Chagos Islanders give the fucking lying bitch at the The Foreign Office a Bloody Nose

Families expelled from the Chagos Islands by the British Government have had their right to return to their homes upheld today by the High Court in a damning judgement against the heartless bitch who we have to call the Foreign Secretary. It is a tribute to the patience and skill of their leaders and lawyers that finally the obdurate, illegal, dishonest, actions of Her Majesty's Government have been finally exposed.

Lord Justice Waller said the decision to expel the Chagos Islanders had been taken by a Government minister "acting without any constraint".

Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cresswell ruled that the islanders' interests had been ignored and that orders to prevent their return "were irrational and unlawful."

But it is a long and tangled tale and today's Appeal by Margaret Beckett (said by some to be the Foreign Secretary - she resides in an office adjacent to Lord Levy, Personal Ambassador for The Dear Leader to the Land Of Israel and responsible for illegally selling honours in return for subsidies to the New Labour Party by rich vain businessmen)

You can usefully start the legal tale (which is beginning to rival Jarndyce & Jarndyce) here....

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions - Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 1038 (Admin) Case No: CO/4093/2004

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL
____________________

Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF LOUIS OLIVIER BANCOULT
Claimant

- and -

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
Defendant

This was the judgment brought in the High Court November 2006 in which Mr Bancoult sought the rejection of the Order in Council which prevented him from returning to his homeland - the Chagos Isands.

The whole judgement is available here and provides a fascinating and illuminating history not only of the post war trials of the islanders but the attitude of the Foreign Office staff in negotiations about their fate ..

" A note dated 24 August 1966 to an official, Mr D A Greenhill, quotes a minute from the Permanent Under Secretary (presumably at the Colonial Office). The Permanent Under Secretary unburdened himself thus:

'

We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee (the Status of Women Committee does not cover the rights of birds).'

This attracted a comment from Mr D A Greenhill, who spoke the same language:

'Unfortunately along with the birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to Mauritius etc. When this has been done I agree we must be very tough and a submission is being done accordingly.'

A document headed "Presentation of British Indian Ocean Territory in the United Nations" which bears no date, but whose context shows it was written after 12 August 1966, contains a section headed "Objectives". This is of particular importance in relation to Sir Sydney Kentridge's (Mr Bancoult's brief) contention that the Ordinance was made for an improper purpose. Here are the material passages:

'10. The primary objective in acquiring these islands from Mauritius and the Seychelles to form the new 'British Indian Ocean Territory' was to ensure that Her Majesty's Government had full title to, and control over, these islands so that they could be used for the construction of defence facilities without hindrance or political agitation and so that when a particular island would be needed for the construction of British or United States defence facilities Britain or the United States should be able to clear it of its current population. The Americans in particular attached great importance to this freedom of manoeuvre, divorced from the normal considerations applying to a populated dependent territory.

Well when LORD JUSTICE HOOPER and LORD JUSTICE HOOPER concluded..."For these reasons the claimant succeeds." Mrs Beckett (Gawd Bless her) appealed and today she was told in a damning verdict, by LORD JUSTICE HOOPER AND MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL (again) that they condemned as "repugnant" the British Government's decision to "exile a whole population" from the Indian Ocean on the basis that it was necessary for "peace, order and good government".

Whilst they could not prevent an appeal to the House of Lords, they suggested that the House of Lords should consider if any Appeal could be accepted. A spokeman for the Foreign Office said to Sky News today , "The Foreign Secretary will consider the judgement, then decide if an appeal to the House of Lords will be made."

Diego Garcia is the largest of the Chagos Islands and had been effectively exchanged (what we lawyers call "sold") to the US for an Air Base by Labour Peer Lord Chalfont and Lord Callaghan who was a bit behind on the HP for the "Chevalining" or secret upgrading of the Polaris Missiles - which he forgot to tell his Party members about at the time. The islanders were shipped off to Mauritius, mony that went to the Mauritius Government as a sort of blood money never saw them and so they were consigned to poverty. Overall there are 2000 of them and 200 live in the UK after a change in the law by Jack Straw over their status.

