Elton John and UN criticise Suella Braverman speech branding illegal migration ‘existential challenge’

Published

2 years ago

September 26, 2023

admin

The United Nations’ refugee agency and Sir Elton John have rebuked the home secretary after she claimed the current asylum system is no longer fit for purpose.

Suella Braverman called for a reform of the “outdated” international system in a speech in Washington DC.

She branded the number of displaced people in the world as an “epoch-defining challenge”, and said being gay or a woman should not be enough to gain asylum.

The senior cabinet minister – whose speech was signed off by Number 10 – called for reform of the 1951 UN Human Rights Convention, which forms the basis of the asylum system.

The UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, responded to Ms Braverman’s speech by saying the convention “remains as relevant today as when it was adopted in providing an indispensable framework for addressing those challenges, based on international co-operation”.

Sir Elton said Ms Braverman risked “further legitimising hate and violence” against LGBT+ people.

Sir Ed Davey announces big cancer plan – politics latest

The UN agency added: “The need is not for reform, or more restrictive interpretation, but for stronger and more consistent application of the convention and its underlying principle of responsibility sharing.

“An appropriate response to the increase in arrivals and to the UK’s current asylum backlog would include strengthening and expediting decision-making procedures.

“This would accelerate the integration of those found to be refugees and facilitate the swift return of those who have no legal basis to stay.

“UNHCR has presented the UK government with concrete and actionable proposals in this regard and continues to support constructive, ongoing efforts to clear the current asylum backlog.”

In a statement, released through the Elton John Aids Foundation, the Rocket Man singer and his husband David Furnish said: “We are very concerned about the UK home secretary’s comments stating how discrimination for being gay or a woman should not be reason enough to qualify for protection under international refugee laws.

“Nearly a third of all nations class LGBTQ+ people as criminals and homosexuality is still punishable by death in 11 countries.

“Dismissing the very real danger LGBTQ+ communities face risks further legitimising hate and violence against them.

“Leaders need to provide more compassion, support and acceptance for those seeking a safer future.”

Ms Braverman said uncontrolled and illegal migration is an “existential challenge for the political and cultural institutions of the West” – adding that “uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades”.

Ms Braverman questioned whether courts have redefined asylum to be granted for people suffering “discrimination” instead of “persecution” – especially in the context of someone who is gay or a woman.

“Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.

“But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if, in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.”

Part of her speech criticised how current levels of migration have led to “undermining the stability and threatening the security of society” in “extreme cases”.

Ms Braverman said “we now live in a completely different time” to when the UN Human Rights Convention was signed.

She went on: “Is the Refugee Convention in need of reform?

“What would a revised global asylum framework look like?

“How can we better balance national rights and human rights, so that the latter do not undermine national sovereignty?”

Punchy home secretary landing blows ahead of party conference

It is no surprise to hear Suella Braverman talking tough on immigration.

Even so, today’s language is particularly punchy.

She talks about the “obvious threat to public safety and national security” illegal immigration poses and says “nobody entering the UK by boat from France is fleeing imminent peril”.

There has been backlash already, unsurprisingly, from charities and NGOs. One man who crossed the Channel in 2019 (fleeing Iran) told me the home secretary has “turned her back” on those in need.

It is criticism the home secretary is used to. Beyond the ethics, though, there is the question of whether anything she says will actually shift the dial.

The most eye-catching part of the home secretary’s speech was her call to reform the UN Refugee Convention. She says the convention, set up after the Second World War, needs to adapt for a “different time” and its application has shifted too far from helping people fleeing “persecution” to those fleeing “discrimination”.

It’s not clear there is any appetite to reform the convention from the 140+ other countries signed up to it. It won’t fix the small boats problem any time soon.

She also spoke about the importance of deterrents: Rwanda and the Illegal Migration Bill. The Rwanda plan has been bogged down in court, and there is no proof yet that government legislation will work. Small boat crossings are down from last year, but they are still much higher than 2021. Last month, more than 800 people crossed the Channel in a single day.

