How many lives are going to be lost for some ridiculous concept of "borders". How many men, women and children will be left to freeze so the EU can say it is "touch on migration"? It's all so utterly fucking pointless and all those supporting it need to rethink their life choices
In Greece they are putting human rights defenders on trial for saving refugee lives, while doing their utmost to cause harm to refugees through pushbacks. In Poland they are leaving children to freeze. In France they have criminalised providing food and water to asylum seekers.
In Italy they prosecuted people for rescuing refugees at sea. On and on it goes, with not just the knowledge of the EU, but its support. Von Der Lyen has praised Greece for being a "shield" despite it violating international law and putting lives at risk. bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur…
The EU has funded camps in Libya where refugees are sold into slavery, tortured and murdered. Everywhere we look human rights are under threat and those defending them are the ones treated as criminals. How many lives are going to be lost, for what? independent.co.uk/news/world/afr…
Just look at the UK right now. A Home Secretary who views the worst violations of human rights as something to emulate. Border Force having to take the moral lead against politicians who want to enact policies which are proven to kill people.
It's global though. It's no one country, or even one bloc of countries. Human rights are under attack. The people who believe in them are being treated as criminals by the very people who think nothing of violating international law on a daily basis. So I ask again, for what?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Still not "record" numbers crossing channel and very much not record numbers overall. Channel crossings may be more high profile, but overall numbers have been down during pandemic and vast majority of those crossing channel seek asylum, with most applications granted. #r4today
Channel crossings make for nice pics for the media, and yes, while not by any stretch being "record" numbers, they are up on average, mainly due to other routes being closed. All it shows though is that when other routes are closed people are forced to take more dangerous ones.
The UK still ranks 14th in comparison to EU states and takes far fewer refugees than say France. It also has lower benefits and more restrictions on asylum than France, Germany et al. People are crossing for good reasons. Reasons which don't end because you close routes.
There is currently no hard and fast legal protections for those forced to cross international borders due to climate change. The term "climate refugee" may be catchy, but it isn't a legal term, and in some contexts is misleading and unhelpful. 1/
All too often, for example, we see environmental activists using the "threat" of "climate refugees" as a stick with which to beat developed nations. This only reinforces the idea that migration is something to be avoided though. 2/
Nation states, across the world, are becoming increasingly focused on policies of deterrence and exclusion. International law is routinely ignored because states know that even if they are prosecuted, unlikely in majority of cases, they tend to only get a slap on the wrist. 3/
It's all well and good to say migrant's rights advocates "need to work with the Home Office". Does anyone really think that the Home Office are sitting there saying "we need to work with migrants' rights advocates"? 1/
We see it time and time again. As soon as an organisation engages with them they can use it as cover. Just look at Patel saying they had "worked with UNHCR" on the Borders Bill when UNHCR was specifically telling them it was illegal and inhumane. 2/
We have also seen how often concerted pressure can force this government into making U-turns. What we need is for organisations to work together to create a coordinated approach and stop undermining each other's messages. 3/
THREAD: There's a lot going on with the government's current rhetoric towards asylum seekers which possibly needs a little analysis and explanation. First and foremost though it is important to note that none of it is particularly new. 1/
The aim, of the Nationality and Borders Bill and the wider rhetoric in general is pretty clearly to deny asylum to as many people as possible, as demonstrated aptly by Patel claiming that people with "too much documentation" couldn't be refugees. 2/ mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…
Compare and contrast to the usual line that those arriving without documents are trying to "game the system" by throwing documents overboard, particularly in regard to age assessments. So essentially they are in a catch 22 of damned if they have them, damned if they don't. 3/
#AssistedDying is an emotional subject, and undeniably if brought in needs serious checks and balances, but my personal view is that we urgently need a mechanism for providing people who want the choice with the choice. 1/ #r4today
Today marks 27 years since my mum died from cancer. My memories of her are limited, I was only young, and the main one I have is of the radio alarm clock's red digits reading 7:54 when I was told she had gone while I was holding her hand. 2/
Unfortunately, one of my other memories is of her begging to be allowed to die as the tumours consumed her. She had been so full of energy and so intelligent. She was a law lecturer who taught herself economics over one particular summer holiday period so she could...3/
Ding ding ding, "First safe country" brought up in Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, everyone drink. Doesn't exist in international law, never has existed in international law.
Just an fyi folks "the other side were also bad" is not a defence for you breaking the law. Yes, you know what the last Labour government was crap as well and caused untold misery to asylum seekers and migrants. That's not an excuse to violate international law and hurt more now.
Australia's policies didn't act as a deterrent. They did kill people, but they didn't act as a deterrent, and smuggling and trafficking are not the same thing. Trafficking victims can't be "deterred". They don't get a f**king say where they are being taken.