Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by camjw 1466 days ago
Yeah I guess it's just interesting because there's a difference between saying its "immoral" vs "illegal". An Act of Parliament has been passed (Nationality and Borders Act 2022) which gives the legal backing for this, explicitly says that refugees which still have a pending asylum application can be moved to a "safe third country" which is willing to take the asylum responsibilities. Does this change your mind that the policy is legal, given that the information available has expanded to include, you know, all the Acts of Parliament?
1 comments
scott_w 1466 days ago
No for two reasons:

- it might still violate the Human Rights Act

- it’s still a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe for refugees

Just reading one Act isn’t enough because real life is complicated.

link
camjw 1466 days ago
Okay but we can agree that your point about there being no Act of Parliament is not relevant then.

It being a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe is, I think, not something the SC is going to rule on.

It violating the Human Rights Act seems to be the only real issue for the SC then? Again, I just wonder whether this policy is likely to be illegal under that Act given that the relevant clause says "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. I just doubt that deportation would fall under torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment _in the spirit of this Act_. I agree that this policy is immoral but kind of doubt that the SC is going to find it tantamount to torture. But maybe there are other arguments here that I'm unaware of?

link
scott_w 1466 days ago
What is your legal basis for your assessment?
link
camjw 1466 days ago
That many other (EU) countries who have implemented the EUHR directive deport asylum seekers to other countries, and those countries SC equivalents have not found it to be illegal.

I guess my legal basis is precedent.

link
scott_w 1466 days ago
Your legal basis on which you base your opinion on U.K. law is (supposed) precedent from countries that are not the U.K.

Forgive me if I find your entire premise suspicious and decline the opportunity to debate further.

link