Should gay and lesbian asylum seekers be protected?

Britain should continue to provide a safe haven for anyone regardless of colour race gender or sexuality. If the persons life is in danger then we should provide asylum and equally importantly to put the full weight of international diplomatic pressure on the perpetrator to amend their ways.
failing that sanctions through the united nations to end the human rights violations.

If the other UN countries took in their share of asylum seekers we might not need to send these people back.

As Politicians say,

I cannot comment on individual cases...

And in the absence of common sense...

Why dont we just send out planes daily to every country in the world, let anyone on with a problem and bring them back here to this vast Island that we live on?

People never seem to go the the nearest "safe country" do they?

I really feel like hopping on a plane to, say, Tasmania and saying that I fear for my childrens safety walking the streets of the UK and that I am being persecuted by my government. I may kill myself if they put me back on the plane home.

Whats my chances?

It seems like pretty decent advice to me, although probably a bit superfluous.

I'd imagine your average gay Iranian, Afghani or Cameroonian probably has a pretty good idea already what happens to homosexuals in their respective countries.

So i don't really see what the fuss is.

The fact that a foreign citizen has to keep their sexuality a secret back home is not our problem. It is also not grounds for allowing an asylum seeker entry into this country, because we are then interfering in other cultures, which let's not forget is what has earned us such a bad reputation overseas already.

Or to be clearer, if there is a real danger that a person for example will be stoned to death for being sent back to iran for simply being gay they should be given asylum
LIFE SHOULD ALWAYS BE PROTECTED

Ok, so these peoples home nations are not tolerant of homosexuals...

... when did this become our problem?

Should only really affect asylum seekers from the Republic of Ireland and also Iceland. As far as I can tell they are the only places we should be getting asylum seekers from, being the nearest country of safe haven for them. I regret, though that I'm not altogether sure of the status of the Faroe Islands in these matters

This is a tough case. Because of the (often religious) country they live in being homophobic it could put these people in danger. But then it will also be a new excuse for every asylum seeker and a way for criminals to escape their home country (we have had a few already).

Most non-religious countries have no interest in peoples private life. I would only accept the UK doing this if all other asylum countries were doing it too.

Also I hear the law of asylum is that they need to apply to the nearest safe country which always confused me as to how we get so many in the UK.

In reality we need to be reducing our spending and asylum is a cost in many ways.

This country seems to think it can protect every man and his dog! Well it cant, and shouldnt be expected to, either. The aim of our country is to look after its own people, and not others, for goodness sake, where do we stop with this human rights nonsense? Bring back the days when the majority ruled the minority, because Im sick to the back teeth of the whingeing minority.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'The Home office says it is committed to safeguarding individuals at risk but the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees says it forces failed gay and lesbian applicants to live "under a veil of secrecy" back home.'

Again, surely its the oppressive governments in their home countries forcing ' gay and lesbian applicants to live "under a veil of secrecy"' nothing to do with the UK government.

Surely they were living under that veil befire they even applied for asylum?

If it is against the law to be openly gay in a country then the citizens know this and choose to break the law. We can't give asylum on the grounds that a person has broken the law, where would this end. Different countries have different standards with regard to dress and sexual behaviour and that standard has to be respected whatever your own personal opinion about that law. For example it is against the law for adults to walk around naked here.Many people would strongly object to anyone who did it,others might feel it is perfectly acceptable. If someone did this and broke our law because they personally felt it was alright would we think that they should be offered protection in another country

I can see why gay and lesbian asylum seekers aren't automatically given rights to stay.

However I hate the idea of people being forced to pretend to be someone they are not just because the country they live in is stuck in the dark ages.

The consequences in these countries if you're even suspected to like your own sex can lead to rape or death - to send people back to face this is shameful especially when convicted terrorists can't be sent back to a country like Pakistan.

What makes gay and lesbian assylum seekers think that things will be any better in this country? Here too they will suffer persecution.

I may well be deemed judgemental but is claiming to be homosexual just another way of assuring themselves easy passage to citizenship in this country.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This effectively amounts to "victim blaming" by the Home Office, implying that it's a homosexual's fault if they are abused, tortured or killed for being who they are. It's completely immoral to knowingly send someone into such danger and if anyone is harmed after being returned then the Home Office is complicit in that harm.

How convenient. Yet another way to manipulate the asylum 'system'.
They must think we're stupid.
Oh that's right , we are.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'd be interested to know just how an asylum seeker proves they are gay.

