Why the European Court of Human Rights HAD to intervene

When you hear government spokespersons banging on about how dare a “European Court” rule against it, this is why it had to. The UK government, by its own admission, has no means of monitoring conditions for the asylum seekers it sends to Rwanda.

Yet, despite the highly selective glossy tourist pics being put out by some, including rather spectacularly of a £1,500 per day Gorilla sanctuary tour, it is beyond question that the existing conditions for asylum seekers in Rwanda are dire: attacks, lack of food, lack of proper medical care, even rape by the authorities, are all relatively commonplace.

It’s also inconceivable that after the repeated failures to implement recommendations from reports, such as that on Windrush, that anyone could seriously take this government at its word.

International law serves a crucial purpose. If you want to argue that the ECHR was wrong in ruling against the UK, you are de facto arguing that is acceptable for some people to face torture or inhumane or degrading punishments based on certain characteristics.

How confident are you once you open that door, once you say human rights are negotiable based on the individual, that somewhere down the line this government, or a future one, won’t take them from you? Because you had better be bloody certain before you take them from others.

Stand for All