| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: Chagos islanders win right to return |
 |
|
|
|
| Quote: | 
Families who were expelled from the Chagos Islands to make way for the Diego Garcia US airbase 30 years ago won their legal battle to return home today. The families - ordered from the islands by the British government - packed the court of appeal to hear the ruling, which condemned government tactics preventing their return as unlawful and an abuse of power.
The court ruled that thousands of people who were tricked, starved and even terrorised from their homes could return immediately, with the decision likely to draw a line under what is widely seen as one of the most shameful episodes in British colonial history. In 2002 and 2006, the people of the Chagos archipelago - which is between Africa and Indonesia - won court decisions declaring the British actions unlawful. Today, they defeated the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, who had taken the case to the court of appeal. They had not sought to return to Diego Garcia itself, but to other islands in the chain.
Speaking amid triumphant scenes outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Richard Gifford, the solicitor for the islanders, said: "It has been held that the ties which bind a people to its homeland are so fundamental that no executive order can lawfully abrogate those rights. "This is now the third time that Olivier Bancoult, the leader of the Chagossian community in exile, has proved to the satisfaction of English judges that nothing can separate his compatriots from their homeland. They now call upon the British government for a new start in this abusive relationship and to proceed with the utmost urgency to restore these loyal British subjects to their homeland."
Explaining the court's decision, Lord Justice Sedley said that "while a natural or man-made disaster could warrant the temporary, perhaps even indefinite, removal of a population for its own safety and so rank as an act of governance, the permanent exclusion of an entire population from its homeland for reasons unconnected with their collective well-being cannot have that character and accordingly cannot be lawfully accomplished by use of the prerogative power of governance".
After the ruling, a Foreign Office spokesman said ministers were "disappointed" that judges had not granted the department leave to appeal the decision. "We now have one month to lodge an appeal with the House of Lords," he added. "The foreign secretary will consider the judgment carefully and decide if an appeal to the House of Lords will be made. Until this, the matter remains sub judice."
In 1966, the British government secretly sold the US a 50-year lease on Diego Garcia, and the residents were expelled from their homes. Most were left to fend for themselves in the slums of Port Louis, Mauritius. Last May, high court judges condemned as "repugnant" the government's decision to "exile a whole population" from the Indian Ocean islands. Government officials claimed the decision had been made on the basis that it was necessary for peace, order and good government.
However, Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cresswell ruled that the interests of the islanders had been ignored, and that orders made under the royal prerogative to prevent their return were irrational and unlawful. Because of the importance of that decision - which included a declaration that orders made under the royal prerogative are not immune from judicial review - the judges gave the government permission for the appeal it lost today.
The high court first dealt a blow to the government in 2000 when it overturned measures, introduced in the form of an immigration ordinance in 1971, to keep the Chagossians in exile. The court held that the islanders had a right of return to the group of 65 islands in the Chagos archipelago, although not to Diego Garcia itself. Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, said there would be no appeal, adding that a "feasibility study" into the possibility of the islanders' return would be conducted.
US military authorities expressed fears that any attempt to resettle any of the islands would severely compromise the security of Diego Garcia, which was used to launch bombing missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was then that the government decided the islanders could not go back after all. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Excellent news .. made my day .. though I fear the government will do what is has been doing since 2000 .. i.e. do nothing to help & then block a court ruling. It may still appeal to the House of Lords.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| that is great news for sure - good for them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
major.tom
Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
This is indeed very welcome news.
I never even heard of Diego Garcia until the last year or so. I hope they get to return to their idyllic homes soon
In case you'd like to learn more about this subject, check out "Stealing a Nation" by John Pilger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i signed a petition on the downing street site a while back about this, finally got a response today ...
| Quote: | DiegoGarcia - epetition reply
4 September 2007
We received a petition asking:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Give back the Chagos Islands To their original inhabitants."
Details of petition:
"We believe that the forced expulsion of the Chagos Archipeligo at the request of the USA for the sole purpose of establishing a military base on Diego Garcia to be a shameful episode in our countrys' recent history. Perhaps even more shamefully, the UK government now intends to stop the Chagossians from ever returning to their homes. To do this it will have to overturn or ignore two High Court Judgements allowing the Chagossians the right to return. This is in spite of Home Secretary Robin Cooks position of not contesting the decision to allow repatriation in 2000. It seems the continuing ''War on Terror'' allows for the contiued theft of these Islands, simply for their strategic position in relation to the Gulf and any future campaigns."