Keeping your sexually secret seems to be perfectly good advice. The solution to countries that persecute, is not for gays to leave the country, but to hang in there and wait for change. It'll never happen if they all leave.

Asylum on the basis of sexuality!? Can't be serious! What next?

If you make an exception for Gay Asylum seekers you are creating a loophole that will be exploited. If I was trying to get into the UK I would do anything to help my case. If I thought saying I was gay would improve my chances I would. I would even have a homosexual relationship if that helped.

I hope I don't offend anyone with this, but as its impossible to give asylum to everyone who needs it on the grounds of sexuality, due to the sheer numbers involved, perhaps the UN could set up a 'Gay Israel' somewhere

A safe haven where people persecuted on account of their sexuality can live normal lives without the risk of the secret police turning up.

Just until persecution of homosexuals is abolished world-wide.

Well yes I agree with the principal behind it, they are in fear for there lives because of there sexuality and should be allowed refuge. Although doesn't this massivly leave the door open for exploitation?

How do you prove if your homosexual? What accurate test can be taken...

Any country that doesn't accept homosexuality should immediately have any aid monies refused by the international agencies. Some people still live in the dark ages.

I'm not sure we can consider ourselves humane if we send people back to face persecution for their sexuality.

So let’s get this straight (no pun intended) people can be given asylum based on their religious beliefs, something that is nothing more than a personal preference, but we can't grant asylum based on sexuality, something that is genetically determined ?

Unbelievable !

Next thing you'll be telling us that some Saudi princess has been granted asylum here because she's got pregnant to a White European and that this has resulted in her life being in danger should she ever return home...

It just highlights the foolish way in which 'asylum' is handled.

If people have felt it necessary to flee from their homeland - never mind why - the first test should be, will they make suitable immigrants here? If the answer's "No" they should then be given a limited amount of time to see if another country will accept them, and then be told to leave our shores.

Where they go is their business not ours. Forcing them to return whence they came is inappropriate.

Sexual preference is no more or less valid a reason to escape real or perceived intolerance than is skin colour, religious or political belief or any other 'sob story' presented at our gates.

No !! I can never understand what this asylum seeker business is all about it seems to me a cheap shot to stay ; if you are entitled to come into the country fine if not clear off back , we have hundreds of people challenging this and that on the pretence they may get attacked if returning to their original country sorry we are full up.

We have seen quite clearly from recent cases that these people face significant persecution in their own countries and we should of course take that into account when considering their pleas to stay in this country.
If we cannot repatriate a terror suspect "proven" to be linked with Al Qaida, we should certainly be accommodating those people, who through no fault of their own and by every measure are perfectly upstanding citizens will suffer if we refuse them entry.

It doesn't bother me about the sexuality of asylum seekers. What does bother me is that over 6,000 million people on this planet would be better off living in Britain and that many see Britain as a soft touch. If asylum seekers had to work and not receive benefits when they arrived in the UK, there would be fewer benefits. The idea that we have millions of people who do not intend to work, have rights that working people lack and can have as many children as they like is what is wrong.

Gay men and lesbians don't tend to have as many children as heterosexuals.

No they should not be protected they should be treated as equal like everyone else. Next you will be protected for dressing or behaving differently. Political correctness gone mad in UK, gay people are as equal as heterosexuals.

This is unclear...are they seeking asylum because of their sexuality? Otherwise, I cannot see what it has to do with anything to even ask the question. And no, there should be no special protection or treatment for any minority group in these circumstances. The same criteria for admission should apply to all.

Not so long ago in Britain, engaging in homosexual acts was punishable by imprisonment. Things have moved on significantly in the past forty years. Western govenments should bring pressure to bear on the countries involved to irradicate discrimination, on whatever grounds. It is the case that the intolerant opinions and influence of religeous conservatives weigh heavily in the countries mentioned in the report at both government and local level.

Is enough being done to protect gay and lesbian asylum seekers?

Why are we taking asylum seekers from countries such as Cameroon, Iran etc, irrespective of their sexual orientation?

The sexual preference of these people is of no concern to me or their eligibility to asylum as a result. What I am finding more and more infuriating is that we are taking asylum seekers from such far flung places in the first place.

The international agreement on this subject is that asylum seekers are to claim (and be granted) asylum in the first safe country they come to. How the hell, if you are coming from Iran, is the first safe country the UK? It's insane!

