Caught in the net: how migration became a criminal offence

Spread the love

Original article by Vicky Taylor Melissa Pawson republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence

People board an inflatable dinghy in an attempt to cross the Channel from France to the UK in July 2022
 | Denis Charlet/AFP/Getty Images. All rights reserved

New series: UK and EU governments are targeting people crossing borders in the name of ‘counter-smuggling’

On 1 June 2019, Samyar Bani boarded a small dinghy with five other people. Looking out at the expanse of the English Channel, he said he felt afraid, but knew he had to continue. Just a few miles more and he would be in the UK. At that point, he never expected to still be journeying, still seeking safety, two years after fleeing persecution in his hometown of Shiraz, Iran.

Bani and his companions had purchased the dinghy together to avoid smugglers’ fees. He hoped the boat would keep them safe as they crossed the water, because he didn’t know how to swim. It was a dangerous last step, he knew that. But, given the limits of the UK’s resettlement routes and the tightness of its visa regimes, he saw this as his best chance for reaching sanctuary.

Bani hoped he’d be welcomed on the other side of the Channel, and that his request for asylum would be accepted. He had no idea that placing his hand on the tiller of the boat would land him in prison, cause him to plead his case before a jury at trial, and tie him up in an appeal process for two and a half years.

He never expected to lose contact with his wife and daughter, or for them to spend three years mourning the death of their husband and father. He never expected to have his picture put online, or to be branded as a ‘dangerous people smuggler’.

All of this happened to Bani because he helped to buy a boat, and helped to steer it to safety.

A new normal has crept in. Over the last few decades, crossing borders without permission – sometimes called ‘irregular migration’ – has become a criminal offence in many countries. Among those prosecuted are people in search of asylum, fleeing war and persecution.

These migrants and refugees, as well as solidarity actors like rescue workers, are also increasingly at risk of being labelled as ‘smugglers’ for the purposes of prosecution.

Governments are widening the nets of who they consider criminal as they respond to calls from the far-right to crack down on immigration. In doing so, states justify measures which racially profile, control and contain people on the move. These measures have been shown to make no tangible difference to immigration numbers, and instead cause immense harm to the very people they purport to protect.

In this new series, 12 authors do a deep dive into the criminalisation of migration and solidarity in the UK and Europe. Some of the contributors to this series have been accused of espionage, people smuggling, and facilitating ‘illegal entry/ arrival’. Some were crossing borders, and others were acting in solidarity with those crossing borders. Contributors also include policy experts and journalists working to expose those injustices.

Over the next two weeks, we’ll examine the hidden corners of global anti-migration structures set up in the name of ‘anti-smuggling’. We’ll be looking at: the detention of rescue workers in Italy; the imprisonment of children under ‘smuggling’ charges in the UK; the repeal of EU-enforced smuggling laws in Niger; how the EU is putting pressure on migrants’ rights groups in North Africa; the lucrative policing contracts in the ‘digital fight’ against smuggling; and the far-reaching influence of anti-mafia and counter-terror policies on counter-smuggling.

Widening the definition of ‘smuggling’

People fleeing wars, occupations or persecution often have no choice but to travel without documents or visas. Many must leave quickly and under dangerous circumstances, and in any case most countries of destination don’t make any practical legal routes available to them.

In recognition of these circumstances, refugees are protected from “penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence” by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK and all EU countries are party to. But their protected status has, in recent years, been eroded by anti-immigration and counter-smuggling policies. What used to be considered ‘irregular’ movement for asylum has increasingly been redefined as ‘illegal’.

Many countries, for example, now target the people steering the boats carrying people on the move – people like Samyar Bani – regardless of whether they were involved further in ‘smuggling’ activities or not. Organisations and researchers have documented this practice in GreeceItalySpainIndonesia, and, most recently, in the UK.

Soon after people started arriving in the UK in ‘small boats’ in greater numbers in late 2018, the Conservative government began to arrest, charge, and convict those identified as steering the dinghies. These arrests were accompanied by media briefings labelling the people arrested as ‘smugglers’ responsible for crossings.

Yet even those tasked with identifying the ‘smugglers’ questioned the logic. Border Force officers told inspectors, “there were no organised crime group members onboard the boats, although one of the migrants might have agreed with the facilitators to act as a ‘chaperone’ for a reduced fee.”

