Showing posts with label citizen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citizen. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Thousands of children in Britain being forced to live on £1 a day

Since, this is happening to 1000s of children, "many of whom are British children," what do you expect will happen to the children of refugees. In many cases, refugees are treated much better than the country's own citizens. Why?

Reason being that, depending on how visible the issue is of refugee crisis (for example, the current refugee crisis stemming from the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya etc.), governments tend to throw inordinate amount of money at the crisis to appease the voting public. But, since, the government has a set amount of money in its coffers, it takes that money from somewhere else in the social security system. So, for instance, in this case, other vulnerable families & children.

This news story also dispels the myth that Western countries are awash in money. This myth is especially true in Asia, Africa, & Middle Eastern countries ... all the developing nations. At least, 80% of the public of Western countries is struggling financially. These people are the residents & citizens of the country; be it UK, US, Canada, Germany, France, Italy etc.

Problem is that these people & stories are not visible. What is visible in the media is the high-falutin' people with luxurious lifestyles of the rich. In many cases, those people themselves are also struggling financially, & only able to afford luxurious items by borrowing heavily on their credit cards.

So, anyway, if & when, refugees & their families are treated much better in a Western country than their own citizens & their families, resentments & hate start fomenting among the public. Citizens turn against refugees, whom they see as robbing them off jobs & money, of which those citizens think they were entitled of, in the first place. Were those citizens entitled of that extra financial help is a separate discussion. But what should be of common sense to any government is that the welfare of its own public comes first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thousands of children – many of whom are British citizens – are subsisting on as little as £1 a day because their parents are migrants with no recourse to public funds.

There are 5,900 children in England & Wales living on the brink of total destitution because their parents cannot work or receive government benefits, according to research from The University of Oxford’s migration unit. Charities say the situation is pushing vulnerable children into “severe poverty & hunger.”

In almost a quarter of the families affected at least one child is a British citizen, researchers from Oxford’s Centre on Migration, Policy & Society (COMPAS) found. Some go for months without receiving any help at all, forced to sleep in cars, disused buildings or even on the street.

Most of the families affected are here legally but awaiting a Home Office decision on their immigration case. ... 71% of the families helped by local authorities in 2012/13 had a decision on their immigration status pending.

Forbidden from working or receiving welfare, the only money many migrant parents can find to feed their children is a child poverty payout from social services, which can be as low as £5 a week for a family. If the local authority decides the child is destitute its family will also be given accommodation.

The Home Office does not help families while they wait for a decision on their immigration case unless they are seeking asylum - & it forbids them from working.

Local Authorities have an obligation to help all destitute children under the Children’s Act. The financial support, known as Section 17, is set by individual councils, often on a case by case basis.

Since councils’ budgets have been significantly cut back by central Government, these payments are frequently far below the necessary amount to live on. Payments typically range from £23 to £35 per child per week but this money has to feed parents too. If a family receives help from a food bank the value of this is often deducted from the meagre council help, leaving them with just a few pounds a week for nappies & other essentials.

Matthew Reed, chief executive of The Children’s Society said: “The desire to be seen to be tough on immigration can often mean the government overlooks its legal obligation to recognise children as children. As a result, too often they & their families are being pushed into severe poverty & hunger. They are being made homeless, forced into over-crowded, inappropriate accommodation & even on to the streets.

Some families aren’t even being assessed to determine what help they need or are entitled to. And if they do get support, it is too low & often at the discretion of local authorities. Recent cuts to legal aid & the Home Office’s slow decision making means children are being forced to live on this support for long periods of time. This must change.”

Experts believe the Government needs to step in & provide funding to protect children’s welfare in this situation. Mr. Reed said: “It is critical that these families get the help they need & that the Government provides the funds necessary so local authorities can protect these children’s welfare. Children must be treated first & foremost as children — not as immigration statistics.”

Councils have to assess whether a family is eligible by working out if they are truly destitute. Researchers found social services often rejected cases with very little evidence.

Rita Chadha, chief executive of the Refugee & Migrant Forum of Essex & London (RAMFEL), said: “We see at least one client a day in this situation. They come in extremely distressed. We’ve seen children sleeping in church graveyards & disused shops. In many cases councils won’t give families money until prompted to by other agencies.”

More than a third of families surveyed survived on rudimentary council support for more than a year, largely due to lengthy waits for a decision from the Home Office. In 7% of cases, families needed help for more than 3 years.

Jonathan Price, co-author of the report, said: “Even after they have started receiving Section 17 support, some children face long periods living on subsistence rates that are well below those deemed minimal for any other category of people in the UK. This raises real concerns about the long-term impact of poverty on these children.”