And who is funding this derision of international law? I am, the bl**dy tax payer! And I am sick to the back teeth of it.

I am (to a degree) sympathetic to these people and their plight, but we can not as a country continue to grant asylum to every person who lands on our shores! We are facing hard times, with unemployment and money as a result of the mess the previous government got us into. I am afraid that one of those areas that should also face stringent cuts is the asylum policy of this country.

I would actually like to see it suspended until such times that we as a nation can afford to be so generous as to disregard international asylum laws and grant asylum to all and sundry.

There needs to be some kind of test by which these people have to prove that they are gay/lesbian and that they in danger of persecution. On my street we have several houses inhabited by men who have claimed to be gay and in danger of persecution at home, then once they have earned the right to stay here one way or another, they suddenly produce the wife and kids. How can that be right?

No, if they want to be treated equally.

There are many reasons why 'asylum seekers' 'expect' refuge in the UK?

Many asylum seekers come from French ex-colonial countries to the UK with French as their first language and English as their 2nd or even third?

It would be more helpful if asylum seekers stopped 'pretending' not to understand English or French to Border authorities? If these asylum seekers had a skill of multiple languages - perhaps they should enter the education system in the UK to teach?

As for being lesbian or gay as an 'asylum' defence. The jury is out on that as so many sophisticated 'criminal' gangs are involved in exploiting and delivering 'asylum' seekers to the UK anyway 'employing direct' many already owned 'in situ' law companies?

France, is liberal and would be my first choice if my first language was French? Perhaps there are more powerful organised gangs operating in Britain to bring asylum seekers here rather than to France? This would make sense for the most vulnerable, but traffiking gangs only exploit?

The conclusion is that traffiking gangs are out of control in the UK and all government departments are so naive and need to start thinking like traffiking gangs and co-ordinate response? Women and children are at risk and it must be stopped.

If the term being gay is being abused - then that has to be bad for the whole community and an insult too.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Of course protection should be offered: nobody deserves to be persecuted for being born a certain way be that based on gender, race, sexuality, mental or physical ability or the hand with which the person writes (to name but a few).

It is a noble thing to tolerate every form of life style and belief - or is it? If it is not, then discrimination exists - no matter what governments, groups or individuals think about it. Every idividual has the basic right not to be offended. Persecution in any shape or form is first, an offence to the individual and ultimately to goups of individuals. If the UK Government or any other Government for that matter, open their country's doors to the persecuted then these Governments must open their doors to all persecuted minorities - for what ever reason. It follows that such countries will eventually be populated by people who are not wanted anywhere else. What then happens to the original inhabitants of that country?
The British advice is sound. After all, the object of 'coming out' is to promote sexuality. Last time I looked - sexuality was not an entire way of life - just a small part of it! Frankly I (and I think many others) do not care what my neibour does behind closed doors - just as long as it stays there and I'm not asked or forced to accept it publicly. If the people concerned follow the advice given, they will be like many such persecuted minorities in countries like Iran and others. Why should they be given preferential treatment?

Apart from allowing gays and lesbians to stay here I don't really see what the UK can do. We have no influence in countries like Iran, let alone jurisdiction. How can we offer protection?

To establish sexual orientation as a criteria for success in asylum applications would attract bogus gays and lesbians. The Home Office advice is insulting, but unless there is real evidence that individuals have been endangered because of their sexuality, there is no other course of action.

Send all asylum seekers back to the FIRST safe country they came through. Let them seek asylum there.

To the main question, No! They should be offered exactly the same help as any other asylum seeker.

James Hardaker wrote:
The fact that a foreign citizen has to keep their sexuality a secret back home is not our problem

---

One of the biggest challenges we as humans face today, is to work out how to appeal to people (like James) who treat problem's that don't directly affect them as problems not worth dealing with. It is inhumane and sickening.

Some of the things people are claiming asylum for are things which were illegal here only 50 or 60 years ago.... perhaps people should take the steps in their own countries, with the sometimes painful processes we had to go through, to make their own countries more tolerant...

At 11:55am on 06 Jul 2010, th3_0r4cl3 wrote:
Britain should continue to provide a safe haven for anyone regardless of colour race gender or sexuality. If the persons life is in danger then we should provide asylum and equally importantly to put the full weight of international diplomatic pressure on the perpetrator to amend their ways.
failing that sanctions through the united nations to end the human rights violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------

At what point I am allowed to say, 'Sorry mate were are full up and have enough problems of our own'
How many millions must we have on the dole, or homeless before we say sorry we just cant cope with anymore people.
we are currenlty on course for a 70m population, at what point will the all the do gooders finally see sense, 80m. 90m, 100m ??????