A series of successful appeals in 2021 overturned these early convictions. Lawyers argued that people intending to arrive at ports and claim asylum are not guilty of the offence of ‘illegal entry’, since they are simply arriving irregularly, and then entering as an ‘asylum seeker’.

The legislation effectively made all irregular arrival, even for the purposes of claiming asylum, a criminal offence in the UK

In response, the UK government used the 2022 Nationality and Borders Act to expand the criminal offences that can be applied against people crossing borders irregularly. This legislation introduced a new offence of ‘illegal arrival’ and increased the maximum sentence to four years imprisonment. For the crime of ‘facilitation’ – in other words, assisting arrival or ‘smuggling’ – the maximum sentence was increased to life in prison.

This legislation effectively made all irregular arrival, even for the purposes of claiming asylum, a criminal offence in the UK.

Across Europe, states are also working on expanding the definition of ‘smuggling’ to increase the number of prosecutions. Member states can currently charge people for offences relating to crossing borders, or for defending the rights of those crossing borders through the EU’s 2002 Facilitation Directive.

Just like in the UK, the directive has allowed states to prosecute people for steering boats even if no other evidence of ‘smuggling’ activities is presented. In 2021, a Greek court sentenced M. Hanad Abdi to 142 years in prison for “transporting” 33 people to the country. The decision was made despite Abdi having been forced “at gunpoint” to helm the boat, and despite him saving 31 of his co-passengers’ lives on the way.

His lawyers appealed the sentence, and it was reduced to eight years in 2023. Responding to the decision, Abdi’s lawyer, Alexandros Georgoulis wrote: “The law is completely obsolete. We now know that smugglers no longer approach the Greek coast to avoid arrest, and let the migrants guide the boats on their own.”

And yet, the European Commission is seeking to strengthen its powers even further through a new, expanded facilitation directive. This is despite migrants’ rights groups and the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders raising concerns about the implications this will have.

The new EU directive is likely to “dramatically increase” the criminalisation of migration and solidarity in Europe, according to migrants’ rights organisation PICUM. It will introduce longer prison sentences, broaden provisions for criminalising NGO workers, and continue to allow smuggling charges to be brought against people simply for crossing borders with their children.

Hundreds already serving sentences

As the UK and EU expand the legislation which allows them to criminalise those crossing borders or those standing in solidarity with them, hundreds are already caught in the web of the system.

According to PICUM, 117 people were subject to criminal proceedings for their solidarity work with people crossing borders in Europe, and 76 people were charged for crossing borders in 2023. Most of them faced charges of migrant smuggling or facilitation of entry, transit or stay, allowed under the 2002 EU directive. These numbers are most likely an undercount, since charges across the entire bloc are hard to track.

In the UK, 189 people were arrested for their ‘illegal arrival’ in dinghies in 2022, 109 of them for their role in steering the boats. In 2023, 244 people were charged for ‘illegal arrival’, 86 of whom were alleged to have steered the boat. The latest data obtained from the Home Office indicated that 38 people were charged with ‘illegal arrival’ for steering dinghies in the first six months of 2024.

Those branded as ‘smugglers’ are made convenient scapegoats for the real, unaddressed failures of UK and EU governments

The vast majority of these people were crossing borders to seek sanctuary and a better life. Some were victims of trafficking and torture. And at least 22 of those charged in the UK are age disputed, meaning that they were charged as an adult despite stating their age as under 18.

In courts across Europe and the UK, those arrested often explain how they drove the boats under duress, or because they could not otherwise afford the passage. Individuals – some of them teenagers like Ibrahima Bah or the El Hiblu 3 – explain how they were only seeking a place of safety.

Yet they have been declared ‘smugglers’ and labelled as solely responsible for any harms that occurred at sea. This placement of blame entirely obscures the structural responsibility of states who close alternative routes to safety while continuing to invest in border security infrastructure.

And Europe isn’t only criminalising people on its own shores. Years of policies to offshore its border control, for example to countries on the other side of the Mediterranean, have resulted in people being targeted for migrating or for solidarity work before they even reach European soil.

EU countries have handed billions to Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Mauritania and Morocco in deals to control and curb migration. Many of those deals hand funds to authoritarian regimes – and, in Libya’s case, facilitate human rights abuses on and off its shores.

