Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal.
Discussion
Deva Link said:
Mrs May said:
she welcomed the ruling, adding that it was unacceptable to send people home and expect them to hide their sexuality.
She said: "We have already promised to stop the removal of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution.
"From today, asylum decisions will be considered under the new rules and the judgement gives an immediate legal basis for us to reframe our guidance for assessing claims based on sexuality, taking into account relevant country guidance and the merits of each individual case."
I reckon she just lost the Conservatives millions of votes. She said: "We have already promised to stop the removal of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution.
"From today, asylum decisions will be considered under the new rules and the judgement gives an immediate legal basis for us to reframe our guidance for assessing claims based on sexuality, taking into account relevant country guidance and the merits of each individual case."
5unny said:
Parrot of Doom said:
5unny said:
Will we now have an increase in asylum claimants coming in from Calais claiming to be gay? Another way to get into Britain through the back door?
This is a silly precedent to set.
What, to defend intrinsic human rights?This is a silly precedent to set.
bbcnews said:
Previous attempts by the men to stay in the UK had been rejected by judges at the Court of Appeal who ruled that if the men could conceal their sexuality, their situation could have been regarded as "reasonably tolerable".
Jasandjules said:
Why are not they simply deporting to the country of safety which is nearest to their home county? Why are WE putting up with it? We are not the World Police here?
Agree. I've had a look, and homosexuality is legal in Azerbaijan and Armenia, both neighbours of Iran, and also in Chad.Doesn't make sense to me.
I was hoping such stupidity would fade since the election, but courts do like to still come up with a stupid ruling at least once once a week, and it this weeks is a simple way for anyone from a s
tty backward country to be able to stay in the UK.
Expect more people in the hiding back of trucks, because as soon as they are here from now on, the court has now given them an almost cast iron defence to stay.
tty backward country to be able to stay in the UK. Expect more people in the hiding back of trucks, because as soon as they are here from now on, the court has now given them an almost cast iron defence to stay.
Parrot of Doom said:
You're either an idiot, a troll, or supremely naive. Would you find it acceptable, if you were heterosexual, to be forced to only have homosexual relationships?
Based on the rather lax standards applied by our courts there are probably tens of millions who could claim asylum if they could make it here.At a time when the government is thinking of making 25% cuts in departmental budgets can we really afford the current asylum system, which has been become a means of mass migration. When it was set up it was intended to apply to a handful of political dissidents.
Parrot of Doom said:
Yes we can, and asylum applicants into this country
A matter of personal opinion IMO.Personally I think £50k spent on the aid budget, on say schools or medical aid, is doing far more for the poorest parts of the world than the same amount spent supporting some Somali single mother, and without the negative long term impact on the country.
IMO the asylum system is one that should have long since been scrapped as it has just become a means to circumvent immigration controls.
Parrot of Doom said:
Yes we can, and asylum applicants into this country are at about the level they were 15 years ago.
As for deporting them to the first safe country, what happens when that country says no?
In most of the world they can't say no, and especially in the EU. As for deporting them to the first safe country, what happens when that country says no?
Case owners must also take the applicant’s behaviour into account. For example, their claim may be harmed if they delayed claiming asylum without good reason, or if they have been convicted of a criminal offence such as using false travel documentation, or if they did not claim asylum in the first safe country they reached after leaving their own country (known as a ‘safe third country’).
I don't think it matters which way you look at this. We are not being targeted because of some extraordinary benevolence that exists here, but because they know that they will be able to rely on the state to a far greater degree than they would get away with in other countries.
I read this judgement today. One rather amusing part was where the judge said that homosexual men have as much right to go to kylie concerts with their mates, drink funny coloured cocktails and talk about men with their straight girlfriends, as much as straight men have a right to go to the pub with their mates, drink beer, and talk about rugby and girls.
Enlightened thinking from a Judge of the supreme court.
Enlightened thinking from a Judge of the supreme court.
MX7 said:
We are not being targeted because of some extraordinary benevolence that exists here, but because they know that they will be able to rely on the state to a far greater degree than they would get away with in other countries.
Do you have anything to support this assertion, or is it based merely on your suspicions?JagLover said:
A matter of personal opinion IMO.
Personally I think £50k spent on the aid budget, on say schools or medical aid, is doing far more for the poorest parts of the world than the same amount spent supporting some Somali single mother, and without the negative long term impact on the country.
IMO the asylum system is one that should have long since been scrapped as it has just become a means to circumvent immigration controls.
So no more asylum seekers then? What a lovely country we'd be, sending people back to an almost certain death.Personally I think £50k spent on the aid budget, on say schools or medical aid, is doing far more for the poorest parts of the world than the same amount spent supporting some Somali single mother, and without the negative long term impact on the country.
IMO the asylum system is one that should have long since been scrapped as it has just become a means to circumvent immigration controls.