We should offer no assistance to foreigners seeking to escape their own countries laws. How would the UK government react to another country giving asylum to a British peadophile? The person in question having done some act which was legal in the country of assylum but not in UK.
Can I claim asylum in some other country to avoid the UK's draconion speeding penalties that are making me afraid of imprisonment whenever I get in my car?

But the same could be said for any idiological or personal reasons for being a refugee be it Religous, Political, Sexuality etc.

Political views could be kept secret. Religion is a little harder to hide if people start to notice they don't follow the customs etc but the premise is there.

Either scrap it or have it for all.

yours faithfully
Devil's Advocate

It shouldn't really matter, but there are too many asylum seekers coming in, what with the pending overpopulation crisis with British citizens alone, can we really afford to keep allowing people of other nationalities entry?

If homosexuals and lesbians are persecuted in their own countries they are more likely to want to seek asylum abroad e.g. in Britain. Does this mean that an increasing percentage of asylum seekers will be homosexuals? Does this then mean that Britain will be increasingly seen as a homosexual haven, attracting homosexuals from the rest of the world?

14. At 12:09pm on 06 Jul 2010, Charlie Patey wrote:

The consequences in these countries if you're even suspected to like your own sex can lead to rape or death - to send people back to face this is shameful especially when convicted terrorists can't be sent back to a country like Pakistan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"to send people back to face this is shameful especially when convicted terrorists can't be sent back to a country like Pakistan."

I couldn't agree with you more! You can thank the Human Rights brigade for that one! I simply cannot fathom the sheer insanity that would allow such a situation to exist that we are bound by left-wing and liberal policy to give sanctury to someone who came here to kill us.


It defies logic, reason as well as common descency and respect for the British in their own land.

No it's not right that they should hide their sexuality, but in this world - it's what has to be done to survive. Unfortunate, but necessary. As a gay man, I often find that even in the UK I have to sometimes hide my sexuality still.

Agree with comment 3. Of course asylum seekers should be sent back to their own country "gay, lesbian" or whatever. Far too many are here already on the pretence of "being in fear of their safety". Is any country "safe" nowadays. As a great many commit crimes over here I assume that they have done the same in their own country and know Britain is "soft". Any immigrant legal of not should be deported straight away not have free board and lodging over here in prison when/if caught, or given free housing as they have not got any money. This would help cut the prison population and housing problem. What will the next excuse be I wonder!!!!!

"10. At 12:05pm on 06 Jul 2010, paddyc wrote:
This country seems to think it can protect every man and his dog! Well it cant, and shouldnt be expected to, either. The aim of our country is to look after its own people, and not others, for goodness sake, where do we stop with this human rights nonsense? Bring back the days when the majority ruled the minority, because Im sick to the back teeth of the whingeing minority."

When the minorities in this country are treated equally to the majority, there won't be any reason to be vocal about the inequities any longer. If the "whingeing (sic)" bothers you so much, help to speed up the equality process by, for example, emailing your MP and signing petitions on number 10 Downing Street website. Being treated equally for the minorities = blissful silence for you. Win win.

There is a report called "Failing the Grade" on how lesbian, gay, bi, and trans-sexuals are treated by the British Home Office.
Summary: rejected more often than asylum claims made by other people on other grounds.
This weird idea of “going back and living discreetly” is nonsense. Most of the time, it’s because you’ve been caught that you are fleeing. Discretion has already failed. Also, this decision is really sending the person back to an ongoing life of hiding, fear, and probably (in due course) death.
I reckon “being discreet” means you don’t go flopping down on the street and having sex in public, but anyone who is homosexual, lesbian, bi or trans-sexual knows there is an entire way of life involved; therefore, so many little actions to give you away.
And then there’s the problem that some countries don’t address sex that is not heterosexual; so those countries must be safe, right?
When the home country is silent on these matters, The British Home Office sends the asylum seekers refusal letters that read somewhat like: “It is therefore not accepted that homosexual women in …………… are systematically and persistently persecuted as you claim.”
It seems that the current philosophy is: ‘when in doubt, deport’. Can you feel the affect of such a letter, such a decision on the individual? Can you feel the fear?

13. At 12:09pm on 06 Jul 2010, Lucy Clake wrote:
If it is against the law to be openly gay in a country then the citizens know this and choose to break the law.

---

'choose'

oh dear oh dear.

Isnt it amazing how immigrants come to the UK through countries that are willing and able to put them up. Not one immigrant actually comes directly to the Uk from their country of Origin.

I have no problems with any immigrants so long as they have to pay for own medical bills, do not qualify for any financial benefits (Job seekers allowance, Housing) until they have worked for 10 years.

Let be honest, if Britian was such as easy target to get rich, we would have this discussion.

"13. At 12:09pm on 06 Jul 2010, Lucy Clake wrote:
If it is against the law to be openly gay in a country then the citizens know this and choose to break the law. We can't give asylum on the grounds that a person has broken the law, where would this end. Different countries have different standards with regard to dress and sexual behaviour and that standard has to be respected whatever your own personal opinion about that law."

There's something fundamentally different about breaking the law by fact of the way you were born and breaking the law by opting to because you don't like a cultural aspect of it. If there was a country which legislated against, say, disability and it was punishable by death, would you still hold the view that we shouldn't grant asylum because the person has broken the law of the country they were born in?

I've re-read the article and I simply can't understand all the righteous indignation on this page.

I know the average Daily Mail reader gets over-excited at the mere mention of immigration but this article is about gay asylum seekers being REFUSED entry.

We 're not being criticised by the UN for refusing them entry, we're being criticised by the UN for advising failed asylum seekers not to reveal their sexuality upon their return to their home countries.

All this cringe-making BRITAIN IS FULL baloney is completely irrelevant to the the actual article at the top the debate.

So clam down and save your best cliches for another day.

I don't know what the alternative is to be honest - if people come from a country where being gay is outlawed, then we don't really have any right to try and force our laws onto people from a different country. All that will happen is that every person claiming asylum will say that they're gay as a catch-all to stop them being deported. Soon 100% of asylum seekers will be (supposedly) gay. I'm afraid that if you are a pigeon amonst the cats, that is what's going to happen.

If - to stay free of persecution - you have to do is pretend to be straight, then so be it. We can't police the whole world and strange as it may seem, some countries still actually believe in religion. The freedom to practice religious beliefs deserves just as much protection as the rights of gay people, in my opinion. If you really think you are going to be killed or tortured because of your beliefs, and you stay within the legislative powers of a totalitarian regieme, keep your beliefs to yourself. Not nice, but better than the alternative.

I'm not at all shocked by the number of posters already published who decry the asylum seeker for choosing to be gay in a country where it is illegal. Such ignorance is par for the course on most BBC bulletin boards.

Homosexuality is not a choice - it's just who you are.

If someone was being persecuted for being ginger or blonde would the Home Office send them home and tell them to wear a hat?

'The Home office says it is committed to safeguarding individuals at risk but the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees says it forces failed gay and lesbian applicants to live "under a veil of secrecy" back home.'

Again, surely its the oppressive governments in their home countries forcing ' gay and lesbian applicants to live "under a veil of secrecy"' nothing to do with the UK government.

Surely they were living under that veil befire they even applied for asylum?

==============================================
Absolutely and our government and the international community should do all that it can to stop the human rights abuses and to work towards ending the need for asylum. After all you do not cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think it's a bit of a sorry state when we will accept former gangsters and warlords who would suffer at the hands of corrupt regimes they were seeking to overthrow, (probably with another corrupt regime) but we are even debating this issue.

Yes, we pick and choose the countries that our forces turn up in (usually mineral wealth dictates, or is that happy coincidence) and tell them to adopt out 'democratic' ways, but that means allowing big corporations to pull profits from these lands that should belong to the people that live there and we wonder why they get upset?

Don't se any equal opps laws being demanded though, do you?

Until we do, then if being gay is a source of persecution, the need is genuine and the asylum should be granted.

Gay or lesbian asylum seekers should be offered exactly the same protection as any other asylum seeker - their sexuality should not be a factor. Simple as that - no discrimination.

So when is the world going to take action against such countires that execute and imprison their people simply because they are gay or lesbian?
I would also presume that we cut aid to such countries to pay for those granted asylum, so in effect, there is no cost to the taxpayer.

44. At 12:49pm on 06 Jul 2010, me me me wrote:
James Hardaker wrote:
The fact that a foreign citizen has to keep their sexuality a secret back home is not our problem
---
One of the biggest challenges we as humans face today, is to work out how to appeal to people (like James) who treat problem's that don't directly affect them as problems not worth dealing with. It is inhumane and sickening.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps James has his own problems and (rightly) deems them to be more important than those of people who live in far off places that he has never met, or is ever likely to.

