7 ms·

Yeah I guess it's just interesting because there's a difference between saying its "immoral" vs "illegal". An Act of Parliament has been passed (Nationality and

by camjw 4y ago

Yeah I guess it's just interesting because there's a difference between saying its "immoral" vs "illegal". An Act of Parliament has been passed (Nationality and Borders Act 2022) which gives the legal backing for this, explicitly says that refugees which still have a pending asylum application can be moved to a "safe third country" which is willing to take the asylum responsibilities. Does this change your mind that the policy is legal, given that the information available has expanded to include, you know, all the Acts of Parliament?

scott_w 4y ago
No for two reasons: - it might still violate the Human Rights Act - it’s still a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe for refugees Just reading one Act isn’t enough because real life is complicated.
- camjw 4y ago
  Okay but we can agree that your point about there being no Act of Parliament is not relevant then. It being a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe is, I think, not something the SC is going to rule on. It violating the Human Rights Act seems to be the only real issue for the SC then? Again, I just wonder whether this policy is likely to be illegal under that Act given that the relevant clause says "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. I just doubt that deportation would fall under torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment _in the spirit of this Act_. I agree that this policy is immoral but kind of doubt that the SC is going to find it tantamount to torture. But maybe there are other arguments here that I'm unaware of?
  - scott_w 4y ago
    What is your legal basis for your assessment?
    - camjw 4y ago
      That many other (EU) countries who have implemented the EUHR directive deport asylum seekers to other countries, and those countries SC equivalents have not found it to be illegal. I guess my legal basis is precedent.
      - scott_w 4y ago
        Your legal basis on which you base your opinion on U.K. law is (supposed) precedent from countries that are not the U.K. Forgive me if I find your entire premise suspicious and decline the opportunity to debate further.

by camjw 4y ago

scott_w 4y ago

No for two reasons: - it might still violate the Human Rights Act - it’s still a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe for refugees Just reading one Act isn’t enough because real life is complicated.

camjw 4y ago
Okay but we can agree that your point about there being no Act of Parliament is not relevant then. It being a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe is, I think, not something the SC is going to rule on. It violating the Human Rights Act seems to be the only real issue for the SC then? Again, I just wonder whether this policy is likely to be illegal under that Act given that the relevant clause says "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. I just doubt that deportation would fall under torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment _in the spirit of this Act_. I agree that this policy is immoral but kind of doubt that the SC is going to find it tantamount to torture. But maybe there are other arguments here that I'm unaware of?
- scott_w 4y ago
  What is your legal basis for your assessment?
  - camjw 4y ago
    That many other (EU) countries who have implemented the EUHR directive deport asylum seekers to other countries, and those countries SC equivalents have not found it to be illegal. I guess my legal basis is precedent.
    - scott_w 4y ago
      Your legal basis on which you base your opinion on U.K. law is (supposed) precedent from countries that are not the U.K. Forgive me if I find your entire premise suspicious and decline the opportunity to debate further.