No to Rwanda

[papasmurf]

So just remind me, how is Rwanda worse than the UK?

Why is Britain getting as bad as Rwanda? (Not a trick question.)

[Scott777]

Telling gigantic porkies about Rwanda being a safe country, it isn't  safe country for it's own citizens.


Fact check: How safe is Rwanda for migrants? – DW – 06/23/2022

This is the first reason in the article:

"suppressed political dissent [through] pervasive surveillance, intimidation, torture, and renditions or suspected assassinations of exiled dissidents."

In the UK, Julian Assange has been imprisoned for 3 years, without any charge by the UK, except he was guilty of breaching bail by SEAKING ASYLUM in Ecuador (the embassy).  So his only crime was to seek asylum.  The truth is, he published stuff, exposing the US and UK governments, so he is in prison for political dissent.  Some describe his solitary confinement as torture.

The UK is probably the most surveilled nation in the world.

During lockdown, thousands of protesters were intimidated by the police, just for gathering.  Many were assaulted and arrested, in contravention of the ECHR right of assembly.

As for assassinations in Rwanda, that's literally a conspiracy theory, and should be confined to the appropriate section, just as my posts have been in the past.  Unless you have proof of assassinations.

So just remind me, how is Rwanda worse than the UK?

[papasmurf]

Smurf's opinion is given to him by his mates, that is why he can never explain his position, cause he do any know it.

Nick you really do need to stop telling lies about me, frankly you appear to know eff all about Rwanda and neither does Suella Braverman. Telling gigantic porkies about Rwanda being a safe country, it isn't  safe country for it's own citizens.


Fact check: How safe is Rwanda for migrants? – DW – 06/23/2022

[Nick]

I suppose this is better than nothing.  However, all it says is the safety of Rwanda is contestable.  This is why it is not good enough to simply post a link and expect that to speak for you.  If you believe Rwanda is not safe, you should explain your conclusion.  Additionally, how unsafe is it?  As I explained, the UK is not perfectly safe.  So degree is important.

Smurf's opinion is given to him by his mates, that is why he can never explain his position, cause he do any know it. 

[Scott777]

Nick the link to the judgement has all the details necessary.  I have read it. As per usual you have not.
Just part of the conclusions more at link:-
AA-v-SSHD judgment (judiciary.uk)

Summary of Conclusions 476. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Underhill LJ and agree, for the reasons he gives, in respect of issues (vi) and (viii) to (xii) as I have identified them above. I shall not burden this judgment with any further discussion of those issues. On several issues, however, it is my misfortune to differ in my conclusion from both the Master of the Rolls and Underhill LJ. 477. First, on whether the Divisional Court applied the wrong test when considering the safety of Rwanda on the refoulement issue. Secondly, on whether there are substantial grounds for believing that an asylum seeker sent to Rwanda would face a real risk of refoulement following a flawed decision. Thirdly, with the Master of the Rolls, on whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a removed asylum seeker would be at real risk of article 3 ill-treatment in Rwanda. In my view, the Divisional Court did not err in the way suggested and the relevant risks are not established on the evidence. It follows that I do not consider that the underlying policy is unlawful in a Gillick sense. Moreover, I agree with the Divisional Court that the posited removals, and the underlying policy, are not unlawful for want of investigation either in accordance with Ilias or Tameside. 478. On issue (vii), the Master of the Rolls and Underhill LJ have concluded that the Secretary of State was wrong to certify the individual claims on the basis that Rwanda is a safe third county. Their conclusion followed inevitably from their ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country. Despite having reached the contrary conclusion on the central issue of safety I nonetheless agree that these claims should not have been certified. The whole question of safety, as our judgments demonstrate, is contestable.

refoulement

noun
LAW

• the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution.
  "international and EU law prohibit refoulement"

I suppose this is better than nothing.  However, all it says is the safety of Rwanda is contestable.  This is why it is not good enough to simply post a link and expect that to speak for you.  If you believe Rwanda is not safe, you should explain your conclusion.  Additionally, how unsafe is it?  As I explained, the UK is not perfectly safe.  So degree is important.

