Telling the truth: the undiplomatic diplomat
Following the horrors of the Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s collective punishment of innocent civilians in Gaza in response, Craig Mokhiber, director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights until yesterday, has said four things some of which, up to now, have been almost unmentionable. But, daring to say them, he is certainly a hero.
He has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza. You’re not allowed to even suggest that Israel could ever be guilty of genocide or ethnic cleansing, after the mass slaughter of the Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. But Mokhiber says what is happening in Gaza is “a textbook case of genocide”, and he also accuses the UN of failing to prevent it.
He accuses “the US, the UK and much of Europe” not only of that failure but also of “arming Israel’s assault and providing political and diplomatic cover for it.”
He says:
The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist colonial settler ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt.
He suggests a solution:
We must support the establishment of a single, democratic secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews … and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.
These are the things he’s said.
He’s a hero.
Top UN official in New York steps down citing ‘genocide’ of Palestinian civilians: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/un-official-resigns-israel-hamas-war-palestine-new-york?embed=true
No change from Labour, whatever the Observer says
The Observer article below welcomes Labour leader Keir Starmer’s statement on Labour’s approach to small boats, people smugglers, deportations and refugee policy generally. In contrast to the left’s view that there is little to “differentiate a possible future Labour government from the present Conservative one”, it claims to detect “a sharp dividing line between the government and Labour on asylum policy.” It says Labour is offering a humane, pragmatic and commonsense approach in contrast to the Tories’ populism and its “cruel, unworkable policy”.
The paper is right to say that the government has removed the right of all migrants who have arrived in small boats to claim asylum, when most of them would qualify for refugee status if they did; it is right to deplore the measures the government have introduced “to detain them until they can be deported to another country for their claim to be processed”; in the light of the government’s keenness to deport asylum seekers it deems to be “illegal”, the article is right to point out that no deportation deals have been achieved with any country except Rwanda (and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the legality of that deal); it is also right to criticise the backlog the government has allowed to develop in the processing of asylum claims, so that “83% of claims made in 2018 had not been processed five years later”. The article is right to condemn the Tory policy package.
But the Observer is wrong to say that the “real difference” between Labour and the Tories is that Labour “would scrap the government’s unworkable and cruel detention and deportation policies, restoring the right of people to claim asylum in the UK.” It will do this, the Observer seems to believe, by investing in “1,000 extra case workers and a returns unit of 1,000 staff to process claims much more quickly and deport those whose claims are rejected.” This would work because Labour would come to a deal with the European Union (EU) “in which the UK would accept a quota of refugees in exchange for being able to return those who cross the Channel in small boats.” But even if such a deal could be reached, we would still be left, under Labour, with the same old “detention and deportation” policy. None of the refugees in small boats will have their claims considered here. If the Observer thinks that shunting vulnerable and desperate people around Europe as they wait for decisions on their future is what it calls “a far better approach”, so be it. The refugees may not agree. Moreover, in the same article, the Observer admits that “pan-European cooperation has never worked well in the bloc and has broken down further in recent years.” The Observer must know it’s clutching at straws.
But there is one thing Starmer has to do before we can believe in this tale of “differentiation” between Labour and the Tories on asylum. He has to commit the Labour Party to repealing the Illegal Migration Act 2022. While the Act remains, Tory policy remains unchanged. Unless it is repealed, there can be no “differentiation” between the parties. In its guidance to the Act, the government makes clear that
anyone arriving illegally in the United Kingdom will not have their asylum claim, human rights claim or modern slavery referral considered while they are in the UK, but they will instead be promptly removed either to their home country or to a safe third country to have their protection claims processed there. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/37/notes/division/3/index.htm)
Obviously the Act must be repealed. But both Starmer and shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock have refused to commit to repealing it. While it stands, so does the policy.
The article begins by setting the “Observer view” in the context of Starmer’s political approach as a whole. Keir Starmer, it says,
has made clear that under his leadership a first-term Labour government would stick to tough fiscal rules, and has ruled out making any unfunded spending commitments in the run-up to the next election. That has fuelled criticism from some on the left of his party, who argue that this has limited the extent to which he has been able to differentiate a possible future Labour government from the present Conservative one.
