Rwanda

This week the Home Secretary hit a new low (which is saying something, given the cruelty already embedded in the hostile environment for people who arrive here seeking sanctuary) by announcing that the latest "solution" for how to respond to people who have fled war and persecution and arrived here via the only routes available to them is to ship them to Rwanda, not to be processed and brought back if found to have a genuine need of protection but on a one-way ticket. 

The Home Office claims the deal will stop human trafficking. The definition of human trafficking, I would posit, is to move people from one country to another, against their will, and for money to change hands in the process allowing people to profit from this trade in human lives. Far from stopping human trafficking, then, it seems like the Rwanda Scheme is a somewhat sordid case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". You would think we would have learned from history that state-sponsored trading in people is not good practice.

The timing of the announcement, a blatant example of trying to distract from epic government failures, by inflicting further misery on some of the most vulnerable in society only adds to its despicable nature.

The Home Secretary's accusation that those who object have no viable alternatives makes it clear she has closed her ears to many of those who work with people who have sought asylum here, to say nothing of the sanctuary-seekers themselves, because I have heard lots of much better ideas.

There is a very simple way to stop people getting into the backs of lorries or into flimsy dinghies to cross the channel ... something nobody would do if they had a viable alternative, which would be to offer safe passage, allowing people to travel by regular means to arrive in the UK and exercise their rights under the legally binding UN refugee convention to which we are signatories.

There is a very simple way to not have thousands of people caught up in the asylum system, which would be to process their claims efficiently, fairly and compassionately. A number of my friends have waited literally years before being, ultimately told that yes, they did have a well-founded fear of persecution and had the right to and need of our protection. Of the people who I know who have arrived in the last couple years, I can barely name any who have even had the interview which gives them the opportunity to share the story on which their asylum claim will be assessed.  

Anyway, back to Rwanda.

I have heard the Rwanda plan called out because it is against international law, UK law or both.

But even if it is found to be entirely legal ... it is still wrong.

I have heard the Rwanda plan called out for being unworkable and expensive.

But even if it can be delivered efficiently and effectively with huge cost savings to the government ... it is still wrong.

I have heard the Rwanda plan called out because although initially targeting single men, there is no assurance it won't be extended to include women and children. 

But even if it only ever men who are sent ... it is still wrong. 

I have heard the Rwanda plan called out for the likelihood that it will not in fact be an effective deterrent to those who will still undertake dangerous journeys.

But even if it does reduce the number of desperate people who make their way to our shores ... it is still wrong.

I have heard the Rwanda plan called out because of Rwanda's own human rights record and questions around how the people who claim asylum there are treated.

But even if this was a deal with the country with the very best human rights record and refugee protection in the world ... it is still wrong.

It is wrong for one simple reason.

Lost in all of the Home Office rhetoric about "migrants" and "illegality" is a fundamental reality...

Humanity.

All those who will be effected by this deal are human beings. 

They are people just like us. 

I do get the need to be pragmatic, to use arguments that will serve to convince those who don't already agree, and those whose morally compasses are seemingly rather askew. I'm sure I too will retweet the tweets pointing out all the side issues with this sordid deal.

But all that aside, let us not lose sight that this is, simply, wrong.

And for the sake of my friends, among whom I have seen in the past week increased levels of unsettledness and anxiety and fear, I will call it out for what it is.