Curly’s Corner Shop, the blog!

That’s it then -regret?

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, made a Statement on the judgement by the House of Lords on the Judicial Review of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) 2004 Orders in Council ruling that ‘no person has a right of abode in BIOT or the right to enter the Territory unless authorised’.

The Law Lords decision is the final judgement in this long-running case.

What’s this all about then?

The Chagossians are the people who inhabited the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands who were summarily chucked out of their homes and land when the UK decided to lease Diego Garcia to the USA in the 1960s. Imagine if you will debunking everyone off the Isle of Man and resettling them on the west coast of Ireland so that the Americans could built a nice giant sized airstrip down the middle of the world famous TT Course and build Menwith Hill MKll just outside of Ramsey, then tell the people that used to live there that they cannot come back, not even to visit. That’s about the gist of it.

South Shields MP and Foreign Secretary has now expressed his ‘regret’ at the final House of Lords ruling which upheld the validity of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004.

It is appropriate on this day that I should repeat the Government’s regret at the way the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s and at the hardship that followed for some of them.  We do not seek to justify those actions and do not seek to excuse the conduct of an earlier generation.  But the Courts have previously ruled that fair compensation has been paid and that the UK has no legal obligation to pay any further compensation; and British citizenship was granted to a large number of Chagossians under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

We realise, of course, that this judgement will be a great disappointment to many Chagossians.  We will keep in close touch with the Chagossian communities and consider carefully future requests to visit the Territory.’

That’s it then ‘regret’, we coughed up a small sum in compensation then decided that the outer islands were not feasible for resettlement – not feasible for people who had lived there for centuries previous! Needless to say Miliband’s crocodile tears for the Chagossians who were “ethnically cleansed” from their islands has not sat too well with a number of bloggers here in South Tyneside and around the UK.

Bryan at Tyne Dock Green in a satirical outburst comparing the case with the Falklands says;

Britain was prepared to spill blood, spend millions and shatter the mental health of a generation of servicemen to protect the self determination of the Falkland islanders. The Government could do the same for the Chagossians without firing a single shot. Once again Labour demonstrates that its moral compass is not only broken but permanently lost overboard.

Rossinisbird opines that Miliband has zero credibility on human rights;

Miliband wept over sovereign rights during the Russian invasion of Georgia. Civil liberties in Zimbabwe. Expressed regret over rendition flights. After his part in perpetuating this injustice, colluding with successive governments, he has precisely ZERO credibility when it comes to human rights.

The UK Libertarian Party says;

Words are cheaper than reparations, aren’t they Davey boy?

However the pick of the bunch must be Justin’s post at Chicken Yofhurt;

I suppose it all depends what you mean by ‘regret’. I imagine the way the Foreign Secretary defines it differs somewhat from the way you or I do. It’s the same when Gordon Brown says he ‘mourns’ British soldiers dying in the desert. Do you really ‘mourn’, Gordon? Do you actually ‘regret’, David? I’ll bet that your truly honest response behind your closed office door to the Law Lord’s decision was a huge sigh of relief.

I recommend you read the full post.

Miliband just doesn’t seem to ‘get’ the human rights issues this week, in another case the high court  condemned as “deeply disturbing” a refusal by the US government to disclose evidence that could prove a British resident in Guantánamo Bay was tortured before confessing to terrorist offences. The court said there was “no rational basis” for the US failure to reveal the contents of documents essential to the defence of Binyam Mohamed, who faces the death penalty.

The judges said they were unaware of any precedent of such serious allegations against “the government of a foreign friendly state and our oldest and closest ally” as those made in this case.

The US had not provided any explanation for its conduct though it had had “ample time” to do so, the judges said.

Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian national and British resident, was held in Pakistan in 2002, when he was questioned by an MI5 officer. He was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he says he was tortured by having his penis cut with a razor blade. The US subsequently flew him to Afghanistan and he was transferred to Guantánamo Bay in September 2004.

The Judges said David Miliband, the foreign secretary, conceded there was an “arguable case” that Mohamed had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment. Yet Miliband also wanted to suppress relevant documents, not because they would reveal any intelligence operations but because the US claimed that if they were disclosed serious harm would be done to “intelligence sharing” between the UK and the US.

No doubt Miliband has similar ‘regrets’ over Binyam Mohamed, facing a possible death penalty, with a penis cut to shreds, after six years of incarceration and the loss of rights which were enshrined in the Magna Carta. Justin was probably right, our South Shields Member of Parliament is a NuLabour sociopath without real feelings at all.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::