* Read the petition
* Petitions home page
Read the Government's response
The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was originally created to provide for the defence needs of both the United States and Britain. The British Government entered into a bilateral agreement with the United States in 1966 which provides that the Territory is to remain available for the defence needs of the two countries for an initial period of 50 years, with an option of a further 20 years.
Former Foreign Office Minister, Bill Rammell, stated in Parliament on 7 July 2004:
"I shall start by acknowledging that, in my view, the decisions taken by successive Governments in the 1960s and 1970s to depopulate the islands do not, to say the least, constitute the finest hour of UK foreign policy. In no sense am I seeking to justify the decisions that were made in the 1960s and 1970s. Those decisions may be seen as regrettable, but the Government must deal with the current situation. The responsibility of the UK Government for the decisions taken in the 1960s and 1970s has been acknowledged by successive Governments since then, as is demonstrated by the substantial compensation that has already been paid to the Chagossians."
Full text of this statement can be found on the Parliament website (new window).
Compensation was paid by the UK to the Chagossians in two stages. Firstly, £650,000 was paid to the Mauritian Government for the benefit of the Chagossians in the early 1970s (£5.5 million at today's prices) for the express purpose of assisting resettlement.
Secondly, under a 1982 Agreement between the UK, Government of Mauritius and representatives of the Chagossians a further £4 million (£9 million at today's prices) was paid by the UK into a Trust Fund for the benefit of registered Chagossians. This was in full and final settlement of any claims they might have had. The High Court Judgement of 9 October 2003, upheld by the Court of Appeal on 22 July 2004, thoroughly examined the circumstances in which this settlement was reached. The islanders were advised at the time by their own lawyers that this represented a fair and reasonable settlement. It established that the UK had no legal obligation to make any further compensation.
The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British citizenship to Overseas Territories citizens, including a large number of Chagossians. The citizenship provisions of the Act came into force on 21 May 2002. Since then over 1,100 Chagossians have been issued with British passports. Upon receipt of their British passport, the Chagossians were given a leaflet explaining what they were and were not entitled to if they exercised their right to live in the UK. Many have chosen to excise that right and have moved to the UK.
Mr Bill Rammell gave a written statement to the House of Commons in June 2004
" . . . whilst it may be feasible to resettle the islands in the short-term, the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to be prohibitive. Even in the short-term, natural events such as periodic flooding from storms and seismic activity are likely to make life difficult for a resettled population . . . Human interference within the atolls, however well managed, is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effects of global warming. Thus resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time."
Specifically with reference to climate change, the report advised that:
" . . . the main issue facing a resettled population on the low-lying islands will be flooding events, which are likely to increase in periodicity and intensity and will not only threaten infrastructure, but also the freshwater aquifers and agricultural production. Severe events may even threaten life."
The report also highlighted the implications for resettlement on such low-lying islands of the predicted increase in global sea levels as a result of climate change.
In effect, therefore, anything other than short-term resettlement on a purely subsistence basis would be highly precarious and would involve expensive underwriting by the UK Government for an open-ended period -- probably permanently. Accordingly, the Government consider that there would be no purpose in commissioning any further study into the feasibility of resettlement; and that it would be impossible for the Government to promote or even permit resettlement to take place. After long and careful consideration, we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it.
Equally, restoration of full immigration control over the entire territory is necessary to ensure and maintain the availability and effective use of the territory for defence purposes, for which it was in fact constituted and set aside in accordance with the UK's treaty obligations entered into almost 40 years ago. Especially in the light of recent developments in the international security climate since the November 2000 judgment, this is a factor to which due weight has had to be given.
It was for these reasons that on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory. These controls extend to all persons, including members of the Chagossian community.
Orders in Council are the only current means, save an act of Parliament, by which we can introduce primary legislation for ceded Overseas Territories, of which the British Indian Ocean Territory is one. It is common to use Orders in Council to legislate both in the UK and in the Overseas Territories. For example, in 2000 the Government enacted an Order in Council under the Royal prerogative to decriminalise homosexuality in the Caribbean Overseas Territories.
The former Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, decided to seek permission to appeal against the 23 May 2007 Court of Appeal judgement primarily because the judgement raises issues of constitutional law of general public importance that, in her view, would adversely affect the effective governance of all British Overseas Territories. This would include confusion in the legal system to be applied in those Overseas Territories, and potential conflicts between local and English courts. For these reasons the former Foreign Secretary thought it to be in the public interest that the effect of the Court of Appeal's judgement even if correct, should be clarified.
