And one part of that reign was the supremely cruel plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, where they would be “processed”, then not allowed to return to the UK. The one and only flight carrying those effectively deported eventually left with none of them on board. The Gammonati, their dog-whistlers in the press, and Ms Braverman, were incandescent with rage.
The Appeal Court then found against the Rwanda Plan. And so it came to pass that it arrived at the Supreme Court. As the BBC explained, “The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law”. And the verdict handed down today?
“The government had said its plan to deport asylum seekers to east Africa and ban them from returning was needed to deter illegal small boat crossings. But the Supreme Court ruled it is possible the Rwandan government would send refugees back to the country they had fled in the first place”. Do go on.
“It said the policy breaches human rights laws by potentially leaving the people sent there open to that risk … The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal decision, and said there are ‘substantial grounds’ to believe people deported to Rwanda could then be sent to places they would be unsafe by the Rwandan government”. Yes, it’s Human Rights again.
“Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so. Because when people know that if they come here illegally, they won’t get to stay then they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats”. Says Ron Hopeful, holed up in the Downing Street bunker.
Unfortunately, Sunak cannot stop the meltdown on the right of his party, typified by his deputy chairman. 30p Lee, as Aubrey Allegretti of the Times has noted, “says ministers should go ahead and ‘put planes in the air’ to Rwanda anyway. When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should ‘ignore the laws and send them straight back’”. Them. People who are not white. Again.
Next stop demanding we leave the ECHR, is it? But, as Tom Larkin of Sky News has reported, the judgment contains this caution: “It is therefore not only the European Convention on Human Rights which is relevant to this was, as is sometimes thought”. Leaving the ECHR would be ineffective.
And there was more. “There are other international treaties which also prohibit the return of asylum seekers to their countries of origin without a proper examination of their claims”. Sunak should sack Anderson as he sacked Ms Braverman. The words of Margaret Thatcher explain why.
“The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it’s inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe - not home, not liberty, not life itself”. Today’s Tories are falling apart through their own idiocy. Sad, really.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
10 comments:
"when people know that if they come here illegally, they won’t get to stay then they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats" So that's what it always been about: a deterrent! As if those immigrants can't do maths, probability and statistics, and that the slim added risk of them being part of the handful taken to Rwanda does much difference compared to the crossing itself.
The Prime Miniature has now stated that he will shove through 'emergency legislation' to define Rwanda in law as a 'safe country'. I look forward to further 'emergency legislation' to define that 'up' is 'down', 'backwards' is 'forwards', and Anderson's IQ is larger than his collar size.
I despair. Nobody seems to be interested in addressing the root causes of mass migration, putting in place the infrastructure to manage an increase in population, or indeed just a workable asylum checking system.
100,000 people annually, evenly spread out - you wouldn't even notice they were there. The boats are coming over because there's no other way to cross. It's a lack of options, not a bloody dinghy fetish. Provide routes into asylum centres, get the processing (ugh) done - THAT'S how you put the smugglers out of business.
Meanwhile, invest in infrastructure, in healthcare, in schools. Everyone - even thick white people - will benefit from that and it'll pay off massively in the future.
This entire issue has become a cycle of negativity, everyone just trying to out-cunt each other. Makes me want to get out and claim asylum somewhere.
It’s just performative politics and the point about performative politics is that the performance needs to be impressive.
Braverman and Patel and Sunak aspire to the nobility and grandeur of some classic Laurence Olivier performance but only ever manage to achieve the tawdry camp bathos of Laurence Olivier as Archie Rice.
"Stop the Boats".
Three words slogan for dumbed down Micawberists and gnome counties paranoids.
Bet that has them curtain-twitching the Laura Ashley floral chintz.
Lawrence Oliver you mean Bertie?
You know who really should be sent to Rwanda...
Vivien! You pissed again, old girl? Forgive me, but dear, dear Larry was indeed a Laurence.
Who are you thinking of?
I don't understand that pissed reference, I've never had a drink in my life.
Lawrence Oliver. Star of the 38 steps and Goodnight Mr Chipes. Common mistake.
I really fail to understand the Tories' manic obsession with 'the small boats', now going to the point of saying that if the law doesn't suit them, then so much for the law (weren't the Tories supposed to be the party of law and order?). How many people are really that worked up about refugees they want them sent to Rwanda or otherwise disposed of?
Post a Comment