A demonstration took place on October 22nd to draw public attention to the House of Lords revocation of the rights of the Chagos people to return home to their land from which they were unceremoniously kicked to make way for the US base of Diego Garcia.
There was a short protest opposite the House of Lords in Old Palace Yard on October 22nd 2009 from 12.45 to 2pm.
A year ago on October 22nd 2008 the House Of Lords voted 3-2 to revoke the right of the Chagos people to return to their homeland from which they had been kicked out in the late 1960's/early 1970's so that the US could set up the military base of Diego Garcia there in the Indian Ocean on a UK colony created for the purpose (The Chagos Islands had been part of Mauritius due to get independence in 1968 until the UK turned it into B.I.O.T. British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965). The UK burnt their houses killed their livestock, gassed their dogs, loaded 2000 of them on to boats, dumped them on the quay of Port Louis ,Mauritius ,and then lied to the U.N. pretending the island was uninhabited.
Oddly enough this UK abuse of human rights has not been taken up in the last forty years by Liberty or Amnesty International or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
The small demonstration today wished to highlight the House of Lords aspects of this saga of UK shame. In 2000 the Chagossians had won the right of return in the UK courts, and Robin Cook promised to honour the court's verdict. Yet in 2004 the UK government tried to get round the ruling by an archaic procedure known as Orders In Council by which the Government can enact measures through the Privy Council without going through Parliament (incidentally in the House Of lords ruling one thing they were all agreed on was the need for Parliament to look at this undemocratic procedure). Perhaps the Government acted thus because they did not think they would win in the courts. Indeed the Chagossians appealed and won back the right of return. Then the Gov took the case to the House Of Lords and strangely won with a 3-2 vote.
The judgement is perverse because either it is legally correct which means that English law defends the indefensible and protects injustice, or perhaps there was pressure on the Law Lords to do a certain thing in the interests of national security and joint intelligence which in the light of the Binyam Mohammed case seems feasible.
There isn't time and space here to look at all the rulings but it might be interesting to look at Lord Hoffmann's ruling which seems to rest on two points:-
1) Executive Fiat. i think if I’ve understood right that Lord Hoffmann argues that the Appeal court was wrong to suggest that the Chagossians could not be evicted "for reasons unconnected with their collective wellbeing". Lord Hoffmann quotes Halsbury's laws Of England "In a conquered or ceded colony the Crown ...has full power to establish such executive, legislative, and judicial arrangements as this Crown sees fit" which is authorised by a 1774 ruling. So Lord Hoffmann then says that "The prerogative power of the crown to legislate for a ceded colony has never been limited by the requirement that the legislation should be for the peace, order and good government or otherwise for the inhabitants of the colony". In other words English Law promotes injustice and racism.(The Equalities Commission claim that questions about whether English Law still has racist bits that need repealing is beyond its remit)
2) The promise. Whether the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook's promise in 2000 of return to the islands "created a legitimate expectation that the islanders would be free " of immigration controls. Lord Hoffmann argues that a promise must be "clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualifications". He says that when Robin Cook (in the November 2000 press release) said that a new ordinance would be made which would allow "The Ilois to return to the outer islands" he, Robin Cook, did not say how long that promise would continue and that therefore it does not constitute a promise. This really seems to stretch credibility, especially as it was a well known fact in the public awareness that Robin Cook was seeking ethical foreign policy.
Additionally Lord Hoffmann seems to take the view that a right of return in itself is symbolic and that therefore the promise is dependent on the feasibility of resettlement study also mentioned by Robin Cook in the press release .After mentioning the feasibility study Robin Cook says "Furthermore we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which will allow the Ilois to return". The word he uses is "Furthermore" .he does not say "dependent on the feasibility study". Its quite clear that for Robin Cook, as for Sedley in the Court Of Appeal, the right of return is separate from the practicalities of return as shown in any feasibility study. Lord Hoffmann in more than one place in his judgement seems to suggest that the right of return is meaningless without some infrastructure being built. But of course conditions can change. For example European Coral Voyeaurs (or some other fictional firm) might approach the Chagossians if they possessed the right of return with a view to building some B&Bs and a harbour. Finally looking at the end of Robin Cook's Press Statement "the Government has not defended what was done ...We make no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened. i am pleased that he (Lord Justice Laws) has commended the wholly admirable conduct in disclosing material to the Court and praised the openness of today's Foreign Office."
Is this the statement of a man who has an underhand intention in his promise to the Chagossians? i don't think so and i doubt if anyone on a Clapham bicycle/omnibus would either.
Had Lord Hoffmann ruled the other way on either the executive fiat or promise question then it wouldn't exactly have fitted with section 57 of his ruling where he says "in addition, as Mr Rammell told the House Of Commons, the Government had to give weight to security interests. The United States had expressed concern that any settlement on the outer islands would compromise the security of its base on Diego Garcia......in the current state of uncertainty the Government is entitled to take the concerns of its ally into account."
