Switzerland, Refugees, housing as a constraint and distancing by Libertarian Socialist Organization OSL-Vaud (fr)

Since the mid-1980s, the Asylum Act has not ceased to learn revisions chain from p?jorer
drastically lives of exiles. Asylum policy is officially defined as a policy of
"deterrence" against r?fugi?.es potentiel.le.s and "reference" against those who are
entr?.es Switzerland ---- In this context, the cantonal and federal authorities have done
everything to isolate socially candidat.es asylum and to prevent build relationships in
Switzerland. This is how you break the solidarity ... ---- Housing r?fugi?.es then
logically used as a weapon of deterrence policy. Specifically, it requires the asylum
candidat.es to appear in federal registration centers, where they are kept sometimes
several weeks, with output restriction and prohibition of visits.

Then this is the assignment imposed on a canton determined, then the collective shelters
offering living conditions. Importantly, these homes are deliberately placed away from
large cities and public transport. In addition, with planning problems deliberately
created, it uses more than most civil defense shelters. At least r?fugi?.es have
demonstrated the inability to live decently in the long term in this kind of structure ...
A State Councilor Vaud suggested to assign seats weapons, to make living targets, perhaps?

It is only after several months or years, as candidat.es to asylum may, depending on the
cantons have the chance to have an apartment. But it depends most often u social organism,
in the canton of Vaud EVAM.

Sign of discriminatory treatment r?fugi?.es, we do not even consider as tenants or in
group homes or in apartments governed by EVAM. Protection of the right of lease is denied.
A social exclusion adds legal exclusion, a world of exceptional right reserved for this
category of the population.
By 2003, the situation has worsened with the generalization of those rejected for asylum
of "relief", a bare minimum of survival. Thousands of people, men only friends also
families and children were put on the street, torn from their apartments or group homes
EVAM. Different devices cantonal join to make the "emergency aid" a true measure of stress
state for a push start.

To exert maximum pressure on d?bout?.es asylum, the authorities confine d?bout?.es in
households that can not accommodate them at night, with a minimum of up to a few personal
effects. Sometimes there is even no safe place to leave your things.

The r?fugi?.es venu.es are seeking protection in Switzerland. It offers them only coercion
and deterrence, and housing plays an important role in the strategies of exclusion state.
Official reports show that we are trying to prevent the meeting between them and the
majority of people, the isolation is indeed thought as a weapon to prevent movement of
solidarity. The fate of r?fugi?.es should not be thought of as different from ours: they
were used as guinea pigs for social measures that are applicable to other populations
precarious. Against the inhumanity of the asylum policy official, it is more urgent than
ever to proclaim a right to housing, right to the city, and a right to belong to the
community of human beings.

Related Link: http://www.rebellion-osl.ch

Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

All Go for Atalanta-A few comments regarding the verdict.Pirates Trial Hamburg‏

http://reclaim-the-seas.blogspot.de/2012/11/all-go-for-atalanta.html

All Go for Atalanta

Posted: 06 Nov 2012 11:14 PM PST
A few comments regarding the verdict.

“I am feeling a great injustice,” said one of the defendants. “The
freedom of international maritime trade is affected,” said the judge.

The 'Piracy' trial against 10 Somali that has been dragging on for
almost two years finally came to an end on October 19, 2012. After 105
trial days, the verdict came rather suddenly.

Two days earlier, after the defendants had had their 'last words', one
of them announced having another witness. The witness was supposed to
prove that another defendant who had promoted himself to the status of
'crown witness' was in fact lying. But, as with most applications made
by the defence, this one was also declined.

Then, for the sixth time, the judge declared the trial to be over and
proceeded to announce the verdict.

He spoke calmly for four hours, after a lengthy break so that the media
and the chief prosecutor could attend the performance. Guilty of
kidnapping and armed assault on a shipping vessel.

Time and place of the incident: April, 2010, 500 nautical miles off the
coast of Somalia on board the German-flagged container ship MV Taipan.

The sentences: two years imprisonment for the under-age defendants, who
have already served two years in remand and are therefore free. Between
six and seven years for the others. Even the 'crown witness' was given
six years, despite the prosecution having asked for a discount of four
years for him compared to the others.

The detailed reasoning of the corroborating and the exonerating
circumstances for each defendant sounded like a summing up of the
criticism that observers had voiced all along: the destruction of
fishing grounds by foreign fishing fleets, illegal waste dumping and
colonial justice.

