Thursday, May 11, 2023
The Archbishop speaks out, but where is Labour?
The Mirror reports on the speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords, when he launched a scathing attack on "morally unacceptable" Government plans to lock up refugees who reach the UK by small boats.
They say that Archbishop Justin Welby - fresh from his central role at King Charles's Coronation on Saturday - lashed out at Suella Braverman's draconian Illegal Migration Bill, saying it will do huge damage to the UK's standing in the world:
In a rare intervention he told peers that the legislation "fails to live up to our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests".
And in a devastating assessment of Ms Braverman's proposals, the Archbishop told the House of Lords there were "too many problems for one speech in this bill".
Mr Welby called it "isolationist", and said: "It's morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with the crisis alone and cut our international aid."
Church leaders came out against the legislation, with the bishops of Durham and Gloucester also voicing their opposition.
He said the bill will "greatly damage" the UK, stating: "The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has warned that the bill could lead to the collapse of the international system that protects refugees.
"Is that what we want the United Kingdom's contribution to be in our leadership?"
And he warned that allowing the bill to pass could have devastating consequences for the UK.
Mr Welby said: "My Lords, this bill is an attempt at a short-term fix.
"It risks great damage to the UK's reputation at home and abroad, let alone the interests of those in need of protections or the nations who together face this challenge.
"Our interests are closely linked to our reputation for justice and the rule of law and our measured language, calm decision and careful legislation.
"None of those are seen here."
The bill also came under fire from the Bishop of Durham, Paul Butler, who said it "poses fundamental questions about who we are as a nation".
"The state will view a child or a pregnant woman as individuals subject to immigration control, not as an innocent child or a vulnerable mother about to give birth," he said.
"We need to ask - what about the Government's duty to protect?"
The Bishop added: "I am reminded of Jesus' words: It would be better to have a millstone around the neck and be cast into the sea than to cause a little one to stumble.
"This responsibility needs to bear upon us heavily."
And Bishop of Gloucester Rachel Treweek voiced her alarm about the denial of modern slavery support for those who arrive in the UK by irregular means.
"It seems so wrong on so many levels, not least morally," the Bishop said.
"Why would anyone come forward as a victim of modern slavery? Why risk being sent to Rwanda?"
She continued: "I see a worrying failure to recognise the trauma experienced by victims."
Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Paddick tabled a motion for the bill to be scrapped altogether. If he had been successful then it could have forced the government to use the Parliament Act, effectively delaying it for a year, right up to a general election. Lord Paddock said: "This bill is seeking to deny human rights to a group of people desperately seeking sanctuary. The Human Rights Act is being revoked one bill at a time. This bill is a low point in the history of this Government."
He argued that the new law shouldn't proceed as it doesn't meet the UK's international law commitments and doesn't address the problems it's supposed to solve. "It also undermines the UK’s tradition of providing sanctuary to refugees by removing their legal right to claim asylum".
Despite these strong arguments the Labour Party appeared unmoved. The vast majority of the Labour peers refused to back his motion, allowing the bill to proceed to royal assent. It is almost as if they have lost their backbone.
The question now must be what is the point of Labour if they are just going to emulate the Tories?
They say that Archbishop Justin Welby - fresh from his central role at King Charles's Coronation on Saturday - lashed out at Suella Braverman's draconian Illegal Migration Bill, saying it will do huge damage to the UK's standing in the world:
In a rare intervention he told peers that the legislation "fails to live up to our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests".
And in a devastating assessment of Ms Braverman's proposals, the Archbishop told the House of Lords there were "too many problems for one speech in this bill".
Mr Welby called it "isolationist", and said: "It's morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with the crisis alone and cut our international aid."
Church leaders came out against the legislation, with the bishops of Durham and Gloucester also voicing their opposition.
He said the bill will "greatly damage" the UK, stating: "The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has warned that the bill could lead to the collapse of the international system that protects refugees.
"Is that what we want the United Kingdom's contribution to be in our leadership?"
And he warned that allowing the bill to pass could have devastating consequences for the UK.
Mr Welby said: "My Lords, this bill is an attempt at a short-term fix.
"It risks great damage to the UK's reputation at home and abroad, let alone the interests of those in need of protections or the nations who together face this challenge.
"Our interests are closely linked to our reputation for justice and the rule of law and our measured language, calm decision and careful legislation.
"None of those are seen here."
The bill also came under fire from the Bishop of Durham, Paul Butler, who said it "poses fundamental questions about who we are as a nation".
"The state will view a child or a pregnant woman as individuals subject to immigration control, not as an innocent child or a vulnerable mother about to give birth," he said.
"We need to ask - what about the Government's duty to protect?"
The Bishop added: "I am reminded of Jesus' words: It would be better to have a millstone around the neck and be cast into the sea than to cause a little one to stumble.
"This responsibility needs to bear upon us heavily."
And Bishop of Gloucester Rachel Treweek voiced her alarm about the denial of modern slavery support for those who arrive in the UK by irregular means.
"It seems so wrong on so many levels, not least morally," the Bishop said.
"Why would anyone come forward as a victim of modern slavery? Why risk being sent to Rwanda?"
She continued: "I see a worrying failure to recognise the trauma experienced by victims."
Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Paddick tabled a motion for the bill to be scrapped altogether. If he had been successful then it could have forced the government to use the Parliament Act, effectively delaying it for a year, right up to a general election. Lord Paddock said: "This bill is seeking to deny human rights to a group of people desperately seeking sanctuary. The Human Rights Act is being revoked one bill at a time. This bill is a low point in the history of this Government."
He argued that the new law shouldn't proceed as it doesn't meet the UK's international law commitments and doesn't address the problems it's supposed to solve. "It also undermines the UK’s tradition of providing sanctuary to refugees by removing their legal right to claim asylum".
Despite these strong arguments the Labour Party appeared unmoved. The vast majority of the Labour peers refused to back his motion, allowing the bill to proceed to royal assent. It is almost as if they have lost their backbone.
The question now must be what is the point of Labour if they are just going to emulate the Tories?
Comments:
<< Home
Where is Labour indeed! Cowering behind the sofa, afraid to make a moral stand on an important issue like this. Still, it was ever thus and I am reminded of St Paul's letter to the Corinthians. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass or a tinkling symbol". For Labour it is apparently better to gain the votes of right wing bigots than actually stand up against the Tory Government.
And there are still innocents in the Lib Dems who want a coalition with these illiberal people.
Post a Comment
And there are still innocents in the Lib Dems who want a coalition with these illiberal people.
<< Home
