Law gives, law takes away: Chagossians lose in House of Lords

[He3]

UK denies right to return to Diego Garcia islanders

Natives of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia won't be allowed to return to the Chagos archipelago they left more than 35years ago, following a ruling today by Britain's highest court, the House of Lords.

The London-based court upheld the British government's appeal in a 3-2 verdict, overturning earlier rulings by lower courts which held that the UK government wrongfully took away the islanders' "right of abode."

That right is a "creature of the law," wrote Lord Leonard Hoffman today. "The law gives it, and the law may take it away."


...
Richard Gifford, attorney for the islanders, said they were in a "state of shock" at the ruling. "Seven judges in the courts below have said the treatment of the Chagossians is a shameful abuse of power, and repugnant." He said.

"In this court we have added the words 'disgraceful' and 'maladministration."



UK denies right to return to Diego Garcia islanders - The Irish Times - Wed, Oct 22, 2008

[Sonic_exyouth]

Might is right seems to be the real basis for this decision. The people thrown off their islands will not be permitted to return.


UK denies right to return to Diego Garcia islanders

Natives of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia won't be allowed to return to the Chagos archipelago they left more than 35years ago, following a ruling today by Britain's highest court, the House of Lords.

The London-based court upheld the British government's appeal in a 3-2 verdict, overturning earlier rulings by lower courts which held that the UK government wrongfully took away the islanders' "right of abode."

That right is a "creature of the law," wrote Lord Leonard Hoffman today. "The law gives it, and the law may take it away."


...
Richard Gifford, attorney for the islanders, said they were in a "state of shock" at the ruling. "Seven judges in the courts below have said the treatment of the Chagossians is a shameful abuse of power, and repugnant." He said.

"In this court we have added the words 'disgraceful' and 'maladministration."


UK denies right to return to Diego Garcia islanders - The Irish Times - Wed, Oct 22, 2008

Its fairly disgusting and evil.
I don't understand, maybe someone can explain, why they cannot appeal this to europe?

[He3]

They may.

BBC NEWS | UK | Fight continues for island dreams

[Thranduil]

An inhumane and cowardly decision completely motivated by political expediency.

That right is a "creature of the law," wrote Lord Leonard Hoffman today. "The law gives it, and the law may take it away."

An attitude reminiscent of the 18th Century attitudes when Scots deemed surplus to requirements were put onto ships bound for the colonies - so they could clear the highlands for the grazing of sheep. And to think New Labour used to boast of their plans for ethical foreign policies, they couldn't wait to get rid of the likes of Robin Cook and Claire Short and bring in new faces with much lower ethical standards.

[He3]

Bumping this in reference to Pilger, who calls the day of judgment a true day of infamy.

ITV - John Pilger - Links

[Seán E. Ryan]

House of lords = bunch of tossers.

The rights that these tossers have judged to be an invention of and a gift of the law, preexist the establishment of the law. These rights are not an invention of the law. They're supposed to be recognised and upheld by the courts. Another step backwards in so-called British justice. Setting a precedent that might be quoted here at some point too. They've just recognised imperialism as a sovereign right.

[Bobert]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this about?

[He3]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is this about?

It is about power. People far away want your land as they need a refuelling base for their big friend's warplanes. So they take it, and require you to leave and live somewhere else. Then you go to Court.

Depopulation of Diego Garcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Riadach]

Isn't arbitrarily depriving people of their property proscribed in the Magna Carta?

[He3]

Magna Schmarta.

Here is how you get around that mouldy old rag, as summarised in the Wiki link posted above.

In a memo dating from this period, Colonial Office head Denis Greenhill (later Lord Greenhill of Harrow) wrote to the British Delegation at the UN[citation needed]:

The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee. Unfortunately, along with the seagulls go some few Tarzans and Man Fridays that are hopefully being wished on Mauritius.

Another internal Colonial Office memo read[citation needed]:

The Colonial Office is at present considering the line to be taken in dealing with the existing inhabitants of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). They wish to avoid using the phrase 'permanent inhabitants' in relation to any of the islands in the territory because to recognise that there are any permanent inhabitants will imply that there is a population whose democratic rights will have to be safeguarded and which will therefore be deemed by the UN to come within its purlieu. The solution proposed is to issue them with documents making it clear that they are 'belongers' of Mauritius and the Seychelles and only temporary residents of BIOT. This devise, [sic] although rather transparent, would at least give us a defensible position to take up at the UN.

Advocates of the Chagossians (see links below) claim that the number of Chagossian residents on Diego Garcia was deliberately under-counted in order to play down the scale of the proposed depopulation. Three years before the depopulation plan was concocted, the British Governor of Mauritius, Sir Robert Scott, is said to have estimated the permanent population of Diego Garcia at 1,700. In a BIOT report made in June 1968, the British Government estimated that only 354 Chagossians were third generation 'belongers' on the islands. This number subsequently fell in further reports.

Later that year, the British Government asked for help from the legal department of their own Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in creating a legal basis for depopulating the islands. The first paragraph of the FCO's reply read [citation needed]:

The purpose of the Immigration Ordinance is to maintain the fiction that the inhabitants of the Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population. The Ordinance would be published in the BIOT gazette which has only very limited circulation. Publicity will therefore be minimal.

[END]

The Magna Carta is for noblemen, after all.