United Kingdom:how civil society blocked the deportations to Rwanda decided by the government

news Publish tags Sources about us privacy
GratisForGratis

ValigiaBlu

https://www.valigiablu.it/regno-unito-ruanda-deportazioni/

The Supreme Court unanimously rejects the deportation plan in Rwanda

Update November 16, 2023:The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on Wednesday 15 November declared it illegal the British government's plan to forcefully send asylum seekers to Rwanda while their applications are assessed.

The ruling confirms what was established by the Court of Appeal, according to which there would have been a risk of exposing the people transferred to Rwanda to serious human rights violations.Based on the principle of "non-refoulement", a person requesting asylum cannot be sent back to their country of origin if this puts their safety at risk.

The Supreme Court therefore unanimously decided that the choice of Rwanda did not provide adequate standards of security and respect for human rights, both under British law and international law.

The ruling does not prohibit the sending of migrants to another country, however the government's plans which promised an iron fist against the "boats" have been significantly reduced.In a press conference held yesterday, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak However, he confirmed his intention to continue with the plan, presenting a law that certifies that Rwanda is a safe country.

The government has so far spent £140 million on the forced displacement scheme, although no planes have so far departed, due to opposition from civil society and appeals made in June last year.

Ruling of the Court of Appeal:The UK's plan to deport asylum seekers is illegal

Update June 30, 2023:A sentence of the Court of Appeal he established that the disputed UK plan to relocate some asylum seekers to Rwanda is illegal.According to the Court of Appeal, Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers.In this way, the judges overturned the favorable ruling issued last December by the High Court which had rejected most of the complaints presented by eight asylum seekers.The High Court's judgment had concerned the legitimacy of the plan itself and the measures adopted, not whether the destination country was safe or not.

The decision has significant political implications for the ruling Conservative Party.Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made cracking down on immigration one of his leadership's five priorities.In a statement released soon after the verdict, Sunak said the government should appeal to the Supreme Court.

The High Court of the United Kingdom declares the deportation plan legitimate

Update December 21, 2022:The High Court of the United Kingdom will be heard on Monday 19 December she spoke in favor of the legitimacy of the contested plan which provides for the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda.Eight of these had approached the Court to contest the transfer, together with various organisations.

The High Court's judgment concerned the legitimacy of the plan itself and the measures adopted, not whether the destination country was safe or not.The Court, as stated in the statement released by it, noted that "the government has made arrangements with the Rwandan government to ensure that the asylum requests of people transferred to Rwanda are examined correctly".The relocation, in this context, was considered compatible with the obligations established by the laws in force, including the "Human Rights Act” of 1998.

However, the Home Office will need to carefully assess the circumstances of each application in relation to the possible transfer.According to the High Court, in fact, this did not happen for the eight asylum seekers.In one case there even was an exchange of person.In other cases, however, Interior Ministry officials completely ignored the evidence submitted by asylum seekers.The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, intervened in the process, had stated that Rwanda "lacks the minimum components necessary for an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system", that the government's plan potentially violates the Refugee Convention.

The High Court's decision will likely be appealed.Meanwhile, the current Minister of the Interior Suella Braverman has expressed her intention to restart deportations as soon as possible.

The first flight which was supposed to deport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda on Tuesday 14 June, as required by the new British migration policy, has been cancelled. shortly before of the departure, following the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights.

The flight was part of the plan signed in April by Rwanda and the United Kingdom and known as “Migration and Economic Development Partnership”, which involves the British government paying the Rwandan government to look after migrants who arrive in the UK while the authorities consider whether to give them refugee status.Even if this status is recognized, however, based on the provisions of the agreement, migrants are not given the opportunity to return to the UK.

Widely criticized by numerous NGOs, activists and collectives and described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi as a "catastrophic" precedent, the plan suffered an immediate setback thanks above all to the intervention of non-governmental organizations and the involvement of communities and active citizens.

A group of organisations, made up of the human rights charities Care4Calais and Detention Action, the Public and Commercial Services Union and asylum seekers at risk of deportation, he had already asked an injunction to block the flight, but on Friday 10 June their request was refused.An appeal to the Court of Appeal was then discussed the following Monday, with a negative outcome for the associations, while in the meantime the organization Asylum Aid had also separately requested an injunction to request that the flight be blocked.

Meanwhile, again on Monday 13 June Care4Calais declared that the number of people who should have been deported to Rwanda had reduced from 133 to 7.Of these seven, the organization announced that 5 were victims of torture or trafficking, while one suffers from profound post-traumatic stress.

According to what was reconstructed, among others, by BBC And Financial Times, during Tuesday 14 June, one of the seven migrants who arrived in the United Kingdom from Iraq on 17 May 2022 obtained from the European Court of Human Rights that he could not be deported.The European Court, which is not an institution of the European Union and which therefore did not suffer any consequences following Brexit, has in fact expressed concerns regarding the possibility that asylum seekers would not have access to "fair and efficient procedures for determining of refugee status".Furthermore, due to the risk of violation of human rights and the impossibility for the Iraqi migrant to return to the United Kingdom even if he had obtained refugee status, the European Court approved a measure interim which prevented his deportation to Rwanda.

