Which ought to be the greater priority for the British state?

• Preventing British children from being raped by illegal aliens; or
• Housing illegal alien rapists on the public dime

I think we all already knew the answer that the British government arrived at many decades ago, but the British Home Office was kind enough to clear up any lingering doubt and just come right out with it.

In fact, so-called “asylum seekers” (read: economic migrants) do enjoy superior rights to British people in Britain because… something, something “non-derogable fundamental human rights” as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Via The Telegraph (emphasis added):

“Asylum seekers’ rights are more important than the concerns of the people of Epping, the Home Office has declared.

On Friday, a judge will rule whether Epping Forest district council can close a hotel housing illegal migrants or the Home Office can continue to use it to house asylum seekers.

On Thursday, Home Office lawyers told the Court of Appeal that Yvette Cooper had a duty as Home Secretary to prevent asylum seekers from being made destitute under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and so they should continue to live at the Bell Hotel.

They claimed this responsibility trumped the council’s powers to close the hotel, which has been at the centre of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker living there was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old schoolgirl.

On Thursday night police clashed with protesters who tried to swarm the hotel in a fresh protest.

But government lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and “are fundamentally different in nature”…

In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

“The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament. Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under article three ECHR, which establishes non-derogable fundamental human rights.””

“Non-derogable fundamental human rights” to rape and pillage the natives from the comfort of publicly-subsidized luxury hotels!

Utopia, we’ve arrived!

Related: Polish High Court Rules National Sovereignty Supersedes EU Authority, EU Sues

The British Court of Appeal concurs, expressing concern that, if Epping Forest were permitted to exert any control over how many migrants it welcomes and where they are housed, that might create an undesirable precedent that would “incentivize other councils to seek similar legal action.”

Via Independent (UK) (emphasis added):

“Police are braced for further anti-migrant protests after judges revoked a ban on housing asylum seekers at an Essex hotel that has been plagued by unrest.

Court of Appeal judges ruled that the closure of The Bell Hotel in Epping would have “obvious consequences” on the government’s duty to house asylum seekers and would “incentivise” other councils to seek similar legal action if allowed…

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp accused Labour of “using the courts against the British public”.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called on Conservative councils to continue to seek similar injunctions against hotels in their areas, with several already confirming they would take legal action.

The Times reported that at least 13 other councils are considering pressing ahead with legal action. Among them are several Labour-run authorities, the newspaper said..”

Related: British PM: We Censor Anti-Migrant Protests ‘For the Children’

A British legacy media anchor recently posed the fundamental question in the starkest terms possible:

“Your lawyers under your guidance have said in terms that the rights of asylum seekers are more important than the rights of local people in Epping Forest…. Ministers can say we agree with that or we don’t agree with it… Do you agree with what your lawyers said or don’t you?”

“Yes, of course we do,” Member of Parliament Bridget Phillipson of the Labor Party replied.

Refreshing honesty.

Anarcho-tyranny via two-tier justice is now official government doctrine in the birthplace of the Magna Carta, for the benefit of foreigners at the expense of the native population from which the government purportedly derives its rightful authority.