6 January 2025<\/span> by Catherine Churchill<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In UK News<\/strong><\/p>\n A heated debate has arisen across the UK and abroad after Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips last week rejected calls for a public inquiry into child grooming gangs in Oldham. In a letter <\/a>sent to Oldham Council in response to its request for a public inquiry, Phillips stated it was for \u201cOldham Council alone to decide whether to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene\u201d. The decision has led to widespread criticism, with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick calling <\/a>it \u201cshameful\u201d and Elon Musk arguing <\/a>that Phillips \u201cdeserves to be in prison\u201d. Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, has defended <\/a>Musk\u2019s involvement as an exercise in \u201cfree speech\u201d. Professor Alexis Jay, former Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), has suggested that it is change that is needed rather than a fresh inquiry. A statement <\/a>published on Sunday by campaign group Act on IICSA warned against the politicisation of sexual violence, which only \u201chinders the implementation of vital and urgent overhaul\u201d to existing systems. In a press conference<\/a> on Monday, Sir Keir Starmer defended Jess Phillips and his own record as Director of Public Prosecutions, accusing critics of \u201cspreading lies and misinformation\u201d and of being interested in themselves rather than the victims.<\/p>\n Former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, has warned that legal aid cuts in family cases are denying parents their human rights, stating that the cuts are \u201cwrong in principle\u201d. Following legislative changes in 2013, parents in private children\u2019s law cases are unable to access legal aid \u2013 irrespective of their means \u2013 unless abuse is alleged. In an exclusive interview<\/a> with the Guardian, Neuberger called it \u201calmost disgraceful\u201d that parents are given human rights and then denied the ability to enforce them as a result of the lack of legal aid. \u201cRights aren\u2019t meaningful unless they can be enforced\u201d, he added. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson responded to Neuberger\u2019s position by emphasising the importance of families getting the \u201cbest outcomes as quickly as possible\u201d, pointing to the mediation scheme available for family disputes which is partially Government funded.<\/p>\n In Other News<\/strong><\/p>\n The latest report<\/a> published by HRMMU, the UN team investigating human rights in Ukraine, details the deteriorating situation in the region with a surge in monthly civilian casualties and allegations of executions of Ukrainian Servicepersons. Evidence continues to suggest that individuals being held as Prisoners of War (POWs) are suffering torture and ill-treatment, including sexual violence. While the report acknowledges mistreatment of Russian POWs, these instances are said <\/a>to appear more \u201cisolated\u201d than that of Ukrainians. As the war rages on nearly three years after the Russian invasion, the report calls for both countries to \u201cintensify\u201d their efforts to uphold international human rights law. The report was published just days before Ukraine launched a renewed offensive in Russia\u2019s Kursk region on Sunday, leaving Russian civilians \u201cshaken<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Ireland\u2019s landmark hate crime law<\/a> \u2013 the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 \u2013 came into force last week, marking a historic moment in Irish law regarding the treatment of hate-motivated offences. The new law prescribes increased prison sentences where hatred predicated upon real or perceived protected identity characteristics either motivates a crime or is demonstrated during it. Ireland Justice Minister Helen McEntee said <\/a>last Tuesday that the \u201clegislation meets a clear gap in [Irish] laws and is widely supported by the public\u201d, bringing Ireland out of the small group of EU countries that continue not to have specific hate crime offences set out in law. The bill had originally also contained provisions tightening the laws around hate speech, but this section was dropped in October after McEntee revealed there was no longer a \u201cconsensus\u201d on its inclusion. The law around hate speech in Ireland is governed by the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which remains in force.<\/p>\n Activists are celebrating the inclusion of measures in the 2025 National Defence Authorisation Act (the annual US defence spending bill) to address the oppression of the Uyghur Muslim population in China\u2019s Xinjiang region, which the US has labelled genocide. The bill was signed into law by President Joe Biden shortly before Christmas and incorporates the bipartisan Uyghur Human Rights Policy Reauthorisation Act 2024 which extended the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act passed under Trump in 2020. The Act greenlights sanctions against Chinese officials believed to be involved in Uyghur oppression. The renewal of these sanctions has been welcomed <\/a>by the Uyghur Human Rights Project, with UHRP Executive Director Omer Kanat calling it \u201ca gift of hope for Uyghurs\u201d. The move represents the latest show of continued support for the Uyghur population by the United States.<\/p>\n In the Courts <\/strong><\/p>\n On Sunday, the Criminal Division of the Seoul Western District Court rejected objections<\/a> made by Yoon Suk Yeol, suspended President of South Korea, against the execution of arrest and search warrants against him. Yoon has been suspended as President pending impeachment proceedings following a failed attempt in December to impose martial law. Anti-corruption investigators issued the arrest warrant for Yoon and a search warrant for the Presidential residence after the suspended President ignored multiple summons for questioning. Yoon\u2019s legal team filed an objection<\/a> to the warrants in the courts last Thursday, arguing that they were illegal on the basis that the investigators did not have jurisdiction to issue them, and that, in any case, a criminal law prohibiting the execution of warrants in military areas should apply in his case. It has not yet been revealed on what grounds the court has rejected his arguments, and it is expected that a re-appeal may be lodged with the Supreme Court once this is clear. In the meantime, the Presidential Security Team are taking measures to block <\/a>Yoon\u2019s arrest, installing barbed wire and barricading the compound where he is residing. The arrest warrant expired at midnight on Monday January 6th with Yoon successful in defying arrest, although investigators are seeking an extension of the warrant\u2019s deadline.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ukhumanrightsblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/image.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/p>\nLike this:<\/h3>\n