Suella Braverman pointed to polling showing most red wall voters want to stop small boat crossings “using any means necessary”. She did not point to the recent YouGov poll suggesting 86% believe the government is handling immigration badly.

Her speech may not distract from the perils of the government’s illegal migration policy, but it certainly sends a message ahead of the Conservative Party conference.

The speech and its contents were met with criticism from a range of charities, MPs and campaigners.

Ben Bradshaw, a gay Labour MP and former cabinet minister, asked if any “LGBT or any other Tories” were prepared to condemn the home secretary, adding that “being gay is enough to result in persecution or death in many countries”.

Michael Fabricant, a Tory MP and a patron of the Conservative LGBT+ group, said that “if someone simply claims to be gay in order to seek asylum, that should not lift the bar to entry to the UK”.

He added: “However, if someone has experienced persecution from the country from which they are escaping, it presents a different and far more persuasive case. Each application should be considered carefully on its merits.”

‘Cynicism and xenophobia’

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The Refugee Convention is a cornerstone of the international legal system and we need to call out this assault on the convention for what it is – a display of cynicism and xenophobia.

“The Refugee Convention is just as relevant today as it was when it was created, and verbal assaults from the home secretary don’t alter the harsh realities that cause people from countries such as Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran to flee from conflict and persecution.”

He added: “Instead of making inflammatory speeches decrying the rights of people fleeing persecution and tyranny, Suella Braverman should focus on creating a functioning UK asylum system that tackles the massive backlog her policies have created, so as to be able to meet the limited refugee responsibilities that fall to the UK.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Josie Naughton, chief executive of Choose Love, said: “It is the home secretary, not the global refugee convention, that is out of touch with the modern age.

“The UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention was put in place to protect every human being searching for safety, fleeing war zones, danger and threats to their life and freedoms. More than ever, the world must come together and unite behind it. We cannot solve this problem by seeking to undermine fundamental human rights. Working together is the only solution.”

Politics

Starmer avoided political heat at home during Brazil climate conference – but he returns to a prisons crisis

Published

2 hours ago

November 9, 2025

admin

Starmer avoided political heat at home during Brazil climate conference - but he returns to a prisons crisis

Sir Keir Starmer’s been on the other side of the world for most of the week – at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, his 40th foreign trip in 16 months.

Back home, his government’s credibility has continued its painful unravelling.

Five days on from David Lammy’s disastrous stand-in performance at PMQS, the justice secretary’s ministerial colleagues are still struggling to explain why he repeatedly failed to answer questions on whether another migrant criminal had been released from prison by mistake.

Yes, Conservative MP James Cartlidge got the question wrong, as Brahim Kaddour-Cherif was an illegal migrant, not an asylum seeker.

But Mr Cartlidge argued that because the deputy prime minister failed to divulge the information he did have, he failed to act with full transparency and should be investigated by the PM’s ethics advisor for a possible breach of the ministerial code.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has been defending Mr Lammy’s response.

She told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips she doesn’t accept that he was being evasive, insisting Mr Lammy had been carefully weighing his words to ensure that “when we do speak about matters of such significance to the public… we do so with care and make sure the full facts are presented”.

At that time, rather extraordinarily, we’re told the justice secretary did not have the full facts of the case, even though the Metropolitan Police had been informed the day before (six days after Kaddour-Cherif was accidentally freed).

How Sky correspondent found escaped prisoner

The combination of wrongly-freed prisoners and illegal migrants is a conjunction of two of the most toxic issues in British politics – the overflowing prison system and the dysfunctional asylum system.

Both are vast, chaotic problems the government is struggling to get a grip on, as the Conservatives also found, to their cost.

But ministers’ ongoing failure to bring both issues under control has only been highlighted by Mr Lammy’s sloppy handling of the situation.

Football regulator donations row

Ms Nandy has herself been at the heart of another government controversy this week – over the appointment of the new football regulator, David Kogan.

