People take part in a pro-Palestine march in central London, organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, February 17, 2024
BRITAIN’S rulers are coming for our democratic rights. And their way is being prepared with a barrage of propaganda and lies.
The “counter-extremism commissioner” Robin Simcox peddles an outrageous smear against the peace movement when he claims Palestine solidarity demonstrations make London a “no-go zone for Jews.”
Tell that to the large and growing Jewish bloc that has marched for a Gaza ceasefire at every national demo.
But, as Stop the War Coalition officer John Rees warns, the ruling-class’s cynical strategy of interpreting empathy with Palestinians as hostility to Jews has sown confusion and fear.
Our ancestors fought huge battles against Fascism in the 20the century e.g the Spanish Civil War and World War 2. I am considering whether we should be properly be calling the current situation of Israel’s Gaza genocide and anti-Muslim racist attacks Fascism.
The DWP is seeking powers to require banks to trawl the accounts of millions of people who receive benefits. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
Campaigners say ‘fully automated’ approach risks repeat of Post Office Horizon scandal
Plans for automated surveillance of millions of bank accounts to catch welfare cheats should be scrapped, campaigners have said, warning the approach risks a repeat of the Post Office Horizon scandal.
…
But campaigners for welfare claimants, disabled people, human rights and privacy warned ministers it represents an “unprecedented and disproportionate invasion of the public’s financial privacy, the effect of which will be felt most sharply by the most vulnerable”.
The net would also trawl the private banking data of people related to welfare claimants including partners, parents and landlords. It would save around £360m a year – less than 5% of the total lost to welfare fraud, according to the government’s best estimate.
In a letter to Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, 42 organisations, from Disability Rights UK to Big Brother Watch, said: “There are approximately 22.6 million individuals in the welfare system, including those who are disabled, sick, caregivers, job seekers, and pensioners. They should not be treated like criminals by default … The Horizon scandal saw hundreds of people wrongfully prosecuted using data from faulty software. The government must learn from this mistake – not replicate it en masse.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks during a press conference in Downing Street in London, after he saw the Safety of Rwanda Bill pass its third reading in the House of Commons by a majority of 44, January 18, 2024
Lords slam ‘legal fiction’ as they inflict first defeat on cruel Tory plan for asylum-seekers, decision comes day after seven-year-old girl tragically drowns in Channel
PEERS inflicted their first defeat against PM Rishi Sunak’s proposed Rwanda asylum law today — putting the House of Lords on a collision course with the government.
The upper chamber backed by 274 votes to 172, majority 102, a move to ensure the draft legislation, aimed at clearing the way to send asylum-seekers who cross the Channel in small boats on a one-way flight to Kigali, is fully compliant with the law.
The heavy government defeat sets the stage for an extended tussle between the Commons and Lords during “ping-pong,” where legislation is batted between the two houses until agreement is reached.
Peers slammed the government’s assertion that the east African country is safe to send migrants in contrary to a Supreme Court ruling.
…
Former Lord Speaker Baroness D’Souza branded the emergency legislation a “legal fiction.”
The independent cross-bench peer said it is “writing into law a demonstrably false statement that Rwanda is a safe country to receive asylum-seekers and thereby forcing all courts to treat Rwanda as a safe country, despite clear findings of fact.”
Former shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, who brought the supported amendment, told peers that Labour is calling for changes to the Bill that would ensure compliance with the rule of law.
She argued this must be “completely incontrovertible for those like the Prime Minister, who now claim to be liberal patriots.”
Liberty’s lawyers say police feedback was ‘directly incorporated into the final text’ of Braverman’s anti-protest laws | Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images
High Court told government only sought feedback from people it knew would agree with its controversial changes
Only police were consulted on anti-protest laws before they were forced through by the UK government, according to human rights lawyers suing the home secretary.
Campaign group Liberty has been in court this week challenging James Cleverly over amendments to the Public Order Act that were pushed through by his predecessor, Suella Braverman, last year.
Liberty was given permission to take legal action against Braverman in October after she used secondary legislation – subject to less parliamentary scrutiny – to strengthen police powers to shut down protests that cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.
The group says Braverman’s actions amounted to a “serious overreach” and that she acted unlawfully because the changes to the law had already been rejected in the House of Lords.
And Liberty has labelled a consultation on the proposed laws in 2022 as “one-sided” and “unfair” – because the Home Office only consulted police. The government gave the Met, Staffordshire Police, Essex Police, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and the College of Policing opportunities to give their views on the legislation, but did not seek input from anyone who might be impacted by the laws.
Liberty argued: “The [home secretary] voluntarily embarked upon a process of consultation about the contents and drafting of the regulations but then only consulted a narrow group of stakeholders in support of the amendments rather than an even-handed group representative of all those whose interests may be adversely impacted.”
Its lawyers also say police feedback was “directly incorporated into the final text” of the amendments to the Public Order Act, including on the definition of “serious disruption to the life of the community”.
The new powers have been criticised by Liberty and other human rights groups due to the vagueness of the new language, which campaigners say allows police to shut down almost any protests. The changes forced through by Braverman mean officers can interfere with and arrest anyone taking part in protests that they believe will cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.
Police feedback on “cumulative disruption” was also included in the final amendments to the act. Under this law, officers must take into account all “relevant cumulative disruption”, regardless of whether or not your protest is related to any other protest or disruption in the same area. Before this amendment, there was no explicit requirement for police to consider this.
While the government held multiple meetings with police representatives in December 2022 to seek input and “refine policy”, Liberty argues that the fact that no rights groups or members of the public were consulted is rooted in “procedural unfairness” and that the changes must be reversed.
Katy Watts, Liberty’s lawyer leading the case said: “The government has shown it’s determined to put itself above the law, avoid scrutiny and become untouchable – so it’s no surprise it only consulted people it knew would agree with its new law.
“Our democracy exists to make sure a government can’t just do whatever it wants, and an important part of that is consulting a wide range of voices on new laws – especially those likely to raise reasonable concerns. This improves government decision making and helps to make our laws better. The government’s failure to do this is just one of the ways it acted unlawfully when it forced these powers though.”
The laws were initially brought in to clamp down on protests by climate activist groups like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Extinction Rebellion, but other protesters are now also being targeted.
The government has accused pro-Palestine protesters of “hijacking legitimate protests”, “shouting down and coercing elected representatives”, and has also called them “un-British” and “undemocratic”.
In a new ‘defending democracy policing protocol’ released this week, the government pledged £31m of additional funding to protect MPs after safety fears were raised.
The Home Office said it wants to “protect the democratic process from intimidation” but according to its own policy paper, only met with police representatives from the National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the College of Policing.
The Home Office did not respond to a request for comment.
The two-day hearing ended yesterday and Liberty’s lawyers expect a decision could take up to three months.
