Foreign repression on UK soil rising ‘unchecked', MPs and peers warn
In a report published on Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said transnational repression had increased in recent years, with foreign states using online harassment, lawsuits and physical violence to intimidate people in the UK.
MI5 investigations into threats from other states have increased 48% since 2022, the report said, while committee chairman Lord David Alton warned the rise was 'going unchecked'.
He said: 'This risks undermining the UK's ability to protect the human rights of its citizens and those who have sought safety within its borders.
'We have seen prominent cases of Hong Kongers with bounties placed on their heads, Iran intimidating journalists – but evidence submitted to the inquiry suggest this may be the tip of the iceberg.'
The warning comes amid rising concern about transnational repression, including reports that China has offered rewards for people turning in pro-democracy Hong Kong activists based in the UK.
Last month, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee warned that Iran had attempted to kidnap or murder at least 15 UK-based people since 2022, while Russia has also targeted dissidents including the attempt to kill Sergei and Yulia Skripal with Novichok in 2018.
While the cross-party human rights committee said China, Russia and Iran were the 'most flagrant' perpetrators of transnational repression in the UK, it highlighted evidence suggesting a string of other countries including India, Rwanda, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had sought to target people in Britain.
MPs and peers said they had also received 'substantial' evidence of intimidation by the Eritrean government, including surveillance of anti-government activists and infiltration of community groups and churches in an effort to isolate opponents of the regime.
The committee went on to criticise Interpol, saying the organisation had refused to acknowledge misuse of 'red notices' – international requests for an arrest – to harass dissidents or take any steps to address this.
Almost half of the 6,550 public red notices currently in circulation have been issued at Russia's request.
Lord Alton said: 'We want to see a two-pronged approach from the Government.
'More needs to be done to give support and protection to the individuals and communities most at risk of transnational repression.
'We also want to see transnational repression prioritised in diplomatic relations and leadership at an international level to tackle the misuse and exploitation of systems of justice to silence and intimidate.'
As well as pressing Interpol for action on abuse of red notices, the committee urged the Government to provide more training on transnational repression for police officers in the UK and greater protection from vexatious lawsuits known as Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public participation).
The committee also called for China to be placed in the highest tier of the foreign influence registration scheme that came into effect last month, saying its omission risked 'undermining the credibility and coherence' of the scheme given the extent of Chinese transnational repression.
An Interpol spokesperson said: 'Every year, thousands of the world's most serious criminals are arrested thanks to Interpol's systems.
'Children are saved from sexual exploitation and terrorists, cyber criminals and traffickers are brought to justice.
'Interpol knows red notices are powerful tools for law enforcement co-operation, which is why we have robust processes for ensuring that all Interpol notices and diffusions comply with our rules.
'Our constitution forbids Interpol from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious or racial character and all our databases and activities must also comply with the universal declaration for human rights.'
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We take the threat of transnational repression extremely seriously.
'Any attempts by a foreign state to coerce, intimidate, harass, or harm individuals on UK soil are considered a threat to our national security and sovereignty, and will not be tolerated.
'The committee's review echoes many of the same findings and recommendations from the Defending Democracy Taskforce report on TNR, published in May, and we are already taking action arising from those recommendations to further strengthen our response.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Asylum hotel protest to see ‘increased police presence'
A protest against the use of a hotel to accommodate asylum seekers will see an 'increased police presence', the Metropolitan Police has said. The force has imposed conditions on a protest and counter protest outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in Islington, north London, on Saturday. A protest and counter protest will also take place in Newcastle outside The New Bridge Hotel on Saturday. The Metropolitan Police said the protest against the use of the Islington hotel was organised by local residents under the banner 'Thistle Barbican needs to go – locals say no'. A counter protest, organised by Stand Up To Racism and supported by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, as well as other groups including Finsbury Park Mosque and Islington Labour Party, will also take place. Police said the anti-asylum hotel protest had been 'endorsed by groups from outside the local community which is likely to increase the number of people attending'. Online groups that have voiced support for the protest include 'Patriots of Britain' and 'Together for the Children'. The Metropolitan Police said plans were in place to 'respond to any protest activity in the vicinity of other hotels in London being used to accommodate asylum seekers'. Conditions on the anti-asylum hotel protest include that anyone participating must remain within King Charles Square and that the assembly must not begin before 1pm and must conclude by 4pm. Police said conditions on the counter protest include that participants must remain in Lever Street, near the junction with Central Street, and that the assembly must not begin before 12pm and must conclude by 4pm. Chief Superintendent Clair Haynes, in charge of the policing operation, said: 'We have been in discussions with the organisers of both protests in recent days, building on the ongoing engagement between local officers, community groups and partners. 'We understand that there are strongly held views on all sides. 'Our officers will police without fear or favour, ensuring those exercising their right to protest can do so safely but intervening at the first sign of actions that cross the line into criminality. 'We have used our powers under the Public Order Act to put conditions in place to prevent serious disorder and to minimise serious disruption to the lives of people and businesses in the local community. 'Those conditions identify two distinct protest areas where the protests must take place, meaning the groups will be separated but still within sight and sound of each other.' There are also posts online advertising a 'for our children, for our future' protest in Newcastle on Saturday outside The New Bridge Hotel. A 'stop the far right and fascists in Newcastle' counter protest has been organised by Stand Up To Racism at the nearby Laing Art Gallery. In a statement, the organisers of the counter protest said: 'Yet again far-right and fascist thugs are intent on bringing their message of hate to Newcastle. They aim to build on years of Islamophobia, anti-migrant sentiment and scapegoating. 'In Epping and elsewhere recently we have already seen intimidation and violence aimed at refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. 'Newcastle, like the rest of the North East, has a well-earned reputation for unity in the face of those who seek to divide us. Whatever problems we face, racism and division are not the answer.' Northumbria Police have been approached for comment.