What is indisputably more inhumane and sickening is that people would use Asylum Laws to gain entry to a country on a bogus claim. Something that happens more often than not in this country.

Perhaps you had better start by addressing an attitude of (essentially) selfishness that would seek to deny a place in a safe country to someone genuinely in need, simply to gain entry to a country, as so many do.

I would suggest that is your first priority as opposed to taking issue with James and his attitude toward gay and lesbian asylum seekers.

"Ok, so these peoples home nations are not tolerant of homosexuals...

... when did this become our problem?"

When we started telling the rest of world how its supposed to think and act, what sort of governments it ought to have, how it should be more "Western", and maybe most importantly, since we started thinking that invading a country because we didn't like its leader or culture was perfectly acceptable.

THAT'S when.

Send a gunboat and sort these damn tinpot dictators out once for all.

Why should the Uk protect people from an effect of their own choice. They have chosen to be lesbian or gay and can't copntrol their voice in their own country so tey want tocome here to come out of the closet.
this country is sufferring from umpteen decaced of population growth, it not the people who come her ebut succesive generations that now mean that 1/3rd of the poplualtion is either 1st or second generation immigrants.
We should stop giving santuary to all candidates and only allow those to ocme in that are genuine and will add to the UK economy.
I would suggest no work no come in, no prospect of a getting work no possible work visa. Australia, US and Canada operate this type of appraoc and it appears to work in the right way so why can't the UK
Ohhh sorry we have become a weak limp push over country run by poloticians who are looking for the enxt job up the tree in EU or World polotics.

UK GOVERNMENT, take note. Run this country for UK citizens not foreign countries and their citizens. Stop all immigration from outside of the EU (and don't give the EU migrants social services and NHS as we don't ge that in their countries). Also stop giving our cash out to countries, charity starts at home, build the UK up and only allow cash to go out when we have spare cash.

At 11:55am on 06 Jul 2010, th3_0r4cl3 wrote:
Britain should continue to provide a safe haven for anyone regardless of colour race gender or sexuality. If the persons life is in danger then we should provide asylum and equally importantly to put the full weight of international diplomatic pressure on the perpetrator to amend their ways.
failing that sanctions through the united nations to end the human rights violations.
=======================================================================
I totaly agree providing the refugee seeks the FIRST country where they do not suffer oppression. It is difficult to believe that they feel so threatened that they cross several countries where they would be safe just to get to the UK.

"whiler wrote:
13. At 12:09pm on 06 Jul 2010, Lucy Clake wrote:
If it is against the law to be openly gay in a country then the citizens know this and choose to break the law.

---

'choose'

oh dear oh dear."

I don't really understand your point Whiler, someone might not "choose" to be gay but they do choose to how they display their sexuality.

If it is against the law to have a homosexual relationship they choose to break that law, just as an unmarried hetrosexual couple might choose to break the law by having a sexual relationship in an country where sex outside of marriage is illegal.

If we give asylum to gay people simply because, engaging in homosexual acts is a criminal offence in their country, then we are obliged to give asylum to anyone who does something which is deemed a criminal in their country. i.e. all 'criminals' would be entitled to seek asylum in the UK. We will become a dumping ground for the dregs of humanity. Oh, I forgot. We already are. Just because our govt approves of something, doesn't mean the rest of the world is obliged to. We have no right to impose our morality upon the rest of the world. Or is imperialism fine as long as it's 'liberal'? Some other countries do not consider violence against women a crime. What would we think, if a country gave asylum to a rapist, because he would suffer 'persecution' if sent back to the UK?

# 17. At 12:13pm on 06 Jul 2010, Richard wrote:
This effectively amounts to "victim blaming" by the Home Office, implying that it's a homosexual's fault if they are abused, tortured or killed for being who they are. It's completely immoral to knowingly send someone into such danger and if anyone is harmed after being returned then the Home Office is complicit in that harm.

# 18. At 12:14pm on 06 Jul 2010, Alison wrote:
How convenient. Yet another way to manipulate the asylum 'system'.
They must think we're stupid.
Oh that's right , we are.

