♪ >> you are watching al jazeera. a reminder of our top stories -- police in ukraine say the bodies of more than 900 civilians have been found in areas surrounding the capital ahead of the regional force as more than 350 corpses were discovered in one town alone. russian forces fully withdrew from around kyiv last week. >> the number of killed civilians has passed 900 and i emphasize these are civilians whose bodies we have discovered

and handed over for a firm and sick examination. this is more than 900 people currently killed at the hands of the russian army. >> russia has attacked a military plant near ukraine's capital and has warned it could step up attacks near kyiv. ukraine has also warned there will be a heavy price to pay if russian cities are attacked, and a senior u.s. politician has warned try and it it must pay a price for supporting russia's invasion of ukraine. senator lindsey graham made the comments in taiwan. around 300 palestinians have detained during violent confrontations at a compound in occupied east jerusalem. they entered before dawn friday and used tear gas and stun grenades while some palestinians threw rocks. palestinians continue to search for people after tropical storm

maggie carved a path through the philippines. at least 150 people were killed in landslides triggered by heavy rainfall. twitter says it has unanimously adopted a so-called poison pill plan that could block elon musk's takeover bid. the social media giant says the move would enable investors to realize the full value of their investment and force musk to pay shareholders a premium for the company. musk, who owns tesla and spacex, recently increased his stake in the social media platforms to 9%. those are the headlines. more news in athens hour. next is "inside story." do stay with us. ♪

>> what is behind britain's plan to send asylum seeker's to rwanda? the government says it is needed to deter undocumented migrants. cruel and inhumane is how rights groups see it. will the agreement work, and can the rights of migrants be protected? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the program. being smuggled from france to britain by boat could earn you a one-way ticket to rwanda -- that's the british government's message to undocumented migrants making the dangerous voyage across the english channel. an agreement between britain and rwanda means single men will be flown to africa to have their asylum claims processed there. if they are found to be genuine

refugees, there will be no guarantee of settlement in the u.k. prime minister johnson says action is needed to stop what he calls vile people smugglers turning the channel into a watery graveyard. >> on the white cliffs of dover looking out across the english channel, which separates britain from france, 600 people cross this narrow stretch of water by boat on wednesday. not a huge figure in the scheme of things, but under pressure, boris johnson is determined to be seen to be doing something to stop the dangerous journeys. so more than 6000 kilometers away, he -- his home secretary announced an ambitious deal with the rwandan government. in theory, anyone who enters the u.k. via a so-called illegal route may be sent to rwanda to have their claim for asylum process. >> those who are resettled will be given support, including up to five years of training so

they can resettle and thrive. >> the rwandan government is getting initial payments of roughly 156 million dollars. it says it will offer people protection and a chance to rebuild their life, even if their asylum claim is unsuccessful. >> many rwandans have experienced what it means to be displaced. this has shaped how we approach migration and asylum. rwanda already provides refuge for almost 130,000 refugees from many countries including neighbors like burgundy as well as afghanistan and migrants from libya -- neighbors like rudy -- neighbors like burundi. >> boris johnson says the scheme should act as a deterrent for people considering crossing the channel. whatever the case, he has accepted that will be legal challenges.

in many eyes, it is a clear breach of the 1993 refugee agreement. many from johnson's own party have called the idea unworkable. >> the government looks -- needs to look at taking more routes, for example creating a humanitarian visa system so that they don't have to put their money and lives in the hands of other countries. there are many other sides to this issue. >> it is far from clear how much the scheme will cost. many have expressed amazement at the choice of rwanda. last year, britain and itself called for independent investigations into allegations of extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, and forced disappearances, and torture in the country, and rights groups have drawn parallels of australia's experience, saying sending them to rwanda will simply increase the risks to their physical and mental health.

