The Government has been found to be acting illegally again, as the House of Lords rules the marriage laws targeting couples where one or both is not British to be an arbritary and unjust breach of human rights.
Shortly before being forced to resign for obtaining a dodgy visa for his extra-marital lover’s nanny, twice-disgraced former Home Secretary David Blunkett introduced a rule to counter the threat to UK society of “sham marriages”.
A sham marriage was defined in law as “one entered into between a foreign (non EEA) national and another person (whether or not British or an EEA national); and entered into for the purpose of avoiding the effect of one or more provisions of United Kingdom immigration law or the immigration rules.”
The legislation had been introduced in the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, but Blunkett’s rules were to be much further reaching and from the start there were warnings that they would be in contravention of human rights legislation.
In 2004, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) warned that the provisions represented a fundamental change in rules with no consultation and very limited parliamentary scrutiny, and posed a very clear risk of breaching Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to marry and found a family):
“Although, the right of spouses to live together in the UK has historically been subject to immigration control, never has anyone’s right to actually get married been questioned in this manner, and certainly has never been subject to immigration legislation. JCWI fears that yet again, where immigration legislation is concerned, the government is seeking to avoid proper debate on laws that affect the basic civic rights of minority groups.
The latest raft of proposed measures simply represent a further attack on the rights of black and ethnic minority individuals to marry those of their own choosing. The civil union of a couple in matrimony is a cause for celebration amongst all communities, and the overarching threat to this celebration posed by the proposed new amendments is unacceptable.”
Legal challenges finally reached the highest court in the land on 30 July 2008, where the Law Lords agreed with previous rulings on the case and dismissed the Government’s appeal, saying the rules were an “arbitrary and unjust interference” with human rights.
Baroness Hale said:
“Denying those benefits to a couple whose relationship is genuine is neither a rational nor a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of a firm and fair immigration policy.”
She said the right to marry was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Even in these days, when many in British society believe that there is little social difference between marrying and living together, marriage still has deep significance for many people, quite apart from the legal recognition, status, rights and obligations which it brings.”
In a statement JCWI welcomed the “landmark ruling” that trashed the Government’s ’section 19 scheme’ that obliged foreigners to pay for, and to obtain permission, to marry. Commenting, the chief executive of the migrants’ rights charity JCWI (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants), Habib Rahman says:
“It’s a great day for human rights, for justice and for migrant communities, who were clearly the target of this discriminatory scheme. “
Filed under: legal, racism, rights | Tagged: human rights, immigration, marriage, migrant
