The Glory of Empire!

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

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?

---

Depends on your point of view. If you're one of those being dispossessed, then obviously it's wrong. If you're one of those who are benefitting from it, then obviously it's right!

I'm sure the British government felt it was necessary and important to build that naval base as a defense of it's citizens. You know, all those citizens who lived on the island. Since the colonials area part of the empire, then obviously they too benefit from having a naval base, even if they have to leave the island.

I, for one, am not surprised that the House of Lords ruled the takeover to be legal. I would be shocked if at least some of them did not benefit, probably financially, from the construction of the base. And the European courts may not do those people much good, either. Every government wants to reserve the right to control its territory. Stating that the British government cannot would be admitting that they cannot either.

For better or worse, this kind of thing has been going on ever since the first bureaucrat was cast out of Hell. It's not likely to change, either.

Quote:

---

Depends on your point of view. If you're one of those being dispossessed, then obviously it's wrong. If you're one of those who are benefitting from it, then obviously it's right!

---

Not if the country is subject to the rule of law, and the dispossession is found to be unlawful, as happened here at first. When the case was first heard in the High Court, the Government was found to be acting unlawfully. It then invoked the Royal Perogative, and the appeal cases turned on whether the Government was right to do so. In the Court of Appeal, the Government claimed that the Royal Perogative was immune from judicial scrutiny; the appeal judges disagreed and ordered the Government to return the archipelago to the Chagossians. The Government asked the House of Lords to rule on this (don't be misled: when the H of L sits as a court, the "Law Lords" hearing the case are senior judges, not aristocrats or politicians - and none of them had a direct material interest in the outcome). They held that it did have that right, but two of the five law lords dissented. In other words, the decision was carried on just one vote.

Well, that is enough to make the decision binding - I don't complain about that, even though it is, as one journalist put it, an immoral act where the highest court in the land finds in favour of the most flagrant injustice.

In how many other countries which profess to be subject to the rule of law can the government simply set a court decision aside. Does the US President have a perogative to overturn a decison made by an American Court, just because it suits him? Can even Congress do this?