Labour must not rubber-stamp torture policy, say campaigners
Labour has been accused of rubber-stamping torture policy it criticised while in opposition for enabling UK complicity in serious human rights abuses overseas.
The policies regulating British support for foreign security and intelligence services were blamed for facilitating injustices in cases such as those of Jagtar Singh Johal and Ali Kololo, and it was hoped Labour would strengthen them in government.
But NGOs and senior MPs say 'light-touch' government reviews of the overseas security and justice assistance (OSJA) guidance and 'the principles' that govern intelligence sharing are likely to leave in place 'very serious flaws'.
Their biggest concern is that Labour will not remove ministers' ability to approve UK cooperation in situations where there is a real risk of torture or the death penalty.
Johal, a British human rights activist, was allegedly tortured in India, where he remains in jail, after a tipoff from UK intelligence services. Kololo was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death over an attack on British tourists after the Met police provided assistance to Kenyan authorities.
The Conservative MP and former cabinet minister David Davis said: 'These policies are not a partisan issue; they are vital safeguards designed to prevent UK actions contributing to people being tortured or sentenced to death.
'Ministers should never be able to sign off on intelligence being shared or UK security assistance being granted where there is a risk of torture.
'That was true under the previous Conservative government and it's true now under Labour. We should never forget that it was bogus intelligence acquired under torture that led to the justification of the Iraq war.
'It would be a grave error to leave these failed policies as they are, and the government must avoid anything that looks like a Whitehall stitch-up, not least as this would have profoundly negative consequences for the UK's global reputation.'
Reprieve, Amnesty International UK, Freedom from Torture, the Omega Research Foundation, the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy and Unredacted UK have written a joint letter to the foreign secretary, David Lammy, expressing concern that the policy reviews 'may not sufficiently address the very serious flaws with the existing policy'.
The Liberal Democrat MP and former cabinet minister Alistair Carmichael said: 'I would never have expected a Labour government to rubber-stamp Boris Johnson's torture policy while paying lip service to human rights concerns, but that appears to be what is happening here.
'There is disturbing evidence that existing policies on intelligence-sharing and overseas security assistance leave the UK at risk of being mixed up in torture in some way. These policies need a proper overhaul, with input from victims of the previous failed approach, not the consultation-in-name-only that is going on at the moment.'
The government is being urged to consult Johal's family and others adversely affected by the policies as well as publish terms of reference for the reviews.
Sir Andrew Mitchell, a Conservative MP and former deputy foreign secretary, said: 'Any review worth its salt should be learning the lessons of Ali Kololo, and indeed seeking Mr Kololo's input after everything he has been put through. The OSJA policy's abject failure to prevent this case and others suggests it is fundamentally broken. No responsible minister would want to go beyond the law and get mixed up in torture or the death penalty, and the policy should make clear this is never permissible.'
Read More Legal bodies and media join taskforce to fight SLAPPs
Reprieve's submission to the OSJA review states that under the former government the policy failed to block UK assistance to human rights abusers in Libya, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Saudi Arabia.
Dan Dolan, Reprieve's deputy executive director, said: 'These two core human rights policies of the British government have in the last decade left a trail of people who have suffered torture and the death penalty, with sadly the UK's assistance.
'If this government fails to follow through on its recognition in opposition that these policies are fatally flawed, then it will let down the survivors of human rights abuses where the UK has played a role.'
