Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned the deportation of two men from Iran and Cameroon. They had been refused asylum on the grounds that they could avoid ill-treatment by hiding their sexuality or behaving discreetly.
Campaigners warned it could mean millions might try to claim they are gay to qualify for asylum in Britain. Supreme Court judge Lord Rodger said gay people's right to live freely must be protected.
There's a serious point missing in the ruling. The Supreme Court has accepted the word of the two men. They must have done. How can anyone prove they're gay other than have photographs taken of themselves in compromising situations with adults of the same gender.
I'm uncomfortable with this as I can see sexuality being used repetitively as an excuse for asylum in Britain. The gay lobby has progressed substantially in recent years and I admire their tenacity and ability to get such media attention even though they are a small minority of our population, but when Iain Dale remarks on the Sky News press review that he too isn't happy with possible abuse of this ruling, then it's worth taking note. He's a prominent person in the gay community and deserves to be listened to on the subject.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable of European Court rulings can let me know if this is applicable to all EU countries or only to Britain. I suspect the latter.
Posts
36 comments:
This may well be the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to acceptance of the need for an asylum policy...
I'm sorry that some people live miserable lives in other countries because of their skin colour/sexual orientation/religious beliefs.
But I don't think offering them sanctuary here is fair to them OR to UK citizens.
Julia, since when has fair been an issue for Labours' judiciary? Time may redress the balance of that coterie but I am not sure that the systemic placement rot is easily overcome.
When I was writing the post Julia, I was thinking at this rate, within another 50 years this country will be the asylum centre of the world. Any sensible person born and bred here will have flown somewhere where they don't have to spend half their working lives working for others.
I doubt if it will be overcome OR. At present the coalition are tinkering at the edges.
Why would a decision taken by the Supreme Court have any impact on the other nations of Europe? It's a purely domestic situation.
I agree that it could be open to abuse, but so can everything, and it's a risk that has to be taken. Is living your whole life petrified of being caught really fair? Should we not all have the right to be open about our relationships, if we so wish?
You're right to say there's no way of "proving" that you're LGBT, just the same was there is no way of "proving" you're a religious or political prisoner of conscience. You either have to say 'no' to everyone, or manage the risk.
Sorry for the double post - but have you read the judge's comments?
As much as I welcome his decision, it's frankly appalling the stereotypes he casts!
It can be used as "case law" in a European court, or in any court in any European state member country.
But then it has to be "tested", ie in Germany, for example, it would have to be accepted as binding in the Verwaltungsgericht,(Administrational court) and possibly the Verfassungsgericht (Constitution court) as well.
If some one chose to take this further, to the human rights court, then their finding would apply to all member states.
"I agree that it could be open to abuse, but so can everything, and it's a risk that has to be taken. Is living your whole life petrified of being caught really fair? Should we not all have the right to be open about our relationships, if we so wish?"
Is it fair that a child born in the depths of the Amazon has no access to electricity, and lives in fear of spiders the size of dinner plates?
Is it fair that a woman living in the Sudan has to walk miles for water?
Is it fair that the people of the UK are expected to have no say in the numbers that are allowed access to Thais country, and for whom they are forced to pay, simply because this is a free society, and theirs isn't?
Here's a thought - how about they work to make their country's society more like ours, instead of upping sticks and fleeing?
Of course a lot of things aren't fair, but that's no justification to perpetuate more inequality - if anything then that's more of an argument to let in more people to this country.
Here's a thought - how about they work to make their country's society more like ours, instead of upping sticks and fleeing?
That's entirely their decision, isn't it? Certainly if I lived in Jamaica or Iran or something, I'd be wanting to leave before I was either killed in the street or forced to have gender re-assignment surgery. Others may enjoy becoming a martyr, I'd rather live my life in safety.
I think it would certainly be much easier to prove someone was religious or a political prisoner of conscience Grogipher but that's just my opinion.
I only asked if this would have an impact on other EU countries. It was a question not a statement.
Manage the risk? Therein lies the problem. We can't manage anything in this country any more.
Ah right, thanks for that Furor. I suspect some German politicians will be making proposals shortly.
It's not going to go to the European Court. The defendants have won their case.
I'e often said that myself Julia. Those who try to escape aren't doing anything for their country. The ones who stay and fight the system are those who are remembered.
Grogipher, what has inequality to do with the fact that asylum seekers can come here and say they're persecuted because they're gay (whether they are or not)?
Why do they come to Britain when many have crossed several other safe countries?