Price added: “These are vulnerable people. We found that, prior to receiving local authority support, children & families were living highly precarious lives & were sometimes subject to exploitation. Domestic violence was an element in many referrals.”

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, work hard & make a contribution. But family life must not be established here at the taxpayer's expense.

We work closely with local authorities to ensure that immigration decisions in cases receiving local authority support are made as quickly as possible.

In exceptional circumstances, or where people granted leave on family grounds show that they would otherwise be destitute, they are granted recourse to public funds.”

The study was based on a survey of 137 Children’s Services departments in England & Wales, as well as 105 voluntary sector organisations & 92 interviews.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Why NSA surveillance is worse than you've ever imagined

A few thoughts on this piece, which is a good one:

1. The so-called icon of democracy around the world, United States of America, spies on its citizens & non-citizens, around the world, in the name of "national security."

All the known dictatorships around the world; pretty much all of the Arab countries in Middle East (for example, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt), also strictly control their citizenry & spy on their citizenry in the name of "national security."

US usually berates China & Russia for abusing human rights, which includes, spying on their citizens. But government of those countries say that they are doing it in the name of "national security." See some similarities there?

2. We know how Chinese, Russian, & residents & citizens of dictatorial Middle Eastern countries are dealt with, by their own governments, after they are caught with their "dissident" thoughts. But what's surprising, which I learned from this opinion piece, is that NSA shares its data, collected on Palestinian-Americans, for example, with Israeli "NSA".

Palestinian-Americans must've come to America, thinking it's a democratic, free, & just country & they will be protected here. What they didn't know that they are not only being spied upon but the data collected on them are being shared with the country, which made them a refugee in the first place.

3. People in Western countries usually think that how do people who are living in dictatorships accept those dictatorial governments & live in those countries. Well, the question can be turned around for Americans now. How can Americans keep living in such a country where their own government doesn't trust them & spies on them & will keep spying (regardless of how much Senate & Congress allow NSA to be intrusive or not) for the foreseeable future?

The answer lies in the public's fatigue of being bombarded of NSA's spying & now it's more of an accepted situation by Americans that "it's ok to be spied upon by our government, " & "since, we can't really do anything about it, we might as well accept government's spying & live our own lives." It's safe to assume that that's exactly a Saudi Arabian, a Kuwaiti, a Bahraini, a Chinese, or a Russian thinks; "save my own skin & quietly live my own life, regardless of what my government does against me."

4. Role of media & journalism has become to work with whatever government lets them do. They are spreading news of NSA spying to create that fatigue in the Americans, to the point, that Americans & other people around the world are starting to tune these stories out now, & at the same time, those same media outlets are being selective about what news they publish. Anything new about NSA's spying capabilities is ignored & same stories of email & phone spying are repeated on end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



... A PEW survey in March revealed that 52% of the public is now concerned about government surveillance, while 46% is not.

Given the vast amount of revelations about NSA abuses, it is somewhat surprising that just slightly more than a majority of Americans seem concerned about government surveillance. Which leads to the question of why? Is there any kind of revelation that might push the poll numbers heavily against the NSA’s spying programs? Has security fully trumped privacy as far as the American public is concerned? Or is there some program that would spark genuine public outrage?

Few people, for example, are aware that a NSA program known as TREASUREMAP is being developed to continuously map every Internet connection — cellphones, laptops, tablets — of everyone on the planet, including Americans.

“Map the entire Internet,” says the top secret NSA slide. “Any device, anywhere, all the time.” It adds that the program will allow “Computer Attack/Exploit Planning” as well as “Network Reconnaissance.”

One reason for the public’s lukewarm concern is what might be called NSA fatigue. There is now a sort of acceptance of highly intrusive surveillance as the new normal, the result of a bombardment of news stories on the topic.

I asked Snowden about this. “It does become the problem of one death is a tragedy & a million is a statistic,” he replied, “where today we have the violation of one person’s rights is a tragedy & the violation of a million is a statistic. The NSA is violating the rights of every American citizen every day on a comprehensive & ongoing basis. And that can numb us. That can leave us feeling disempowered, disenfranchised.”

In the same way, at the start of a war, the numbers of Americans killed are front-page stories, no matter how small. But 2 years into the conflict, the numbers, even if far greater, are usually buried deep inside a paper or far down a news site’s home page.

In addition, stories about NSA surveillance face the added burden of being technically complex, involving eye-glazing descriptions of sophisticated interception techniques & analytical capabilities. Though they may affect virtually every American, such as the telephone metadata program, because of the enormous secrecy involved, it is difficult to identify specific victims.

The way the surveillance story appeared also decreased its potential impact. Those given custody of the documents decided to spread the wealth for a more democratic assessment of the revelations. They distributed them through a wide variety of media — from start-up Web publications to leading foreign newspapers.

One document from the NSA director, for example, indicates that the agency was spying on visits to porn sites by people, making no distinction between foreigners & “U.S. persons,” US citizens or permanent residents. He then recommended using that information to secretly discredit them, whom he labeled as “radicalizers.” But because this was revealed by The Huffington Post, an online publication viewed as progressive, & was never reported by mainstream papers such as the New York Times or the Washington Post, the revelation never received the attention it deserved.

Another major revelation, a top-secret NSA map showing that the agency had planted malware — computer viruses — in more than 50,000 locations around the world, including many friendly countries such as Brazil, was reported in a relatively small Dutch newspaper, NRC Handelsblad, & likely never seen by much of the American public.

Thus, despite the volume of revelations, much of the public remains largely unaware of the true extent of the NSA’s vast, highly aggressive & legally questionable surveillance activities. With only a slim majority of Americans expressing concern, the chances of truly reforming the system become greatly decreased.

While the metadata program has become widely known because of the numerous court cases & litigation surrounding it, there are other NSA surveillance programs that may have far greater impact on Americans, but have attracted far less public attention.

In my interview with Snowden, for example, he said one of his most shocking discoveries was the NSA’s policy of secretly & routinely passing to Israel’s Unit 8200 — that country’s NSA — & possibly other countries not just metadata but the actual contents of emails involving Americans. This even included the names of U.S. citizens, some of whom were likely Palestinian-Americans communicating with relatives in Israel & Palestine.

An illustration of the dangers posed by such an operation comes from the sudden resignation last year of 43 veterans of Unit 8200, many of whom are still serving in the military reserves. The veterans accused the organization of using intercepted communication against innocent Palestinians for “political persecution.” This included information gathered from the emails about Palestinians’ sexual orientations, infidelities, money problems, family medical conditions & other private matters to coerce people into becoming collaborators or to create divisions in their society.

Another issue few Americans are aware of is the NSA’s secret email metadata collection program that took place for a decade or so until it ended several years ago. Every time an American sent or received an email, a record was secretly kept by the NSA, just as the agency continues to do with the telephone metadata program. Though the email program ended, all that private information is still stored at the NSA, with no end in sight.

With NSA fatigue setting in, & the American public unaware of many of the agency’s long list of abuses, it is little wonder that only slightly more than half the public is concerned about losing their privacy. For that reason, I agree with Frederick A. O. Schwartz Jr., the former chief counsel of the Church Committee, which conducted a yearlong probe into intelligence abuses in the mid-1970s, that we need a similarly thorough, hard-hitting investigation today.

“Now it is time for a new committee to examine our secret government closely again,” he wrote in a recent Nation magazine article, “particularly for its actions in the post-9/11 period.”

Until the public fully grasps & understands how far over the line the NSA has gone in the past — legally, morally & ethically — there should be no renewal or continuation of NSA’s telephone metadata program in the future.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

India's crackdown on 'anti-national' activism

So while governments of some countries are being maligned & protests are happening in those countries to bring democracy in those countries / regions (e.g. Pakistan, Myanmar, Turkey, Hong Kong etc.), other countries, which are supposedly considered democratic are acting like dictatorships. For example:

1. US & Canada passing laws by either hiding them from public or against national activism. US & Canada working on TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) without any consultation with the public (heck, the general public doesn't even know at all about this). Or Canada passing Bill C-51, which many activist organizations said that it essentially outlaws protests, for instance, for the environment.

2. India, which is considered as a democratic country in South Asia, passing laws against public's pursuit of justice. You can read more in the opinion piece.

3. Spain outlawing various forms of popular protests with the help of "Citizens' Security Law".

So, while democratic countries are moving back to dictator rule, & dictatorial countries are seemingly moving forward to democratic rule, where is this "modern" world headed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Ford Foundation has incurred the Indian government's wrath for funding "anti-national activities". Last week, the home ministry put the organisation under a financial surveillance regime in order to ensure that only "bona fide welfare activities" are carried out.
 
If the government is to be believed, Ford Foundation is bankrolling the disturbance of communal harmony & thereby endangering India's national security, all because it funds Teesta Setalvad. And Setalvad, claims the government, has been indulging in treason & fraud.
 
Setalvad's NGO, Citizens for Justice & Peace, has been relentlessly knocking on the doors of the courts to bring to book all the high-ranking government functionaries for their culpability in the 2002 communal carnage in Gujarat.
 