Erosion of rights for everyone

Criminalisation policies cause immense harm to people. NGO workers are targeted for supporting people on the move and are forced to uproot their work and their lives. People migrating are forced to take even more dangerous routes to evade arrests, through deserts and in unseaworthy boats – and if they do make it to safety, they face spending years or decades in prison.

All the while, those branded as ‘smugglers’ are made convenient scapegoats for the real, unaddressed failures of UK and EU governments: soaring poverty and homelessness, declining public services, a rising cost of living and crises in the healthcare systems.

Experts have long called for safe routes to be made available to people seeking sanctuary. But governments seem intent to plough on with harmful criminalisation policies instead, all the while increasing the risks people are forced to take at borders.

Since being released from prison, Samyar Bani has been granted leave to remain in the UK. The scars of his experiences are far from healed: he still suffers flashbacks from his time in prison, is still struggling to get a job due to his criminal record, and has had his application to bring his wife and daughter to the UK rejected.

But he’s not giving up on building a life in safety. He’s working on his English so he can go back to work, and he’s appealing the decision on his family reunification application. “Humans need life,” said Bani at the end of our interview together. “My country wasn’t safe for me, so I came to the UK.”

He paused. “Police understand who a smuggler is, and they don’t sit in the boat. They just do this so they can close the border to refugees.”

Original article by Vicky Taylor Melissa Pawson republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence

Continue ReadingCaught in the net: how migration became a criminal offence

What the budget got wrong about the NHS and prevention

Spread the love

Lindsay Jaacks, University of Edinburgh

A healthy NHS and strong economy depend on healthy people, not just strong public finances. Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ budget was a missed opportunity for the government to get serious about public health by protecting citizens from the leading risk factor for death in the UK: unhealthy food.

If a multinational corporation was dumping a chemical into our water that was costing the NHS £19 billion a year (the cost of obesity), that company would be asked to pay the bills. This is the “polluter pays” principle.

The same principle should apply to food. Instead, multinational food companies are profiting from sales of unhealthy food. For example, PepsiCo, which includes brands such as Pepsi MAX, Walkers and Doritos, generated more than £70 billion net revenue in 2023, globally.

Reeves’ budget states that the soft drinks industry levy will rise in line with inflation. From April 1 2025, the lower rate of the levy will increase from 18 pence per litre to 19.4 pence per litre. And the higher rate will increase from 24 pence per litre to 25.9 per litre. (The lower rate applies to added-sugar drinks with a total sugar content of 5 to 7.9 grams per 100 millilitres, and the higher rate applies to drinks with 8 grams or more per 100 millilitres.)

Levies like this result in an increase in the price of food and drink if companies pass the levy on to citizens; which is exactly what they typically do.

Evidence suggests that the levy has been effective at reducing consumption of sugar in the UK, but it could do much more.

According to the World Health Organization, as of July 2022, 108 countries have sugary drinks taxes, many of them substantially higher than the rate in the UK. For example, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), there is a 50% excise tax on carbonated drinks and 100% tax on energy drinks.

By comparison, in the UK, the changes to the soft drinks levy in the new budget are estimated to increase the price of a 330ml can of a “higher band” soft drink by just three pence by 2029 to 2030.

Many countries have gone beyond sugary drinks to tax other foods, such as those high in fat, salt or sugar. Again, in the example of the UAE, a 50% excise tax is applied to any product with added sugar or other sweeteners. Indeed, 18 countries have taxes on high fat, salt and sugar foods.

Mexico was among the first countries to adopt such a policy, applying an 8% tax on discretionary foods such as confectionary, chocolate, sugary breakfast cereals, crisps and other salty snacks. Following implementation, there was a significant reduction in sales of these unhealthy foods.

Corner shop in Mexico, featuring a Coca-Cola advert.
Mexico was the first country to introduce a tax on sugary drinks. JRomero04/Shutterstock

Make the polluter pay

The new budget in the UK could have gone much further in terms of raising funds and rebuilding the NHS by expanding the soft drinks levy to a levy on high fat, salt and sugar foods.

The government’s ten-year plan for the NHS is due to be published in spring 2025. Many have advocated for the plan to focus on prevention. But the idea that the NHS should be responsible for prevention perpetuates the idea that individuals are responsible for unhealthy diets and obesity. It moves the blame from companies that process, promote and profit from high fat, salt and sugar foods to individuals and the NHS. Instead, why not demand that the polluters pay?

