Thread: As yes the "liberal" defence of illegal and inhumane actions against people seeking safety. First off those "inconstestable" facts are indeed contested, by, uhm, the Home Office. Awkward. 1/ thetimes.co.uk/article/91c153…
Rejecting human rights is unlikely to make a significant difference, unless that is you support removing people to countries where they face torture or inhumane treatment, in which case I would personally argue you cannot call yourself "liberal". 2/
Ah yes, the "liberal" argument of detaining people indefinitely. Keeping in mind you still cannot send them off to countries which you don't have a returns agreement with, at a cost of about £100 per day, so yeah, that works to save money Matt. 3/ migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/brie….
Okay, so first off there are more reasons that people need to seek asylum from persecution other than fleeing conflicts. Secondly, resettlement routes only work when they operate, and as the Afghan scheme has taken no-one this year, they don't. 4/ theguardian.com/world/2022/dec…
But I guess you can always fall back on shouting "RWANDA IS THE SOLUTION", despite Rwanda not having close to capacity for everyone anyway, or the government's own analysis showing it is unsafe for refugees. 5/ google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…
That's not to mention how the report which Parris is so happily pushing from a "liberal" position is based in large part on a falsehood with the way it defines refugees, as explained by @StevePeers here. 6/
Oh yes, and the Home Affairs Committee report which found that the threat of removals to Rwanda is not a "deterrent". Other than that though Matthew, fine crack on with your "liberal" argument for denying safety to people seeking it. 8/ committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/h…
On a separate, and more personal note, that Matthew Parris decided to publish a column ostensibly supporting a report which has been condemned by no less than UNHCR for pushing illegal policies on #HumanRightsDay2022 is just sickening. 9/ theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/d…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Unveiling even harsher asylum policies, which seem to violate international law with blanket refusals, won't reduce channel crossings. That will only happen by recognising that people, including Albanians, need protection and not discrimination. #r4today thetimes.co.uk/article/5aa2f1…
The thing is none of this is even new. The same tired old policies which have been tested, tried and failed every single time, through being illegal, inhumane, unworkable or all three. There is evidence that harsher policies make things worse though. google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…
People aren't "gaming modern slavery laws". Trafficking is increasing globally. The rise in people being referred to the National Referral Mechanism isn't from more people lying about trafficked. It is because we are getting better at identifying victims.
Thread: Once upon a time #humanrights were supported across political parties, across other ideologies. Now we have members of the House of Lords calling for the UK to leave not only human rights conventions, but the refugee convention. #HumanRightsDay2022, #r4today 1/
Attacking #HumanRights weakens them for everyone, not just people you don't like. More than that though, by weakening them here we risk also compounding a global undermining of human rights. There's nothing "democratic" or "taking back control" about forcing people to suffer. 3/
Certain people keep claiming that human rights laws are preventing the UK from deporting "dangerous criminals". Declines in enforced removals, which are now going up again, have nothing to do with any magic legal loophole used by "lefty lawyers". 4/ gov.uk/government/sta…
Thread: Okay, let's set some things straight here. We are in a cost of living crisis which is leaving millions destitute. If a relatively small number of people crossing the channel to seek safety is Sunak's biggest concern his priorities are broken. 1/
"Concern", arguably driven by the sheer weight of misleading information, is growing, but still not even close to "vast". It still ranks way below other key issues, again like the economy, so, again, bit worrying that this seems to be the priority. 2/ yougov.co.uk/topics/educati…
Deep sigh. First off, any report written by Nick Timothy can pretty much be discounted immediately, but this one in particular is glaringly flawed. Let's start with those "official resettlement routes" shall we? 3/
THREAD: I always feel awkward about whether or not being #ActuallyAutistic is a disability. I know technically, I suppose, it is. I don't see it as an issue. I live in near constant pain, that is a disability. Being autistic is just who I am. #InternationalDayOfDisability 1/
Okay, I'd better explain in more depth here, before I dig a hole I really can't get out of, although, I could just be digging it deeper. Being autistic is a rollercoaster, to say the least. It has good and bad points, and, let's be honest, has held me back in certain ways. 2/
I wouldn't change being #ActuallyAutistic for the world though. It would be like saying I wanted to change whether I breathed oxygen or not. It is just me, part of me, not the whole of me, but very much part of being me. 3/
I say this as someone who is Christian. If you blame immigration on the decline of people identifying as Christian you are de-facto saying people shouldn't have a choice about whether or not they are Christian. The majority of people say they aren't. That's not about migration 1/
"This is a Christian country". Well, yeah, it's basically a theocracy if you want to look at very practical issues such as Bishops in the House of Lords or the head of state being also the head of the church, but does it matter if it is or it isn't? In real terms?. 2/
I'd argue not. My faith is my faith, and it is fairly complicated as it is anyway. I'll believe in what I believe no matter if anyone else does or doesn't. So long as it isn't causing harm then why do you honestly care what someone else believes or does not believe in? 3/
Thread: Without formal returns agreements with those "safe countries" this is meaningless. You cannot "return" anyone to a country which hasn't agreed to take them. The end result therefore is leaving asylum seekers in limbo for even longer. 1/ #r4today
Now, ironically, the UK does have an agreement with Albania, but calling it a "safe country" is stretching the definition to breaking point, particularly in relation to the protection of trafficking victims. 2/ state.gov/reports/2022-t…
Pretty certain something has changed in UK's relationship with neighbouring countries since the last Labour Government. Ah, yes, that's it, it left the EU, which means it left the Dublin Regulations, which had formalized mechanisms for returning people. 3/ commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…