This decision created the basis for chain appeals, so none of the seven people who were due to leave for Rwanda on 14 June left the UK.

However, the measure established by the European Court of Human Rights is, as mentioned, a decision interim.In fact, the Supreme Court is expected to analyze and rule on the legality of the agreement between the British and Rwandan governments in July.The European Court has therefore imposed that while awaiting this ruling and until three weeks after its officialization, migrants for whom an injunction has been confirmed cannot be deported.

The political pressure the UK government has received since the UK-Rwanda deal was approved is considerable and, in addition to legal action, has also taken the form of protests and demonstrations, not to mention public condemnations from prominent voices - including the Church of England, who spoke of "national shame".Some Home Office officials made a fake deportation notice for Paddington Bear in protest.During the day on Tuesday 14th, for example, there were protests in Glasgow, Scotland Boscombe Down, in the South of England, where the plane should have left, in front of the Ministry of the Interior in London, outside the detention centre Gatwick and near that of Colnbrook, where activists lay on the ground to block the passage of the vans that would have taken the asylum seekers to board the flight to Rwanda.Intervening in these cases are networks of activists who, as happened in May 2021 in Glasgow, are ready to mobilize to physically boycott anti-immigrant raids, evictions and expulsions, according to the policy of "no human being is illegal".

Read also >> Scottish activists challenging Johnson government over abuses against migrants and asylum seekers

Emma Guy, investigative journalist and editor for the charity that deals with human rights EachOther, is convinced of the importance of grassroots mobilisations:“It is purely thanks to the work of volunteers, activists, non-governmental organizations, journalists and lawyers that the first flight to Rwanda did not leave,” he explains to Blue suitcase.“The British government is looking to overhaul human rights law, a concept many Conservative MPs have written books about in the past.Not only is our human rights law under threat, but it is reported that the govt is considering retirement by the European Convention on Human Rights.The struggle is broader than the defense of a set of rights within a community:it's about coming together to defend the rights of all people in the UK, regardless of how they got here."

Based on what the BBC, the plane which was due to leave on Tuesday had an estimated cost of £500,000 and the Home Secretary Priti Patel said that they are already working to organize the next flight, defining "the opacity with which the European Court operated" as "scandalous".“The government is essentially ‘relocating’ refugee people,” explains Emma Guy, despite “second the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, people fleeing conflict in their country have the right to refugee status, without discrimination regarding their country of origin."

“When Priti Patel announced the Rwanda deal,” Guy continues, “she did defined as a 'new world-leading partnership' to tackle human trafficking.It was literally featured on social media with a trendy festival poster.For people like me who work in the human rights sector and for much of the general public, it was immediately obvious that it was an immigration policy.It is true that human trafficking exists, but both those who are victims of it and those who are refugees, those seeking asylum and victims of modern slavery have the right to a stable and safe environment."

The most criticized aspects of the agreement between the United Kingdom and Rwanda by activists are the tight deadlines within which migrant people arriving in British territory must act to request not to be deported and the human rights violations in Rwanda.Second Stop Deportations, an abolitionist group that took part in the protests of recent days, "the British Home Office wants to speed up the deportation of traumatized and marginalized people", without giving them the possibility of accessing legal assistance and knowing their rights.For this reason, Kerry Smith, CEO of the Asylum Aid charity, also has defined the procedure by which the agreement between Rwanda and the United Kingdom was implemented as “illegal and unjust”.Those destined for deportation to Rwanda, in fact, have seven days to find legal assistance and then another five days to appeal to the British courts.Timings which, says Smith, go against those principles of fairness and trust in the rule of law which underpin the British legal system.

Added to these problems is the lack of information regarding the type of support that migrant people will receive in Rwanda and the treatment they may face.Second Amnesty International And Human Rights Watch, Indeed, in Rwanda, violations of the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression and privacy persist, as do accusations of torture, forced disappearances and threats against those considered "critical" of the government. , including refugee people.

However, Stop Deportations does not consider the agreement that the United Kingdom has signed with Rwanda as an exception, but rather as demonstrating “a disturbing growth in the British state's determination to make the lives of people crossing borders impossible”.However, the abolitionist group firmly believes in the power of communities and direct resistance to destabilize and dismantle this state of affairs:“We have seen the immense power of collective action in recent months with hundreds of people resisting immigration raids in our communities in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Peckham and Dalston, taking to the streets to protest en masse.[...] We will continue to build power and solidarity with migrant communities.We will not allow the state to divide or intimidate us."

Preview image via Stop Deportations

Licensed under: CC-BY-SA
CAPTCHA

Discover the site GratisForGratis

advertising

 

^