Woolly but not Liberal

The outwardly benign immigration Minister, Phil Woolas (left), made the unusual step this week of choosing the New Statesman to set out in the simplest terms Labours pernicious policy on asylum seekers.

He had intended to exploit the 'gaffe' by London Mayor, 'Bonkers Jonkers' who had argued for a possible amnesty for illegal long-term asylum seekers. Woolas's argument (and indeed Home Office immigration policy) was clearly aiming to appeal to the least tolerant and most ignorant elements of Labour Party support. He spoke of the Government preventing asylum seekers from "going to the front of the queue for jobs and benefits." Using such bloke-down-the-pub vernacular obscured the reality for tens of thousands of people in the UK. Those asylum seekers who have been rejected are not entitled to benefits and are also denied the right to work. They're not even in the queue. He also asserted an amnesty would increase people trafficking but offered no supportive evidence.

I'm not sure why any Government press officer would have suggested the "Staggers" as a suitable publication for Woolas's pitiful logic and pitiless outlook. Unsurprisingly, the piece attracted severe criticism from the readership. Johnson, on the other hand, emerged as pragmatic and compassionate for having suggested a realistic resolution to this intractable problem.

In the States there was a similar but bi-partisan move toward amnesty in 2006 when the McCain-Kennedy Bill was laid before Congress. The Bill was killed by both sides; hope for some peace of mind for families who had lived, worked and paid tax in US for 20 or 30 years was destroyed by political pip-squeaks spouting the same nonsense as Woolas.

But there is an altogether more sinister consequence to Labour's 'tough, no nonsense' immigration agenda. The shameful Home Office policy of finding any pretext, however remote, for declaring dangerous places 'safe for return' reached a new low this week.

Darfur is synonymous with the ethnic cleansing of the Sudanese Africans by the Government backed Arab militia, the Janjaweed. In the last six years over 200,000 people have been murdered in Darfur, five million displaced - the whole population terrorised.

The 3,000 Sudanese people who have made it to the UK have found this country is not a safe haven for the persecuted and are now threatened with deportation. Last week failed asylum seeker, Adam Osman, 32, was flown back to Khartoum. He had pleaded to our UK Border Agency, he could expect a very hostile 'reception' from the police if he were deported. He was spotted by security police at the airport who followed his car to his house and on arrival, shot him dead in front of his family.

There is now institutional cynicism in the Border Agency, asylum seekers are seemingly all deemed bogus. Woolas and UKBA officials must be aware the President al-Bashi of Sudan was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court earlier this month. To proceed with any more deportations would effectively make our Government accessories to further killings of persecuted peoples.

Still an Apprentice

It is not news to learn Ken Livingstone wishes to be London Mayor again. It is also hardly a revelation to discover the London Labour Party has been trawling the lists of members for a suitable figure to prevent Ken being the candidate again.

Alan Sugar is the latest name. But we've been here before. Greg Dyke was proclaimed by the Evening Standard in 2007 as the perfect 'stop Ken' candidate. This is nothing more than wishful thinking. Had Dyke been selected or if the LLP really loses its marbles and selects Sugar then Ken will, as before, stand as an independent, split the opposition vote and win.

I'm not sure there is much political acumen being deployed when a party is even contemplating adopting Sugar or 'Sir Alan' as he fastidiously prefers. He has a few positive attributes; high public profile, successful, decisive. But to even appear as a competent candidate for such a responsible position requires political skills Sugar patently does not have.

The following quote captures his approach to problem-solving, "Common sense prevails that someone like me who tends to cut to the chase, so to speak, would be the right kind of person to look after a city like London .... I've always been one of those people that walks in the office in the morning and says 'this is what we're going to do'."

A job like London mayor is not simply about strong, unbending leadership. It requires experience in judging what is good advice and having the humility to take it. How would Sugar's billious and often personal attacks on his colleagues lead him to make the right choices on nursery care provision?

Ken has a long way to go to climb back into the Mayor's seat especially when 'Bonkers' Johnson has been preceived to be making a fair fist of the job so far. Livingstone ran a pretty lacklustre campaign last year and yet came quite close (53% to 47%) despite Labour going 'below sea-level' in the simultaneous local elections. William Hills are offering Ken at a tempting 14/1 for 2012 while Boris is evens and Sugar a measly 10-1.

