Thread by @AlasdairMack66

Meet Mohammed al-Masari. He’s a former physics professor and leading critic of the Saudi Arabian royal family. In 1996 he fled to the UK and sought asylum. The Saudis demanded that the British should expel him. 1/

This presented the then Tory government with the opportunity to show how much it cared for human rights, an opportunity which, obviously, it flunked. 2/

Now clearly Dr al-Masari would be tortured or killed if sent back, so how could the government placate the furious Saudis w/out breaking the law? They decided to send him to Dominica, in the Caribbean.
They offered the Dominicans large amounts in aid – so it’s widely assumed. 3/

But things didn’t go to plan when Dr al-Masari appealed – the chief immigration adjudicator (judge) held he wouldn’t be safe in Dominica, because Dominica would find it still harder than the UK to stand up to Saudi pressure to expel him. So the Home Office had to let him stay. 4/

Why do I bring this up? Well, 25 years on, the Tories have gone full circle & are making rules to allow people’s asylum claims to be treated as inadmissible – ie to not be considered – if they cdve sought asylum in another safe country or have a connection to such a country. 5/

Once their asylum claims have been treated as inadmissible people can be removed not only to the country they passed through or have a connection to (in some undefined way), but to literally any safe country the Home Office can identify. 6/

So clearly this is linked to the Tories “fantasy island” proposals – where they propose to send people, Australian-style, to offshore camps or to whichever other countries can be bribed or pressurised into accepting refugees. 7/

If the Home Office can’t find a safe country “within a reasonable period of time” or decides it would be “inappropriate” to remove someone there, then they will grudgingly agree to consider their asylum claim. 8/

What’s a “reasonable period of time” or an “inappropriate” country to send someone to? You may well ask. All we can predict is the Home Office will take a much harsher view than applicants or their lawyers are likely to. 9/

So the government is lining up literally years, I should say, of legal challenges while the courts pore over the meaning of these and other phrases and their application to individual cases. And when the courts rule against the govt, who is going to be to blame, do you think? 10/

Yes, you’re there before me, it’ll be the lefty activist lawyers. Me and my comrades. Plus judges. And campaigners.
But do you think the Tories will be disappointed at the prospect of years of challenge and confrontation, some of which they may well lose very publicly? 11/

Don’t be silly. They are going to love it, just as Priti Patel is loving every minute of the recent controversies. Because it’s a culture war. The point is not winning, it’s the fighting itself. 12/

But don’t get me wrong: this isn’t about how tough things may get for lawyers. It’s about our decency as a society. And above all it’s about vulnerable people, refugees, who yet again are being abused for political advantage by our rulers. Welcome to Britain. #HumanRightsDay end/

PS more on al-Masari here
nytimes.com/1996/04/19/wor…
spokesman.com/stories/1996/a…
independent.co.uk/news/exile-fac…

Oh, and yes you do recognise the background of the pic in the first tweet, that really is Dr al-Masari appearing on Have I Got News For You. Whether you-know-who was on #HIGNFY at the same time I don't actually know.

And finally (I promise) the Rules are here - look at rules 345A-D at pages 4 & 5
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…