If permission is granted, we expect the case to be heard by the House of Lords in 2008. It would be inappropriate to comment further in relation to ongoing proceedings. |
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DiegoGarcia/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | Chagos exiles ruling overturned
Exiled residents of the Chagos Islands have had the right to return to their Indian Ocean homeland overturned by the House of Lords.
The government won its appeal against a court decision that had ruled in favour of 2,000 former residents of the British overseas territory.
They were evicted in the 1960s when the colony was leased to the US to build an airbase on the atoll of Diego Garcia.
The Law Lords decision is the final judgement in the long-running case.
BBC world affairs correspondent Mike Wooldridge said the high hopes of the Chagossians would now be dashed by the ruling, and that it was likely that they would take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Royal prerogative
He added that Foreign Secretary David Miliband had said the government regretted the manner in which the former residents had been evicted.
In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia.
In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative - exercised by ministers in the Queen's name - to effectively nullify the decision.
Last year, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny. The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.
The exiled residents had hoped that if the Law Lords ruling had gone in their favour, their heritage could be rebuilt around a new tourist industry. |
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683726.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| what a bunch of bastards the government are. All on orders from the White House I'll bet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Shame. The rights of the natives taken away by those in power, once again.
I must admit thought, when I read the title first thing this morning I was a bit groggy and read "Chicago islanders win right to return" Was a bit confused.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Wikileaks cables reveal Foreign Office misled parliament over Diego Garcia
UK official told Americans that marine park plan would end the 'Man Fridays'' hopes of ever returning home
The Foreign Office misled parliament over the plight of thousands of islanders who were expelled from their Indian Ocean homeland to make way for a large US military base, according to secret US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.
More than 2,000 islanders – described privately by the Foreign Office as "Man Fridays" – were evicted from the British colony of Diego Garcia in the 1960s and 1970s. The Foreign Office, backed by the US, has fought a long legal battle to prevent them returning home.
The islanders' quest to go back will be decided by a ruling, expected shortly, from the European court of human rights.
New leaked documents show the Foreign Office has privately admitted its latest plan to declare the islands the world's largest marine protection zone will end any chance of them being repatriated.
The admission is at odds with public claims by Foreign Office ministers that the proposed park would have no effect on the islanders' right of return. They have claimed the marine park was a ploy to block their return, claiming it would make it impossible for them to live there as it would ban fishing, their main livelihood.
The disclosure follows years of criticism levelled at Whitehall over the harsh treatment of the islanders, many of whom have lived in poverty in other countries since their deportation.
In the past, National Archive documents have revealed how the Foreign Office consistently lied about the eviction, maintaining the fiction that the islanders had not been permanent residents.
The latest leaked documents are US state department cables recording private meetings between Foreign Office mandarins and their American counterparts.
In May 2009, Colin Roberts, the Foreign Office director of overseas territories, told the Americans Diego Garcia's value in "assuring the security of the US and UK" had been "much more than anyone foresaw" in the 1960s, when the plan to set up the base was hatched.
"We do not regret the removal of the population since removal was necessary for [Diego Garcia] to fulfil its strategic purpose," he added under a passage that the Americans headed "Je ne regrette rien".
Roberts, admitting the government was "under pressure" from the islanders, told the US of the plan to set up the marine park on 55 islands around Diego Garcia, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). "Roberts stated that, according to [Her Majesty's government's] current thinking on a reserve, there would be 'no human footprints' or 'Man Fridays' on the BIOT uninhabited islands," according to the American account of the meeting. The language echoes that used in 1966 when Denis Greenhill – later the Foreign Office's most senior official – described the inhabitants as "a few Tarzans and Man Fridays".
The leaked documents also record that Roberts "asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents".
This private stance differs from the Foreign Office's public line in April when a series of MPs asked Chris Bryant, the then Foreign Office minister, if the marine park ruled out the islanders, known as Chagossians, ever returning home.
Bryant told parliament the proposed park "will not have any direct or indirect effect on the rights or otherwise of Chagossians to return to the islands. These are two entirely separate issues". There is no suggestion that Bryant was aware of the conversation between Roberts and the Americans about Diego Garcia.
Leading conservation groups have supported the marine park plan. Roberts is quoted as telling the Americans that Britain's "environmental lobby is far more powerful than the [islanders'] advocates".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables-diego-garcia-uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/207149 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