Sir Alan enjoys the political insult too much to succeed but certainly he has a memorable turn of phrase. Asked about Lib-Dem MP Simon Hughes's chances in 2004, he looked deadpan as usual and exhaled, "If thirty-five years in business has taught me one thing - you can't polish a t*rd."

Shut That Door

It may be a relatively rare event but Jacqui Smith, our beloved Home Secretary, was entirely right to deny entry to Britain to Dutch MP Geert 'Mozart' Wilders. His prescence has been deemed, "a threat to public order", although it is unlikely to have prompted riots around the House of Lords where he was due to show his hateful anti-Muslim film, Fitna.
In reality, the Government was stating clearly there are limits to freedom of speech. Although as a nation we are generally tolerant of a very wide range of political views, Wilders extremist claptrap goes way beyond what is acceptable. A ban on entry to the country is always a difficult judgement to make for a Minister, as it necesarily involves a degree of subjectivity. But Wilders's egomania and rampant self-publicism made it in an easy choice for Ms Smith in the end.
It is of no surpise to learn Wilders established his own political party (PVV) somewhat predictatably called the Freedom Party (reminiscent of fellow fascist and now dead drink-driver, Austrian MP Jorg Haider). There is no way a political loon like Wilders could fit in the structure of a mainstream political party, like many political extremists he could not stomach anyone's leadership but his own.
His film Fitna, is an Arabic term for "division between peoples" which appears to be his life's ambition. The case put by Wilders in his 17-minute short is no different from Al-Quaida - the Koran is a complete justification of terorist violence. It is not subtle, it is not remotely persuasive it is just polemic for the sake of it. His production of the film has stirred state lawyers in Netherlands to begin a prosecution against him for inciting hatred. He made it easy for them when he said, "I don't hate Moslems, I hate Islam".
The Dutch Prosecutors responded, "in a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line... the court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders."
His manifesto contains such wacko ideas, Lord Sutch would have struggled to accommodate Wilders in the MRLP. His idea of prison reform is forcing five prisoners to every cell - public media output should be restricted to one channel presumably showing pictures of the glorious leader holding Aryan babies together with some stirring classical music.
Naturally, Wilders also wants to ban the Koran. So much for his advocacy of freedom of speech.

Humanity Denied

For a freelance journalist, writing about conflicts, such as Gaza, does not usually pose too many dilemmas about bias and unbalanced reporting. I am free to express my opinion about events as I see them without too much concern about the familiar protesting comments. For a publicly funded media corporation such as the BBC, there is a wholly different level of responsibility in how to present news while being as even-handed as possible.

However, the Beeb have now got themselves in a strait jacket by refusing to give airtime to humanitarian charity appeal for Gaza. It would seem directives on 'fair representation' have spread to other parts of the corporation and the result is a pervasive climate of caution which is eventually contrary to a public service ethos.

The current plight of the Palestinian people has no equivalence in Israel. The Gazans are effectively trapped in this narrow strip of land and on top of the shelling and destruction of their communities, they have suffered severe food shortages and a dearth of even basic medicines. That one-sidedness of misery and hardship should not make their case for help less compelling.

The charities concerned make up the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC). It is an umbrella group (Oxfam, Red Cross, Save the Children, CAFOD) which comes together intermittently when there is a pressing need for a co-ordinated response to provide relief quickly. Recent examples would be the Tsunami appeal as well as Darfur, Myannar and Bangladesh. They are fervently neutral and independent, their watchwords are transparency and accountability.

http://www.dec.org.uk/who_we_are/

The BBC routinely provide DEC with a free Sunday afternoon slot to advertise their campaign. Their refusal has forced all the other TV broadcasters to follow suit. A BBC spokesperson attempted to explain their extra-ordinary position, "The decision was made because of question marks about the delivery of aid in a volatile situation and also to avoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in the context of [a] news story."