It took the Supreme Court's intervention to prevent her arrest. That many of India's educational institutions also benefit from the foundation's munificence, or that a concerned US is repeatedly seeking clarification, remains purposefully ignored.
 
Right to dissent
 
On March 12, the Delhi High Court upheld non-profit advocacy organisation Greenpeace's right to dissent & took the government to task for accusing Priya Pillai, one of its activists, of seditious libel & preventing her from testifying before an international tribunal.
 
Pillai had organised demonstrations & protests against a mega power project commissioned by the government in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
 
It was widely believed & hoped that the rap from a constitutional court would infuse some degree of tolerance in the government. But on April 16, by suspending Greenpeace's registration & freezing all its bank accounts, the government showed that it won't brook even the slightest interference or criticism of its policies.
 
Perhaps, one could have gotten an inkling from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's speech to judges, which contained a thinly veiled threat - rule in favour of "five-star activists", & face the music.
 
To be fair, the paranoia about a malicious "foreign hand" isn't peculiar to this government - its predecessor had similar apprehensions regarding anti-nuclear protesters.
 
This is why the Supreme Court's March 24 ruling assumes significance. In what has been hailed as one of the most momentous of decisions protecting & espousing the freedom of expression, the apex court struck down, in totality, Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
 
The judgement's reach isn't confined to speech on the internet - a close reading shows how it is a bulwark against a vindictive state's crackdown on dissenters.
 
A veritable police state
 
A ready-reckoner to the provision is available here. Simply put, the police got untrammelled powers to make arrests & harass people merely because whatever they said online could be termed as offensive, annoying, intimidating, or inconvenient. Such vaguely worded terms defy the canonical rules of constitutional & reasonable interpretation.
 
And the government & its agencies used this vagueness to their advantage. A list of arrests over the years, & the very profitable use of this provision by purveyors of communal violence bore testimony to its illegal provenance.
 
It wouldn't be a stretch to contend that this verged on the border of state authoritarianism, something practised by Turkey, which forced social media giants (& millions of their users) to grovel before it.
 
No government wanted to let go of such a potent tool. True, it was brought in by the previous Congress government, but the present political dispensation - at one time one of its staunchest critics - spared no effort to vigorously defend the provision in court.
 
As recorded in the judgement, the government was even willing to hedge this provision by inserting a whole host of qualifiers, but reluctant to allow a single word to be changed.
 
It is unfortunate that state censorship isn't treated as a political issue in India. A hue & cry follows every time there is an egregious use of censorious powers, but such scattered, politicised reactions don't amount to much. The court recognised this, & refused to buy the government's unctuous pleas of reassurance - that it would not use 66A at random.
"Governments may come and go, but 66A stays forever," the judges said.
 
Advocacy is not instigation
 
The court held that merely because internet speech has a reach & speed far superior to that of other means of communication, it cannot be subjected to a regulation regime more restrictive than what the constitution permits.
 
Integrating the "clear & present danger" test (propounded by the US Supreme Court in Schenck v US) for determining the threshold for launching criminal prosecution for speech acts, the judges ruled that withering criticism & zealous advocacy, even if inflammatory, cannot be regarded as incitement to violence, disruption of public order, or acts of sedition. The state must prove a truly imminent threat, as opposed to reasonable apprehensions.
 
However, as reported, the censure from the Supreme Court doesn't seem to be a sufficient deterrent, for the government is mulling a law, on the lines of 66A, this time with more teeth for countering "anti-national propaganda" & securing convictions.
 

Saurav Datta teaches media law & jurisprudence in Mumbai & Pune.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Outlawing Public Opinion in Spain

Is this the modern democracy where public opinions matter less & less, perhaps, of no value. "Elected" governments might as well be dictatorships, because laws are being made "for the safety of the public," but they are that much against the "safety of the public."

Public is not stupid that they can be lulled into thinking that invading armies are standing at the borders & we need these strict laws against public opinions (e.g. Spain's Citizens' Security Law or Canada's anti-terrorism law). The general public is made busy by the government into surviving for themselves that they don't have time to do anything else but work, work & more work.

Is this really the modern world? Have we really progressed in a millennium when Kings used to rule the citizenry with a heavy hand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When Spain first started making noises about an impending "Citizens' Security Law" that would criminalise various forms of popular protest, optimists may have assumed the flirtation with overt fascism couldn't last. At the very least - they might have reasoned - the government would have to retreat to semi-fascist mode.
 
Not so.
 
Approved on March 26, & expected to come into force on July 1, the law might be mistaken for something out of the Franco playbook. Dubbed the "gag law", it prescribes fines of up to 600 euros ($635) for disrespecting police officers, up to 30,000 euros ($32,000) for disseminating images of state security forces that might endanger them or their operations, & up to 600,000 euros ($635,000) for unauthorised street protests.
 
