human rights lawyers have blocked 1st plane of asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Best point you’ve made in this thread so far.
do you have any evidence on this, or is it just conjecture
asylum claims are always difficult, of course there are some that are playing the system...but that doesnt mean the majority are
unless you have some data, all you are doing is stereotyping, to tar them all with the same brush
It has no powers of enforcement. It's not an EU function. I assume we are signed up to it but there appears to be a UN charter as well. Refugee rights UN style. Then the Geneva convention.
Looks like our Supreme Court is much like the USA one - political appointments. The Lord Chancellor is involved. If I heard correctly they ruled that the flight was in the public's interest. That doesn't appear to relate to it being legal but are there any laws really about how refugees should be handled other than our own. This is the new act
Bit tricky as it appears to modify the content of several others. However the ability of the gov to nominate a country to send people to must be the main change and the gov will always be granting asylum to some and deporting others as they have always done - brexit has zero to do with that. The change is expected to deter people who risk their life crossing the channel and it seems the other ways - back of a truck etc which is more associated with human slavery when numbers are involved. The act does say somewhere that arriving without a visa is breaking the law. That may be new. The conventions seem to say contact authorities ASAP..
So the UK builds yet another refugee camp for people awaiting processing and also creates one in Rwanda by the sound of it. Maybe also use that country for deportation perhaps 1st approval failures. They can appeal there. Rwanda wont do that for free. There will be a charge for each hotel room used. Boris mentioned some sort of educational agreement with Rwanda. I've only found 2 "agreements" so far. The first one is not legally binding so not an agreement
A snippet
The Prime Minister said in a speech in mid-April that “Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead”.36More recent comments by Ministers suggest it is more likely that the number of people relocated to Rwanda each year will be in the hundreds.37 This corresponds with reports that internal Home Office modelling estimated that around 300 people might be relocated under the policy each year and reported comments by the Rwandan Government that it expects to receive hundreds of people in the first year, and a few thousand over the course of the five-year period
From this
The snippet sounds familiar?
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 5,897
- Reaction score
- 1,085
- Country
Only TWO signatories have left the ECHR in it's history, Greece, after a coup, and Russia, after an invasion of Ukraine
As said, it was set up by a Conservative Government and does not confer any rights other than those long recognised by Common Law or set out in Parliament long ago.
As said, it was set up by a Conservative Government and does not confer any rights other than those long recognised by Common Law or set out in Parliament long ago.
but boris and theresa do not like the idea that common, ordinary people might be able to enforce their rights.
One of the key writers of the European Convention on Human Rights was British Conservative MP and lawyer David Maxwell-Fyfe. Maxwell-Fyfe’s contribution to the Convention was so great that has been described as “the doctor who brought the child to birth”.
How British Is The European Convention On Human Rights? - EachOther
Some people talk about the European Convention of Human Rights as if it was forced on the unwilling British by Europe but the reality may surprise you!
eachother.org.uk
Rwanda is not a safe country:
"From what I am witnessing as a journalist here in Rwanda, this is not a free country. People we have interviewed have already been reported to the government for participating in our reports. Journalists cannot operate freely here, and we are lucky to be international media."
Paul Brand ITV
Rwanda has no interpreters and no lawyers
how is it going to process asylum claims??
"From what I am witnessing as a journalist here in Rwanda, this is not a free country. People we have interviewed have already been reported to the government for participating in our reports. Journalists cannot operate freely here, and we are lucky to be international media."
Paul Brand ITV
Rwanda has no interpreters and no lawyers
how is it going to process asylum claims??
These MoU's as they are called are interesting. They include a statement such as this one with Sweden
This document is a political declaration and not a legally binding commitment under international law.
So in the case of that one Boris can knock one up, pop off to Sweden and both sign it. Aren't I great etc. The other aspect as with the Rwanda one and any others is that as not binding with international law no need to put them before parliament. It seems they are not laws so no need. In most cases they can appear to be some sort of legal treaty between countries - they are not.
This document is a political declaration and not a legally binding commitment under international law.
So in the case of that one Boris can knock one up, pop off to Sweden and both sign it. Aren't I great etc. The other aspect as with the Rwanda one and any others is that as not binding with international law no need to put them before parliament. It seems they are not laws so no need. In most cases they can appear to be some sort of legal treaty between countries - they are not.
Report from this blokes daughter on C4, kidnapped, tortured and 25years in prison
Hotel Rwanda 'hero' sues Greek airline for 'aiding kidnap'
The man depicted in the Hollywood film is in prison in Rwanda awaiting trial on terrorism charges.
www.bbc.co.uk
So it costs less to travel the shorter distances between towns and villages in the UK than it does in (very similar make-up) France?
No one chooses to live in the spaces between populated areas. The UK takes the least refugees internationally yet it's one of the richest nations.