>> britain's agreement has been compared to australia's offshore processing policy. between 2001 and 2008 and since 2012, people who arrived i boat to australia were sent to prisons in papua new guinea. rights groups say australia violated its obligation under the united nations commission. in 2017 the australian government was ordered to pay $52 million in compensation to nearly 2000 refugees. the policy is expected to cost australian taxpayers nearly $600 million this year to keep fewer than 230 people in offshore jails. let's speak to the director of survivor empowerment at the organization freedom from torture. thanks for joining us today. you had a harrowing journey getting to the u.k. what was your experience like

arriving in the u.k. as a refugee and then being placed in detention? >> thank you very much and also thank you for having me. i think my experience of reaching the u.k. was traumatic, was horrendous, and was harrowing, and i did not have much of a choice, but for me, the most important thing is to get somewhere i feel safe and i know that i will be protected and i know that i'm going to start rebuilding my life. when i came to the u.k., i was shocked by the fact that i was out there presenting myself and saying that i'm here and i want protection, the next thing that happened to me, i was going to the immigration detention center, and that was a massive,

massive shock into my system and as a result has triggered the trauma of jail and also the trauma of persecution and also persecution into me, and i start displaying some symptoms of post trauma disorder, and also i was quite shocked because i was in the process of being returned or deported back, which at about that i'm going to be deported again facing persecution and facing the thing that i just ran away from. >> what are your thoughts when it comes to this agreement that has been announced between britain and rwanda that could see asylum-seekers who arrive in the u.k. being sent to rwanda to have their asylum claim processed there? you just spoke about the trauma you encountered being in

detention in the u.k. could this be a much more traumatic experience if asylum-seekers are deported, if they are taken or sent to rwanda to be processed there? >> absolutely. i think that is the plan by the u.k. government, to make a decision first and foremost to negate our duty and responsibility to refugees and also the refugee convention, which we are signatories to, which we need to uphold, and which the international community is expecting us to uphold. what message are we sending to other people? secondly, it would be a massive shock to any refugees or asylum-seekers to find themselves after fleeing, after going through the traumatic risk

to get into a country where you think that you will be safe, you think that you will be protected, to send someone far away, which there is no safe place in that country. we have thousands of rwandans in exile which have fled rwanda to seek her traction somewhere else. let's say that you are now ukrainian fleeing ukraine coming to the u.k. the u.k. government will ship them to rwanda for their refugee cases to be processed in rwanda. it is absolutely unthinkable. >> let's bring in our panel, all joining us from the u.k. in london, and could make at the university of sheffield and author of "hostile environment:

how immigrants became scapegoats." in nottingham, assistant professor of law at the university of nottingham who has done extensive research on refugee policies, and in cambridge, the u.k. advocacy and communications coordinator at human rights watch. a warm welcome to you all and thank you for joining us on the program. the british government says this new plan complies with international legal obligations that they have. what do you say? is this new plan with rwanda legal, and beyond that, would it actually deter migration by boat ? >> the agreement to relocate asylum-seekers arriving irregularly to rwanda is essentially the u.k. shirking its responsibilities under the refugee convention to people seeking asylum. it is very likely to be unlawful and basically represents the u.k. shifting and exporting their responsibility onto rwanda. 6000 kilometers out of sight and

out of mind. in terms of its effectiveness, we know from the australia case that it was not effective. it was a failed offshore detention regime, which actually saw crossings increase when the policy wasn't limited. >> you heard emily say that essentially it was a failed policy in australia. i want to ask you about this because a lot of people are comparing this britain and rwanda deal to the australian offshore processing system. from the research you have undertaken, did that actually work? has it worked, and did the huge cost -- did the ends justify the means? >> australia's offshore detention system has been severely criticized for being cruel, for being expensive, and for being ineffective at what it sought to achieve. if we look at the conditions in offshore detention, we can see that throughout the duration of

australia's policy, asylum-seekers experienced very high levels of mental distress. a report by the united nations refugee agency in 2016 found that 89% of people were suffering from a severe mental disorder, if it's depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder. australia's policy was introduced to stop asylum-seekers traveling to australia by boat, but australia's policy began in 2012, and it was not until 2014 that arrivals to australia began to decrease, so that is two years after the policy commenced. even then, there were still asylum-seekers traveling to australia by boat in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. so the policy did not achieve what it sought out to do, and finally, australia's policy was very expensive.

