Does the UN understand the implications of this deportation ruling?

[Imdunfer]

First let me say that I do not lack empathy for this one family and this one child.

BUT

If Sweden takes any notice of this (or any other country does) how long before the people smugglers start offering special packages to families with disabled a family member?

Sweden is about to deport them for the third time because the family have no justification for being there as asylum seekers from Albania under their rules. The UN begs to differ.

This would effectively mean that anyone who is ill or disabled with medical needs who manages to make it into a country with a better health system than they have at home can't be deported.

And turn Europe into the de facto health service for every country in the world with inadequate health services.

I find myself increasingly wondering what use the UN actually is other than a giant and very expensive talking shop. I hope that Sweden takes as little notice of this as the China or Israel does on UN resolutions.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/04/27/un-human-rights-office-rebukes-sweden-for-deporting-disabled-child-twice-to-albania

Interesting. It’s a complex field and it would be interesting to see human rights lawyers expert take on this.

On many metrics, some of the UK’s healthcare is failing - especially maternity care. Could we see British pregnant women, (especially those who have previously lost children or had severely disabled children or who have suffered long term health disabilities due to deficiencies and negligence in NHS maternity care) show up in superior European healthcare systems and demand asylum/ treatment?!

It's already open doors when rapists can't be deported because the courts say he has a right to family life here, or the infamous Egyptian imam with the hook hand preaching hate. Remember him? European countries have become a joke with the inability to do anything due to "rights" being tipped in favour of one over the rights of the many.

When the rights of rapists are more important than the rights of kids not to be raped we have serious issues.

I believe some of these men would disable their own wife or daughter to get a visa. This is a very dangerous path to go down.

My thought exactly when I was writing this morning.

Jesus I hadn't thought of that but you're absolutely right, it's a risk.

@Imdunfer It is the first thing I thought. These do good lawyers and officials living in lovely areas, possibly with security officers are more bothered about virtue signalling and making money than keeping their populations safe. They must know the risk but I can only assume they don’t care.

Bringing in undocumented men is insane. Allowing them to wander round is also insane. Does saying that make me horrid? Maybe but I care more about my daughters and their friends safety than being called names.

Even legal immigration is not safe. Look up the government website that details how to get a DBS checks as a foreign worker - some just need to obtain a letter from the local police station back home - then ask Google/AI if the local police officers, in the country you just selected, are susceptible to bribery. Some countries police officers take bribery in instalments! It’s interesting and it made me realise dbs checks for foreign workers are unsafe.

Do we honestly believe that the police officers in some countries wouldn’t write a glowing police report for a backhander of £2000 paid in installments once the person reaches the U.K. and gets a job as a nurse/care worker/ teacher. Then the criminal gets a DBS pass in the U.K. and is working in a hospital or care home or school near you.

And that’s if sex offences get reported in that country.

In fact by writing a glowing police report the offender will no longer be a menace in their country, so maybe it’s in their interest to write a good one. Get rid of your sex offenders by writing glowing reports and keep your citizens safe.

It’s impossible to be categoric without knowing the specifics of the case—in theory Sweden could have behaved so outrageously (twice!) that the UN is right to rebuke it—but chances are that yes, this UN body is talking complete nonsense. Sweden already has an Art.3 ECHR obligation to take account of the need for medical treatment, which is a very high but not impossible hurdle to surmount, and I doubt that it won’t have respected its duty on that front.

As for the UN, it’s just the highest manifestation of what I see everywhere across third sector bodies, which is a practice of continually looking only at the virtuous/universalist side of every issue, and giving almost no heed at all to the need for realism. An entire sector with its head in the clouds.

It’s one of the biggest disasters for democracy that I’ve seen in my lifetime, because for so many people it’s severed the idea that compromise is part of politics, or even that compromise is a necessary part of daily everyday life. The heart of it is the separation of political function from responsibility for tax-raising, because that’s the most important way of keeping government in line with what the population will tolerate. It’s ridiculous that quasi-public-function bodies, from the UN down to Stonewall, should be able to exercise quasi-powers without having to answer for their downsides, but for thirty years all we’ve got is more and more of this. People choose to believe it in turn, and so we polarise.

We don’t describe this sort of militant, virtuous universalism as extremism – but it’s what it is, and in time it will provoke an equally extreme response. I have to hope our systems would appreciate the danger and reel this in themselves, because there’s little sign of the third sector itself doing so.

This a million times over, I agree with every word.