Parrot of Doom said:
JagLover said:
A matter of personal opinion IMO.
Personally I think £50k spent on the aid budget, on say schools or medical aid, is doing far more for the poorest parts of the world than the same amount spent supporting some Somali single mother, and without the negative long term impact on the country.
IMO the asylum system is one that should have long since been scrapped as it has just become a means to circumvent immigration controls.
So no more asylum seekers then? What a lovely country we'd be, sending people back to an almost certain death.Personally I think £50k spent on the aid budget, on say schools or medical aid, is doing far more for the poorest parts of the world than the same amount spent supporting some Somali single mother, and without the negative long term impact on the country.
IMO the asylum system is one that should have long since been scrapped as it has just become a means to circumvent immigration controls.
Parrot of Doom said:
So no more asylum seekers then? What a lovely country we'd be, sending people back to an almost certain death.
There are hundreds of millions of people in the world facing oppression. Whether they be Gays, persecuted ethnic minorities, women in many countries etc. At the moment, in the main, we choose to help only those with the means to smuggle themselves into the country.You might call it hard hearted, but I say the government should maximise our limited resources available in this area, through an effective aid program rather than spend money on those who use the people smugglers.
The guy from Cameroon is complaining they will lock him up with other men for only 5 years.
I can only assume that it’s his human rights to have a longer term relationship at my expense. Presumably our taxpayers will be funding a lifetime of commitment in a council house instead of Cameroon funding just five years.
Extending the Court’s logic every female in the world who lives in a country without equal rights for women now has a right of residence in this country, plus all their relatives.
And all the children from countries that exploit child labour.
The only good in this is that we will have no shortage of people to use the bailing buckets when Britannia finally slides beneath the waves under the weight of humanity now entitled to reside here.
We have an obligation to help people who apply for asylum in the nearest safe country to their own. So in this case we have an obligation to grant asylum to refugees from the gay laws on the Isle of Mann; nobody else.
We must start taking the position that we will take those from neighbouring countries as a matter of right. All other applications to enter must be made at the British Embassy in the nearest safe country to their own. If we accept them then they may enter. If we don’t then they are free to apply either to stay in the country they’re in, or become immigrants to any other.
Turning up in this country unless you are a citizen of, and being persecuted by our immediate neighbouring countries should be considered evidence of attempting to circumvent the proper immigration and asylum process. As such it should be met with automatic immediate deportation to your home country if nobody else will accept you. If we can’t work out your home country then return them to the country that they arrived from. If you were that afraid of being deported to your own country or getting stuck in limbo between countries then you would apply properly.
The current situation is unsustainable. The situation in their country is not a right to usurp our country. Until recently homosexuality was illegal here too. The gays facing imprisonment didn’t all leave and claim asylum elsewhere; they fought and won change in their own society.
Ironically the same people who defend the right of all and sundry to come here because of oppression in their country seem to be the same people who object at our interference when we try to change intolerant attitudes in foreign countries.
I can only assume that it’s his human rights to have a longer term relationship at my expense. Presumably our taxpayers will be funding a lifetime of commitment in a council house instead of Cameroon funding just five years.
Extending the Court’s logic every female in the world who lives in a country without equal rights for women now has a right of residence in this country, plus all their relatives.
And all the children from countries that exploit child labour.
The only good in this is that we will have no shortage of people to use the bailing buckets when Britannia finally slides beneath the waves under the weight of humanity now entitled to reside here.
We have an obligation to help people who apply for asylum in the nearest safe country to their own. So in this case we have an obligation to grant asylum to refugees from the gay laws on the Isle of Mann; nobody else.
We must start taking the position that we will take those from neighbouring countries as a matter of right. All other applications to enter must be made at the British Embassy in the nearest safe country to their own. If we accept them then they may enter. If we don’t then they are free to apply either to stay in the country they’re in, or become immigrants to any other.
Turning up in this country unless you are a citizen of, and being persecuted by our immediate neighbouring countries should be considered evidence of attempting to circumvent the proper immigration and asylum process. As such it should be met with automatic immediate deportation to your home country if nobody else will accept you. If we can’t work out your home country then return them to the country that they arrived from. If you were that afraid of being deported to your own country or getting stuck in limbo between countries then you would apply properly.
The current situation is unsustainable. The situation in their country is not a right to usurp our country. Until recently homosexuality was illegal here too. The gays facing imprisonment didn’t all leave and claim asylum elsewhere; they fought and won change in their own society.
Ironically the same people who defend the right of all and sundry to come here because of oppression in their country seem to be the same people who object at our interference when we try to change intolerant attitudes in foreign countries.
Parrot of Doom said:
MX7 said:
We are not being targeted because of some extraordinary benevolence that exists here, but because they know that they will be able to rely on the state to a far greater degree than they would get away with in other countries.
Do you have anything to support this assertion, or is it based merely on your suspicions?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff