The blog post I wrote yesterday on the risk to the RNLI from the new Bill on asylum got a lot of attention on Twitter yesterday. The Home Office replied:
This doesn't apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea.
— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) July 7, 2021
I replied to them as follows:
A Home Office Tweet would be no defence in court.
Then the RNLI replied, saying:
I said in reply to them before reading the link (this happening when I was waiting to go into Mark Cooney's funeral):
I then followed the links the RNLI posted which said this:
Goerge Peretz QC added:
In other words, my concerns remain justified.
I think the RNLI would be naive to rely on the word of this government, and courts will not. This law has to change. I hope the RNLI puts appropriate effort into ensuring that happens.
I do that for more reason than wanting the RNLI to protect itself and its volunteers though. After all, they are not the only people to save lives at sea. As has been widely noted, the obligation to go to help those in peril is universal at sea; it is the duty of those who can assist to do so. Protecting the RNLI is not enough in that case. Anyone saving the life of an asylum seeker must be protected in that case.
Protecting the RNLI alone would make clear that the implicit logic of this Bill would remain intact. That logic is unambiguous. It is that the life of an asylum seeker is not only not worth protecting, but is that the life of an asylum seeker should not be saved. The Bill treats those fleeing in fear as beneath contempt, and deems them worthless. This is inhumanity at its worst.
The RNLI should take a lesson from Gareth Southgate. It should not only be protecting itself from the abuse of this government. It should take the knee. It should say all deserve protection at sea, including every asylum seeker who funds themselves in peril when running from exploitation in the hope of finding refuge.
As a life governor of the RNLI I made a commitment to it. I backed it up with action. Sure, that simply required me to make a reasonable donation. But there was a reason for doing that: I felt it a worthwhile cause. I now expect it to appreciate that if it is to be worthwhile it has to protect all who are at risk, and not just its staff and volunteers.
Will it? That is a question I will be asking it.
I hope others do so too.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Although the Government may choose not to prosecute the RNLI, I don’t see that there is an exemption for yachtsmen, fishermen and merchant seamen who go to the aid of a vessel in distress.
Nor do I
Perhaps the RNLI is afraid donations would fall if it were seen as sympathetic towards asylum seekers. Most of the people of this country are, as the Tories’ 79 seat majority suggests, not. I would hope that the RNLI follows Mr Southgate’s example and stands for principle, not pandering to prejudice. Fingers crossed.
Well done you!
This bill, as it stands, would appear to contravene international law. Both the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). But this Conservative and Unionist government are willing to disregard these international legal obligations and to criminalise those who do.
A moral vacuum exists within the Conservative and Unionist government when they would criminalise those who would assist others in distress. But this will only apply when those requiring assistance are the victims of othering by the UK government and its allies in the right wing media, refugees and asylum seekers in this case.
Which tells me that the Conservative and Unionist government are treating these desperate folk as inferior people who are not worthy of saving, and if we allow this to continue then the UK government will be emboldened to broaden the scope of who is to be classed as inferior people. The National Socialists of the 1930s would recognise the policy trajectory.
The UK is becoming grimmer by the day.
Well if the Royal Navy rescued German crews of stricken German warships during First and Second World wars and the RN captains were not prosecuted for a criminal offence; surely saving the lives of totally innocent migrants fleeing from persecution, starvation and other privations should be seen in the same humanitarian light. Clearly, the present discredited Home Office hostile environment policy is totally at odds with sane thinking on both the legal and human rights levels.
It is
But we have psychopaths in charge
I wonder, would Banksy (or even Piers Corbyn) be taken to court for saving lives in the channel? I’m sure a story could be conjured by Patel to proceed with prosecution. But the legislation is designed to make citizens fearful to participate or assist; Isn’t this a pillar of fascism to instill “fear”.
Exactly
I would hope the CPS would decline to prosecute someone for rescuing those in peril on the sea, but if the RNLI or another person were prosecuted, I expect they could raise a defence of necessity (to save life).
That is quite a hard defence to establish, but it would at least give the judge a reason to dismiss the charges, and the jury may acquit anyway (compare the XR protesters recently acquitted on charges of criminal damage).
Assuming there is a jury. The single justice procedure has been used more widely during the pandemic. Much more efficient.
Better to have the law changed now….
Absolutely. There is far too much legislation passed which goes beyond its intended effect, with soft guidance at the time saying it won’t be applied in ways that people point out would be problematic. And a few years later, by the time the warm words have faded, someone starts to apply it strictly.
Precisely
I have read and seen too much of it
This has become something of a theme in tax legislation, where very wide or vague legislation is accompanied by reams of HMRC guidance (“don’t worry, we’ll only use it to catch bad people”) which has no legal effect, and is hard to depend on in practice.
I agree
We have contacted both the RNLI and RYA asking whether they have made representations along the line you suggest. We urge others to do the same.
Thanks
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Article 98
Duty to render assistance
1. Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
(b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in
distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such
action may reasonably be expected of him;
(c) after a collision, to render assistance to the other ship, its crew
and its passengers and, where possible, to inform the other ship of the name of his own ship, its port of registry and the nearest port at which it will call.
2. Every coastal State shall promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements cooperate with neighbouring States for this purpose.
But we ignore international law…..and pride ourselves on doing so
Even in yacht racing, where gaining an advantage over opposing yachts would be deemed to be the object of the game, the FIRST rule in the “Racing Rules of Sailing” is:-
“RULE 1 SAFETY
1.1 Helping those in danger
A boat, competitor or support person shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger.”
This is fundamental for everyone who ventures on the water and Priti Patel and her coterie will be ignored (I hope). To call the government a disgrace just doesn’t cut it but I am not one to use the sort of language which would rightly describe these evil people.
Quite so
Although I have it sailed since I was at university
I have written to the RNLI to suggest that they use their considerable support group (of which I am an Offshore Member) to oppose legislation that goes against the international law of the sea. Referring to the assurances they have had from the Home Office, I asked if they would be happy with if a member of the public assisted RNLI in a rescue and placed themselves in a position of breaking the new law while the RNLI volunteers were protected by exemption from it.
I notice that the new law brings UK into line with other European nations, who have been acting in contravention of SOLAS and UNCLOS in the Mediterranean for some time. We can’t have Priti Patel looking soft can we?
Thanks