Category: Human Rights

  • ‘Family Friendly’ UK Government Policies. What About Immigration?

    Ever seeking to be seen as the ‘family man’, David Cameron has stated that in future, all government policies should pass a ‘family friendly’ test before becoming law. (#)

    It should be pretty clear to anyone with a critical mind that this is nothing more than meaningless spin and rhetoric. Cameron’s government are focussed on what benefits the privileged, not the underdog, but they have to appeal to a moral position in order to condition skeptics into voting for them. However, there’s one specific example that immediately comes to mind that should illustrate the duplicity involved with this proclamation: that of immigration.

    The usual bullshit position on immigration in the UK tends to be: “we’re here and it’s our right to be here – nobody else should be allowed. Foreigners should just go home.” – worded more or less diplomatically depending on who is involved. Immigration? Pah! Why should those immigrants be considered anyway?

    Interestingly enough, experience has shown that this dogma transforms (as do many others) when the issue comes closer to home. It’s easy to dismiss immigrants of a different colour or nationality in the abstract, but not so much when one of your family members is separated from a loved one because of harsh and unpredictable immigration regulations.

    The fact is that immigration policy in the UK is racist, and purposively both complex and contradictory in order to make the application process as difficult as possible. There are no elements of fairness or justice in how people are dealt with, and what results is a maddeningly frustrating and expensive undertaking for anybody who dares to fall in love with somebody from another country. When the system invariably break down, people are forced to appeal to the safeguard of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is then handily used as a scapegoat for undermining national sovereignty. Few point out the responsibility of the UK government to ensure that the system is fit for purpose in the first place.

    There are endless amounts that have already been written about my own experience with the UK immigration process alone, but never published. It’s something I constantly swither over making public, partly through fear of any future reprisal. After all, we still have a number of years to go before we are completely out of the woods, and at any point our hard-fought battles could be revoked. Why is so little said about this stuff in detail by those who go through it? Because we are terrified of the possible consequences that might happen. People should know about what injustices happen in the system, and freedom of speech should guarantee the ability for that to happen, but who wants to risk it when their application may be denied?

    For those of us who are on the receiving end of such policies, we know how awful it is. We know that immigration is a disgusting mess; one that has no concern for families, or for keeping them together. We know that kids get used solely as an excuse to raise the barrier for entry to the UK, not treated as human beings. We know that what really matters here is ethnicity, not family values. We know that it’s a specific kind of morality that is in mind here: that of the white, mother and father, British kind. We know that all this is true, and have resigned ourselves to being subjected to that, often silently… but to then turn around and talk about the importance of ‘family friendly’ policies is just flat out insulting.

    Don’t believe a word of this pish.

     

  • Response from John Mason MSP and Anas Sarwar MP on NSA/GCHQ Surveillance

    After the revelations last week concerning the active weakening of encryption technologies by the NSA and GCHQ, I used writetothem.com to get in touch with my local MSP John Mason, and MP Anas Sarwar.

    The message I sent to John is below, with a similar variant used for Anas Sarwar:

    Dear John Mason,

    Yesterday a number of major media outlets published revelations that GCHQ, in partnership with the American NSA, have been systematically working to defeat encryption systems used on the Internet. Despite a move many years ago to have vulnerabilities inserted into encryption software being defeated, these agencies have clandestinely used their considerable resources to do this extra-legally.

    In actively reducing the integrity of secure communications, GCHQ has also weakened the protection of consumers online. With un-named vulnerabilities being implemented into systems that we have been led to believe are safe, such as online banking, and e-commerce, these have been opened up to exploitation by third party hackers. The Internet is a more dangerous place because of these actions.

    Much is still unclear about the capabilities possessed by GCHQ and the NSA, such as what technologies that are now vulnerable. Answers need to be provided, as these agencies have far over-stepped their remit, effectively engaging in mass surveillance of their own citizens, in breach of the right to privacy afforded by the various International conventions.

    Whilst I understand that this can arguably be classed as a reserved matter, I believe that it is so important that the actions of GCHQ cannot be left un-challenged. I ask that you would publicly challenge GCHQ for details of the technologies that they have exploited; to cease the invasion of the privacy of those in Scotland; and to demand that the UK Government explains why this has been allowed to happen.