[papasmurf]

What?  The judges explained YOUR position?  And if I disagree, do I have to call the judge and have a debate?  🤣

They explained why I hold the opinion I do. I knew what the judges did before they came to the same conclusion as me. The government is trying to take us all for fools.
Then there is this Freedom Of Information request response.

The Home Office would send a maximum of three staff to Rwanda to monitor the rights of up to 25,000 deported asylum seekers, openDemocracy can reveal.

Currently, only one Home Office employee is based in Kigali, the Rwandan capital, where staff are stationed on short six-month deployments.

Responding to a Freedom of Information request, the government department said there was a "possibility of an additional two roles" in Kigali if the Rwanda scheme, currently held up in the courts, is allowed to go ahead.

The findings raise serious questions about the government's promises to monitor the rights of those it deports to Rwanda.

[Scott777]

The judges did that as explained in the link.

What?  The judges explained YOUR position?  And if I disagree, do I have to call the judge and have a debate?  🤣

[papasmurf]

He doesn't know, just another of his BS posts saying nothing factual.

Nick the link to the judgement has all the details necessary.  I have read it. As per usual you have not.
Just part of the conclusions more at link:-
AA-v-SSHD judgment (judiciary.uk)

Summary of Conclusions 476. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Underhill LJ and agree, for the reasons he gives, in respect of issues (vi) and (viii) to (xii) as I have identified them above. I shall not burden this judgment with any further discussion of those issues. On several issues, however, it is my misfortune to differ in my conclusion from both the Master of the Rolls and Underhill LJ. 477. First, on whether the Divisional Court applied the wrong test when considering the safety of Rwanda on the refoulement issue. Secondly, on whether there are substantial grounds for believing that an asylum seeker sent to Rwanda would face a real risk of refoulement following a flawed decision. Thirdly, with the Master of the Rolls, on whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a removed asylum seeker would be at real risk of article 3 ill-treatment in Rwanda. In my view, the Divisional Court did not err in the way suggested and the relevant risks are not established on the evidence. It follows that I do not consider that the underlying policy is unlawful in a Gillick sense. Moreover, I agree with the Divisional Court that the posited removals, and the underlying policy, are not unlawful for want of investigation either in accordance with Ilias or Tameside. 478. On issue (vii), the Master of the Rolls and Underhill LJ have concluded that the Secretary of State was wrong to certify the individual claims on the basis that Rwanda is a safe third county. Their conclusion followed inevitably from their ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country. Despite having reached the contrary conclusion on the central issue of safety I nonetheless agree that these claims should not have been certified. The whole question of safety, as our judgments demonstrate, is contestable.

refoulement

noun
LAW

• the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution.
  "international and EU law prohibit refoulement"

[Nick]

Debate involves evidence AND explaining your position.  You seem to not want to say what is unsafe about Rwanda.

He doesn't know, just another of his BS posts saying nothing factual. 

[papasmurf]

Debate involves evidence AND explaining your position.  You seem to not want to say what is unsafe about Rwanda.

The judges did that as explained in the link.

[Scott777]

Debate involves evidence NOT personal opinion, hence the links.

Debate involves evidence AND explaining your position.  You seem to not want to say what is unsafe about Rwanda.

[papasmurf]

Try that in Nigeria and see what happens.

No thanks, a friend was in Nigeria for a few years recently. Armed escort to and from his hotel to the dock. (He was the chief engineer on a rig support vessel.) He did however get paid loads of money and although not retired early now he is close to it.

[Nick]

That for some people would be a reason to go there.

Try that in Nigeria and see what happens. 

[papasmurf]

I skimmed your posts.  I doubt they have any value.  This is a forum for debate, not just a place to post links for homework. 

Debate involves evidence NOT personal opinion, hence the links.

[Scott777]

Quite easily, unlike the Tory Government, we have not swallowed the Rwandan government propaganda.
Did you bother to read the links I posted?

I skimmed your posts.  I doubt they have any value.  This is a forum for debate, not just a place to post links for homework.  Just state why Rwanda is not safe.  It's not hard.  But did you bother to read my post?  Calling Rwanda unsafe based on the possibility of returning refugees to their homeland, is propaganda.