British justice rejected, on Monday June 13, last-minute appeals against the government’s controversial plan to send migrants who arrived illegally in the United Kingdom to Rwanda, paving the way for the first departures, very few in number, on Tuesday.
Despite criticism from human rights defenders, the UN, the Anglican Church and even the British royal family, Boris Johnson’s Conservative government is determined with this project to discourage illegal Channel crossings, which do not stop rising despite its repeated promises since Brexit.
“This appeal is dismissed”, declared for the Court of Appeal Judge Rabinder Singh, confirming the decision formulated at first instance following an urgent appeal filed by associations for the defense of refugees, including the associations Care4Calais and Detention Action which had appealed . The High Court also rejected on Monday another appeal brought by the refugee aid association Asylum Aid.
In central London, hundreds of protesters expressed their displeasure at the Home Office, holding up signs with messages like “All refugees welcome” Where “Stop racist deportations”. Even if they failed to prohibit the measure, the legal challenges launched in parallel have had the effect of significantly reducing the scale: the first flight risks taking off almost empty.
Increase in illegal crossings
By sending asylum seekers more than 6,000 kilometers from London, which recalls the policy pursued by Australia, the government intends to deter illegal arrivals in the country, which are ever more numerous. Since the start of the year, more than 10,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel illegally to reach British shores in small boats, a considerable increase on previous years, which were already record highs.
“Criminal groups that put people’s lives at risk in the English Channel must understand that their economic model will collapse under this government”Hammered Boris Johnson on LBC radio on Monday.
Among those challenging the plan in court is the civil service union PCS, whose members include customs officers who are supposed to implement the deportations. The organization highlights the detailed examination of the legality of the measure scheduled for July before the High Court in London.
The Rwandan Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Johnston Busingye, said in the columns of the Daily Telegraph be ” disappointed “ that critics of the project doubt Kigali’s ability to provide “a safe haven” to asylum seekers. Under this agreement, London will initially finance the system to the tune of 120 million pounds (140 million euros). The Rwandan government has made it clear that it will offer migrants the possibility “to settle permanently in Rwanda if they wish”.
An “immoral policy”
Wind standing since the announcement of the measure, the UN reiterated its criticisms on Monday. “It’s not going at all, this agreement is not going at all for so many different reasons”, denounced the High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, during a press conference in Geneva. For the spiritual leaders of the Anglican Church, who once again condemn this project in a letter to be published on Tuesday in the newspaper The Times, “This immoral policy brings shame to the UK”.
London “seeks to shift its asylum responsibilities entirely onto another country, running counter to the object and purpose of the 1951 Geneva Convention, running counter to its commitments and threatening the international regime refugee protection”denounced, for its part, the human rights organization HRW in an open letter on Saturday.
Fueling the controversy, Prince Charles, heir to the throne, judged in private “appalling” the government’s plan, the daily reported on Saturday The Timeswhile he must participate in a Commonwealth meeting from June 20 in Rwanda.
In Kigali, Prince Charles and Boris Johnson are due to meet President Paul Kagame, who has ruled Rwanda since the end of the 1994 genocide, which claimed 800,000 lives according to the UN. His government is regularly accused by NGOs of repressing freedom of expression, criticism and political opposition.
