Latest news with #HumanRightsAct
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
N.B. government will apologize to former P.C. minister for firing
New Brunswick's Liberal government will officially apologize to former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Margaret-Ann Blaney over her firing by a previous Liberal government in 2014. Premier Susan Holt confirmed to CBC News that her government will not contest a ruling by the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board that Blaney's rights were violated by the firing. The province will also comply with the board's order to compensate Blaney at a cost of more than $700,000. "There were errors made in the past. It wasn't the right way to do things, to fire people for partisan reasons," Holt told CBC News Wednesday morning. "Part of why I got into politics was to do things differently, and move away from partisan, petty politics to doing the right thing. So we abide by the ruling, we're going to apologize and things like that won't happen again on my watch." Blaney, a PC MLA first elected in 1999, was appointed CEO of the provincial agency Efficiency New Brunswick by PC Premier David Alward in 2012. The move was widely seen as an example of political patronage. Two years later, the new Liberal government of Brian Gallant fired Blaney and passed legislation that prevented her from collecting severance or from suing. WATCH | 'We're going to apologize,' premier says: This week, the labour board upheld Blaney's complaint under the Human Rights Act, saying the Liberal legislation was "an abuse of power" and that the law, and the firing, amounted to discrimination based on Blaney's party affiliation. "Ms. Blaney was not treated with dignity, was not afforded the protection of the rule of law, and she was subjected to public miseries because of her political belief and activity," the board said. It ordered the government to pay her the equivalent of more than $700,000 for lost salary and vacation, pension contributions and damages. It also ordered the government to issue a written apology "acknowledging that it discriminated against her in violation of the act because of political activity." WATCH | 'An abuse of power': Labour board rules for former minister: The ruling noted that while a Liberal government fired Blaney, "blame cannot be attributed solely to that government." It said the PC government of Blaine Higgs, elected in 2018, "did nothing to rectify the violation of Ms. Blaney's rights" and continued to defend the Liberal legislation and tried to prevent Blaney from pursuing her complaint under the Human Rights Act. The legislature "as a whole" treated Blaney in a disingenuous and callous way, it said.
CBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CBC
N.B. government will apologize to former P.C. minister for firing
Social Sharing New Brunswick's Liberal government will officially apologize to former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Margaret-Ann Blaney over her firing by a previous Liberal government in 2014. Premier Susan Holt confirmed to CBC News that her government will not contest a ruling by the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board that Blaney's rights were violated by the firing. The province will also comply with the board's order to compensate Blaney at a cost of more than $700,000. "There were errors made in the past. It wasn't the right way to do things, to fire people for partisan reasons," Holt told CBC News Wednesday morning. "Part of why I got into politics was to do things differently, and move away from partisan, petty politics to doing the right thing. So we abide by the ruling, we're going to apologize and things like that won't happen again on my watch." Blaney, a PC MLA first elected in 1999, was appointed CEO of the provincial agency Efficiency New Brunswick by PC Premier David Alward in 2012. The move was widely seen as an example of political patronage. Two years later, the new Liberal government of Brian Gallant fired Blaney and passed legislation that prevented her from collecting severance or from suing. Board upholds complaint This week, the labour board upheld Blaney's complaint under the Human Rights Act, saying the Liberal legislation was "an abuse of power" and that the law, and the firing, amounted to discrimination based on Blaney's party affiliation. "Ms. Blaney was not treated with dignity, was not afforded the protection of the rule of law, and she was subjected to public miseries because of her political belief and activity," the board said. It ordered the government to pay her the equivalent of more than $700,000 for lost salary and vacation, pension contributions and damages. It also ordered the government to issue a written apology "acknowledging that it discriminated against her in violation of the act because of political activity." WATCH | 'An abuse of power': Labour board rules for former minister: Former PC minister fired by Liberals wins legal challenge 19 hours ago The ruling noted that while a Liberal government fired Blaney, "blame cannot be attributed solely to that government." It said the PC government of Blaine Higgs, elected in 2018, "did nothing to rectify the violation of Ms. Blaney's rights" and continued to defend the Liberal legislation and tried to prevent Blaney from pursuing her complaint under the Human Rights Act. The legislature "as a whole" treated Blaney in a disingenuous and callous way, it said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 days ago
- Business Standard
UK asylum racket: PoK migrants pay ₹58 lakh for fake visas, reveals report
Migrants from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) are reportedly entering the UK on visas obtained using falsified documents and later applying for asylum, according to an undercover investigation by The Daily Telegraph. The report claims some applicants are paying as much as £50,000 (around ₹58.5 lakh) for UK visa applications loaded with fake details. One example uncovered by the investigation involved a job reference letter from a 'fake hospital' in Mirpur, submitted as part of an application to the UK Home Office. Fake CVs, false employers and visa success A consultant based in Mirpur, named in the report, allegedly helped forge employment documents for individuals posing as skilled workers. In one instance, an undercover applicant submitted a fabricated CV and reference letter, which ultimately resulted in a successful work visa. Reacting to the allegations, the UK Home Office said it had launched an investigation. 'Illegal activity will not be tolerated and we will stop at nothing to ensure our immigration rules are respected and enforced,' said a Home Office spokesperson. 'We are already taking firm action to disrupt illegal activity when it is found, including suspending licences, pursuing enforcement, and strengthening safeguards to protect the integrity of the immigration system,' the spokesperson added. What the UK immigration white paper says about asylum misuse The report, published on May 12, 2025, noted growing misuse of asylum routes: 1. People claiming asylum after entering on valid visas (with no change in circumstances) 2. Some misrepresent their age to access certain services 3. Overall misuse undermines system integrity and public trust. The document outlined proposed measures to restrict misuse: • New legislation aimed at limiting the use of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act by asylum seekers • Stronger enforcement through e-visas, biometric checks and digital ID to detect overstayers or rule-breakers • Earlier tracking and deportation of foreign national offenders once convicted, even for minor offences According to Home Office data: • Visa applications dropped by 40 per cent over the past year • Around 30,000 people with no legal status were removed • Arrests linked to illegal working rose by 51 per cent New powers are also being introduced to immediately suspend registered immigration advisers and companies suspected of serious abuse. Asylum claims and trends from Pakistan Pakistani nationals currently top the list of asylum claimants in the UK, followed by Afghanistan, Iran and Bangladesh. However, they are not among the largest groups arriving via illegal routes such as small boats. In May 2025, the UK government said it would increase intelligence efforts to track foreign nationals using legal entry channels—like study or work visas—to claim asylum later. 'We are building intelligence on the profile of these individuals to identify them earlier and faster,' a Home Office press release said at the time. Official asylum figures show: • Pakistani asylum applications rose 79 per cent in a year, reaching 10,542 • Pakistan and Afghanistan saw a 53 per cent approval rate • Iran had a 64 per cent grant rate • Syria (98 per cent), Eritrea (87 per cent), and Sudan (99 per cent) had the highest approval rates Among the 40,000 asylum seekers who entered the UK last year on valid visas: • 16,000 were international students • 11,500 had work visas • 9,500 entered as visitors Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, asylum applicants facing destitution can access financial and housing support, provided they declare all sources of income and assets.