A healthy population underlies economic growth. If the government wants a healthy NHS and a strong economy, make multinational corporations, not citizens, pay for the harms of their unhealthy products that are marketed to us and our children every day.

Lindsay Jaacks, Personal Chair of Global Health and Nutrition, University of Edinburgh

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingWhat the budget got wrong about the NHS and prevention

Getting my congratulations in very early

Spread the love

I wish to extend my congratulations to President-elect Kamala Harris on her victory in the presidential election.

I urge her to address the issues of Israel and climate as soon as she is able to. Israel needs to be severely restrained and radical climate policies on a huge scale based on proven technologies are needed as an example to follow.

Congratulations President Harris.

6 Nov 2024 12.45 Oh dear, called that wrong. The Americans have gone and elected a moron again.

Continue ReadingGetting my congratulations in very early

Guy Fawkes’ punishment was one of the most severe in English history – here’s what happens when a body is hung, drawn and quartered

Spread the love
Fawkes and his co-conspirators were sentenced to hanging, drawing and quartering. Crispijn van de Passe the Elder/ Wikimedia Commons

Michelle Spear, University of Bristol

After their infamous plot to destroy parliament was foiled, Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators received one of the most severe judicial sentences in English history: hanging, drawing and quartering. According to the Treason Act 1351, this punishment involved:

That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.

This process aimed not only to inflict excruciating pain on the condemned, but to serve as a deterrent – demonstrating the fate of those who betrayed the Crown. While Fawkes reportedly jumped from the gallows – which meant he avoided the full extent of his punishment – his co-conspirators apparently weren’t so lucky.

By dissecting each stage of this medieval punishment from an anatomical perspective, we can understand the profound agony each of them endured.

Torture for confession

Before his public execution on January 31 1606, Fawkes was tortured to force a confession about his involvement in the “gunpowder plot”.

The Tower of London records confirm that King James I personally authorised “the gentler tortures first”. Accounts reveal that Fawkes was stretched on the rack – a device designed to slowly pull the limbs in opposite directions. This stretching inflicted severe trauma on the shoulders, elbows and hips, as well as the spine.

The forces exerted by the rack probably exceeded those required for joint or hip dislocation under normal conditions.

Substantive differences between Fawkes’ signatures on confessions between November 8 and shortly before his execution may indicate the amount of nerve and soft tissue damage sustained. It also illustrates how remarkable his final leap from the gallows was.

An engraving depicting a person being tortured on the rack.
The rack slowly pulled a prisoner’s limbs in opposite directions. Wellcome Collection/ Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Stage 1: hanging (partial strangulation)

After surviving the torture of the rack, Fawkes and his gang faced the next stage of their punishment: hanging. But this form of hanging only partially strangled the condemned – preserving their consciousness and prolonging their suffering.

Partial strangulation exerts extreme pressure on several critical neck structures. The hyoid bone, a small u-shaped structure above the larynx, is prone to bruising or fracture under compression.

Simultaneously, pressure on the carotid arteries restricts blood flow to the brain, while compression of the jugular veins causes pooling of blood in the head – probably resulting in visible haemorrhages in the eyes and face.

Because the larynx and trachea (both essential for airflow) are partially obstructed, this makes breathing laboured. Strain on the cervical spine and surrounding muscles in the neck can lead to tearing, muscle spasms or dislocation of the vertebra – causing severe pain.

Fawkes brought his agony to a premature end by leaping from the gallows. Accounts from the time tell us:

His body being weak with the torture and sickness, he was scarce able to go up the ladder – yet with much ado, by the help of the hangman, went high enough to break his neck by the fall.

This probably caused him to suffer a bilateral fracture of his second cervical vertebra, assisted by his own bodyweight – an injury known as the “hangman’s fracture”.

Stage 2: Drawing (disembowelment)

After enduring partial hanging, the victim would then be “drawn” – a process which involved disembowelling them while still alive. This act mainly targeted the organs of the abdominal cavity – including the intestines, liver and kidney, as well as major blood vessels such as the abdominal aorta.

