This is not a case against the UK. Disappointing stances may sometimes arise from people tasked with representing their constituency, as governments need to reflect the positions of the populations they are serving.

However, here is one truly unfortunate situation.

Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Bryant (both members of the British Parliament) and Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy, a member of the House of Lords, have all been using their positions to spread mistruths on Rwanda.

The trio is disputing the legitimacy of terrorism financier Paul Rusesabagina’s arrest, and many of the arguments surrounding these disputes strike as deeply prejudiced.

So regrettably, we must gather here today, to, once again, discuss the obvious.

The unsurprising unfortunate

The re-emergence of blatant lies surrounding our justice system, the leadership that upholds and instills it, and particularly, the case of one Paul Rusesabagina, is entirely logical in the realm of spinelessness. Firstly, the timing is ideal. Plague ages, like times of war, or any other period that features a large scale reality shift, harbor the perfect conditions for truth to appear malleable.

We have seen the spike in fake news and conspiracy theories, which have bypassed the proofing processes of traditional media via more-than-ever used social media, where they can circulate rapidly. Their momentum is sustained by the racist, sexist or ethnic rhetoric working their engine.

Like a virus to a weakened immune system, sensationalist lies latch on to our temporary appetite for conspiracies and ominous information, as we attempt to shock our psyches into smooth absorption of seemingly perpetual bad news. 

Vaccine dangers, global China supremacy, human rights violations in Africa...the more alarming in nature, the more these lies or gross exaggerations appeal widely – particularly among those that increased social media use or distance, have rendered either too impatient or too aloof to fact-check.

I’m sure Bryant & Friends could tell their time was now, even if subconsciously. The stage had been prepped for their soliloquies, and Carine Rusesabagina had the lines to slip them from backstage, fictional script in hand.

But what these dignitaries appear not to know is that onlookers are aware of another element to the fortuity of this timing. Rwanda seems to have turned a somber page with France, which has overtly contested the double genocide theory in the French President’s visit to Kigali earlier this year, admitted a degree of responsibility in the Genocide Against the Tutsi via the Duclert Report, and handed genocidaire Felicien Kabuga to international courts.

For all of France’s concessions, a semblance of goodwill has been in turn requested from the UK, which famously opposed the influx of Syrian refugees to the point of voting to leave the European Union, but is willing to pay £3 million of their taxpayers’ money to protect genocidaires from facing justice in the country these criminals attempted to burn.  

To deep-dive into the regrettable lies pronounced in the British Parliament last week, I propose we consider the identities of the officials that have called for the sanctioning of Johnston Busingye, Rwanda’s High Commissioner-designate to the UK, and particularly their highest-ranking face, Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy.

Baroness Helena Kennedy describes herself as a feminist – a description I find most agreeable. However, the Baroness strikes me as an opportunistic advocate for the rights of, most predominantly, white women, and who does not ascribe to the quest for the equal protection of all humans that feminism’s core definition calls for.

For one, Baroness Helena’s position suggests that Rwandans need not be protected from proven terrorists. Paul Rusesabagina’s freedom, is a strange cause to champion, for an activist who has famously denounced the injustice of female victims of GBV not being believed by authorities, listened to in court, and protected by the law.

Why would Baroness Helena Ann Kennedy not want Alice Kayitesi, one of the victims of FLN’s terrorist attacks (who has testified against Paul Rusesabagina), to be believed by authorities, listened to in court, and protected by the law? 

Or perhaps it is the Rwandan authorities, courts and laws’ legitimacy that Baroness is contesting? I hope not, for that would be racist. Nevertheless, there are a few questionable statements in the Baroness Kennedy’s latest book, Misjustice that suggest something rotten may lay underneath the surface.

For instance, in the introduction of Misjustice, Baronness Kennedy speaks of the sex trafficking of young girls by men "largely from ethnic minorities”, a detail that could be considered relevant, but rather interesting in intent, considering that a few paragraphs earlier, a sex trafficking scandal incriminating high-ranking (white) Oxfam officials and (black) survivors of the Haiti Earthquake was mentioned, without pointing to its accused’s Caucasian origin.

Whether prejudiced or not herself, Baroness Kennedy is wielding the racial prejudice in her country to flavor the introduction of her book, which also mentions a handful of unraced (white), buzz-making sexual assaulters that bade plenty ink during the peak of the #MeToo movement.

 Baroness Kennedy strikes as a perfect ear for Carine Rusesabagina’s lies. Carine herself has likened the luring of her father to rapists kidnapping their victims, in a letter addressed to President Kagame’s daughter, which is too shameless to post once more. The crutch of feminism might have pulled at Baroness Helena’s heartstrings, particularly because latent, subtle racism, has typically played against our current leadership.

As repeated tirelessly, we understand how and why an inherent prejudice against non-white people, in this case Africans, would translate into a condemnation of a leader that has fought in turn for their liberation and now their emancipation.

But racism is unfortunate indeed. Baroness Kennedy perhaps ought to consider the meaning of her own words, in her own book, to understand how damaging a prejudice deep enough to overlook proven facts, could be.

"Patriarchy is a system – a dynamic web – of ideas and relationships, a set of beliefs and a set of values”, she states. But Baroness Helena, so is racism.

"It explains the world to us from our earliest years and informs us in the subtlest of ways as to what is good and attractive, and what is bad and distasteful”, the Baroness goes on. But again, so does racism. Subtle, insidious racism dictates which Africans are good and which of their "causes” are attractive, and which ones of us are bad and have contestable missions.

To the Baroness stating that "Patriarchy tells us that the world is a dangerous place, and men must be protectors, while at the same time being our greatest oppressors”, I must mention that racism tells us that Africa is a dangerous place, and that neo-colonialists must be our protectors, while at the same time being our greatest oppressors.

But though Baronness Helena Ann Kennedy is perhaps the most high-profiled government official championing Rusesabagina’s release, she is not alone. Chris Bryant stood up there in the very noble house of Parliament claiming that Rusesabagina had been tortured during his detention, despite Rusesabagina himself being here on video claiming otherwise.

Iain Duncan-Smith compared the Rwandan government, led by the party that liberated our country, ending the genocide against the Tutsi, to the Nazis, so he could defend Rusesabagina, a double-genocide theorist.

I believe that all three individuals, having used their authority to clamor established lies, deserve their tomatoes in the court of public opinion. I believe their immorality should be denounced until their lies are recanted. I believe they should be de-platformed, and their positions put into question, so that articles like this are not the only, and rather measly consequences to their overt support of a terrorist. After all, as Baroness Kennedy so aptly stated, "True justice is about more than refereeing between two sides. It is about breathing life into the rules”.