The judge even spoke of “subsistence piracy” - a term that certainly was
not part of his vocabulary prior to the trial. Many of those present
were surprised by the obvious learning curve.

The prison sentences are based on two arguments. Firstly, the assumption
that the defendants had not been forced to participate as they had
claimed. This argument had been made possible by the court's refusal
throughout the trial to hear even a single witness who could have
supported the defendants' version of the events. Secondly, the allegedly
professional equipment and military style of the attack, supposedly
proven by the skiffs and the weapons used, as well as the damage done to
the Taipan.

Anyone who has seen the pictures of the accused at the time of their
arrest, dressed in flip-flops and t-shirts, will wonder what a
non-military group would look like in the eyes of the judge. And to what
degree the damage sustained by the Taipan was caused by the covering
fire from the Dutch frigate during their operation was never investigated.

There were many aspects where the judge had to admit that even 105 trial
dates were not sufficient to reveal the truth. It was never established
who entered the Taipan first, who took control of the helm, and who
actually fired shots.

However, the judge acknowledged that the accused had not been the ones
who had planned the attack and that they had no intention to kill.

The timid attempt of the court to acknowledge the difficulties inherent
in applying German judicial concepts to events that took place off the
coast of Somalia did not stop it from handing down long prison
sentences. Instead, the sentencing sounded in parts like emotional assault.

Two items made it clear how the court was willing to risk
re-traumatising the defendants.

One of the defendants had stated his age as 13 years. Had the court
accepted this, he could not have been held in custody and he could not
have been tried in a criminal court in Germany. Therefore every attempt
was made to make him older. His birth certificate, school records and
even an affidavit by his own mother were ignored on the basis that
Somalia was not a functioning state, therefore it could not have issued
valid documents.

Instead, the dubious methods of the Hamburg forensic institute were
employed. After his arrival in Hamburg, the accused was taken there to
have his age assessed. There was no translator present and his hands and
feet were in cuffs. His was gestured to put his hand under an x-ray
machine. The young Somali, who had never seen modern medical equipment,
assumed that his hand was about to be chopped off.

Another one of the accused has been suffering from mental health issues
for a long time. His small son had been kidnapped in Somalia to force
repayment of debt. He had claimed that the reason he had participated in
the attack on the Taipan had been to earn money to release his son.
However, he had not repeated this in his closing words.

For the judge, this meant that his claim was implausible. The accused
was expected to repeat the traumatising story in order to be credible.
The thought that it may have been unbearable for him to tell the story
again did obviously not cross the judge's mind.

All this indicates that the entire programme, including the sentencing
had been primarily driven by the desire to publicly justify a
multi-million Euro military presence. The most powerful nations do not
deploy dozens of well equipped war ships in order to stop a hand full of
flip-flop wearing pirates. These ships are deployed to control the flow
of goods between the producer and consumer regions.

Bron : marily

Switzerland, Refugees, housing as a constraint and distancing by Libertarian Socialist Organization OSL-Vaud (fr)

Since the mid-1980s, the Asylum Act has not ceased to learn revisions chain from p?jorer
drastically lives of exiles. Asylum policy is officially defined as a policy of
"deterrence" against r?fugi?.es potentiel.le.s and "reference" against those who are
entr?.es Switzerland ---- In this context, the cantonal and federal authorities have done
everything to isolate socially candidat.es asylum and to prevent build relationships in
Switzerland. This is how you break the solidarity ... ---- Housing r?fugi?.es then
logically used as a weapon of deterrence policy. Specifically, it requires the asylum
candidat.es to appear in federal registration centers, where they are kept sometimes
several weeks, with output restriction and prohibition of visits.

Then this is the assignment imposed on a canton determined, then the collective shelters
offering living conditions. Importantly, these homes are deliberately placed away from
large cities and public transport. In addition, with planning problems deliberately
created, it uses more than most civil defense shelters. At least r?fugi?.es have
demonstrated the inability to live decently in the long term in this kind of structure ...
A State Councilor Vaud suggested to assign seats weapons, to make living targets, perhaps?

It is only after several months or years, as candidat.es to asylum may, depending on the
cantons have the chance to have an apartment. But it depends most often u social organism,
in the canton of Vaud EVAM.