The physiological response to disembowelment would have been immediate and severe. The abdominal cavity possesses a high concentration of pain receptors – particularly around the membranous lining of the abdomen. When punctured, these pain receptors would have sent intense pain signals to the brain, overwhelming the body’s capacity for pain management. Shock would soon follow due to the rapid drop in blood pressure caused by massive amounts of blood loss.

Stage 3: quartering (dismemberment)

Quartering was also supposed to be performed while the victim was still alive. Though no accounts exist detailing at what phase victims typically lost consciousness during execution, it’s highly unlikely many survived the shock of being drawn.

So, at this stage, publicity superseded punishment given the victim’s likely earlier demise. Limbs that were removed from criminals were preserved by boiling them with spices. These were then toured around the country to act as a deterrent for others.

Though accounts suggest Fawkes’s body parts were sent to “the four corners of the United Kingdom”, there is no specific record of what was sent where. However, his head was displayed in London.

Traitor’s punishment

The punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering was designed to be as anatomically devastating as it was psychologically terrifying. Each stage of the process exploited the vulnerabilities of the human body to create maximum pain and suffering, while also serving as a grim reminder of the consequences of treason.

This punishment also gives us an insight into how medieval justice systems used the body as a canvas for social and political messaging. Fawkes’s fate, though unimaginable today, exemplifies the extremes to which the state could, and would, go to maintain control, power and authority over its subjects.

The sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was officially removed from English law as part of the Forfeiture Act of 1870.

Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Guy Fawkes night: celebrating the most famous act of counter-terrorism in history

The Joker to Guy Fawkes: why protesters around the world are wearing the same masks

Guy Fawkes night’s oddest traditions are due to a 1606 law

The Gunpowder Plot: torture and persecution in fact and fiction

Continue ReadingGuy Fawkes’ punishment was one of the most severe in English history – here’s what happens when a body is hung, drawn and quartered

Hidden behind this budget is a terrible bombshell: billions in cuts for disabled people

Spread the love
Keir Starmer confirms that he's proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/05/tax-and-spend-budget-disabled-people-austerity

The DWP confirms that draconian ‘savings’ are coming down the track. Are we a nation that will repair hospitals, but not help a nurse with long Covid?

In the days after the budget, the headlines were dominated by talk of Rachel Reeves’s “tax and spend” bonanza. The message was clear: austerity is officially over. When there was concern about squeezed incomes, it was solely for workers. As the Mail front page put it: “Reeves’ £40bn tax bombshell for Britain’s strivers”. Almost a week later, there has still barely been a word about the policy set to hit the group long scapegoated as Britain’s skivers: the billions of pounds’ worth of benefit cuts for disabled people.

Making up just a couple of lines in a 77-minute speech, you’d have been forgiven for dozing past Reeves’ blink-and-you’d-miss-it bombshell. With a record number of Britons off work with long-term illness, the government will need to “reduce the benefits bill”, she said, before noting ministers had “inherited” the Conservatives’ plans to reform the work capability assessment (WCA). That plan, let’s not forget, was to take up to £4,900 a year each from 450,000 people who are too sick or disabled to work – a move that the Resolution Foundation says would “degrade living standards” for families already on some of the lowest incomes in the country.

Much like when George Osborne aimed to cut the disability benefits bill by a fifth, “welfare reform” based on arbitrary cost-cutting says the quiet part out loud: benefits won’t be awarded based on who needs them – just on what they cost. It is social security by spreadsheet, severing the social contract that promises the state will be there in times of sickness and disability, and adding a footnote that says, “but only if we can afford it”. That last week’s budget revealed huge investment for infrastructure at the same time as disability benefit cuts exposes how even the affordability argument is largely fabricated. There is money to fix hospital buildings but not to feed a nurse bedbound with long Covid.

The financial impact of such “reform” on those relying on benefits is well established but the psychological toll should not be underestimated. Since gaining power, Labour has drip-fed the rightwing press sound bites and op-eds on potential benefit cuts, leaving news outlets to speculate wildly for clicks. The budget’s half-announcement has only added to the confusion and fear, issuing vague dog whistles of “fraud” and high “benefit bills” while forcing millions of people to wait months to find out if they will lose the money they need to live.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/05/tax-and-spend-budget-disabled-people-austerity

Continue ReadingHidden behind this budget is a terrible bombshell: billions in cuts for disabled people