The first British flight to forcefully deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was cancelled by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) a few days ago.
This tragic incident comes despite the fact that the UK is a signatory to two important international treaties that protect the rights of refugees.
The first treaty is the United Nations Refugee Convention; This convention protects people from being deported to a country where they face a serious threat of death or lack of freedom. The second treaty is the European Convention on Human Rights. It stipulates that no one shall be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or punishment. Then why does Britain want to transport its refugees to an insecure and hazardous country?
The forceful expulsion of refugees contradicts the positive perception that many individuals in impoverished and developing nations have about the United Kingdom. This is mainly because reports regarding Britain’s violations of human rights are rarely published in the mainstream media.
In fact, Britain is not a country built on equal rights and liberties. It is, rather, a tyrannical monarchy, comparable to many historic despotic kingdoms. The despotic institution of the royal family is today entirely ludicrous and without meaning in many nations, but the British royal family remains a dazzling emblem of the windfall and uneven privileges that have overshadowed British society.
If, for example, public property in Britain was used to address the housing crisis instead of royal carriages and festival garb, there would be fewer homeless Londoners begging for food outside Buckingham Palace. All of the absurd perks of the royal family of the United Kingdom are funded by taxes collected from its loyal subjects. However, since the start of the financial crisis, these same obedient subjects have abounded with no solutions looming on the horizon.
Therefore, it is not surprising that a government which does not respect the rights of its citizens would also violate the rights of asylum seekers.
This year, the United Kingdom’s parliament passed the “Nationality and Borders Act 2022,” which provides the government additional authority to make it easier for asylum applicants to be transported abroad to have their asylum applications processed.
But why did Britain choose Rwanda? A country denounced by various human rights organisations for its abject treatment of government critics. Moreover, they refer to accusations of torture in detention centres, enforced disappearances, and suspicious deaths in the poor African nation. One of the causes of this heinous policy seems to be Britain’s inability to accept more immigrants due to the current economic crisis and other social challenges.
The British government seeks to reduce immigration to the United Kingdom with these ruthless measures, regardless of whether it would be accused of breaching human rights.
As the global human rights situation continues to worsen, nations that regard themselves as the cradle of democracy and human rights, such as the United Kingdom, are at the forefront of human rights violations. It seems that the universal mechanisms for safeguarding human rights need to be urgently rearranged.