It says Starmer’s asylum policy makes Labour different. It doesn’t.
What that means for our voting intentions next year is up to us all. But it puts a very big strain on mine.
Incoherent, or just plain trickery?
It is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination (section 2, Amendment 19B).
does not make it unlawful for [a minister, official, or caseworker] to discriminate against another person on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origins in carrying out immigration and nationality functions (Amendment 19D).
to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and … to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups (section 2(1).
An end to trickery? The Refugee Council’s proposals
The Refugee Council’s proposals for a new. fairer asylum process (Towards a National Refugee Strategy) are below. But first:
The government says that there is no need to make a dangerous journey across the English Channel to seek asylum in the UK. Instead, refugees should use the safe routes provided by the government.
The numbers game and other trickery: virtually no safe routes
When the UK government set up the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme in January 2022, it said it would resettle 20,000 people in an unspecified period of time. But it turned out that that number would include people already here before the scheme was announced, let alone set up, and who therefore had no need for protection under the scheme. By 23 February 2023, 7,609 of them had been included. This means that only 12,391 places were provided under the scheme, not 20,000.
Trickery? Of course. Here’s more:
Except for a small number of people under arrangements with the British Council and others, there is no way for an Afghan nationals to apply to be included in the scheme. This is why friends of mine were told by a legal firm that getting three vulnerable female members of their family out of Afghanistan and away from the clutches of the Taliban would be virtually impossible.
Here’s a bit more:
Another scheme (the UK Resettlement Scheme) replaced several resettlement programmes, including the scheme to rescue victims of the Syrian conflict. Good news? Not really. For this scheme, too, “has no application process”, says the Refugee Council (see Strategy, below, p. 6). So there are safe routes – but you’ll be lucky to get on one.
No wonder the English Channel is overcrowded.
Here are the Refugee Council’s proposals.
Where the NHS is going: they’ll give you a diagnosis – but no treatment
Yesterday I followed the advice of my local hospital’s Audiology Department (they fix hearing aid problems) and tried to book an appointment at the GP surgery to get my ears syringed. I wear two hearing aids. This increases the likelihood of a build-up of wax in the ears. Recently, this has made it difficult for me to use the phone and by yesterday it was impossible for me to understand the recorded voice on my local surgery’s answering system telling me to press this, that or some other key for this, that or some other service that I also, unfortunately, wouldn’t be able to decipher. But no problem: I went into the medical centre to make an appointment. They found me a slot in three weeks’ time. But the receptionist said it will be “for assessment only”. She repeated this as she booked the appointment — “it’s for assessment only, you understand, not treatment. We’ll be able to tell you where you can get treatment if it’s necessary.” In other words, at most surgeries, ear syringing is no longer available on the NHS.
I knew this already as it happens. Audiology had told me it would cost between £50 and £70. So I suppose I’ll get to choose which private outfit I fancy to do it. I suddenly had this memory of a friend of mine in the 1980s who did a pretty good impersonation of Margaret Thatcher haughtily explaining her vision for us all in the new world she was creating: “Choice — choice — we must have choice!”
So I’ve got an appointment in three weeks. Audiology said there might be an infection developing in one ear. If they do find one, I have to assume they’ll still be treating infections on the NHS then, although three weeks is a long time in politics, as the Labour prime minister Harold Wilson once told us (he didn’t actually — he said one week). Whether I’ll submit to private syringing is another matter. Perhaps it’ll be done in the little corner shop down the road that used to be a newsagent’s. Thatcher again: “We want to encourage small businesses.” It probably won’t be done there though. It’s more likely to be done by some big outfit, like a bank. Or Marks & Spencer’s. “Can I have Tesco’s Finest?”, I’ll ask.
