OF UNITED KINGDOM AND CITIZENSHIP

OF UNITED KINGDOM AND CITIZENSHIP : NST LEADER 

 

IF controversy - ridden Britain had its way, it would have rushed the citizenship-stripping Nationality and Border Bill through Parliament before the United Nations could make public its discriminatory and unlawful provisions.

 

UN human rights experts did just that on Wednesday by going public with their concerns about the proposed law's arbitrary citizenship-stripping powers in their 12-page letter to Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.

 

Their particular worry is rightly directed at Clause 9 or the Nationality and Border Bill, which empowers the secretary of state for the home department " to deprive a person of his British nationality without notice under a range of circumstances ".

 

There are quite a few but one such empowers the minister to do away with the obligation to give notice if information is not available.

 

This is a textbook definition of arbitrariness. On what grounds does the minister decide to strip the citizenship of a British national if no information is available ? Colour of the skin ? Or faith ?

 

The United Nation human rights expert's worry isn't groundless. Take section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

 

Media analysis, which the experts quote, shows that two (2) in every five people from non-white backgrounds are likely to be eligible for the deprivation of their British nationality under section 40(2), compared with one in 20 people categorised as white. " We are concerned that the United Kingdom practice of depriving people of citizenship may have a disproportionate impact on people from non-white racial and ethnic backgrounds, and especially people from Muslim and migrant communities."

 

While section 40(2) applies to white and non-white people, Clause 9 appears to be directed at Muslims and migrants, precisely the concerns highlighted by the United Nation human rights experts.

 

Sure, the United Nation human rights experts must be applauded for exposing the United Kingdom's discriminatory policies and practice.

 

But exposure is one thing; doing something about it is another. The United Nation is known for not doing things.

 

Our fear is that this may be just another UN letter that Britain may place in  the " Keep From View " file on the advice of Home Secretary Priti Patel, whose handiwork the Nationality and Borders Bill is.

 

And the United Nation would choose not to do anything about it as it is in the habit of doing. Little wonder, people call it a talkshop.

 

After all, Britain sits in one of the five (5) permanent seats of the United Nation Security Council wielding a veto to stop any effort to make it a humane nation, should such a resolution ever make it there.

 

As this United Nation human rights experts' letter is being read, Patel is busy with the appointment of Australia's former foreign minister Alexander Downer, " The Architect Of Australia's Harsh Immigration Policy ", as the news portal Middle East Eye describes him, to help make Britain's already inhumane border patrols more inhumane.

 

True, Australia's push-back policies and practices have been harshly criticised by the UN before. Still, they continue. All the United Nation reports are just wasted ink and pulp. Britain will do the same. First, Brexit and Now, Globexit.

 

>>>READ MORE ARTICLE HERE<<< 

https://www.jacknjillscute.com/2022/01/blames-religious-please-see-your-self.html 

https://www.jacknjillscute.com/2020/04/what-happens-after-more-than-2000-covid.html 

https://www.jacknjillscute.com/2021/01/london-hospital-boss-warns-its-on-brink.html 

https://www.jacknjillscute.com/2021/10/europe-rise-in-covid-19-last-week-who.html 

https://www.jacknjillscute.com/2021/12/covid-19-cases-hit-record-high-in-uk.html 

https://www.jacknjillscute.com/2022/01/new-covid-19-restrictions-would-be-last.html 

https://www.jacknjillscute.com/2022/01/united-kingdom-trying-to-replace.html 

 @ Jackie San