The BBC lawyers in trying to find a neutral position have taken the one course of action which makes them look political. To deny charities the opportunity to raise the maximum resources for the 1.5m Palestinians in Gaza may be perverse from a journalistic point of view but from a humanitarian stance it is also an utter disgrace.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any event this was nothing like a conflict of forces with comparable strength. The death toll ratio approached 100:1 for Palestinians over Israelis. Their use of phosphorous in built-up suburban areas (picture) is expressly against the rules of conflict and can never be justified. The postwar goodwill toward Israel across the world as a victim nation has all but been destroyed by these aggressive and pernicious military acts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friend of mine put me in touch with an organisation of peace activists base in Galilee, northern Israel. 'Creativity for Peace' work with young people from both sides to help them rid themselves of their own destructive anger and hatred towards their enemies. I wrote an article for the New Statesman which was, unusually for me, not a very political view. The article does not contain the words Jew, Muslim, Hamas or the name of any Israeli politician. The penultimate paragraph included the desperate pleas of a doctor, Ezzadine Al-Aish, who gave regular telephone interviews from inside Gaza to Israeli news media. His three daughters had all been through the Creativity for Peace programme. A week after the article was published an Israeli tank shell struck their house and all three daughters were killed.

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/01/peace-anael-creativity-anger

May peace be their legacy.

Following Orders

Left is a picture of Priviledge Thulambo and her two daughters, Valerie and Lorriane. They fled Zimbabwe, via Malawi in 2000 shortly after Priviledge's husband, Macca was arrested and murdered, most likely by Mugabe's Central Intelligence Organisation.

The UK Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) have recently ruled they have no case for seeking asylum and after 7 years here they will be deported to Malawi on 29 December. As they are Zimbabwean citizens they will sent back to Harare, no doubt with a welcome from the local constabulary.

It is outrageously unjust for this family to be deported for three reasons. First, Macca Thulambo's murder is not a matter of dispute; his family having escaped would be sure to be targets of the Government police. Alex Duval Smith's report in the Observer gives a good flavour to the current level of danger for activists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/zimbabwe-mugabe-activist-missing-crimes

Secondly, the level of oppression and degradation in Zimbabwe has inspired several world leaders, including Gordon Brown, to call for Mugabe's removal. Deportation cannot continue along side such condemnation.

Third, the Government already announced in July a moratorium on deportations to Zimbabwe. The BIA are applying a technicality of the Thulambos's use of Malawian documentation. The application of some degree of humanity would be more apt.

The cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe should be sufficient reason not to even contemplate deportation. Although Mugabe has tried to deny its existence, a spokeswoman for the South African Health Department described the outbreak as being, "on a massive, unprecedented scale." This crisis should be the end-game for Mugabe but probably won't be. If he can ride out 500m percent inflation, 85% unemployment, mass emigration, rigged elections, a collapsed economy and health service, then cholera is just another annoyance.

As the former colonial power, it is harder for us rather than neigbouring African countries to take the neccessary direct action to bring new leadership. They would be justified under international law, as Mugabe's regime threatens the stability of the region. When it happens, just watch a massive programme of investment follow. In the meantime, we watch the slow-burning tragedy unfold.

Some UK immigration officials think it is acceptable to return families to that bloody chaos. Shame on them.

Caught Soliciting

Coal has been a political issue in Britain for over 200 years. Now the mines are largely closed, billions of tonnes of the nation’s energy needs remains underground. But there are still tens of thousands of ex-miners suffering the effects of their industry. Two conditions in particular, respiratory disease and industrial white finger, were the result of the old British Coal's negligence in preventing long-lasting damage to its workforce.

In 1999, the DTI, under Stephen Byers, approved a compensation scheme for the miners which would obviously run into billions of quids. The Government contracted out the payment scheme and the solicitors in the old mining towns in South Yorks, Notts and South Wales realised a massive pay day was coming their way.

It is the ultimate concern of the Government who designed the scheme that about 40% of the £5.8 Bn paid out has gone on administrative and legal costs. But it does not prevent us also condemning the individual solicitors who hoovered up millions of pounds for precious little work.

One such grubby legal professional is the Doncaster solicitor James Beresford who has just been found guilty in a tribunal of 8 counts of misconduct. It was found Beresford failed to inform claimants they could get their masive legal fees re-imbursed by the Government. The Solicitors' Regulation Authority said Beresford also collected the costs from the DTI. He is appealing against being struck off as he claims he would be no longer able to making his living.