    I look forward to your response,

    Yours sincerely,

    Stephen Blythe

    secure email

    I have always found John Mason to be helpful, and determined to stand up for his constituents. His response is below:

    Dear Stephen

    Thanks for your email.

    In the first place I am happy to agree with your main points that GCHQ or whoever should not be spying on their own citizens.  You can quote me publically[sic] on that if you want.

    However, how to deal with it is more difficult.  In the first place I think there is wide public support for spying by the state on suspected terrorists and in fact when we do see terrorist acts we often have a public reaction as to why the state had not been more proactive in clamping down sooner.  The film ‘Minority Report’ (I think) raised some of these questions in how far the state goes in preventing crimes happening.

    Secondly, I believe GCHQ has the full support of the UK government/establishment.  They see it as their job to do all this kind of thing.  So asking them not to do it is a bit like asking a cat to stop being a cat.

    Thirdly, my guess is that the UK establishment is also spying on the Scottish government.

    On a personal basis, I tend to work on the assumption that my phone calls may be tapped, my emails and texts are likely tobe read by people who should not be doing so.  Can we change all this?  I’m not sure.  I would certainly likely to and am happy to support any campaign on this.  Whistle blowers are certainly part of the answer.  Unless we can get insiders to go public, I doubt we will find out much information that the establishment does not want us to have.

    I am happy to discuss any of this with you face to face if that would be easier.  I guess I am a bit sceptical but I am open to persuasion that things can be made better.

    Regards

    John Mason

    The response from Anas Sarwar is below:

    Dear Mr Blythe,

    Anas Sarwar MP has asked me to thank you for your email below regarding allegations about data collection and sharing by UK intelligence agencies.

    These are, of course, extremely serious allegations and it is vital that they are thoroughly investigated and that we ensure there is effective oversight and a clear legal framework to oversee our intelligence operations.

    Mr Sarwar appreciates that our intelligence and security services undertake vital, often unrecognised, work to protect our security and to counter the threats we face. Given the global nature of their work it is also crucial that our intelligence agencies are able to share information across international borders with our allies, including the USA.

    However, he also believes there needs to be public confidence that our intelligence agencies are themselves law-abiding and accountable, and that any intelligence information received from the USA or any other country has been obtained legally.

    These recent allegations have caused real public concern and underline once again the need for effective Parliamentary and Ministerial oversight of all three of our intelligence organisations. The Government have been asked a number of questions about these allegations in the House of Commons and by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Committee was set up in 1994 to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the country’s intelligence agencies, and is currently looking into the issues around GCHQ that have been raised by recent events.

    Mr Sarwar has asked me to assure you that he will continue to monitor this important issue closely and will try to raise some of the points you mentioned with Government Ministers in Parliament ducharlotte.methuen@glasgow.ac.ukring Ministerial question time. [sic]

    Thank you once again for writing to Mr Sarwar and sharing your views with him.

    Yours sincerely,

    Yassar Abbas
    Office of Anas Sarwar MP
    Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party
    Member of Parliament for Glasgow Central

    Rm 221-223 Portcullis,
    House of Commons,
    Westminster,
    London,
    SW1A 0AA.

    I since have invited John Mason to come and meet with the Glasgow Open Rights Group members to discuss the issues involved.

  • A play with Derridean deconstruction

    “Heterosexuality is the natural way for human beings to be.”

    The word ‘nature’ is understood to entail that which arises naturally; organic in form. To apply the term ‘natural’ is to describe that which is part of life as it has arisen, be that from deity, evolution or other means. The word describes that which is the binary opposite of ‘un-natural’. For something to be created ‘un-naturally’ appears to be an impossibility; a sophistry without an alteration in the definition of ‘natural’ itself.

    Words and concepts are meaningless in of themselves. The concept only has ‘meaning’ relative to other concepts which define its position and our understanding of it.

    ‘Heterosexuality’ as a concept is meaningless without its binary opposite – ‘homosexuality’. The understanding of the former is impossible without the definition and relation to the latter. One defines itself in relation to the other.

    As a result, the existence of ‘heterosexuality’ determines the existence of ‘homosexuality’. If one has arisen by nature, then nature must also be the origin of the other.

    – originally posted on January 30th 2011 on allmyfriendsarejpegs.com