Sign of discriminatory treatment r?fugi?.es, we do not even consider as tenants or in
group homes or in apartments governed by EVAM. Protection of the right of lease is denied.
A social exclusion adds legal exclusion, a world of exceptional right reserved for this
category of the population.
By 2003, the situation has worsened with the generalization of those rejected for asylum
of "relief", a bare minimum of survival. Thousands of people, men only friends also
families and children were put on the street, torn from their apartments or group homes
EVAM. Different devices cantonal join to make the "emergency aid" a true measure of stress
state for a push start.

To exert maximum pressure on d?bout?.es asylum, the authorities confine d?bout?.es in
households that can not accommodate them at night, with a minimum of up to a few personal
effects. Sometimes there is even no safe place to leave your things.

The r?fugi?.es venu.es are seeking protection in Switzerland. It offers them only coercion
and deterrence, and housing plays an important role in the strategies of exclusion state.
Official reports show that we are trying to prevent the meeting between them and the
majority of people, the isolation is indeed thought as a weapon to prevent movement of
solidarity. The fate of r?fugi?.es should not be thought of as different from ours: they
were used as guinea pigs for social measures that are applicable to other populations
precarious. Against the inhumanity of the asylum policy official, it is more urgent than
ever to proclaim a right to housing, right to the city, and a right to belong to the
community of human beings.

Related Link: http://www.rebellion-osl.ch

Bron :  a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

Refugees start another protest camp in the Netherlands

After the tent camps in Ter Apel, Den Bosch, Zwolle and Sellingen on thursday a tent camp built by a group of rejected asylum refugees on the Koekamp in The Hague.
"We are lawless. We want a humane immigration policy, and our right to be human! "

The municipality of The Hague, known for ignoring the right to demonstrate, banned the permanent placement of tents. A lawsuit was filed on wednesday to claim that staying overnight is part of the protest. This shows precisely the situation the refugees live through.

The protesters have won the lawsuit partially. They can stay during the night! The municipality still claims that the tents should not be closed. For now the demonstrators use so-called party tents, but a new lawsuit about the type of tents is sceduled for next monday...

Everyone is invited to join the protest at the Koekamp (next to the main railway station). Over 30 people are living in the camp, supported by different migrant solidarity groups.

Today there was an action organized from the camp during the installation of the new parliament. Further protests are planned for friday 15:00 h (against the Return and Departure Office) and on saturday: a march into the center of The Hague, starting 13:00 h.

"We do not ask much. Only a life that we could call a life. No one is illegal! We want our human right!"

Support the action Recht op Bestaan (Right to Exist) online:
http://www.facebook.com/rechtop.bestaan
http://twitter.com/rechtopbestaan

Also see:
http://no-border.nl
http://www.indymedia.nl

_______________________________________________

n-1 working group: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/

Bron : chiara lauvergnac

Eritrean refugees trapped at Israel's Sinai desert'border'

There is a truly awful situation facing Eritrean refugees on the new Israeli "border"

if people are in cities near Israeli embassies maybe they could consider something

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/05/eritrean-refugees-at-israeli-egyptian-border

Bron : The Guardian

Syria Neighbors: Keep Borders Open for Refugees

Despite Numbers, Host Countries Should Respect Right to Seek Asylum


(New York) – Syria’s neighbors should keep their borders open to the large and growing number of refugees fleeing Syria, while donor countries should generously support them. Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon have mostly opened their borders to more than 200,000 refugees from neighboring Syria, but in the past week some officials in these countries have said they are reaching their limit and may soon close their borders.

Syrian refugees, most from Abu-Kamal, Syria, take shelter in one of 17 schools located in al-Qaim. The Iraqi government has been confining them there since late July. The schools, and one tent camp in al-Qaim where they are being transfered, are guarded by the Iraqi police and military. August 9, 2012. © 2012 Human Rights Watch
© 2012 Human Rights Watch
For many years, Syria kept its borders open to Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis fleeing conflict in their countries and allowed them free movement. Today, as Syrians flee horrific violence, neighboring countries should extend them the same hospitality.
Bill Frelick, Refugee Program director




Despite the pressure of numbers, refugees from Syria should be allowed to cross into neighboring countries and remain there legally without fear of detention, confinement in closed camps, or deportation, Human Rights Watch said.

“For many years, Syria kept its borders open to Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis fleeing conflict in their countries and allowed them free movement,” said Bill Frelick, Refugee Program director at Human Rights Watch. “Today, as Syrians flee horrific violence, neighboring countries should extend them the same hospitality.”