Why is it so important for so many gay people to publicise their sexuality? Nobody's really interested, except now the lawyers who deal with asylum claims have another way to earn more income.
Reds on the Bench, leading to a flood of third world immigration, all mincing in, dressed in pink and fawn,claiming it's a Gay Day. No surprise. I can't wait for the revolution, it gets closer each day.
what has inequality to do with the fact that asylum seekers can come here and say they're persecuted because they're gay (whether they are or not)?
Because it's the inequality perpetuated by the previous administration that has led to this sort of thing. You wouldn't ask a muslim lady to go back to her country and "hide" her religion better, or ask a man to go back to a dictatorship and to be more "discrete" with his political views. Sexuality shouldn't be any different, especially as it has no element of free choice.
Why do they come to Britain when many have crossed several other safe countries?
That's a matter for the authorities when they're discussing the individual cases. If I was fleeing Jamaica though, for example since it's one of the most homophobic nations on earth, it's probably easier to get on a flight to Heathrow than anywhere else?
Why is it so important for so many gay people to publicise their sexuality?
That's a matter for them, individually. Why do so many heterosexual man find it so important to publicise their sexuality? Since I'm guessing you've never met either of these men involved in the court case, I think you've got some cheek assuming they're "mincing" as Harry suggests.
Your last couple of sentences are way wide of the mark, completely off topic, and just make you out to be from the 17th Century. If I want to mince down the street, I will. I chose not to. That's my right, as a "subject" of Betty living in Scotland.
It's not going to go to the European Court. The defendants have won their case.
Not yet. But if it is used as a defence in a second case (Which it no doubt will be), the CPS, or whichever countries equivalent is that is involved, can challenge it. THEN it can go to the European court.
I would suggest the point of "Evidence, or proof, of the fact" will come up.
I.e, PROVE you are queer.
The one thing I do not get about the hole thing is the judge saying that "you will be alright if you are discreet. So you can go back".
This shows a total lack of understanding of the tribal nature of these places.
They can NOT go back to "an area where they are unknown, because that will be another tribal area. WHERE they will be ripped to shreds, similar to an escaped budgie among a gang of sparrows. OR there is GARUNTEED to be "someone who knows some one" in his old home town, and the word will spread like wild fire.
To go back to his own tribal area will of course be IMPOSSIBLE.
It is too late in such communities once the cat is out of the bag, it is out for ever, and probably country if not multi nationally, wide.
Julia is right. The world is full of hopeless countries and we can't be expected to be nanny to all of them. Sexuality will be used as the latest loophole along with 'my father/husband/brother was shot by the army/police', 'my mother/wife/sister was raped by the army/police', 'the army/police will take my children/wife/husband/family and put them in prison/death camp for my religious/political beliefs'
Yawn.
Rampant homosexuality in Cameroon and Zimbabwe? Gies peace!
You may well 'yawn', I think the majoiryt of people may take the issue of loss of human life slightly more importantly.
I somehow doubt that decision of Britain's "supreme*" court apply to other EU countries; but it doesn't matter anyway, because the asylum-seekers don't want to go to other EU countries: they only want to come here, because of our uniquely open-ended welfare state and because they know that once here they will never ever be removed, whatever they do - even major criminal acts - even if the authorities manage to find them.
* Not supreme at all, of course - our masters in Brussels will have the last word on this as on everything.
FT - "The one thing I do not get about the hole thing "
Bad taste that, seriously bad taste.
According to the UN, Germany as a random country in the middle of Europe took in over twice as many people as the UK.
http://www.unhcr.org/4c11f0be9.html
Weekend Yachtsman said...
I somehow doubt that decision of Britain's "supreme*" court apply to other EU countries;
As CASE law. Yes it certainly does.
As I say though, it has to be "tested", it is not automatic. BUT any one using a defence in, say Holland, and getting off the charge, CAN be used as "Case law" in Britain at a later date.
Just as case law in some circumstances, from New Zealand, Australia, Canada, etc CAN be quoted in the U.K. IF the jurisdiction of the particular case justifies.(E.U law would have no jurisdiction in the colonies,(N.Z, Australia, Canada, etc) for example.)
There was something a good twenty to thirty years back regarding Tinks, and their rights to be considered an ethnic group, and in the case, New Zealand judges findings were used as "case law" to uphold the defence.
The same "case law" principal now applies throughout Europe.
The courts in the colonies COULD use the case, as in the thread starter, ie the decision in the English court, as "Case law" as well. But they obviously could not draw on any findings by Europe.
