If Labour truly believe that the UK Borders Act 2007 is no longer fit for purpose, then why has no Labour MP tabled a motion to amend it?
On September 6th 2011 three men barged through the barriers at West Norwood Station in South London stalking their intended victim down to the platform. As the unsuspecting 20-year-old man waited for the train they thrust a bottle into his face leaving him with horrific and permanent facial injuries. For his role in the attack Akeem Finlay was sentenced to six years for Grievous Bodily Harm; The other two men have never been caught. Upon sentencing Finlay failed to admit any responsibility for his actions. This week he was one of 43 Jamaican nationals removed from a deportation flight. It was the second time he had been granted a last-minute reprieve.
The scheduled deportation flight to Jamaica for 50 foreign national offenders, convicted of a myriad of serious and violent crimes including murder and the rape of a minor, was once again obstructed by activist Labour MPs who know the issue plays well with their base.
When the flight left in the early hours of Tuesday morning it had only 7 Jamaican nationals on board. The remaining 43 had all been granted eleventh-hour reprieves after immigration lawyers launched a glut of appeals hoping to overturn the deportations. A previous flight to Jamaica in February saw 25 people removed at the last minute. The one prior to that in December last year, 37. Labour have repeatedly campaigned more vociferously for convicted criminals than they have for the victims of their crimes.
This hypocrisy is a cynical clarion call that reeks of virtue-posturing to the Caribbean diaspora upon whose vote London’s Labour MPs rely heavily. On each occasion supportive MPs have escaped close scrutiny, instead being afforded a soapbox upon which to trot out their well-rehearsed checklist of injustice. They cite Windrush, racism and the ‘hostile environment’ without ever being questioned as to the nature of the crimes that those they are campaigning for have committed.
It is ironic that the UK Borders Act 2007 under which the Home Secretary is legally obliged to carry out the deportations is legislation brought in by the last Labour Government. Two of the most vocal opponents to this week’s flight have been David Lammy and Diane Abbott, both of whom voted for it at second reading. To disingenuously suggest now that this is a nefarious government conspiracy to target the black population (Diane Abbott declaring it a ‘racist dragnet’) is a point that needs to be challenged. In the two years to June 2020 the percentage of enforced returns to Jamaica, as part of the overall number of deportations, have been just 0.69% and 0.63% respectively.
Contrary to this the Labour narrative over the past two weeks has focused heavily upon the rate of prosecutions for rape and the impact that this has had on those who have been victims of the crime, David Lammy going as far as to state that rapists “have never had it so good”. In stark contradiction to this Labour MPs have been happy to campaign for foreign national offenders convicted of multiple rapes to not be deported. The hypocrisy is galling.
Without rehabilitation a purely punitive justice system is set up for failure. However, whilst we should be striving to reduce the rate of recidivism, all parties should be clear that current legislation should also be enforced. If Labour truly believe that the UK Borders Act 2007 is no longer fit for purpose, then why has no Labour MP tabled a motion to amend it? Why is the Shadow Justice Secretary now campaigning against the implementation of legislation that he himself voted for?
The contentious issue of Jamaican deportation flights will continue to hit the headlines whilst Labour use the issue as an arrow in their quiver of identity politics. The selective nature of its application, leveraging it for foreign national offenders that fit their narrative, should be a damning indictment of the sophistry with which Labour approach issues around the intersection of justice and race. Their continuing trait of casting victims of perceived injustice as more worthy than compassion for actual victims of serious and violent crime is as unedifying as it is grotesque.
Whilst foreign national offenders remain under Labour’s aegis the Party will continue to demonstrate to an already suspicious public that it is soft on crime, and soft on the causes of crime.