--------------------------------------------------

Sorry but which one of you is right, you've both took the decision to opposed the home office and then applied your totally different reasons for doing so. This is not 'victim blaming', what you are doing is trying to take the tolerant moral high ground, why not criticize the countries which are persecuting homosexuals, or are you OK with that because they are from different parts of the world and you think condemning Iran's policy towards homosexuals would make you Islamiphobic.

Jim wrote:
If the other UN countries took in their share of asylum seekers we might not need to send these people back.


I would have to disagree:

As of the end of 2006, four out of 10 refugees were hosted in countries in Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and the Middle East. One quarter of all refugees were hosted by Africa, while Europe hosted 18%, the Americas 10% and Asia and the Pacific hosted 9%.

Pakistan continued to be the country with the single largest number of refugees followed by Iran, with both countries together hosting one out of five, or 20%, of the world’s refugees by the end of 2006.

The UK is home to about 3% of the world’s total number of refugees and asylum seekers (about 302,000 people).

Germany hosted 6% of the world’s refugees and asylum seekers and the United States hosted 8.5% of the world’s total, according to the UNHCR.

Most asylum seekers are prohibited from working. Those who are awaiting a decision on their asylum applications cannot work until they have waited over a year for an initial decision on their case, and meanwhile are eligible for benefits at only 70% of income support, the benefit for those on low incomes. Currently, those on asylum support receive £32.80 a week for those aged 18-24, and £41.40 a week for over-25s.

Source: United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR)
2006 Global Trends Report

As a matter of interest how is an asylum seeker going to prove he/she is really gay as opposed to simply claiming to be?? Gay and lesbian asylum seekers should be treated exactly the same as any other asylum seekers and should not be given preferential treatment otherwise we will be making a mockery of our own equality laws. If they fail the normal tests for being allowed to remain they should be sent back. What happens subsequently isn't our problem - we have more than enough to worry about as it is.

Keith wrote:

We should offer no assistance to foreigners seeking to escape their own countries laws. How would the UK government react to another country giving asylum to a British peadophile? The person in question having done some act which was legal in the country of assylum but not in UK.
Can I claim asylum in some other country to avoid the UK's draconion speeding penalties that are making me afraid of imprisonment whenever I get in my car?

-----------------------------------------------------------

So Keith you'd be quite happy to send a nine year old rape victim back to Iran to face execution for Adultery or Incest?

Reading the comments here on this page is actually making me really upset. The sheer lack of empathy and the inhumanity of some of these comments is absolutely staggering.

Being gay or lesbian is not a choice - I don't care how many people argue against that. I am gay, therefore I know this categorically. I am not guessing based on what others have told me, I can state without hesitation is who I am, not a choice I made. The choice I DID make was to accept who I am and be happy. And I am very thankful that I live in a country where I am able to make this choice, and live my life with my wonderful partner, contributing the community and enjoying our family.

Were I to live in certain African or Middle-Eastern nations however, I would face prison, rape, or stoning, or hanging. I would face violence from my community. I would live my life in eternal fear. These are not made up stories, you only have to spend a couple of minutes reading what Amnesty International has to say.

So for those on here who say that people should keep their private lives to themselves and go back, you may have opinions about the capabilities of the UK handling such a large amount of immigration, but please do not make this out to be a ridiculous issue based on a lifestyle choice. I do not think you have any idea how much damage you do with those comments, because if you did I doubt very much whether you would say them.

The question a the top of this thread is wrong. It should say "Should being gay be a valid reason to seek asylum in the UK?".

If being gay in your respective country is illegal, then why are we taking in people who are essentially criminals? Should Gary Glitter get asylum in Thailand because he's going to be persecuted if he returns to the UK? Let's face it, we can't guarantee his safety - even channel 4 ran a (controversial) mock-execution program about him! The age of consent can be as low as 12-13 in some countries, whereas that's totally illegal in the UK. Polygamy is another case. I'd be persecuted by the judicial system in the UK if I had three wives, but I'd be welcomed in many African nations. Should they give me (and my many wives!) asylum? I doubt they would, because most countries couldn't give a damn about citizens from the other side of the world.

Only Britain lets everyone flow in from all over the globe, and this is a throwback to our colonial and slave-owning past. We feel some sort of collective shame as a nation, as if we owe it to the needy to help them at every turn. Well, there are plenty of poor people here, plenty of persecuted people in the UK. Let's start by helping them.