Spectator
4 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
What Suella Braverman's plan for quitting the ECHR gets right
This morning's paper on leaving the ECHR from Suella Braverman and the Prosperity Institute doesn't say much that hasn't been said somewhere before. It reiterates the fairly obvious political case for a UK ECHR exit. It talks about the erosion of sovereignty over immigration, policing and vast swathes of social policy; the baneful 'living instrument' doctrine that means we have now effectively given a blank cheque to a self-selecting and unaccountable bench to second-guess our democratic process in ever more intrusive ways; the Strasbourg court's arrogation of powers, such as the right to order interim measures never contemplated in 1950; and so on. The paper then goes in detail through the legal machinery of disentanglement, starting with the obvious point that the Convention itself provides for a right to leave on giving six months' notice, and then describing the legislative and administrative processes involved. But don't be fooled. This may not be exciting reading (Suella is, after all, a lawyer); but the appearance of this document at this time matters a lot. One very significant point is that the paper in one place meets head-on the arguments lazily trotted out as slam-dunk wins for the case against withdrawal. Does the UK's good reputation depend on ECHR membership? Doubtful. There are plenty of countries not members of regional agreements that are admirably free (think Canada and Australia), not to mention ECHR members that, shall we say, leave something to be desired (stand up, Azerbaijan). Reform the ECHR from within? We've tried that, and it's had no effect in the areas that matter. Tweak the Human Rights Act? It won't work with the Strasbourg court sitting in the background waiting to pounce. The right of the EU to withdraw police cooperation under the Withdrawal Agreement if we denounce the ECHR? Bring it on, and if need be, call their bluff. They have as much to lose as we have: it's a small risk, and one worth taking. What of the elephant in the room, the Good Friday Agreement? More awkward, but nothing insuperable here. For one thing, it doesn't actually bar the UK from withdrawing from the ECHR. Instead it talks much more vaguely of the incorporation of ECHR provisions in Ulster law and court remedies to enforce it. If necessary, there must be some political horse-trading here, and in the end, Westminster must be prepared to put its foot down and face down Irish nationalists if necessary in the interest of a common rights regime in the UK. To this extent, the Braverman document has continued the process of moving ECHR scepticism away from the fringe and placing it firmly in the range of the sayable and even politically plausible. More to the point, it also fills another void. So far, calls to ditch the ECHR have suffered from a similar difficulty to that which faced the Leave movement right up to the 2016 referendum and might well have tipped it into defeat: it has been heavy on criticism but light on practicalities. By laying down in some detail the measures to be taken to remove the ECHR from our law both in form and substance and opening these to debate, this may well reassure electors otherwise wavering. Looking more widely, today's events could just indicate a subtle shift in political tectonics. Doubts about the way the ECHR is chipping away at the institutions of this country are engaging electors who might previously have shrugged off human rights as something remote and unconcerning. Whenever they read of an undeserving visitor to this country allowed to stay, often at our expense as taxpayers, on the basis of family life here or possible beastliness abroad, they increasingly connect this with the ECHR; so too when, as a harassed commuter or housewife, they find they cannot go about their business because of some demonstration said to be protected by a European right to cause inconvenience to the public. Nor is it only electors. Teasingly, this morning's Telegraph said that Suella's proposals had cross-party backing not only from key figures on the Tory right (predictable: after all, even Kemi has said she is open to talk of abandoning the Strasbourg regime) and also from Reform, whose position has always been clear, but also from the DUP and even some from blue Labour (no names yet, but an educated guess might light on figures like Jonathan Brash, the free-thinking MP for Hartlepool). Whisper it quietly, but human rights scepticism is becoming the new mainstream. Defenders of the Strasbourg status quo are shrinking to an increasingly small caucus of senior Labour figures, Tory grandees and a motley collection of urban intellectuals and academics. It's quite possible that within a few years, ECHR enthusiasm will have declined to a niche interest in much the same way as, say, Euroscepticism did twenty years ago. Now that's a change worth contemplating.
CBC
7 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
Meet one of the activists who fought for 2SLGBTQ+ rights in N.B.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in New Brunswick, but it hasn't always been that way. Hank Williams is a 2SLGBTQ+ activist who helped fight for the 1992 amendment to New Brunswick's Human Rights Act that provided legal protection for the 2SLGBTQ+ community.