As the numbers of refugees have grown and the pace of arrivals has accelerated, host governments have felt increased pressure to block refugees and try to minimize their presence by keeping them in closed encampment or by not providing them secure legal status. The Turkish foreign minister has said that the United Nations should create camps in a so-called safe area inside Syria. If such a safe area were to be established, it should not be used to prevent people from fleeing Syria to seek asylum in other countries.

So far, Syria’s neighboring countries – with the exception of Israel – have mostly kept their borders open. Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that Israel would prevent “waves of refugees” from fleeing Syria to the occupied Golan Heights. Such a step would constitute unlawful forced return to persecution, Human Rights Watch said.

About 9,000 Syrians are amassed on the Syrian side of the Turkish border because screening procedures at two key border crossings have ground to a virtual halt. On August 20, 2012, Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, told the daily Hurriyet that the UN should establish camps inside Syria, saying that Turkey is having difficulty hosting the 65,000 Syrian refugees who were already there and suggesting that Turkey could accept no more than 100,000. Since Davutoglu’s statement, the number of Syrian refugees registered in Turkey has grown by about 15,000.

Hundreds of Syrians are also clustered on the Syrian side of the Iraqi border, where they are at risk of air and artillery attacks. Many are stranded at the bus station on the Syrian side of the Bab al-Salama crossing because the Iraqi government closed crossing point at al-Qaim. They are sleeping on the pavement in what has become a makeshift camp. Iraqi authorities have announced that they will re-open the border after expanding the capacity of a camp at al-Qaim, though an official at Iraq’s Ministry of Displacement and Migration told Human Rights Watch on August 27 that the ministry had not recommended closing the border and described the decision as purely a “security measure.” An official from a nongovernmental organization involved in the camp’s administration told Human Rights Watch that the camp was not filled to capacity.

“Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon deserve great credit for having kept their borders open to Syrian refugees,” Frelick said. “As violence in Syria escalates and the number and pace of refugee arrivals accelerates, it is all the more critical for borders to remain open and the fundamental right to seek asylum outside one’s country to be respected.”

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), more than 200,000 refugees from Syria have been registered or are in the process of being registered in the region, with a dramatic increase in the rate of the new arrivals in late August. The actual number of refugees may be much higher, as many have not registered.

Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkeyhave granted Syrians and others fleeing Syria various types of legal status, including short-term renewable visas, asylum-seeker status, and temporary protection. However, none have formally recognized Syrians as refugees and some have either restricted their movement to refugee camps from the beginning or have recently begun to do so. Most of the host countries refer to Syrians as “guests” or “brothers” rather than refugees, the latter being a term with a distinct meaning in international law that carries with it specific rights.

To date, the international community has donated US$64 million to UNHCR, in response to the UN refugee agency’s appeal for US$193 million to respond to the crisis, about a third of total needs. In addition, the Arab League and the United States have each pledged US$100 million in assistance to host countries, while Saudi Arabia has raised at least US$72.5 million. It is essential for donor countries to generously assist countries that are host to the largest numbers of refugees, including providing support to open camps, Human Rights Watch said.

Turkey is host to the largest number of refugees, about 74,000 as of August 27. The authorities have opened nine camps near the border and are building seven more. Turkey has allowed the refugees in the camps to come and go for short periods of time, and has informally permitted refugees who decline humanitarian assistance to live outside the camps.

Jordan has registered or was in the process of registering about 61,000 refugees, as of August 24. The authorities have opened a refugee camp at al-Za’atri, with about 16,500 refugees. When Human Rights Watch visited al-Za’atri camp on August 8, Syrian refugees there told Human Rights Watch they were not allowed to leave the camp. A small number told Human Rights Watch that people who had found a Jordanian guarantor and who knew influential Jordanians had been able to leave the camp permanently. According to media reports, on August 13, Jordanian riot police prevented 60 refugees from leaving the camp. On August 26, a government spokesman, Samih Maaytah, told the Jordan Times that the number of refugees fleeing the violence “has surpassed what the camps can tolerate and necessitates extra efforts beyond the capacity of the institutions managing the camps.”