Along with planning to break international law, the budding pariah state that is the UK will have no trouble fitting in with that small group then!
borisconi knows that he has a willing xenophobic part of the electorate who love nothing more that frothing at the mouth at the mere sound of the word 'immigrant'...
And of course human rights gets dragged in, which causes even more mouth frothing...
One has to conclude that those calling for withdrawal from the ECHR are...
Too dumb to realise that at some point their rights (or the rights of family/friends) will be detrimentally affected in some way.
Sadly their hatred of 'johnny/jane foreigner' means blaming them for all their ills, which in turn blinds them from the truth that their problems are home grown!
Actually changes to human rights laws are on the way. LOL You can read about it if you like
I'd suggest skipping areas on about the Magna Carter etc as not relevant. It mostly concerns the Strasbourg court. It mentions spurious human rights claims and the cost of covering them. One an axe murderer. Good to get people going. An odd area as preventing this sort of thing means restricting some peoples legal rights or putting up with the problem. Even green protesters mentioned. who were removed eventually anyway. Even the UK Supreme Court causes problems. A snippet
140) Under our proposals there will be less scope for ambiguity in interpreting claimants’ rights, and less scope for judicial amendment of the statutory frameworks. That will help give officials and frontline public servants the confidence they need to serve and protect the public, whilst respecting people’s human rights. It will also give greater effect to the will of elected and accountable law makers in Parliament.
Another
143) The claim of negligence against the police failed in the UK courts. The claim was then taken to the Strasbourg Court in 1998. The family’s claim was rejected on the facts of the case, but the court nonetheless held that the right to life placed a general duty on the police to do everything ‘that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge
That sort of illustrates the problem - the cost of going through it all. The outcome was ok. It seems common sense is a better option. Another - young unmarried ladies having babies to avoid working related maybe
156) For example, the government’s welfare reforms have been the subject of a number of challenges based upon the Human Rights Act. In the case of SG a claim was brought that the benefit cap indirectly discriminated against single parents.[footnote 102] The issue was argued all the way up to the UK Supreme Court, where, by a majority of three to two, the Court upheld the policy. The government was still, however, engaged in protracted and costly litigation to defend a key area of its social policy, enacted following extensive Parliamentary scrutiny and public debate.
LOL Brexit
199) Other countries in Europe have protections to preserve their sovereignty and constitutions, and to make sure domestic and also international institutions do not overstep their authority. For example, the Constitutional Court in Germany reserves the right to review legal acts by European institutions and courts against the fundamental principles of the German Constitution. A Bill of Rights will seek to restore, with certainty and clarity, the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting UK human rights law.
The UK unlike others does not have a written constitution.
I'd suggest skipping areas on about the Magna Carter etc as not relevant. It mostly concerns the Strasbourg court. It mentions spurious human rights claims and the cost of covering them. One an axe murderer. Good to get people going. An odd area as preventing this sort of thing means restricting some peoples legal rights or putting up with the problem. Even green protesters mentioned. who were removed eventually anyway. Even the UK Supreme Court causes problems. A snippet
140) Under our proposals there will be less scope for ambiguity in interpreting claimants’ rights, and less scope for judicial amendment of the statutory frameworks. That will help give officials and frontline public servants the confidence they need to serve and protect the public, whilst respecting people’s human rights. It will also give greater effect to the will of elected and accountable law makers in Parliament.
Another
143) The claim of negligence against the police failed in the UK courts. The claim was then taken to the Strasbourg Court in 1998. The family’s claim was rejected on the facts of the case, but the court nonetheless held that the right to life placed a general duty on the police to do everything ‘that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge
That sort of illustrates the problem - the cost of going through it all. The outcome was ok. It seems common sense is a better option. Another - young unmarried ladies having babies to avoid working related maybe
156) For example, the government’s welfare reforms have been the subject of a number of challenges based upon the Human Rights Act. In the case of SG a claim was brought that the benefit cap indirectly discriminated against single parents.[footnote 102] The issue was argued all the way up to the UK Supreme Court, where, by a majority of three to two, the Court upheld the policy. The government was still, however, engaged in protracted and costly litigation to defend a key area of its social policy, enacted following extensive Parliamentary scrutiny and public debate.
LOL Brexit
199) Other countries in Europe have protections to preserve their sovereignty and constitutions, and to make sure domestic and also international institutions do not overstep their authority. For example, the Constitutional Court in Germany reserves the right to review legal acts by European institutions and courts against the fundamental principles of the German Constitution. A Bill of Rights will seek to restore, with certainty and clarity, the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting UK human rights law.
The UK unlike others does not have a written constitution.
UK law is based on interpretation/precedent/convention/parliamentary decree...
Thus no written constitution = no actual absolute rights in UK law!
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
