Another step deeper into the ‘charmed circle’. Gay asylum seekers cannot be deported to countries where they would have to hide their sexuality in order to avoid persecution.

Whilst I am against the piecemeal admission to the charmed circle, so perfectly described by John Ozimek, now Jane Fae, the decision, taken in isolation, is to be welcomed – as Judge Rogers said, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man.

However, the decision cannot be taken in isolation, for it was an important appeal against the desire of the UK borders Agency to deny leave to remain in the UK. This decision has effectively said that if you are gay, you are a protected species when it comes to deciding whether it is in Britain’s interests that you remain in the country.

The personal interests of someone originally outside of this community, trump the interests, carried out on our behalf by the UK Borders Agency, of our community interest.

Is Britain to admit all the people in Malawi, in Uganda, in Iran, in Cameroon, in a myriad of other countries, who have decided that it is in the interest of their community to outlaw homosexuality?  In which case, we will acquire a remarkably unbalanced community.

It is one thing to pass laws in this country – with which I disagree – that admit classes of person, bit by bit, to the inner circle of those whose sexuality ‘we’ approve of, it is quite another to insist that we accommodate all those from other countries who have not  yet campaigned so successfully to be admitted.

Had those two asylum seekers been outspoken proponents of sado-masochism this case would never have been decided in this way. It is precisely because the men were gay, and not advocates of any other non-approved activity, that they have been given a get-out-of-jail-card for the UK Borders Agency.

The majority of asylum seekers are young males, perhaps because of the arduous journey they make to arrive here. Can we now expect them to arrive two by two, hand in hand? Will someone point out to them that it is very common for men in the Middle East to walk hand in hand? How is the UK Borders Agency supposed to prove or disprove their sexuality? Will they soon be accused of ‘institutional homophobia’?

Human Rights law and Asylum law was never intended to provide a haven in Britain for everyone in the world living in a country whose laws they transgressed.

Our judiciary seem intent on turning a facility to accommodate the needs of a few genuine refugees from persecution and terror into an open border policy welcoming anyone who chooses to flout the law in their own land.

Lord Rogers went on to say:

If the tribunal concludes that the applicant would choose to live discreetly simply because that was how he himself would wish to live, or because of social pressures, e g, not wanting to distress his parents or embarrass his friends, then his application should be rejected. Social pressures of that kind do not amount to persecution and the Convention does not offer protection against them.

How very disingenuous, Lord Rogers, how many asylum seekers do you imagine will now say that if they went home, they would ‘choose’ to live discretely. None will be the answer.

Particularly since you go on to say:

On the contrary, the fact that he would feel obliged to take these steps to avoid persecution is, prima facie, an indication that there is indeed a threat of persecution to gay people who live openly. His country of nationality is therefore not affording him the necessary level of protection. So the receiving country should.

Game set and match Sir. Will you now provide asylum to all who claim that they would be persecuted for admitting adultery – perfectly acceptable in our community – but persecuted in some communities? for eveyone who has ever had an abortion?

Lord Rogers again:

The way he conducts himself may vary from one situation to another, with varying degrees of risk. But he cannot and must not be expected to conceal aspects of his sexual orientation which he is unwilling to conceal, even from those whom he knows may disapprove of it.

Why not? That is the very thing that is happening in Britain with the advent of the CRB checks, for the many people whose alternative sexuality is outside of the ‘charmed circle’ although not illegal.

Fascist Hippy
July 13, 2010 at 00:39

Gay Macaroons, whatever next?
They should definitely be dunked in
scalding tea.

indigomyth July 9, 2010 at 19:26

Mick Turatian,
//which by your definition may have included the UK until
relatively recently.//

I do not think so. Not for a long time has our population been so violent
and aggressive that it attempted to assault someone for acting homosexually.
Oscar Wilde was never dragged into the street and beaten up. The peoples of
this nation have been (generally speaking) far less barbaric than those of
current developing nations.

Mick Turatian
July 9, 2010 at 12:27

There’s loads more fun on this at Heresy Corner here:

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/07/gay-men-you-have-legal-right-to-enjoy.html

phew!

john malpas July 9, 2010 at 01:42

The more gays you import the more that equality will demand more of them
become policemen, dustmen , nurses etc. All tipping the balance again the poor
old white heterosexual.
The poor voter is heeded by government every few
yuears whilst the gays , the greens and the girls have the ear of parliament
and the media on a whim.

Mick Turatian
July 9, 2010 at 00:17

…these disgusting places with their disgusting ideologies.

which by your definition may have included the UK until relatively
recently.

Pericles July 8, 2010 at 20:11

I recall that over a quarter-century ago two men aboard my (American) ship

indigomyth July 8, 2010 at 18:06

woodsy42,

//It seems to me that the issue is not just sexuality and asylum but that
our judiciary is effectively subverting the laws of a foreign power?//

And long may this continue. Are we to respect the laws of all “sovereign
nations”? Everything that undermines the culture, laws and welfare of these
barbaric and uncivilised states is a good thing (short of invasion).
Restriction on aid, boycotting, and decisions such as this are all wonderful
ways of deriding and undermining these disgusting places with their disgusting
ideologies.

indigomyth July 8, 2010 at 18:02

Alan,
//I shall allow the Cameroon Government

Alan July 8, 2010 at 13:54

On the contrary, the fact that he would feel obliged to take these steps
to avoid persecution is, prima facie, an indication that there is indeed a
threat of persecution to gay people who live openly. His country of
nationality is therefore not affording him the necessary level of protection.
So the receiving country should.

How noble of him! Sorry. Us!

There are no countries in the immediate vicinity to ours that are anti-gay.
How many gay apathetic nations did these particular asylum seekers pass
through or over before getting here?

The last Government shied away from sorting out the asylum system because
it was tied into knots with political correctness and wanting to avoid the
word ‘bogus’. In reality what they did was to condemn genuine and needy cases
to a quagmire of bureaucracy that was being overrun with economic migrants.
The time it takes for conclusions to be reached in this country is abysmal. By
the time it has got this far there is an argument to be made that they have
settled here and it would be unduly cruel to send them home. How many more
signals must the State be given that it needs to get its finger out.

I shall allow the Cameroon Government’s communication minister to have
the final word:

“Homosexuality is forbidden by the law, there is not doubt. But what I can
emphasise is the fact that no homosexual is persecuted in Cameroon”,”
Communications Minister Issa Tchiroma said.

He told the BBC’s Network Africa programme that the claimant was simply
using the law as an excuse to claim asylum in Britain.

“Do you think he is the only gay person in Cameroon?”

ChrisM July 8, 2010 at 13:04

How will the judiciary disprove someones claim that they are gay? This will
be an asylum seekers trump card if all else fails they’ll just say “did I tell
you I was gay?”. I think JuliaM is right this will break the system. Was it
ment to?

woodsy42 July 8, 2010 at 12:17

It seems to me that the issue is not just sexuality and asylum but that our
judiciary is effectively subverting the laws of a foreign power? Essentially
we are saying it’s unimportant what the laws are in a country, if we disagree
with them we will provide a haven for lawbreakers here.
Could US death row
prisoners somehow claim asylum here? Does this mean that, assuming this ruling
is in line with EU law, that all UK drug users are now free to emigrate to
Holland to avoid persecution?

Vimes July 8, 2010 at 11:49

Gay immigrants – it’s the Daily Mail’s wet dream.

JuliaM July 8,
2010 at 11:19

I wonder if this case will prove to be the straw that broke the camel’s
back over the issue of asylum in general?