The Weekly Round-Up: UNRWA banned & safe access zones come into force
4 November 2024
In UK News
Last Thursday, legislation providing for safe access zones around abortion clinics came into
force. Within these safe access zones, it is now a criminal offence to intentionally or
recklessly:
- influence any person’s decision to access or facilitate abortion services at an abortion
clinic; - obstruct any person from accessing or facilitating abortion services at an abortion
clinic; or - cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to
access, provide or facilitate abortion services at an abortion clinic.
Dame Diana Johnson, Crime and Policing Minister, has stated that she is “confident that the
safeguards we have put in place today will have a genuine impact in helping women feel
safer and empowered to access the vital services they need”. Last week also saw the
introduction of a new preventative duty under the Equality Act 2010 with employers now
being required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent the sexual harassment of their
employees.
In Other News
The Israeli Knesset (Parliament) voted by a 92-10 majority last Monday night to adopt two bills banning the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA) from Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and labelling it a terrorist organisation. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that “UNRWA workers involved in terrorist activities against Israel must be held accountable. Since avoiding a humanitarian crisis is also essential, sustained humanitarian aid must remain available in Gaza now and in the future”. However, no alternative aid structure has been proposed, leading to serious concerns about the availability of aid in the region. The new laws are likely to have the effect of forcing the closure of the UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem. In response to the vote, UN Security Council President Pascale Christine Baeriswyl has issued a press statement confirming that the members of the Security Council have “underscored that UNRWA remains the backbone of all humanitarian response in Gaza, and affirmed that no organization can replace or substitute UNRWA’s capacity and mandate to serve Palestinian refugees and civilians in urgent need of life-saving humanitarian assistance”. Philippe Lazzarini, UNWRA Commissioner-General, has said that the vote “sets a dangerous precedent” and “will only deepen the suffering of Palestinians” who have already “been going through sheer hell”.
Charity Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticised last week a bill under consideration by the Armenian government which is seeking to enforce mandatory video surveillance across the capital city. HRW have stated that the surveillance is “unjustified and interferes with privacy and other rights”, claiming that it would have a “chilling effect on fundamental civil and political rights”. The proposed laws would require private entities to install surveillance equipment and provide police 24/7 access to live video feeds. HRW referred to a 2022 report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age which states that mass surveillance for the purposes of general monitoring, of the same type the proposed bill would introduce, is an “almost invariably disproportionate” interference with the privacy of individuals. The Armenian parliament is expected to have a final vote on the bill before the close of the year.
In the Courts
The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the case of Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, confirming that the police do not owe a positive duty of care in law to protect individuals from harm. The facts of Tindall concern a driver who, after hitting a patch of black ice on the A413 and temporarily losing control but escaping serious injury, reported the ice to the police. The police attended the scene but did not take any effective action to remove the danger, resulting in the deaths of two drivers shortly afterwards who collided after skidding on the same patch of ice. While the Court accepted that the actions of the police amounted to a ‘serious dereliction of their public duty owed to society at large’, it was held that public authorities such as the police are not liable for merely ‘failing to protect’ members of the public. The Court interestingly agreed that the police would have been liable had they actively made matters worse; however, this was not the case on the facts. Tindall is the latest in a controversial line of cases denying that the police should owe a legal duty of care to protect individuals from harm as a result of their special status.
Judgment has also been given in Abu Qamar v Secretary of State for the Home Department, a human rights appeal won by a Palestinian student who had her UK visa revoked after making highly controversial comments regarding the 7 October attacks last year. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that the Home Office decision constituted a “disproportionate interference with her protected right to free speech” under the ECHR and that the Home Office had failed to show that Abu Qamar’s presence in the UK was “not conducive to the public good”. The Tribunal referenced the “clearly recognised and fundamental distinction between supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting Hamas and their actions,” stating that “nowhere” did the appellant “express support for Hamas specifically, or their actions”. In particular, her referring to Israel as an “apartheid state” was said to be “consistent with views expressed publicly by human rights organisations”.