Punishing refugees: a policy quietly dropped? No, it’s still a crime to travel by boat
According to the article below, the government has “quietly dropped” the policy they’ve been boasting about for months as the gold standard way of stopping asylum claims by people who have, in their desperation, crossed the Channel in small boats to get here. Originally, their claims for asylum were going to be heard but, even if they were successful, they would be granted “Group 2” status, get only temporary leave to remain and would soon be deported. Only those with passports or visas, or who had managed to find one of what the government calls its “safe routes” (they are becoming increasingly difficult to detect, even with up-to-date technology) would be given Group 1 status, indefinite leave to remain, the right to family reunification and eventually be able to apply for UK nationality. That was the plan. It was called “differentiation”. People who travelled in unauthorised ways had to be punished.
All this has now been “paused”, there will be no “differentiation”, according to Robert Jenrick, the Immigration Minister. Now, migrants who arrive on boats and get their asylum claims granted will get “the same conditions” as the ones with passports or visas, etc. Instead of being punished for travelling on a small boat across dangerous waters, Group 2 asylum seekers will be “aligned with Group 1”. Why the pause? The government claims it will speed up the processing of the backlog of 50,000 people who have been waiting since June 2022 for their cases to be decided. These include 15,000 from countries such as Afghanistan and Sudan, who are more likely to have their claims accepted and will now be processed through questionnaires rather than interviews.
But whatever the reason, Enver Solomon (Executive Director of the Refugee Council) is understandably relieved and has expressed agreement with the move: “It’s the right decision”, he said, “to pause the differentiation policy that treats refugees based on how they got to the UK rather than on their need for protection.”
But to leave it there, of course, would be to rejoice too soon, and the Refugee Council knows that. A pause is just that. A pause. And a Home Office spokesperson has already warned us that the Illegal Migration Bill, which is currently making its way through parliament, will definitely not be paused. Instead, the spokesperson reminded us, it will “make sure that people who come here illegally won’t have their asylum claim considered in the UK and instead can be detained and swiftly removed.”
That’s the policy. None of the politicians can stop it. Most of them don’t want to. The Labour Party is refusing to say whether it will repeal the Act in government. That means it won’t. Only the pressure of a mass movement against this cruel policy will get rid of it.
Can we build one?
Here’s a petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/634311
The Guardian article:
No repeal, no vote
I’ve just noticed that this year marks a kind of grim anniversary, one that we might want to forget. Just a decade ago, in 2013, Home Secretary Theresa May devised what would become the Immigration Act 2014 and explained its purpose in the following way:
“Most people will say it can’t be fair for people who have no right to be here in the UK to continue to exist as everybody else does with bank accounts, with driving licences and with access to rented accommodation. We are going to be changing that because we don’t think that is fair.”
She wanted to “create a really hostile environment” for illegal migrants: “What we don’t want”, she said, “is a situation where people think that they can come here and overstay because they’re able to access everything they need.”
The Act reduced migrants’ rights, including rights of appeal against deportation. It introduced a “deport first, appeal later” policy for people regarded as being at “no risk of serious irreversible harm” if returned to their country of origin: such judgments, made by caseworkers or Secretaries of State, are notoriously unreliable and dangerous. May’s legislation and her language were in line with a long-standing and nasty Tory approach to asylum and immigration. Her comments were reminiscent of a previous Home Secretary’s remarks, which referred specifically to asylum seekers: in 1995 Michael Howard had declared that the UK was seen as
“a very attractive destination because of the ease with which people can get access to jobs and to benefits. And while, for instance, the number of asylum seekers for the rest of Europe are falling the number in this country are increasing [and] only a tiny proportion of them are genuine refugees.”
Likewise, Social Security Secretary Peter Lilley told the Tory Party Conference in the same year:
“Genuine political refugees are few. The trouble is our system almost invites people to claim asylum to gain British benefits. That can’t be right – and I’m going to stop it. Britain should be a safe haven, not a soft touch.”
The hostile environment led to the Windrush scandal, in which long-standing UK citizens were told they had no such status and were deported to countries they knew nothing about. Some died as a result of the treatment they received at the hands of the woman who now, bizarrely, claims to defend the rights of smuggled children against the provisions of the latest two bits of Tory legislation to abuse, detain and deport some of the most vulnerable and desperate people in the world.
