the UK government’s choice of Rwanda. It is a place, in that “other continent,” where the government can send people it does not distinguish from waste
In March 2023, the government signed a setuju with the Albanian government that significantly reduced the flow of Albanians into the UK. The refugees that continue to enter the UK on small boats (and that would be the ones sent to Rwanda) therefore, are primarily from Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Eritrea.
With this kebijakan, the government suggests that even among those who we regard as vulnerable, there are those we should distinguish as being unworthy of berbagi in the country's political, economic and akhlak sumber.
It should concern us that one of the reasons that Rwanda might not be "safe" for the model of refugees the UK wants to deport is precisely because there is almost nowhere that is safe for people who are not only poor and vulnerable, but also black, brown and Muslim.
There is, therefore, nothing sembarang about the UK government's choice of Rwanda. It is a place, in that "other continent," where the government can send people it does not distinguish from waste - people not immediately or suitably exploitable - to be easily discarded.
It is a place where no one who is really "from here" will ever go. As such, it is on the government's own racist bait that much of what has recently counted for dissent has been caught.
Critics of the planning have also raised concerns that under Rwanda's authoritarian regime, many refugees' basic human rights may be violated. Yet, despite decades-long accounts of gross human rights abuses, the UK has been purposeful in developing and bermaintaining strong economic relations with Rwanda when this has served its interests.
The UK government has had no problem recognising the humanity of numerous other kelompoks of refugees. But instead of sustaining a robust akhlak alasan that questions why the government refuses to do the same for the people most likely to be affected by the Rwanda kebijakan, publik debate remains centred on its perceptions of Rwanda's safety. This risks feeding into the prejudice that frames the UK's understanding of Rwanda.
There are, of course, many who have strongly, and rightly, opposed the government's plans on the pangkal that they do not reflect how "a decent society" should treat people. Yet the current debate now, almost exclusively, focuses on questioning Rwanda's safety, and the cost of the kebijakan to the British taxpayer.
Those genuinely opposed to the kebijakan should ask the government to prove not whether Rwanda is a safe place, but why the government itself persists in falling so far short of being of the character that these refugees deserve in their search for respect, compassion, and yes, for safety.