This may well be the way governments work, but it's
A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE
A year ago on October 22nd 2008 the House Of Lords voted 3-2 to revoke the right of the Chagos people to return to their homeland from which they had been kicked out in the late 1960's/early 1970's so that the US could set up the military base of Diego Garcia there in the Indian Ocean on a UK colony created for the purpose (The Chagos Islands had been part of Mauritius due to get independence in 1968 until the UK turned it into B.I.O.T. British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965). The UK burnt their houses killed their livestock, gassed their dogs, loaded 2000 of them on to boats, dumped them on the quay of Port Louis ,Mauritius ,and then lied to the U.N. pretending the island was uninhabited.
Oddly enough this UK abuse of human rights has not been taken up in the last forty years by Liberty or Amnesty International or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
The small demonstration today wished to highlight the House of Lords aspects of this saga of UK shame. In 2000 the Chagossians had won the right of return in the UK courts, and Robin Cook promised to honour the court's verdict. Yet in 2004 the UK government tried to get round the ruling by an archaic procedure known as Orders In Council by which the Government can enact measures through the Privy Council without going through Parliament (incidentally in the House Of lords ruling one thing they were all agreed on was the need for Parliament to look at this undemocratic procedure). Perhaps the Government acted thus because they did not think they would win in the courts. Indeed the Chagossians appealed and won back the right of return. Then the Gov took the case to the House Of Lords and strangely won with a 3-2 vote.
The judgement is perverse because either it is legally correct which means that English law defends the indefensible and protects injustice, or perhaps there was pressure on the Law Lords to do a certain thing in the interests of national security and joint intelligence which in the light of the Binyam Mohammed case seems feasible.
There isn't time and space here to look at all the rulings but it might be interesting to look at Lord Hoffmann's ruling which seems to rest on two points:-
1) Executive Fiat. i think if I’ve understood right that Lord Hoffmann argues that the Appeal court was wrong to suggest that the Chagossians could not be evicted "for reasons unconnected with their collective wellbeing". Lord Hoffmann quotes Halsbury's laws Of England "In a conquered or ceded colony the Crown ...has full power to establish such executive, legislative, and judicial arrangements as this Crown sees fit" which is authorised by a 1774 ruling. So Lord Hoffmann then says that "The prerogative power of the crown to legislate for a ceded colony has never been limited by the requirement that the legislation should be for the peace, order and good government or otherwise for the inhabitants of the colony". In other words English Law promotes injustice and racism.(The Equalities Commission claim that questions about whether English Law still has racist bits that need repealing is beyond its remit)
2) The promise. Whether the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook's promise in 2000 of return to the islands "created a legitimate expectation that the islanders would be free " of immigration controls. Lord Hoffmann argues that a promise must be "clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualifications". He says that when Robin Cook (in the November 2000 press release) said that a new ordinance would be made which would allow "The Ilois to return to the outer islands" he, Robin Cook, did not say how long that promise would continue and that therefore it does not constitute a promise. This really seems to stretch credibility, especially as it was a well known fact in the public awareness that Robin Cook was seeking ethical foreign policy.
Additionally Lord Hoffmann seems to take the view that a right of return in itself is symbolic and that therefore the promise is dependent on the feasibility of resettlement study also mentioned by Robin Cook in the press release .After mentioning the feasibility study Robin Cook says "Furthermore we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which will allow the Ilois to return". The word he uses is "Furthermore" .he does not say "dependent on the feasibility study". Its quite clear that for Robin Cook, as for Sedley in the Court Of Appeal, the right of return is separate from the practicalities of return as shown in any feasibility study. Lord Hoffmann in more than one place in his judgement seems to suggest that the right of return is meaningless without some infrastructure being built. But of course conditions can change. For example European Coral Voyeaurs (or some other fictional firm) might approach the Chagossians if they possessed the right of return with a view to building some B&Bs and a harbour. Finally looking at the end of Robin Cook's Press Statement "the Government has not defended what was done ...We make no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened. i am pleased that he (Lord Justice Laws) has commended the wholly admirable conduct in disclosing material to the Court and praised the openness of today's Foreign Office."
Is this the statement of a man who has an underhand intention in his promise to the Chagossians? i don't think so and i doubt if anyone on a Clapham bicycle/omnibus would either.
Had Lord Hoffmann ruled the other way on either the executive fiat or promise question then it wouldn't exactly have fitted with section 57 of his ruling where he says "in addition, as Mr Rammell told the House Of Commons, the Government had to give weight to security interests. The United States had expressed concern that any settlement on the outer islands would compromise the security of its base on Diego Garcia......in the current state of uncertainty the Government is entitled to take the concerns of its ally into account."
This may well be the way governments work, but it's
A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 2 comments