RWANDA – CUTTING THROUGH THE LEGAL JUNGLE

The ruling by the Supreme Court has exposed both its own political corruption and the government's lies, weakness and stupidity

Way back in April 2022 – a year and a half and two prime ministers ago – the government came up with its cunning plan to send illegal immigrants who were claiming asylum to Rwanda. Like Baldrick, however, the government didn't really think it through. As I said at the time, and ever since, this is a policy that could work in principle. It's not the best solution, but it could work if – and it's a very big IF - Rwanda really means it when they say that they are willing to take all the asylum-seekers we want to send them. Let's assume, for now, that this is true. Then the Rwanda plan could work, BUT it needs the proper legislation to put it into practice. And as I've said from the start, the government's legislation will not work.

You can read my brilliant, insightful and prescient article HERE: https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/sunaks-lunatic-asylum-policy

I have, as always, been proved right. Why the fuck doesn't the government listen to me?!

Marxists in horsehair wigs

Let's begin by looking at what the Supreme Court said. Their argument is actually very simple, and can be boiled down to three points:

i. The British government is signed up to the principle of 'non-refoulement'. This means that asylum-seekers cannot be sent back to a country where they would be in danger.

ii. The Rwanda government cannot be trusted to either do things right or keep its word.

iii. Because the Rwanda government can't be trusted, it is possible that the asylum-seekers we send them could be returned to countries were they are in danger, and since this would break our policy of non-refoulement, the policy of sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

Whilst those with a limited understanding of the issue have been wittering that the UK needs to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), I have been saying from the start that it goes much deeper than this. The non-refoulement principle is not only embedded in the ECHR but also in the UN Refugee Convention, the UN International Covenant on Civil Rights, and the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Then there are our own domestic laws. Refoulement is banned by the Human Rights Act, of course, as this enforces the ECHR, but also by the various Immigration Acts of 1971, 1993, 2002 and 2004. These are just the ones I know of – there could be others! Indeed, the Supreme Court points out that the British government has previously argued that non-refoulement is “part of customary international law”, so does not depend on any particular Treaty.

On the issue of non-refoulement, I agree that the Supreme Court correctly identified the legal issues. But it is their second line of reasoning, that Rwanda cannot be trusted, which exposes their marxist political ideology and where they go from being impartial judges to political subversives and communist scum. As I have already explained, non-refoulement means that, in the words of the Court: “refugees are not returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” But Rwanda has itself agreed to the non-refoulement policy, and only those asylum-seekers who are deemed to be bogus, and who are not, therefore, genuine refugees, are returned to their home countries, precisely because these bogus applicants are not considered to be in danger there.

So what's the problem? The problem is that the Supreme Court does not believe that Rwanda can be trusted to process asylum applications properly. The Times summarised this succinctly: “The judgment suggests that the Rwandan asylum system is ultimately not fit for purpose” and the Rwandan government's assurances“cannot be relied on. Rwanda, the judges state, does not appear to understand its obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention and a host of other international agreements.” But just because Rwanda processes applications in a way that the Supreme Court does not approve of does not mean that Rwanda is wrong. For the Supreme Court to believe that only their way is the right one and that to do things differently implies Rwanda is too stupid to “understand its obligations” is actually Supreme Arrogance – as well, I think, as racist. And to say that Rwanda can't be trusted to keep their promises is not a matter of law but of opinion – and unelected judges have no business trying to impose their opinions on the country, overruling those of elected politicians. This is not law, this is judicial dictatorship.

Besides, if any country “does not appear to understand its obligations” it is surely the UK. Why do we have the most indulgent, generous and obsequious asylum system in the world? Why do we grant asylum to those who are refused everywhere else? I have previously pointed out that while we were granting asylum to criminal invaders from Albania, other European countries were not. Are they all wrong, except for us? Do they all fail to understand their obligations, except for us? Or is it that we are the world's biggest mugs, governed by the world's most filthy TRAITORS, and are far too generous? Almost every day we get more proof that it is this latter explanation that is the correct one. Look at the report this week of the vile Nigerian invader, Saheed Azeez, who was granted asylum because he claimed to be homosexual. Apart from the insanity of the UK believing it has to accept every homosexual in the world who does not feel safe in his own country, the naivety of the Home Office in believing everything that lying, fraudulent, criminal asylum-seekers say was exposed when this appalling scumbag was convicted of helping to mastermind a £220,000 parcel fraud scam and it was revealed that he had three children from three different women! Despite being a liar and a criminal he will, of course, avoid deportation by claiming this would infringe his right to family life enshrined in the Human Rights Act (in line with the ECHR); indeed, he has three families here now!

Sunak's supreme stupidity

After being sacked as Home Secretary, Suella Braverman wrote an excoriating letter to Rishi Sunak accusing him of breaking his promises to her. Of particular relevance to the issue of the Rwanda policy, she wrote:

“I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect. Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats. At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.

If we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one. Worse than this, your magical thinking – believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion - has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’. I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. I received no reply from you. I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite for doing what is necessary, and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people.”