There was something a good twenty to thirty years back regarding Tinks, and their rights to be considered an ethnic group, and in the case, New Zealand judges findings were used as "case law" to uphold the defence.
All England law reports. Unfortunately, I can not remember which year.
Grogipher said...
According to the UN, Germany as a random country in the middle of Europe took in over twice as many people as the UK.
http://www.unhcr.org/4c11f0be9.html
Aye. But try and tell the Mail that, and you get banned.Because according to them "NO one gets it so hard as the poor misunderstood Brits."
But then, what do you expect from a "news" paper that makes it a company police only to employ brain dead morons?
"Of course a lot of things aren't fair, but that's no justification to perpetuate more inequality - if anything then that's more of an argument to let in more people to this country."
Well, let's put that argument, and your claims of the UK's benevolence, to the test, then.
Let's have a referendum. One question, yes or no answer.
'Should the UK take in more refugees?'
Why should my taxes be wasted on an immigrant who wants sex?
They either abstain or face the consequences. In their own country.
Of course I wouldn't Grogipher but I've read of many who have hidden their political views just for the sake of their families until a country was prepared to accept all of them.
Maybe that's the problem - it's easier to fly to Heathrow rather than Rome or New York or Madrid or Frankfurt etc.
When I made the statement about why so many gay people publicising their sexuality I was not referring to the two men in the case. I can't. I know nothing about them except that they have stated they are gay.
The gay lobby do nothing for these people who wish to live a quiet life without broadcasting their sexuality. They know their friends and family care of them because of who they are and they are not insecure.
I don't see why my last sentence was off topic. Asylum seekers need lawyers.
It would seem the judge was quite out of order with his remarks Furor. Is that a spelling mistake there?
I understand the tribal systems in countries. We have them here too as I'm sure you're aware.
What about the countries which stone women to death after being found guilty of a crime in what we see as kangaroo courts? Surely they require asylum just as much as gays.
What about honour killings which even happen here?
I notice very few Saudis apply for asylum here yet they have some of the strictest laws.
I wish they did Grogipher. Sadly 313 young people have been killed, plus hundreds if not thousands of civilians, in just one of the wars we've been engaged in the past decade.
Loss of life isn't important in these circumstances.
I wonder how European countries will react Weekend Yachtsman.
Germany's land mass is far bigger than England's and also Germany has a large Turkish population, the extended families of whom will be included in the figures.
That's another referendum which won't see the light of day Julia, along with one on the EU.
subrosa said...
Germany's land mass is far bigger than England's and also Germany has a large Turkish population, the extended families of whom will be included in the figures.
The figures are percent of total population, so it makes no difference how big the land mass is.
As to "extended families" it does not matter WHO they are related to, they are still immigrants.
Let's have a referendum. One question, yes or no answer.
'Should the UK take in more refugees?'
Yes, I can see the press giving that one a fair trial. Every other nation on earth does it, many with more than we take in. It's a humanitarian thing, I'd quite like to stop people being killed, maybe you don't, that's fine.
Why should my taxes be wasted on an immigrant who wants sex?
They either abstain or face the consequences.
Words actually fail me. There are more things in this life than sex, for all genders and sexualities. I do hope that your comment is a wind up.
The gay lobby do nothing for these people who wish to live a quiet life without broadcasting their sexuality.
That's just another generalisation. I am in the 'gay lobby', and happily live a quiet life without broadcasting my sexuality, 99% of the time. That's just being terribly condescending to the wonderful variations within the LGBT community.
What about the countries which stone women to death after being found guilty of a crime in what we see as kangaroo courts? Surely they require asylum just as much as gays.
Yes, they do.
Germany's land mass is far bigger than England's
Relevance? Also, England is the UK is England.. Really?
and also Germany has a large Turkish population, the extended families of whom will be included in the figures.
Yes... if they're refugees also. Do they not count?
I said I couldn't read the link Furor so I wasn't aware of how the statistics were compiled.
Of course they're still immigrants. Auch you missed my point.
'That's just being terribly condescending to the wonderful variations within the LGBT community.'
I'm not being condescending whatsoever, but you surely are aware there's hardly a few days go past without something about the LGBT community hitting the headlines.
Let me tell you, the gay people I know are embarrassed by it. They want to be respected for who they are and not their sexuality which they find is nobody's business but their own.
Oh dear, you're not up to date are you? Parts of England are completely chock-a-block. Haven't you heard? And yes, I said England not the UK. I'm aware of that.
Like Furor you don't get my point, or perhaps you won't get my point. I'm not explaining it.
Post a Comment