The concordant decision that has been released by the supreme court to rule the Rwanda asylum deal is something that has humiliated the government. It has combined contempt for human rights with a lack of competence. The policy is clearly questionable and morally objectionable.
The court presented the simple issue about whether the UK have the right to send refugees back to the countries they fled. But we need to remember that these countries have applied serious damage to them, possibly emotionally, physically, or even both, whether it is through the expression of war, the act of persecution and it even hints towards torture and to this, the judges clearly stated that we have no right to send them back. This ethical decision sprouts from the moral beliefs that encompass this question, and how the public may see them. This decision does not merely stem from the European convention on human rights or the Human Rights Act (1998) but, the judges reiterated that a set of international treaties, including the UN Refugee Convention and UK laws on asylum and immigration prohibit the practise of refoulment.
When arguing for the Rwanda deal, the government claimed there would be no risk in refoulment, and the country has announced that they have taken responsibility for giving asylum-seekers fair hearings and processing people’s asylum claims, not to put them at risk of refoulment. The British and Rwandan governments had signed a “memorandum of understanding,” a non-legally binding document which agrees that Rwanda must treat the refugees fairly, to ensure they are not at risk. Also, a “financial incentives” worth £140m to the Rwandan government, ensured they complied with the terms and conditions, and alongside it, they implemented an arrangement where they could “monitor” them to make sure that these rules are followed.
However, Rwanda is said to be a country with poor human rights records a history of poor decision-making and wrongly rejecting refugees from some of the world’s most dangerous war zones, which was informed by the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR. An example of Rwanda’s poor and brutal decision making was evident in 2013, where they signed a deal with Israel, which possibly led thousands of asylum seekers to be deported from Israel to Rwanda, and then, expelled these poor people to a neighbouring country without being allowed to claim asylum, in a quiet way which did not alert other countries. This therefore left the UK and the court debating on whether we should really allow Rwanda to be a country where we send refugees, their rights and freedoms are at stake and after a long discussion, they came to a decision.
The court disapproved.
Despite the British Government knowing about the risks that are attached with deporting asylum seekers to a “safe third world country,” and how this plot was forged by Downing Street and the Home Office during the autumn season of 2020, they still attempted to follow through with this plan. The embassy has warned that we should not “pursue Rwanda as an option” in 2021. It was rumoured that the opposition activists had potentially been under the threat of death or even killed. Rwanda, according to a September 2020 diplomatic telegram from the British embassy in Kigali, had a poor “human rights story.” Why would the British Government even want to follow through with this, is the question.
When you look at the Rwanda policy, you look with disappointment. Their rules have morphed life into a hell like state, especially for those who have been threatened with the possibility of deportation. Their system does not do anything to create a fair and humane system. Therefore, the UK cannot rely on this country, as it is does not have the requirements needed for it to be a place where the UK can trust them to welcome refugees safely. Not only have they undermined the right to asylum, but they have also restricted the right to protest, pass laws shielding soldiers, state agents and officials from punishment. During the Northern Ireland Troubles, they have banned victims who have committed crime. Their restrictions and the undermining of people themselves are the root to an unjust society. If there is a lack of change – or even no change – and it remains consistently like this, it will have an enormous impact our society in an abrupt fashion, this effect will have an impression for centuries, if not generations.
As the attention focuses on the conservative party and what they will do, the anarchy of certain countries is constructed from the joint participation of all people that have used machinery and weapons from the government for profit or violence, we should not pinpoint the blame on an individual or a faction but rather, a multitude of people that have joined together to use these profit-making instruments, for their own selfish desire.
Share This Post On
Leave a comment
You need to login to leave a comment. Log-in