroom/1593454-noel-est-ce-vraiment-moins-cher-de-reserver-son-train-3-mois-a-lav

    • Mais on sait que l’investissement sur l’infra était sous dimensionnée autour de 2005, donc voir monter les coûts de péages de l’infra n’a rien d’anormal.
      Nos voisins sont-ils sous le prix réel ? Alors il vont subir un effet boomerang plus tard (effet dette).