An independent investigation found she “unknowingly” breached the code on public appointments by failing to declare that Mr Kogan had previously donated £2,900 to her Labour leadership campaign – and also criticised her department for not highlighting his status as a Labour donor who had previously given £33,410 to the party.

The culture secretary has apologised and explained she had been unaware of the donations.

She also pointed out that Mr Kogan was a candidate originally put forward by the Conservatives. But again, it’s messy.

It’s yet another story which chips away at the government’s promises to clear up politics and act with full transparency and accountability.

Budget blues?

The ultimate breach of trust looks set to come with the budget on 26 November, however.

In an extraordinary early morning speech this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves signalled that she’s likely to raise taxes in two and a half weeks – and thus breach the core promise of the Labour Party manifesto.

The rationale for her dire warnings on Tuesday was to start explaining why she will probably have to do so – getting in her excuses early about the languishing state of the economy as a result of Brexit, Donald Trump’s tariffs and her inheritance from the Conservatives.

The Tories claim Ms Reeves could sort out the finances by cutting welfare spending – something ministers dramatically failed to do when their efforts at reform were scuttled by angry backbenchers.

Governments breach their manifesto commitments all the time.

But if the chancellor goes ahead and puts up income tax, as expected (even if that’s offset, for some, by a corresponding cut to national insurance), it will be a shock – and the first such increase in 50 years.

The new deputy leader of the party, Lucy Powell, pointedly warned the government this week about the risks of breaching trust in politics by breaking manifesto promises.

Lisa Nandy didn’t shoot her comments down when Sir Trevor asked for her response, arguing instead that while “we take our promises very, very seriously”, they [Labour] “were also elected on a promise to change this country”, with a particular focus on fixing the NHS.

The impossibility of doing both – protecting taxes while also increasing government spending in such a challenging economic climate – highlights the folly of making such restrictive promises.

But voters are not in a forgiving mood.

Politics

Trump announces $2,000 tariff ‘dividend,’ here is how it will affect crypto

Published

6 hours ago

November 9, 2025

admin

Trump announces ,000 tariff 'dividend,' here is how it will affect crypto

United States President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that most Americans will receive a $2,000 “dividend” from the tariff revenue and criticized the opposition to his sweeping tariff policies.

“A dividend of at least $2000 a person, not including high-income people, will be paid to everyone,” Trump said on Truth Social.

The US Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about the legality of the tariffs, with the overwhelming majority of prediction market traders betting against a court approval.

US Government, United States, Donald Trump — *Source:* *Donald Trump*

Kalshi traders place the odds of the Supreme Court approving the policy at just 23%, while Polymarket traders have the odds at 21%. Trump asked:

“The president of the United States is allowed, and fully approved by Congress, to stop all trade with a foreign country, which is far more onerous than a tariff, and license a foreign country, but is not allowed to put a simple tariff on a foreign country, even for purposes of national security?”

Investors and market analysts celebrated the announcement as economic stimulus that will boost cryptocurrency and other asset prices as portions of the stimulus flow into the markets, but also warned of the long-term negative effects of the proposed dividend.

The proposed economic stimulus will boost asset markets, but at a steep cost

Investment analysts at The Kobeissi Letter forecast that about 85% of US adults should receive the $2,000 stimulus checks, based on distribution data from the economic stimulus checks during the COVID era.

While a portion of the stimulus will flow into markets and raise asset prices, Kobeissi Letter warned that the ultimate long-term effect of any economic stimulus will be fiat currency inflation and the loss of purchasing power.

“If you don’t put the $2,000 in assets, it is going to be inflated away or just service some interest on debt and sent to banks,” Bitcoin analyst, author, and advocate Simon Dixon said.

“Stocks and Bitcoin only know to go higher in response to stimulus,” investor and market analyst Anthony Pompliano said in response to Trump’s announcement.

Magazine: China will intensify Bitcoin bull run, $1M by 2028: Bitcoin Man, X Hall of Flame