Skip to main content

Britain’s moral failure (the hindu)

Ditching the Dubs child refugee scheme is shocking but consistent with the U.K.’s refrain of the refugee crisis

There could not have been a more baffling decision by the British government than to ditch a scheme to grant asylum to child refugees from Europe. Equally, the move betrays a shocking reluctance to demonstrate moral leadership in the face of the unprecedented challenge triggered by mass migrations from the world’s bloody conflict zones.

All the same, the step to discontinue the asylum scheme is consistent with the U.K.’s consistent yet controversial refrain right from the beginning of the refugee crisis. It has been London’s view that providing shelter to those who have already entered the shores of Europe would amount to a perverse incentive to many more millions in West Asia to undertake the risky journey. Such an assumption explains in large part London’s response to the plight of hundreds of children stranded in the so-called Calais ‘Jungle’ camp across the border with France and other refugee camps in Europe. Accordingly, the U.K. has restricted itself to extend financial aid to displaced Syrians, besides reuniting children who have families living in the U.K.

ALSO READ
The photo that shook Europe

Conversely, the rest of the European Union has pursued a range of pro-active and at times controversial policies to stem the flow of migrants into the bloc, even if this has betrayed a lack of a coherent and consistent approach. A case in point is the launch of search and rescue operations in the high seas and the relocation of refugees in the wake of the horrific deaths of hundreds of migrants off the Libyan coast in 2015 and in the Mediterranean Sea last year. London’s 2016 decision to accept some 3,000 unaccompanied children into the country out of an estimated 90,000 stranded in migrant camps signalled a slight relaxation in the government’s rigid position on the refugee crisis. The humane stance was the outcome of a sustained campaign cutting across party lines spearheaded by a Labour peer, Alf Dubs, who was himself rescued from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.

Conversely, former Prime Minister David Cameron’s principal concern ahead of the EU referendum last year was to defend the bloc’s so-called Dublin rules that until recently allowed people with asylum claims to be returned to the first state of entry. After all, Britain had exploited these rules to deport 12,000 asylum-seekers over the past 15 years; it was but natural that the U.K. should refuse to cooperate with the EU’s strategy to resettle refugees. On the contrary, their revision was warranted by the need to redress the unfair burden imposed on southern European countries by the surge in the flow of migrants. As London enjoys an opt-out from EU home affairs policies, it is under no obligation to join the bloc’s current quota system to receive refugees.

The move to abandon the Dubs scheme is perhaps no surprise after Prime Minister Theresa May spelt out her government’s red lines on immigration, even if that means the U.K. must leave the cherished single market it once championed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i