The new laws that have now been brought in by the Sunak government (the Nationality & Borders Act and the Illegal Immigration Act) are harsher and more cruel than anything even Theresa May dreamt of. The rhetoric that goes with them is nastier and more dangerous. We need to find ways of supporting victims of these policies. And the least we can do is put pressure on Labour MPs and, later, candidates in the 2024 general election, to promise to repeal the Tory Acts if Labour wins the election. Tell them: No repeal, no vote.
Like
Comment
Share
Not sliced bread
In my previous blogs I have mentioned and quoted several times from the 1951 Refugee Convention. One hundred and forty-nine states have signed the Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol. Between them, these two documents “define the term ‘refugee’ and outline the rights of refugees, as well as the legal obligations of States to protect them” (see link below). The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) describes itself as the “guardian” of the Convention and its Protocol:
According to the legislation, States are expected to cooperate with us in ensuring that the rights of refugees are respected and protected.
The references to “legal obligations” and “legislation” suggest that refugees should be able to have full confidence in the Convention and its signatory states to protect them. However, we should note that states are only “expected to cooperate” with UNHCR in its efforts to protect refugees. This is less than a “legal obligation” and suggests that “legislation” amounts to a law that need not be kept. Am I being too critical here or worrying too much? The truth is I have been wondering since the first blog in this series why UNHCR, after repeatedly criticising many of the provisions of the UK’s Nationality & Borders Act 2022 (NBA) and questioning their standing in international law, seems to have done nothing to make the UK accountable for its non-cooperation and apparent lawbreaking. The UK has been taken to court over the policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, but not by UNHCR. The case was launched by several charities and other organisations concerned about the consequences for refugees of this policy. This has added to doubts I have had about the Convention for more than a decade. I wrote what follows in 2010. Though much has changed during that time, I think my overall assessment still holds water.
Although, in principle, the Convention seems to establish the primacy of refugee protection, it has proved to be ambiguous and open to a variety of interpretations. So although UNHCR “advocates that governments adopt a rapid, flexible and liberal process” when dealing with asylum applicants because it recognises “how difficult it often is to document persecution” (Protecting Refugees – Questions and Answers (2003), p. 3; http://www.unhcr.ch), its interpretation of the Convention contradicts this stance. In its definition of a refugee, the Convention’s reference to persecution “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (Convention & Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1996), p. 16: UNHCR, Geneva) suggests the possibility of group persecution and a collective refugee experience. But, when interpreted by UNHCR, the definition turns out to be based on a concept of persecution in which the burden of proof falls on the individual asylum seeker. Thus people “who apply for refugee status normally need to establish individually that their fear of persecution is well-founded” (ibid.), i.e. they must provide evidence that it is not just their social group, members of their political party or people who share their religion or ethnicity who are in danger but themselves as individuals. A “flexible and liberal process” becomes less likely as governments demand this rigorous standard of proof.
Discussions about whether to adopt a collective or an individual definition of persecution had taken place before the Convention was drafted. Concerns were expressed that a broad or collective definition would end up “multiplying the number of refugees ad infinitum” (Vernant (1953), The Refugee in the Post-War World, pp.6-7: Allen & Unwin, London). State officials at the time were resisting Sir John Hope Simpson’s 1939 definition of a refugee as someone who “has left his former territory because of political events there …” (cited, Zolberg et al. (1989), Escape from Violence Conflict and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World, p. 21: Oxford University Press, New York).
This remained a live issue: the author of a UNHCR-sponsored study in 1953 pointed out that “the mere fact that a man has left his country solely because political events there were not to his liking does not suffice to confer on him the status of refugee” (Vernant, op cit. p. 6).
The solution was to stipulate “persecution” as the key criterion and put the burden of proof on the shoulders of the asylum seeker: “the political events which in the country of origin led to his departure must be accompanied by persecution or the threat of persecution against himself or at least against a section of the population with which he identifies himself” (ibid., p. 7). But in the end, the Refugee Convention, as interpreted by UNHCR, put the burden of proof on the individual asylum seeker.