This is just about as damning as it could possibly be. And especially so because it is true. Sunak is now trying to claim that he does have a plan B, although as this is changing each day it is obvious he is making it up as he goes along.

We are told that the agreement with Rwanda will be upgraded to an official Treaty, but if the Supreme Court say that Rwanda can't be trusted to keep to their pledges, this will clearly make no difference. We are then told that any asylum-seekers whose applications are refused will be sent back to the UK, but this means that Rwanda will get the genuine applicants and we will be stuck with all the bogus ones – what are we supposed to do with them? This was such a stupid idea it was then changed to a new proposal: that Rwanda will keep every asylum-seeker, whether genuine or not, but this then raises the question of why even bother to process their applications, if the result makes no difference. We are also told that the UK will send immigration officers to Rwanda, to oversee the process, but given how useless our own staff are I'm not sure they will help the Rwandans very much.

Sunak is also saying that he will pass urgent new domestic legislation, to declare that Rwanda is a safe country to send asylum-seekers to. But this is nonsense, since if the changes to Rwanda's asylum application procedures satisfy the concerns of the Supreme Court then no new legislation is needed. So by saying that a new law is needed the government is actually admitting that these changes will not work. In which case, why bother with them in the first place? This just shows that Sunak's policy is confused, contradictory and idiotic. Just like the man himself.

Not only that, but any law passed by the British government can only, obviously, apply to British courts. So what will happen is that appeals against deportation to Rwanda will go to the European Court of Human Rights, which will probably also come to the conclusion that Rwanda is not a safe destination. So what will happen then? Yet again, we can see Sunak's confused and contradictory message. One minute he says he “will not allow foreign courts to block” deportation flights to Rwanda, but the next says he won't exclude the ECHR from deportation decisions in the new law he is proposing. As I said before, it is obvious that he had no plan B and is now just saying whatever comes into his head. The man is a complete cretin.

Weak and stupid

It's not just Sunak who lacks both a brain and a backbone. Suella Braverman has repeatedly said that what is needed is for the new law to prevent those being deported from challenging their removal in the courts. She called for an “end to self-deception” and for legislation that “excludes all avenues of legal challenge”. This is clearly right, and is what I have been arguing for since the beginning. At the moment foreign criminals and other assorted scum can game the system, making appeal after appeal, delaying – and generally blocking – their deportation on the most spurious and fraudulent grounds. And this applies not just to bogus asylum-seekers but also to convicted criminals.

Take for instance the case of Yaqub Ahmed, who came here from Somalia and was granted refugee status in 2003. Why? What retard in the Home Office decided that this was appropriate? We will never know. But what we do know is that just 5 years later, in 2008, this piece of filth was convicted of the brutal attack and gang-rape of a 16-year-old girl. In 2015, the government stripped him of his refugee status and decided to deport him. But he was only, finally, deported earlier this year, after eight years of multiple appeals. He used every ploy available to block his deportation, claiming he would be targeted by Islamic State terrorists if he returned to Somalia, and that he was a victim of modern slavery.

He was aided by sympathetic cretins and scum, such as, on one occasion, the passengers on the aeroplane he was on, being escorted for deportation, who protested and refused to allow the plane to depart until he had been taken off it, and on another occasion by the BBC Africa Editor who, as an 'expert witness', warned that if he was sent back to Somalia his life would be in danger, he would struggle to get a job and might even be accused of being a British spy! In order to convince the courts that he would be safe in Somalia he was even given “a 14-week stay in one of Somalia's most luxurious hotels, all meals included, plus armed guards and a personalised therapy package after complaining of mental health issues”. The final insanity of this story is that his appeals were funded by legal aid, and in total this vermin cost Britain some £1 million, in legal, prison and deportation costs.

So who could possibly object to a law that says Rwanda is safe and strips deportees from challenging their removal in the courts? Step forward Tory MP Damian Green, deputy prime minister under Theresa May and as dripping wet as they come. He says that the use of 'notwithstanding clauses' would be unacceptable. “This is the most unConservative proposal I’ve ever heard,” he told the BBC. “Conservatives believe in a democratic country, run by the rule of law … Defending the principle that governments have to obey the law is really important for Conservatives, perhaps particularly at times of heightened political change.”

Then there is Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, who said it was “discreditable” and suggested it was akin to saying “black is white”. The government would, he said, be trying to “change the facts”. “I have never heard of a situation in which parliament intervenes to declare the facts - the safety or unsafety of Rwanda - to change the facts from those which have been declared by the courts to be correct,” he said.

And just to complete the list of Establishment 'Great and the Good', we have Sir David Normington, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office, who said: “One of the things we keep hearing, and this is Suella Braverman’s latest idea, is that we should remove all appeals, that we should close off all routes. I really don’t think that that is possible. I think in the end, the Supreme Court wouldn’t allow that.” He went on to say: "We could pull out of all conventions, but that would be a very bad idea. The courts say it is not a safe country. You can't say black is white." Hmm, another one using the “black is white” expression. The multi-headed Establishment hydra strikes again! Sir David's hysterical opposition to the Rwanda proposal is well known, having previously said: “It’s inhumane, it’s morally reprehensible”. And some cretins still think the civil service is impartial! It is filled with left-wing extremists determined to block and undermine any patriotic policy. As I have said before, no progress will ever be made until these quislings are all sacked.