The US turned the islands into a massive air base so they could readily bomb the living shit out of Iraq and anywhere it took and takes their fancy. Lady Amos always equivocated whenever asked if the Americans had one of their Ghost Prisons there, as did Jack Straw so that is a fair indication that they do.

Naturally the Chagos Islanders (The Ilois - The Islanders) were a bit shirty and through a great deal of effort over many years managed to get the House of Lords to agree that the Islands should be returned to them.Which the High Court agreed with in a famous decision in November 2000.

Justice Ousely in October 2003 then ruled against them (in a very questionable judgement much prized by the guys in pin stripes of a judicial cock-up) so they appealed and won in the House of Lords in 2004.

The Queens Dirty Tricks department came in under the heady presence of Lady Amos, (see pic)one of Blair's ennobled unelected chicks who was also Leader of Her Majesty's Privy Council and produced an Order in Council - a Mediaeval instrument that says effectively I am the Monarch, this is what I am doing and no one can stop me.On 10 June 2005 , election day for local authorities and the European Parliament, Bill Rammell, then a junior Foreign Office minister, slipped a written statement in to the Commons announcing that the Queen had approved an "order in council" banning the Chagos islanders from ever going home.

(See Written Ministerial Statement of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 422 Parl. Deb. (Hansard), H.C. (2004) 32-34WS, )

By virtue of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order 2004 ("the Immigration Order"), also made by Her Majesty in Council, presence within the Territory without a permit became an offence punishable by 3 years' imprisonment. It is clear that no permit will be granted to allow Chagossians to resume living in any of the islands.

In a sense this is not unlike a US Presidential Directive - of course the US president has the other trick up his sleeve he can just veto legislation and refuse to sign it. (Which in constituional theory the Queen can as she signs off all Parliamentary legislation - but if she did the whole of the Saxe - Coburg Gotha von Battenburg family would be hanging from theb lamposts on Pall Mall by teatime)

On 7 October, however, the High Court agreed to a judicial review of Rammell's royal decree at the request of Richard Gifford of Sheridans their lawyer.... who one must say has been a tower of strength throughout this to the Ilois. Well Done Dick.

Well her Maj got stopped in her tracks.

In the High Court the Order in Council was overturned.

Sir Sydney Kentridge QC had described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards".

He said there was no known precedent "for the lawful use of prerogative powers to remove or exclude an entire population of British subjects from their homes and place of birth".

But John Howell QC, appearing for the Foreign Office, argued the government acted within its powers, and did not accept that any residents of the territory were unlawfully removed or excluded in the period 1965-1973.

The local Ilois people, he said, who left the islands and re-settled in Mauritius, received compensation that eminent English lawyers described as fair.

Essentially this now means that Lady Amos's order in Council is null. It is void.They are free to return

BUT

The US says it opposes any return on security grounds. See Postscriptum.

Recently, Jack Straw - then Foreign Secretary - said that a return was not "practical".

Naturally the government was given permission to appeal, which they did. Tony Balir. although a lawyer , hates the independence of the Judiciary so like Hitler he, with his fat flatmate Lord Falconer of the enormous wattles and Fat belly are stitching up the selection of the Judges etc, etc,You can be sure that there is no way TB is going until he has that sorted out, he doesn't like confusing the Law with Justice.

Yet again the Judges have told Tony Blair and his Government to fuck off and right a long standing wrong. They will certainly appeal as to allow the Chagossians return would run counter to the desire of George Bush and Tony cannot accept anything that gets in the way of ramming his tongue between his gluteals. His successor may show some Christian Charity, but it is unlikely and an Appeal can be expected - of for no other reason that they hope that the Chagossians will die off, go away and stop pstering them.

United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit Decided on April 21st 2006


Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN.
BROWN, Circuit Judge: In this case, we confront serious allegations involving events occurring forty years ago on the far side of the world. Appellants claim the United States government forcibly removed them from their homes on islands in the Indian Ocean in order to construct a military base. The district court dismissed all of Appellants’ claims against the United States and the individual defendants. We affirm the district court’s decision, finding that Appellants’ claims present nonjusticiable political questions.


This is well worth reading as a VERY useful history of the way the Churchillian "Special relationship" that he invoked at the time of his "Iron Curtain" speech at Funton.