Ambiguities between text and interpretation should not come as a surprise: UNHCR is the creation of the UN member states and continually finds itself under pressure from these states, especially the most powerful and the largest donors. Loescher reminds us that there has “hardly ever been a time in the UNHCR’s history when governments’ foreign policies or strategic interests did not affect their stance towards the Office [of the High Commissioner]” (Loescher (2001), The UNHCR and World Politics: A Perilous Path, p. 6: Oxford University Press, Oxford). During the Cold War, “American leaders considered refugee policy too important to permit the United Nations to control it” (ibid., p. 7). Today’s pressures are different, but they are just as strong. During the last decade and a half, under pressure from states, UNHCR has shifted its attention from local integration projects, educational programmes and the promotion of refugee participation to an emphasis on repatriation as the preferred solution to the refugee problem. It does, of course, say that repatriation should be “wholly voluntary”, that it should take place “in conditions of safety and dignity” and that UNHCR is against “repatriation under duress” (The State of the World’s Refugees: A Humanitarian Agenda (1997), p. 147: Oxford University Press, Oxford). Nevertheless “governments everywhere were also becoming more restrictionist and were exerting pressure on the UNHCR to encourage and promote the return of refugees to their home countries as quickly as possible” (Loescher, op cit., p. 17). This pressure was successful.
Loescher cites the return of refugees from Bangladesh to Burma, and from Tanzania and former Zaire to Rwanda and Burundi, as “illustrations of situations in which the UNHCR cooperated with host governments to return refugees home before conditions had become safe” (ibid., p. 17). UNHCR cooperation with the UK government in the repatriation of Albanian Kosovans after the 1999 Kosovo war is another example. This repatriation was against the advice of all the relief agencies in the area, a House of Commons committee and the Refugee Council in the UK (Mouncer, Bob (2000), Dealt with on their Merits? The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK and France, p. 58: see link below).
The evidence is that, although UNHCR has managed, at different times in its history, to achieve some autonomy, it has little political authority of its own. But, as Loescher points out, it does have “considerable moral authority and legitimacy” and there is “no other UN agency where values and principled ideas are so central to the mandate and raison d’être of the institution or where some committed staff members are willing to place their lives in danger to defend the proposition that persecuted individuals need protection” (Loescher, op cit., p. 1). In other words, they are seriously committed to the human rights principles referred to in the preamble to the Convention.
However, the question remains whether, in the wake of the Nationality & Borders Act 2022, and with threats of legislation to come which will punish asylum seekers even more severely, UNHCR will do anything to hold the UK to account for its breaches of the Convention and, as many are arguing, of international law.
References
Refugee Convention
Dealt with on their Merits? The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK and France:
Ukrainian refugees
Following on from my previous blog, in fact all my previous blogs, isn’t it possible to be a bit more optimistic about asylum policy? After all, didn’t we step up to the plate after the start of the war between Russia and Ukraine, when we welcomed Ukrainian refugees? This is certainly how the media generally depicted the UK’s response and the arrival of Ukrainian families (the majority were women and children, since most of the men had stayed behind in Ukraine to fight the war). And it was true we saw relieved Ukrainians given a warm welcome by British families, as well as by charities and other sponsors. This was surely how a humanitarian rescue scheme should work, and it looked like it had. But there are problems looking at the Ukrainian refugees’ experience solely through this lens, and one story will illustrate what I mean.
The government promised support for Ukrainian refugees wanting to join their families or link up with sponsors and come to the UK. As part of that support it said there would be a British “surge team” in Calais to meet them and presumably guide them through the necessary procedures.
There wasn’t.
Instead, said a BBC report on 9 March 2022 (see link below), “almost 300 Ukrainian refugees trying to reach the UK have already been turned back at the French border by British Border Force officials”. A BBC reporting team had followed the experience of one Ukrainian family. They found that the “support” amounted to “three men at a trestle table in a deserted departure hall at the port, with bags of ready salted crisps and KitKats.” If the family had thought, “We’ve reached France, we’re nearly there,” they were quickly disappointed. They were told to make an appointment for 15 March in Paris –– 200 miles away. That, apparently, was the nearest Visa Application Centre (VAC) available.