Inverse logic
 
These punitive measures are especially handy, of course, in an era of brutal austerity measures, home evictions, & other government efforts in Spain that have triggered collective action on a mass scale. In 2012, evictions were reportedly occurring at a pace of 500 per day.
 
While conveniently pre-emptively criminalising protests against the legislation itself, the gag law relies on an inverse logic, in which the real threat to citizens' security comes not from the lack of a roof over one's head or a physically abusive police force but rather from opposing the injustice of such realities.
 
In an open letter to the European Parliament, human rights groups warned that targeting those who disseminate images of police "could hinder the documentation & reporting of abuses committed by law enforcement personnel & reinforce the climate of impunity".
 
Expelling justice
 
Tacked onto the bill as a last-minute bonus is a provision validating the summary expulsion of migrants who jump the border fence between Morocco & Spain's African outposts of Ceuta & Melilla.
 
After all, we can't possibly have "citizens' security" with too many black folks in the mix.
 
As noted on the website of the International Federation for Human Rights, the move not only "restrict[s] the right to seek asylum & violate[s] the principle of non-refoulement & the prohibition of collective expulsions" but also "exposes migrants to a serious risk of torture & ill-treatment by denying them the possibility of filing a claim against law enforcement personnel in case of abuse".
 
But the anti-migrant provision is merely the culmination of an already common practise of automatic deportation along the Spanish frontier. In October 2014, the AFP reported on a video of truncheon-happy Spanish police beating a young, barefoot Cameroonian man & then escorting him, in an apparently unconscious state, back to Moroccan territory.
 
Another good reason to discourage filming the police at work - & another reason the 600-euro fine for disrespecting the police seems a tad steep.
 
The old terrorism card
 
Of course, no citizenry would be completely secure without robust protections against "terrorism" - that time-honoured threat that has, particularly in the post-9/11 era, been invoked to justify the trampling of rights worldwide.
 
In addition to the Citizens' Security Law, the Spanish government has also approved reforms to the nation's criminal code that will greatly enhance its punitive capabilities.
 
For example, folks will now be eligible for prosecution as terrorists for such behaviour as regularly visiting websites deemed to be terrorist-friendly. Helpfully, the criminal code's definition of "terrorism" is sufficiently sweeping to prevent any potential offenders from slipping through the cracks.
 
Included on the list of terroristic acts are efforts to disrupt government functions & "the public peace", as well as "the commission of any serious crime against … liberty".
 
A recent article on the Spanish Gizmodo website points out that internet activity alone "can be punished with 1 to 5 years in prison".
 
Makes you wonder about the whole "liberty" clause.
 
The next step
 
Last month, the Guardian quoted Jorge Fernandez Diaz - Spain's interior minister & the curator of the Citizens' Security Law - on the merits of the initiative: "It's a law for the 21st century. It provides better guarantees for people's security & more judicial security for people's rights."
 
In a matter of 3 seconds, an item worthy of interment in Franco's mausoleum was thus recast as the pinnacle of modernity & justice.
 
By this logic, regression is progress, slavery is freedom, & black is white.
 
Meanwhile, according to the Spanish daily El Pais, a December survey indicated that 82% of respondents believed the law needed to be abandoned entirely or at least modified, while 79% considered the prescribed fines excessive. 71% contended that the project did not aim to ensure public security but rather to protect the government from protests.
 
It seems there's only one thing left to do: Outlaw public opinion surveys.


 Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Difference of development between Karachi & Dubai (1950s - 2014)

This picture is recently making rounds on Facebook. So 2 questions conjured up in my mind:
 
1. So, do we blame "democracy" & praise "dictatorship"?
On one hand, Pakistanis are protesting to bring in a democratic government under the leadership of Imran Khan, but on the other hand, want development of countries, which have dictatorial rule (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Singapore etc.).


2. As we all know, labour costs money. It's a major expense, beside materials, for any business or government. Middle Eastern countries (Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc) pay next to nothing (virtual slavery), to the foreign labour from South Asia, Africa, & Philippines etc, which built their countries & their own citizens don't even need to work (they get government checks under the oil profit sharing program).
 
Pakistan's situation is not that different. A miniscule elite is awash in money (like Arab Sheikhs but Sheikhs still have far more money ... Forbes billionaire list has Arab Sheikhs, but no Pakistani leader) & the majority population is toiling for a few pennies. Difference: that majority population is citizenry of Pakistan & the "slaves" working in middle east are devoid of any citizenship & any rights it affords.