And government ministers were, of course, just as bad. Alex Chalk, the Justice Secretary, said the government had to respect the “impartial judgment of our independent courts.” He tweeted: “Judges apply the law without fear or favour — a long-standing principle of our democratic constitution.” And James Cleverly, the not-very-clever new Home Secretary, said that the government’s “preferred option” was to stay in the ECHR and insisted that the government would “play by the rules”.

No, no, no. What a bunch of fucking morons. Despite all the hysterical weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, untoward about using a 'notwithstanding' clause in a Bill so that it supersedes previous legislation. It is a universally accepted principle that no government can bind its successors, and laws are passed all the time that amend and supplant previous legislation. If this wasn't the case we would still have the same laws as we had at the time of Edward the Confessor! Using a 'notwithstanding' clause is just a more efficient and foolproof method than trying to list and amend every single piece of previous legislation.

Pace Lord Sumption, the Supreme Court did not “declare the facts” - they declared their politically-corrupt opinion. Pace Alex Chalk, the courts are not independent and impartial – at least, not in the political sense. They are politically-biased and left-wing. And pace James Cleverly, the purpose of a government is not to “play by the rules”, but to make the rules. But then, you can't expect Cleverly to really support the Rwanda policy, as he has been quoted as having previously described it as “batshit”. His weasel-worded response is: “I don’t remember saying anything like that”. Not a very convincing denial, is it?!

Braverman not much braver, man

I have seen some people on the Right almost fetishising about a Braverman-led Conservative party. If you are among them, just stop it. Yes, she does say some good things, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. She is just another Tory. And remember that she was responsible for our insane rules on who should be given refugee status and wants to export these to Rwanda by “embedding UK observers and independent reviewers of asylum decisions”.

But let's not be churlish. Her proposal to cut off all avenues for legal appeals is the right one – and is exactly what I've been saying from the start needed to be done. Those who oppose this route pretend it would be hard to do, but that's simply not the case. All you need to do is state at the beginning of the Act: "Notwithstanding any and all laws, rules, regulations, Treaties, Agreements, Conventions and any other obligations, both domestic and international, Parliament has decided that:" And you then need to end the Act with a clause that prevents the Courts from intervening in how the law is applied, with the statement: "This legislation and its application is excluded from any oversight, determination or review, by any Court or Tribunal of any kind. Any and every decision of the Secretary of State in the pursuance and application of this legislation shall be absolute and unchallengeable in any way by any person."

And that's it.

Except that it isn't.

Because the House of Lords will not allow this, or any other legislation designed to overcome the decision of the Supreme Court, to become law. Parliamentary rules and procedures are complicated and arcane, but all you need to know is this: the Lords can delay legislation by a maximum of 13 months. And the next general election needs to be called no later than in 13 months time. And the legislation has not yet even been put to the House of Commons, let alone reached the Lords. It's possible that the legislation will not even be agreed by the Commons – remember that the Tory benches are filled by the likes of Damian Green – but even if it is, when it gets to the Lords it will simply run out of time.

So ignore all the huffing and puffing, all the lies and spin, all the cynical, deceitful promises that Sunak is coming out with. The Rwanda project is dead. And with it has gone the £140 million we gave them. The cross-Channel invasion will continue, and the government will laugh. They don't really care about 'stopping the boats' – they just want you to think they do. So they will campaign at the next election promising to revive the Rwanda deportations if you vote for them. And if you are stupid enough to do so, and if they win (spoiler – they won't), the whole farce will start again. Nothing, but nothing, the Tories do will make the slightest bit of difference, because they are just not willing to do what needs to be done.

The only solution

I have set out the solution to the invasion of fraudulent asylum-seeker criminals before. Here it is again. The government just needs to pass a law (with the above-mentioned notwithstanding clause that supersedes all other laws and obligations) that says:

1. Anyone travelling through a safe country, without applying for asylum there, will automatically be deemed to be fraudulent and will not be eligible for refugee status.

2. The fact they didn't bother to apply for asylum when they had the opportunity to do so means that we automatically believe they are not in danger in their home country.

3. Every single person arriving illegally will therefore be deported to their home country. No exceptions of any kind.

4. There is NO right of appeal, of any kind whatsoever.

5. The invader will be held in custody, and incommunicado, until their deportation.

This would solve the problem overnight. Nobody would go to all the trouble and expense of coming all the way here if they knew for certain that they would immediately be sent right back to square one! But of course the Tories won't do this. No, I've told you before: if you want sensible patriotic policies you need to start voting for sensible patriotic politicians!

If you enjoyed this article make sure you pass it on to your friends – by email and on social media. Thanks!