Do you think that governments with big majorities should be able to break the law?
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Do you think that governments with big majorities should be able to break the law?
Has it been proven that the Rwanda scheme is illegal?
I believe other countries have similar ones.
As I said, I'm not particularly a fan of it, bit it's the basic principle of governance I'm referring to.
And in answer to your question, as a general rule, no.
However, every other country breaks international laws and agreements to suit themselves at times.
There is some doubt as to whether the scheme is legal or not and we can't know for sure until it's been fully tested in court, which is where the lawyers (lefty or otherwise) come in.
This government seems to have a particular disregard for the rule of law.
It’s an expensive and immoral policy designed entirely to appeal to the grimmest Union Jack Facebook profiles that are this government’s base and distract headlines for a few days from every other scandal. Making sure it was actually legal wasn’t too much to ask.
Good morning everyone. Hope you’re all well.
Good morning everyone. Hope you’re all well.
The same day as ellers
Which ones Mr hyde
All of the current Lords Spiritual have signed a letter to The Times voicing alarm about the Government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as early as today.
Sir,
Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation. Rwanda is a brave country recovering from catastrophic genocide. The shame is our own, because our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have for centuries. Those to be deported to Rwanda have had no chance to appeal, or reunite with family in Britain. They have had no consideration of their asylum claim, recognition of their medical or other needs, or any attempt to understand their predicament.
Many are desperate people fleeing unspeakable horrors. Many are Iranians, Eritreans and Sudanese citizens, who have an asylum grant rate of at least 88 per cent. These are people Jesus had in mind as he said when we offer hospitality to a stranger, we do it for him. They are the vulnerable that the Old Testament calls us to value. We cannot offer asylum to everyone, but we must not outsource our ethical responsibilities, or discard international law — which protects the right to claim asylum.
We must end the evil trafficking; many churches are involved in fighting this evil. This needs global co-operation across every level of society. To reduce dangerous journeys to the UK we need safe routes: the church will continue to advocate for them. But deportations — and the potential forced return of asylum seekers to their home countries — are not the way. This immoral policy shames Britain.
The Court of appeal has backed the previous judgement that the Rwanda scheme is legal.
It's the lawyers and charities, with political agendas who are blocking it, not the law.
It's the lawyers and charities, with political agendas who are blocking it, not the law.
They are representing the people involved whilst pursuing their agenda, to prevent the government governing.
We're not going to agree.
Read what I'm saying.
It's the principle, not the policy.
As usual, you make incorrect assumptions.
The Court has yet to rule on the legality of the scheme. If it finds it illegal, then the government must use its majority for a root and branch review of archaic laws that are unsuitable for the diaspora we and other Western countries are facing. Australia, US, Denmark are all having to or have taken action. This is the beginning. Doing nothing is no longer an option.
Ah, ok.
I thought I'd heard or read that the court of appeal has backed the previous judgement that the Rwanda scheme is legal.
I understand the Court said today that it wasn't going to issue an injunction preventing an individual being sent to Rwanda. Let him go, hear the substance of the case in due course and if the Court, and presumably appeal courts, find the arrangement is illegal, then those individuals sent to Rwanda will be entitled to come back.
No, I meant that the policy was designed in the knowledge of legal challenges that would follow and that these would provoke just the kind of outrage that you display. Johnson himself has accused lawyers of 'abetting' the criminal gangs, which is a travesty of the truth.
The flight is cancelled.
They’d have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those leftie lawyers.