Readers of one of my earlier blogs (Safe routes (1)) will remember the difficulties Afghans faced when trying to get visas. There were no VACS in Afghanistan and they had to find one after leaving the country. Now the Ukrainians were having similar problems: the VAC in Lviv in Ukraine was closed and they had to search abroad. An obvious solution would have been to put a VAC in Calais. However, Home Secretary Priti Patel had other things on her mind. She had decided not to set up a VAC in Calais because, reported the BBC, she feared that refugees might be exploited by people traffickers and encouraged to cross the Channel in small boats. The Ukrainians, however, weren’t thinking of small boats. They were thinking of visas, and a simple ferry crossing, or a seat on a train. A “surge team” and a VAC centre would have protected them from criminal gangs. But they were nowhere in sight.
This was hardly a good start. The government’s current guidance is on its page entitled “UK Visa Support for Ukrainian Nationals” (see link below). It tells you how it will support you if you have family in the UK and also if you don’t have family here; it tells you about the UK sponsorship scheme (Homes for Ukraine):
The scheme enables people and organisations in the UK (sponsors) to bring Ukrainians and their family members to the UK under the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
It tells you about “Other visas you can apply for”. It tells you how to do it: “You’ll need to complete your online application form”, and then you’ll be able to “book an appointment at a visa application centre to have your fingerprints and photograph taken.” The next sentence, however, may cause you to panic, since, still, and not surprisingly, “Visa application centres in Ukraine are currently closed.” Your panic attack won’t be helped when you remember the warning flagged at the top of the page:
You must not travel to the UK before you have a visa or a letter from the Home Office giving you permission to enter.
But not to worry:
Visa application centres are currently operating throughout Europe including:
Find the opening times, address and contact details for UK visa application centres near you.
Check with your local visa application centre if there are restrictions because of coronavirus (COVID-19). Some visa application centres might be closed until further notice.
Click on Next and you will be told:
You can contact UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) from inside or outside the UK.
Contact centre staff cannot give you advice about your personal circumstances.
I gave up at this point. But do try it.
The good news is that 100,000 people have been welcomed by hosts in the UK. The arrangement with hosts was for a period of 6 months, and hosts were paid £350 per month. The government’s plan was that when the 6-month period was over the Ukrainians should rent their own houses or “rematch” with another host. For many people, this is not working. Hosts are deciding not to rematch and many who had expressed willingness to help have changed their minds. In one Leicestershire area, only 10% of people who had offered to help now want to continue. (see Guardian link below). There are several reasons for this: rising energy bills and rising inflation generally, as well as higher interest rates, which affect, for example, mortgage repayments. Local councils are finding it difficult to solve the problems and by the end of October 1,915 Ukrainians have registered as homeless. By Christmas it is increasingly clear that there will be no room at the inn.
So what am I saying? That nobody is treated well, or that nobody gets to safety from Ukraine or Afghanistan, or from all the other places that people flee from? Of course not — because they clearly do. And when it comes to the hospitality of local communities, we have all seen the TV pictures of the warm welcome given by host families to their guests, and the Ukrainians telling how host families have left no stone unturned to ensure that their guests have access to all the help they need.
Yet wherever you flee from, including Ukraine, the UK government deliberately litters your path with obstacles to discourage you. Often only the most desperate and determined are likely to succeed. And if, in your desperation, you do find your way on to a small boat from Calais to Dover, and survive the journey, you may end up in Rwanda, or some other country where you have no friends or relatives, or you may end up in a British jail, because the Nationality and Borders Act and the other Acts and Regulations now being prepared say you are illegal, inadmissible, or just a plain criminal.
Why? Ask them. Ask your MP. Use some of the material in these blogs and ask some difficult questions. What are they going to do about these cruel, inhuman policies? And see what they say. And make some suggestions. And join an asylum and refugee support group in your area.
References
UK visa support for Ukrainian nationals
Sponsorship scheme
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-visa-under-the-ukraine-sponsorship-scheme
BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60659786
The Guardian
Bob Mouncer's blog 