it cost australian taxpayers an average of $1 billion per year and in some years, 1.5 billion dollars. >> how much has anti-migrant and anti-refugee sentiment grown in the u.k. in the last few years, and why is this happening now? >> i think it is really important to think about how we got here, and i think the short-term and longer-term picture, we need to look at both of those things. if we look at what has happened as the conservatives have come into power, they have really honed in on immigration and anti-asylum sentiment. a good example is during the height of the pandemic, the british home secretary was essentially whipping up hysteria about people crossing the channel. while we were being told that our, humanity was all that really matter in the context of the global health crisis, the

government were dehumanizing and also mistreating many of these people, and i think one of the things to say is that the aims -- one of the -- the aims are the wrong aims. one of the reasons people are making these very risky journeys -- people know they will be risking their lives when they make them -- is that they have no other choice, so it is because of government border policies people are forced to get into boats in the first place, but there is also in britain and longer-term context that i think really matters here. although britain and many other countries have not had restrictive policies prior to the 1980's, my colleague has conducted work that shows that from the 1980's specifically north became more restrictive around asylum, and she argues that it was because of people of color increasingly coming to the u.k. to claim asylum. these were not the refugees that the so-called west wanted. when we talk about restricting

immigration systems, i think we need to sort of unpick away -- the way these are sort of mired in and created through racism. conservatives are able to pursue these policies, but there is a much longer term context that has allowed these policies, and i think we need to grapple with that history. >> you were talking before about the similarities between what happened in australia and what might happen in britain between this deal with britain and rwanda, but i want to ask you how concerned you are about the kind of precedent that this agreement might set, and i want to bring into this question the example last year, denmark had passed legislation allowing it to relocate asylum-seekers to third countries outside of the european union while their cases are reviewed. do you think we will start seeing even more countries doing this now?

>> i think this is a very worrying concern. in terms of what you are referring to, we have seen that over the last few decades, many countries adopting what we would call externalization strategies and policies that see various countries, predominantly in the global north, x waived -- exporting their restrictive regimes to one another. we saw australia model it's offshore detention regime off the u.s.'s guantanamo bay that used to have haitian asylum-seekers. now we have australia and we also saw it in discussions with denmark and now the u.k., so it is very concerning that when one country shows a complete disregard for its international legal obligations such as australia that the u.k. has been following suit, and i think there is a real risk that as more countries seek to close their borders and shutdown access to people fleeing war persecution, there is a real worry of a domino effect of

others pushing ahead to close their borders. >> former colleagues of yours at the university of new south wales have given testimony to u.k.'s parliament when it came to their experiences, their research about australia's offshore processing system. what were some of those messages that were conveyed to british parliamentarians, and what would your message be right now to british mp's who are considering this proposal? >> i think the research clearly shows that offshore detention is a form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. research done by my colleagues, by ngo, by humane agencies has pointed to significant deficiencies in australia's system, in terms of the accommodation asylum-seekers were housed in, the amount of medical treatment they could access, the significant delays

it took for them to have their case processed and then for them to be resettled. the evidence clearly demonstrates that if the u.k. was to go down this path, not only would it be adopting an inhumane policy, but it would also be opening itself up to significant legal challenge. australia's policy was challenged under constitutional law. there was a class-action lawsuit brought against the australian government which was settled for $70 million, the largest ever human rights class action in australia, and australia was also the third to the -- referred to the international criminal court for treatment of asylum-seekers. for the u.k. to go down this path, it would have to be prepared for resistance and to face some serious court cases about if they are able to implement this policy. >> if this plan does go ahead and if migrants and refugees are sent to rwanda for processing,

do we know at this stage if those who would be deemed refugees five or wanda actually be allowed to travel back to britain? >> it is very difficult to make sense exactly what this policy will look like and how they are going to try to implement it. part of the issue around all of this is that the british government likes to talk very, very tough when it comes to asylum and immigration and make plans something they can explain to the public quite easily, but the details can be very difficult to make sense of, and one of the things we know about britain's asylum and immigration system already is that it is incredibly complex. i have spoken to many during my research who have been so overwhelmed by the bureaucracy and constantly changing laws. people really suffer financially but also mentally because of the way the immigration system is constructed, and i think one of the things to say about all of

this is that one of the big reasons that the governments say they are doing this is to try and reduce numbers and deter people from coming, but if we want to talk about numbers at all, we know it was estimated that .26% of the world population are refugees, 86% of refugees are living in countries in the so-called developing world, but even when we get into that, i actually don't think it's that helpful to talk about numbers because as soon as you talk about numbers, it is always too much. the real thing that cannot be said enough is that the reason people have to travel through so-called irregular routes is because borders make it so difficult to get here safely. it is the border policies our governments like the british government that mean people have to take these routes that they are now saying makes them illegitimate if they try to claim asylum. the logic is very contradictory, and i think it is very worrying if they are able to impact anyone at all with this policy,

