Skip Nav | Home | Mobile | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us

World

First Anniversary of Unjust House of Lords' Chagos decision

simon gould | 24.10.2009 17:41 | Anti-racism | Repression | World

A demonstration took place on October 22nd to draw public attention to the House of Lords revocation of the rights of the Chagos people to return home to their land from which they were unceremoniously kicked to make way for the US base of Diego Garcia.




There was a short protest opposite the House of Lords in Old Palace Yard on October 22nd 2009 from 12.45 to 2pm.

A year ago on October 22nd 2008 the House Of Lords voted 3-2 to revoke the right of the Chagos people to return to their homeland from which they had been kicked out in the late 1960's/early 1970's so that the US could set up the military base of Diego Garcia there in the Indian Ocean on a UK colony created for the purpose (The Chagos Islands had been part of Mauritius due to get independence in 1968 until the UK turned it into B.I.O.T. British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965). The UK burnt their houses killed their livestock, gassed their dogs, loaded 2000 of them on to boats, dumped them on the quay of Port Louis ,Mauritius ,and then lied to the U.N. pretending the island was uninhabited.

Oddly enough this UK abuse of human rights has not been taken up in the last forty years by Liberty or Amnesty International or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

The small demonstration today wished to highlight the House of Lords aspects of this saga of UK shame. In 2000 the Chagossians had won the right of return in the UK courts, and Robin Cook promised to honour the court's verdict. Yet in 2004 the UK government tried to get round the ruling by an archaic procedure known as Orders In Council by which the Government can enact measures through the Privy Council without going through Parliament (incidentally in the House Of lords ruling one thing they were all agreed on was the need for Parliament to look at this undemocratic procedure). Perhaps the Government acted thus because they did not think they would win in the courts. Indeed the Chagossians appealed and won back the right of return. Then the Gov took the case to the House Of Lords and strangely won with a 3-2 vote.

The judgement is perverse because either it is legally correct which means that English law defends the indefensible and protects injustice, or perhaps there was pressure on the Law Lords to do a certain thing in the interests of national security and joint intelligence which in the light of the Binyam Mohammed case seems feasible.

There isn't time and space here to look at all the rulings but it might be interesting to look at Lord Hoffmann's ruling which seems to rest on two points:-

1) Executive Fiat. i think if I’ve understood right that Lord Hoffmann argues that the Appeal court was wrong to suggest that the Chagossians could not be evicted "for reasons unconnected with their collective wellbeing". Lord Hoffmann quotes Halsbury's laws Of England "In a conquered or ceded colony the Crown ...has full power to establish such executive, legislative, and judicial arrangements as this Crown sees fit" which is authorised by a 1774 ruling. So Lord Hoffmann then says that "The prerogative power of the crown to legislate for a ceded colony has never been limited by the requirement that the legislation should be for the peace, order and good government or otherwise for the inhabitants of the colony". In other words English Law promotes injustice and racism.(The Equalities Commission claim that questions about whether English Law still has racist bits that need repealing is beyond its remit)

2) The promise. Whether the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook's promise in 2000 of return to the islands "created a legitimate expectation that the islanders would be free " of immigration controls. Lord Hoffmann argues that a promise must be "clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualifications". He says that when Robin Cook (in the November 2000 press release) said that a new ordinance would be made which would allow "The Ilois to return to the outer islands" he, Robin Cook, did not say how long that promise would continue and that therefore it does not constitute a promise. This really seems to stretch credibility, especially as it was a well known fact in the public awareness that Robin Cook was seeking ethical foreign policy.

Additionally Lord Hoffmann seems to take the view that a right of return in itself is symbolic and that therefore the promise is dependent on the feasibility of resettlement study also mentioned by Robin Cook in the press release .After mentioning the feasibility study Robin Cook says "Furthermore we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which will allow the Ilois to return". The word he uses is "Furthermore" .he does not say "dependent on the feasibility study". Its quite clear that for Robin Cook, as for Sedley in the Court Of Appeal, the right of return is separate from the practicalities of return as shown in any feasibility study. Lord Hoffmann in more than one place in his judgement seems to suggest that the right of return is meaningless without some infrastructure being built. But of course conditions can change. For example European Coral Voyeaurs (or some other fictional firm) might approach the Chagossians if they possessed the right of return with a view to building some B&Bs and a harbour. Finally looking at the end of Robin Cook's Press Statement "the Government has not defended what was done ...We make no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened. i am pleased that he (Lord Justice Laws) has commended the wholly admirable conduct in disclosing material to the Court and praised the openness of today's Foreign Office."
Is this the statement of a man who has an underhand intention in his promise to the Chagossians? i don't think so and i doubt if anyone on a Clapham bicycle/omnibus would either.

Had Lord Hoffmann ruled the other way on either the executive fiat or promise question then it wouldn't exactly have fitted with section 57 of his ruling where he says "in addition, as Mr Rammell told the House Of Commons, the Government had to give weight to security interests. The United States had expressed concern that any settlement on the outer islands would compromise the security of its base on Diego Garcia......in the current state of uncertainty the Government is entitled to take the concerns of its ally into account."


This may well be the way governments work, but it's
A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE

simon gould
- e-mail: simongouldd@yahoo.co.uk

Comments

Display the following 2 comments

  1. Government response to petition to let Chagossians go home — simon gould
  2. Important case shows how Britain's justice system is not so just — Mike Wells

Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

/regional publish include --> /regional search include -->

World Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech