As Europe faces the multiple effects of the severe refugee crisis created by the war in Ukraine, a serious violation of one of the most important humanitarian law laws that could end the right to asylum and international protection was declared natural. They have known since their establishment after WWII.
Plans, supported by the prime minister from the United Kingdom Boris JohnsonSending groups of refugees from British soil to Rwanda on infamous flights criticized by hundreds of social and humanitarian organisations, universities, Conservative MPs and some twenty bishops of the Anglican Church is equally bad for the parties. It’s a time of decades through the Geneva Convention and the New York Protocol through which a legal figure has been required to protect people’s lives, but it also illustrates the moral and political divide the UK has experienced since initiating it. An adventure full of lies and deception called Brexit.
Anglican bishops, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Wellbythe agreement supported by the British Government.anti-god“Y”An immoral policy that puts Britain to shame”. It is an example for the Catholic curia, who, unlike what the Fundamental Church does, are given to silence and hiding in the face of great human difficulties.
For years, experts and humanitarian organizations have been showing our concern about a phenomenon called “.externalization of bordersThat European countries have attempted to delegate oversight and management of their immigration and asylum policies to third countries, primarily Africa, which we have compelled them to undertake in exchange for money, commercial advantages, or even police or military agreements. What we don’t want to face. So we’re talking about a kind of migrant ‘subcontracting’ across our borders south, often in poor and disadvantaged countries, that gets an economic or other assessment based on the number of migrants or refugees they have detained and taken from Europe. or for their surveillance and border control missions to prevent people from reaching Europe.
Numerous voices have warned of the serious consequences of these border externalization policies, the most visible and dramatic elements of which are immigration detention centres, where atrocities such as torture, disappearances, sexual violence, slavery, extortion of family members and even such brutal murders are experienced. It’s like burning the migrants and refugees alive there. The Libyan example is particularly appalling as the evidence of the atrocities and brutality perpetrated by the warlords who run these concentration camps does not prevent them from receiving financial, political and military support from the EU. Even in Niger, the EU pressured the country’s government to pass a law on detention of migrants in exchange for development assistance.
However, the UK wanted to go even further, for months negotiating a deal with the Rwandan government that the British Prime Minister described as full of “humanity” and “compassion” to take asylum seekers from the UK 6,400 kilometers from the UK. after describing it as drunkenness and alcohol, in a perverted display of the language we are already accustomed to. Downing Street as “business meetings”. In the case of the UK, for £120m (approximately 144m euros), the Rwandan government in Kigali, which the British ruler criticized for not respecting human rights, will receive asylum seekers arriving on British soil. Rwanda could investigate whether to grant them asylum, which would force them, if appropriate, to live in Rwanda under Rwandan law. Regardless of the debauchery achieved by the British government, both the Prime Minister and Home Secretary affirmed that Rwanda is “one of the safest countries with the highest quality of life”, while arguing that this deal would “save thousands of lives”. .
But it must be the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that paralyzes, at the extremesDeportation of refugees who were planned to be taken to Rwanda on the first return flight, violating their fundamental rights. A suspension that didn’t take long from Johnson to get the exact same response he gave when he didn’t like something: threatening to abandon the jurisdiction of this supreme court every week, as he threatens to abandon the Brexit deal and violate its content. she doesn’t like
But Denmark also supported a similar bill backed by the Social Democratic government to send asylum seekers to Egypt, Eritrea and even Rwanda. All this at the worst possible time, as the EU negotiates a new “European pact on immigration and asylum”, as the migration of Ukrainian refugees pushes the borders of many countries.