Iraq has about 16,000 Syrian refugees. About three-fourths are under the jurisdiction of the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq, which has kept its border with Syria open and set up open refugee camps from which refugees are free to come and go or which they can leave entirely.In Anbar governorate, authorities of the Iraqi central government have periodically closed the border and have said that new refugee arrivals will be confined to camps. On August 9, Human Rights Watch visited five of the 17 schools where refugees are being held temporarily, and found that they were being guarded by the police and military and that the refugees were not allowed to leave. As of August 27, over 4,250 refugees were confined to schools and a camp in al-Qaim. An official from the Ministry of Displacement and Migration told Human Rights Watch that dozens of families have been allowed to cross the border since it was closed after their cases were assessed individually.

In Lebanon, the High Relief Council and UNHCR have registered or are in the process of registering and assisting about 51,000 refugees from Syria. However, registration does not grant Syrians legal status, only a right to receive assistance. People who enter at an official border crossing are entitled to a 6-month entry visa that is renewable twice. Those who enter other ways risk imprisonment, fines, and deportation as illegal immigrants. Large numbers of Syrians have entered Lebanon illegally because they feared arrest at Syrian border checkpoints and therefore are at risk of detention and possibly deportation. Lebanon deported 14 Syrians in August, four of whom said they feared persecution upon return.

“Refugee camps are an expedient that can provide shelter and save lives in an emergency, but closed camps, particularly over time, can erode refugee rights and cause anger and frustration,” Frelick said. “After proper security screening, host governments should provide refugees legal status and free movement to enable them to be self-sufficient and to contribute to their host country’s economies rather than to be a drain on them.”

Bron : Human Rights Watch

EU: Needless Deaths in the Mediterranean

Coordinated Action Needed to Improve Rescue of Boat Migrants

A Malta patrol boat carrying 76 African immigrants, fleeing Libya, arrive in Malta on June 1, 2011.
© 2011 Reuters

RELATED MATERIALS:
Hidden Emergency


RELATED MATERIALS:
Hidden Emergency
It is chilling to think how many of these deaths could have been prevented. Saving lives, not deflecting responsibility, needs to be the imperative at sea.
Judith Sunderland, Senior Researcher Western Europe, Europe and Central Asia division

(London) - Rescue operations in the Mediterranean are hampered by poor coordination, disputes over responsibility, disincentives for commercial vessels to conduct rescues, and an emphasis on border enforcement, Human Rights Watch said in a briefing paper published today.

People fleeing persecution or seeking a better life attempt the dangerous crossing from the North African coast to Europe, often in unseaworthy and dangerous boats. An Eritrean man lived to tell of the deaths of all 54 of his fellow passengers when their small dinghy sank in the Mediterranean in early July, 2012, bringing the known death toll this year to 170. As many as 13,500 people have died in such efforts at crossing since 1998, including at least 1,500 in 2011, the deadliest on record.

“It is chilling to think how many of these deaths could have been prevented,” said Judith Sunderland, senior Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Saving lives, not deflecting responsibility, needs to be the imperative at sea.”

The most notorious example of failed rescue operations occurred in April 2011, known as the “left-to-die boat” case. A disabled migrant boat with 72 people fleeing Libya was ignored and drifted for two weeks in the Mediterranean at a time when the area was heavily patrolled by NATO forces as well as criss-crossed by commercial ships.

By the time the boat drifted back to Libyan shores, 61 people had died. Two more died after arrival. An in-depth inquiry by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly identified a “catalogue of failures” that caused the deaths. Serious questions remain about why the boat was not assisted despite distress alerts and contact with military and commercial vessels, Human Rights Watch said.

The European Union is developing a new European External Border Surveillance System, EUROSUR. It includes rescue at sea as a main objective, but does not include specific guidelines or procedures to ensure this objective is reached.

Preventing deaths at sea needs to be at the heart of a coordinated European-wide approach to boat migration, Human Rights Watch said. During the Arab Spring, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said that all overcrowded migrant boats in the Mediterranean should be presumed to be in need of rescue. This idea should inform the approach of the European Union toward the rescue of boat migrants.

The eleven-page briefing paper includes concrete recommendations to improve rescue operations and save lives:

Improve search and rescue coordination mechanisms among EU member states;
Ensure that EUROSUR has clear guidelines on the paramount duty of rescue at sea and that its implementation is rigorously monitored;
Clarify what constitutes a distress situation, to create a presumption in favor of rescue for overcrowded and ill-equipped boats;
Resolve disputes about disembarkation points;
Remove disincentives for commercial and private vessels to conduct rescues; and
Increase burden-sharing among EU member states.

Bron : Human Rights Watch