MMI
10-23-2008, 08:24 AM
Out in the middle of the Altantic, the Pacific, the Indian and the Antarcitc Oceans are various islands that are still British Dependancies (colonies in other words). Thirty years ago, the inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean were forcibly removed by the British Government so that a military base could be set up there.
(Britain eventually paid the islanders compensation amounting to less than £400 per person, and all of this was paid to the Mauritian government to defray the costs of resettling them.)
The Chagossians were forced to settle in the Seychelles, or in Mauritius, where they had no work or homes. Since that time, the islanders have been trying to return to their homelands, and have been pursuing their case through the English courts with varying degrees of success. The High Court decided that they had a right to return, but the British government invoked the Royal Perogative to overrule this decision. The Chagossians, however, took their case to the higher courts
Recently, however, the House of Lords - the Supreme Court - ruled (by a majority of 3:2) that, despite its callous disregard for the interests of the Chagossians, the British government was acting within its rights to behave in this way. (One of the dissenting judges said the Royal Perogative was "an anochronistic survival".)
It now seems that the only recourse the Chagossians have to return to their native home is to the European Court of Human Rights.
The solicitors acting for the Chagossians have said that it is unfortunate that these people should have become caught up in international power politics, but the Chagossians themselves have said they will fight on.
What do readers here think? Is it right that a colonial power can remove the entire population from one of its possessions for simply militaristic reasons, and not even pay any significant compensation?
Where do the people of Bermuda or the BVI's stand now?
(Britain eventually paid the islanders compensation amounting to less than £400 per person, and all of this was paid to the Mauritian government to defray the costs of resettling them.)
The Chagossians were forced to settle in the Seychelles, or in Mauritius, where they had no work or homes. Since that time, the islanders have been trying to return to their homelands, and have been pursuing their case through the English courts with varying degrees of success. The High Court decided that they had a right to return, but the British government invoked the Royal Perogative to overrule this decision. The Chagossians, however, took their case to the higher courts
Recently, however, the House of Lords - the Supreme Court - ruled (by a majority of 3:2) that, despite its callous disregard for the interests of the Chagossians, the British government was acting within its rights to behave in this way. (One of the dissenting judges said the Royal Perogative was "an anochronistic survival".)
It now seems that the only recourse the Chagossians have to return to their native home is to the European Court of Human Rights.
The solicitors acting for the Chagossians have said that it is unfortunate that these people should have become caught up in international power politics, but the Chagossians themselves have said they will fight on.
What do readers here think? Is it right that a colonial power can remove the entire population from one of its possessions for simply militaristic reasons, and not even pay any significant compensation?
Where do the people of Bermuda or the BVI's stand now?