that is cause for serious concern. >> from your perspective, what are the chances that this plan actually becomes law, and how vulnerable do you think it is to legal challenges? >> there's going to be and a lot of resistance to what the government are proposing. already in the past 24 hours, we have seen a large amount of opposition and criticism, and as was set at the beginning, if this even will be lawful, it remains to be seen what the detail is, so i think the government, what they really want to achieve with this, one of the things they really want to achieve like many governments before them is they want to talk tough and really show that they are tough. that does not mean this cannot impact people. the key thing here is that they are mobilizing xenophobia,

racism, as they have been doing for years, as many governments have for them, and that is potentially going to have devastating effects on people's lives, as it has done for decades in britain. >> human rights watch has several want to has an appalling human rights record. just how bad are things there when it comes to human rights? >> rwanda has a well-known track record of extrajudicial killings, death in custody, and just last year, despite boris johnson calling it one of the safest countries in the world in his announcement, just last year, the u.k. denounced rwanda's human rights record before the united nations. in 2018, at least 12 refugees were shot dead by government forces when they were protesting their conditions and a cut to food rations. we also know that the government kidnaps rwandan refugees outside

the country and brings them back to face trial and ill-treatment, and in terms of how can the u.k. government be sending asylum-seekers to a place when the u.k. itself grants asylum to rwandans who have fled the country because of that persecution and because of those human rights violations -- in 2021, the u.k. government granted protection to 4 rwandans . >> let me follow-up with you about something else -- if this plan comes into effect, how much concern is there that this would essentially just increase the risks for refugees as they seek out other potentially more dangerous routes? >> thank you, yeah. the only way to reduce irregular, dangerous crossings by boat or in the back of glories, is for the pay government to provide safe routes. as mike fellow panelists have already said, there is a severe lack of safe routes in the u.k. for people to come here to seek

asylum, reunify with their family. an agreement like this, any strategy that is built on restrictiveness, on deterrence, will not work because people will take these desperate journeys. we see that the schemes of the government, there are thousands of ukrainians still waiting to reunify with their family to get the afghans who work with the u.k. government who are trapped still in afghanistan, there emily members are trapped and this can we see them making the dangerous crossings across the channel because there are no safe routes. >> there's a lot of research out there that says australia's offshore scheme broke international law, that it was inhumane. as you said before, that it was hugely expensive. has that swayed public opinion in australia at all? >> i think as more information has emerge about the horrors of

australia's offshore detention system, we have seen public sentiment turn against this policy. in 2016, the government was proposing returning a number of asylum-seekers to offshore detention who had been brought to australia for medical treatment, and that resulted in a fierce public outcry. there were protests outside hospitals where asylum-seekers work being held. there were marches in the capital cities of australia and churches proposed to offer sanctuary to asylum-seekers to prevent them from being deported. this ultimately resulted in the government backing down and allowing most asylum-seekers to remain in australia. australia is currently going through an election campaign and there's a distinct shift in the rhetoric used in 2013, 2016 and 2019 to what is being said today. the government is effectively silent on its border protection strategies, and what's more, it

has been quietly releasing refugees who were held in detention centers to permit them to live in the community, so i think it is clear that a straley's policy is not supported by the community, and i don't think the u.k. community would support a policy of sending refugees offshore to rwanda either. >> we have run out of time so we will have to leave the conversation there. thank you so much to all of our guests. thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. goodbye for now. ♪ úú

♪♪♪ lisa millar: for years, it's been an open secret. vincent doyle: as long as you have priests, you will have children of catholic priests. lisa: catholic priests who've broken their vow of celibacy to become fathers. michael patrick: i knew he was a priest when i was a child, but i couldn't tell them that i knew because i was a big secret. lisa: we talk to the children who've been pressured to stay quiet and suffered in silence. sarah thomas: this is just the tip of the iceberg, what we know at the moment. i think priests' children as a group want to be acknowledged. they want to be on the map. they exist. they're not collateral damage. lisa: some are speaking out for the very first time.