Beresford does not dispute his firm earned an eye-watering £115m in fees. In one year alone he himself coined nearly £17m, so no pressing livelihood claim there. In fact he could live off the interest earned by the interest. The 97,000 ex-miners who chose the 'reputable' firm Beresfords received on average £2,000. Beresford said in his defence, such as it was, there was, "absolutely nothing wrong" with earning such sums. Skinning sick miners, some terminal ill, puts Beresford down on the same moral level as serial fraudsters like Robert Maxwell.

But he, along with dozens of other firms have realised an absolute bonanza from the taxpayer too. The public ask rightly how the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) could allow this injustice to continue.

The Department, many years ago, had teams of inspectors and regional teams who would have a close feel for industries and individual companies who were exploiting loopholes or ripping off the customers or the Government. They were all pushed out years ago in favour of 'light-touch' enforcement regime which amounted to sending round circulars and relied heavily on the good will of businessmen.

The scale of these payments to solicitors like Beresford show how impotent Whitehall is in reeling in malpractise. There are more firms to be investigated but even now no-one is even suggesting they should give any of the money back.

Stop Making Sense

Believe it or not, it is a rare occurrence for both sides of the House of Commons to be shouting ‘shame’ and ‘disgrace’ at each other simultaneously. But Jacqui Smith’s statement yesterday on her part in the Damian Green débacle drew such an extreme division. She managed to increase partisanship on an issue, which all members agree, raises fundamental questions on the roles and powers of Parliament, Ministers, officials and police.

For the majority of the Government side, she had correctly stood back and allowed a vital criminal inquiry to proceed against a wannabee Tory mole. To the rest of the House, she had allowed the police to suppress legitimate democratic enquiry and at the same time absolved herself of any oversight responsibility.

Where she could have enlightened, she obfuscated. Where she could have explained, she was evasive. When she did not like the question she plain ignored it, sometimes repeatedly.
Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve gave his usual lawlerly list; she treated him with sweeping contempt.

Judging her by the answers she avoided most studiously, there appear to be two main unresolved issues to be examined prior to Monday’s wider debate. Firstly, how the police managed to gain consent to search Mr Green’s Parliamentary office and why "it was believed" by AC Bob Quick, no warrant was required. Speaker Martin and Ms Smith must know more than they are willing to share. The legality and mode of the police operation hinges on this.

Second, whether any document which was to be leaked had any bearing on national security. If not, then the case for arresting an MP as a ‘proportionate’ action falls apart. I retain severe doubts. If these documents contain such sensitive material then it makes no sense to use a very broad (and archaic) common law offence instead of the Official Secrets Act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga_19890006_en_1

The Home Secretary’s oft cited use of “potential” threat as a justification for turning an internal disciplinary matter into a criminal inquiry will not do. Almost any major policy document across a number of Departments could be viewed in that way. That line cannot be sustained.

It also seems incredible Jacqui Smith is determined to make a virtue out of her ignorance of events. Ministers being divorced from the operational decision-making of the police is just a truism. It is not the same to say all should defer to the police to the extent they can act without any reference to a higher authority. Boris Johnson, as Chair of the Met Police Authority, was given notice and expressed angrily how ill-advised the arrest would be.

Any previous Home Secretary like Blunkett, Clarke or Reid would be somewhere between livid and incandescent to have not been informed in advance of such a high profile arrest. Her predecessor, John Reid in a restrained tone, said to the House, "I am surprised, to say the least [she] was not informed." He added, as Home Secretary he would have wanted to, "express a view on the matter." He then alluded to her error of judgement, “she has said that even if she had been informed, she would not have acted differently, I do not think that we should take that as a ruling that someone in her position should never be informed.”

The police have often shown they lack the necessary political sensitivity and media awareness to be allowed to pursue such exceptional cases without any level of ‘supervision’.

It is nonsense to say these lines of authority do not cross at all. Reid knows it, even Boris Johnson knows it and if Jacqui Smith does not, then after 18 months still hasn't got a grip on what a Home Secretary does.