this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
112 points (98.3% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2275 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Lawyers prepare for legal battles on behalf of individual asylum seekers challenging removal to east Africa

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill will become law after peers eventually backed down on amending it, opening the way for legal battles over the potential removal of dozens of people seeking asylum.

After a marathon battle of “ping pong” over the key legislation between the Commons and the Lords, the bill finally passed when opposition and crossbench peers gave way on Monday night.

The bill is expected to be granted royal assent on Tuesday. Home Office sources said they have already identified a group of asylum seekers with weak legal claims to remain in the UK who will be part of the first tranche to be sent to east Africa in July.

Sunak has put the bill, which would deport asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by irregular means to Kigali, at the centre of his attempts to stop small boats crossing the Channel.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago (11 children)

The idea that a government can instruct the courts to ignore human rights legislation shows how fundamentally broken the liberal "democracy" system is.

This from the government that just made saying "I am intolerant towards the idea of liberal parliamentary democracy" an example of extremism but saying "foreigners don't deserve human rights" is not extremism.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Please be specific about this being the UK's democracy and not democracy in general. In Canada for example courts are stronger and it would be much more difficult (albeit not impossible) for our Parliament to do something like this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

I don't think the judges would like it, but what recourse would they have if the government passed an act such as this in Canada? I could see a judge saying this act breaches X treaties, but then just withdraw from the treaties (edit: which this act is likely a precursor to).

The system of parliamentary liberal democracy is an inherently flawed system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The UK system has the concept that Parliament is the ultimate authority of matters. So courts there interpret laws but are unable to reject them.

Canada on the other hand has a constitution which lists different rights that people have, and Parliament has no authority to take away some of these rights. There is some controversial leeway with some of the rights where Parliament, using the 'Notwithstanding clause', is allowed to temporarily ignore some sections of the Constitution, but they have to keep renewing that every several years or else it expires, and it can't be applied to some rights like voting rights.

Regarding this specific law I'm unsure of whether there's anything in our constitution that would prevent deporting irregular migrants to a third country.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just reading it - the constitution of Canada is mostly about land and parliament setup more than anything else (though Constitution Act, 1960 & 1965 are kick-ass).

The rest is "unwritten" and "interpreted by courts" - exactly like the UK.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I'm referring to the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from 1982. But yes there is still a lot of unwritten rules too like the UK.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)