A Foreign Office spokesperson said it was 'engaging with external stakeholders' and 'recognising the important perspectives of civil society'. They added: 'The guidance will set out how we ensure the UK's overseas security and justice assistance work will meet our human rights obligations and values.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
A different kind of D-Day, laden with anxiety among old allies
Advertisement 'The enemy underestimated the strength of the Allied war cause,' he said from a podium before a modest international crowd and about two dozen American World War II veterans, most around 100 years old, watching from wheelchairs nearby. 'Without the sacrifices of American, French, British and other Allied powers, we would not have a free world ," he said. To many, the speech came as a relief. But still, there was an elephant on the perfectly kept cemetery lawn. D-Day is typically a time to commemorate sacrifice and unity among Allied countries fighting for freedom and liberty against the authoritarianism and tyranny of Nazi Germany. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's resistance has become a central part of the ceremonies as a strong echo from the past. Last year, President Biden vowed that America would not 'walk away' from the fight, defending a Ukraine that had been 'invaded by a tyrant bent on domination.' Advertisement 'Were we to do that, it means we'd be forgetting what happened here on these hallowed beaches,' he said. 'Make no mistake: We will not bow down. We will not forget.' However, the Trump administration has a very different view of its allies and the Russian invasion. President Trump has said the European Union was created to 'screw the United States' and is threatening it with 50 percent tariffs. He has blamed Ukraine for a war that Russia started. On Thursday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, during a visit to the Oval Office, reminded Trump of the anniversary of D-Day and pressed him to use American power to force Russia's retreat. Trump responded by comparing the war to two fighting children in a hockey game, when the referee lets them 'go for a little while before you pull them apart.' Hegseth has similarly shown little interest in supporting Ukraine against its Russian invader. On his last trip to Europe, he announced that a return to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders was 'an unrealistic objective' and ruled out NATO membership for Kyiv. Almost immediately after being sworn into the job, Hegseth dumped America's leadership of the Contact Group — a collection of more than 50 nations to coordinate shipments of military and humanitarian aid to Kyiv. He didn't show up to the group's latest meeting this week. Then, there were his comments on a Signal chat group, created before the American military attack on Houthi militia in Yemen and inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic. It all cast a shadow on the annual D-Day ceremony — making an event meant to celebrate friendship and shared values feel, as Denis Peschanski, a French historian, put it, 'less comfortable.' Advertisement 'There was no contradiction between the democratic values upheld by the Biden administration and the historical sacrifice of these Americans, as well as these British, these Canadians, well, all those who landed, and the French who were fighting in the Resistance also for the success of this landing,' said Peschanski, who was in charge of the 80th anniversary's scientific advisory board. It was 'obvious' that this year's commemoration would feel awkward without those shared values, he said. The celebration of what Hegseth called the 'greatest amphibious assault in the history of mankind' was more muted than last year. But that had nothing to do with American foreign policy — 81 isn't considered as auspicious as 80, and off-round number years rarely draw huge crowds or heads of state. Still, American and Canadian flags fluttered from hedges, World War II enthusiasts screeched along the narrow roads in vintage jeeps, and ceremonies were planned throughout the 50-mile ribbon of beaches and cliffs. No mention of American aggression was made by French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, either. Instead, he thanked the veterans, saying they embodied the 'unique friendship between our two countries.' To some, Hegseth's criticism of Europe was not entirely off-point, if only because its spine has yet to stiffen sufficiently. 'The problem is, he is right. The EU is pathetic,' said Gérard Araud, former French ambassador to Washington, referring to Hegseth's text. 'In face of US hostility from JD Vance and Trump himself and then Hegseth, there is no appetite for retaliation or responding. They are totally terrified at the prospect of the US dumping Ukraine.' Advertisement Though European countries are committed to continuing to materially and financially help Ukraine maintain its opposition, most believe American support — particularly in intelligence — is essential. So, Araud said of Hegseth, 'everything will be done by the French to seduce him, to try and convince him we are serious on defense and we are working with the Americans and basically, please stay.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
JD Vance silence on Musk may be the most Game of Thrones tactic ever — and Trump might not even notice
The kingdom is in turmoil, the great Houses of Musk and Trump at war, and their subjects forced to choose sides. But as the scheming Littlefinger in Game of Thrones famously said as he plotted to take the King's place: 'chaos is a ladder.' And so it is for JD Vance, the ostensibly loyal vice president, and perhaps the person who stands to benefit the most from the chaos unleashed by the feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump — which is perhaps why he's remaining uncharacteristically subdued. Vance has never been one to shy away from a fight, especially an online one, especially if it's in defense of his boss. He once launched a 400-word diatribe against historian Niall Ferguson for criticizing Trump's Ukraine policy, slamming his 'moralistic garbage' and 'historical illiteracy.' He had no problem accusing senior members of his own party of 'pettiness' for voting against what Trump wanted, and mocked world leaders who've had run ins with the president. The practicing Catholic even found himself on the wrong side of the Pope himself when he got into another online beef with British politician Rory Stewart over Trump's deportation policies. So one would expect the online warrior to rush to the defense of his president in response to the firestorm of abuse unleashed by Musk against the president on Thursday, which began with accusations of ungratefulness and ended with claims of him being close to Jeffrey Epstein. But Vance has been remarkably quiet. His only public comment at the time of writing has been the kind of terse statement a wife gives in support of a cheating politician spouse. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I'm proud to stand beside him,' Vance wrote on X. The next day, he continued with his lawyerly posts. 'There are many lies the corporate media tells about President Trump. One of the most glaring is that he's impulsive or short-tempered. Anyone who has seen him operate under pressure knows that's ridiculous,' he wrote. 'It's (maybe) the single biggest disconnect between fake media perception and reality,' he went on. Where was the combative Vance who demanded the Ukrainian president say thank you to his boss in the Oval Office? The one who told Kamala Harris to 'go to hell' over the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan? Instead, Vance did not utter Musk's name in the 24 hours since the feud burst into the open. Vance was asked by Trump to remain diplomatic in his dealings with Musk, The Independent learned from a source familiar with the situation. Regardless, the VP has other motivations for keeping quiet. For years, he has been dogged by rumors of dual loyalties between the tech billionaires who fueled his rise and the president he now serves. Vance first came to public attention as the best-selling author of Hillbilly Elegy, a memoir of a rough Appalachian upbringing that many liberals praised as an intellectual explanation of Trump's appeal to the white working class. But before that book set him on a path to Congress and the Senate, he was already being courted by a set of right-wing tech billionaires known as the 'PayPal mafia' — the billionaires Musk, David Sacks and Peter Thiel, who worked together at the pioneering online payments company back in the late Nineties and early Noughties and were bound together by a belief in deregulation, libertarianism and later, by darker right-wing ideology that railed against multiculturalism. Vance was working in venture capital at the time and went to work for Thiel at his San Francisco investment house, Mithril Capital. Thiel would be instrumental to Vance's rise, backing his campaign for Senate in 2021-22 to the tune of $15 million, and reportedly introduced Vance to Trump. The trio of Musk, Sacks and Thiel were instrumental in convincing Trump to choose Vance as his running mate, seeing in him an ideological ally, the libertarian tech investor who could one day take over as president. Some have gone so far as to call Vance a Manchurian Candidate for the tech elite. When the feud between Musk and Trump spilled out into the open, Musk was not shy about announcing his desire for Vance to take over as president. He responded to a tweet calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance with one word: 'Yes.' That is not an empty threat. Vance's path to the White House would inevitably require the support of Musk, the man who spent $395 million on electing Republicans in 2024. So his decision to ignore Musk's call for mutiny is an interesting — and calculated — choice. Much like Littlefinger, Vance has made sharp ideological turns and formed strategic alliances to find his way to within arm's length of the throne. He was once vehemently opposed to Trump, only to radically change course to stand by his side in his quest for power. But, spoiler alert, his fictional counterpart's calculating and maneuvering didn't end well for him. Trump spent his entire first term weeding out traitors, and claims to have gotten very good at it over the years. Will he be able to sniff out Vance?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Carney launches ‘One Canadian Economy' Act to unify trade, approvals
-- Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled sweeping legislation Friday aimed at accelerating the approval of infrastructure projects and removing long-standing internal trade barriers, part of a broader effort to boost Canada's economic potential amid mounting global uncertainty. The One Canadian Economy Act, a centerpiece of the Carney government's pro-growth agenda, seeks to consolidate regulatory processes and create a unified domestic market across the national landscape. 'Canada's a country that used to build big things,' Carney said at a press conference. 'But in recent decades it's become too difficult to build in this country.' To address these concerns, the bill would cut federal project approval times from five years to two by creating a one-stop permitting office and applying a 'one-project, one-review' standard to infrastructure proposals. Projects deemed 'nation-building' by federal cabinet, such as railways, ports, pipelines, and transmission lines, would undergo streamlined assessments focused not on justification, but implementation. These proposals must satisfy at least some of five criteria, including economic benefit, Indigenous engagement, and contributions to climate goals, though officials stress these are considerations rather than strict thresholds. The new approach was partially galvanized by concerns over regulatory paralysis that has slowed Canada's ability to bring natural resources to global markets. 'When federal agencies have examined a new project, their immediate question has been: Why?' Carney said Friday. 'With this bill, we will instead ask ourselves: How?' The legislation also tackles internal trade barriers, which economists estimate cost tens of billions of dollars in lost productivity and economic output annually. A major provision of the bill would recognize provincial standards for goods, services and labor certification as meeting the federal benchmark, though actual interprovincial mobility will still require the cooperation of provincial governments. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has expressed skepticism over the bill's broader impact, calling the internal trade components 'a small step.' 'It's baby steps when we needed a giant leap,' Poilievre said Friday, while suggesting provinces be offered cash incentives to dismantle remaining trade barriers. While some provinces have already commenced bilateral trade agreements, others remain hesitant. The federal government says its own contributions include the elimination of all exemptions to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement by July 1, with the broader hope that harmonization efforts will follow across jurisdictions. Related articles Carney launches 'One Canadian Economy' Act to unify trade, approvals US job growth in May tops forecasts, but Macquarie warns cracks are emerging Fed's Harker says rate cuts this year still possible