Laws are open to interpretation and are defined by sovereign states. One man's human rights abuse is another man's interpretation of his religious text or the laws of his land. The UK politicians need to remember that charity begins at home. If we had no homeless people and no poverty in our country, I could see the point in helping others so much. Offer asylum only to our neigbouring countries (that's what the asylum law says - the NEAREST safe country) - we'd have nothing but empty detention centres, as very few people from Ireland, Iceland or France need asylum.

The people in question and anyone else including young Afhans who have escaped certain death are regularly being put up for deportation. Yet we take in thousands of migrants who are here for economic reasons and we prop them up and their families with a great deal of benefit money - which my local MP in Greenwich says we should do. Fine, but these people who are under death threats are actualy the victims of organised national predjudice enacted by our offices of state. Lets get this humbug out in the open and our priorities right.

I love the people saying that being gay must be a lifestyle choice BECAUSE they obviously want to eradicate "gay" behavior

I can only assume that at weekends you choose to be a ' raging queen' and show some ankle to your wives-friend-husband, after everyone places their keys in the tray for the "wife swapping" party. Swapping of course, back "normal" heterosexuality in time for tea with the vicar ?

Seriously, lifestyle choice or not, it must be miserable and frightening to be sent back to a country where your love the same sex can get you killed, castrated or jailed for life.

Even if it is a choice, everyone has the innate right to be not oppressed for choices which do not hurt other people.

And those people saying its not a problem. Our world is shrinking, half the worlds problems are our problems nowadays. Stop being so dammed selfish !

th3_0r4cl3 wrote:

Or to be clearer, if there is a real danger that a person for example will be stoned to death for being sent back to iran for simply being gay they should be given asylum
LIFE SHOULD ALWAYS BE PROTECTED

--------------------------------

But how do we force Iran to stop executing homosexuals, rape victims, children, adulteries and Apostates.

57. At 1:08pm on 06 Jul 2010, Slave to the System - I am not a number wrote:
Isnt it amazing how immigrants come to the UK through countries that are willing and able to put them up. Not one immigrant actually comes directly to the Uk from their country of Origin.


---

Except the ones who come by aeroplane of course.

Unless you are suggesting that they they leap from the plane as soon as it crosses the border from their country of origin?

Because pilots tend to get a bit upset about that sort of thing.

Never mind the other passengers.....

I have sympathy for anyone persecuted in their own country and in these times,every country must have its downside.However we cannot all up and leave our homes when we feel times are bad. If the Home Office is recommending people keep their private lives secret for their own good,then that sounds like excellent advice.We all have to live by the law of the land.If we want change then there ways and means of bringing this about.

Countries including Iran, Cameroon and other African nations.

If I am not mistaken to get from these Countries to Britain you have to pass through several other European Countries (as well as the English Channel) that do not persecute you for your sexuality.

So are they really here for our protection or for the generous hand outs Asylum Seekers became a custom to under our old Labour Government?

"What a suprise some countries still are in the dark ages' wont' let Gay or Lesbian people be open about they life style choice, in public but not in private? it took many years for it to happen in the U.K. {Social history} many people of all political partys and many others'fought for many years for that right . When the failed Asylum seekers go back to they own countries, they can campaign for it there.

Of course this practice should be stopped, would we send a Christian back to a Muslim country where Christians were persecuted? No, and they have a choice they can at least convert to Islam, where as someone who is gay has no choice.

We should not be asking people to live a lie, just so that we can deport them. Yes check that they are really gay/lesbian, yes confirm that they would face persecution if returned and either face a risk a loss of life or liberty. But if both of these are a yes, then they should be given asylum, it's not as if there would be too many of them, or that they'd then bring over their wives & children etc.

As for asylum rules, it's not the nearest country but the first suitable country you arrive at. It's not much good a gay man from Iran claiming asylum in Iraq or Afghanistan etc is it, and as a hub of international travel it's not surprising that the UK is the first liberal country they arrive at.

Some of these comments should have been more sufficiently moderated as they are blatently based on a non-"insider" view of the situation. As a gay person who knows full well that sexuality is not a choice (even if it were a result of your upbringing, that is not an excuse to say "you chose"), I know that I should as any member of the human race (singular) should be free of persecution for that which I cannot have ever had a say in. Those who keep suggesting this is ever a choice we made should be made to walk a mile in the shoes of these asylum seekers.

That said, I agree with the home office in part, this is a ridiculous reason to expect asylum. It is only a sane person who can consider that knowing their country that they run seeking asylum. There are plenty of ways to apply for VISAs to stay in country legitimately and expecting what you hear about a country being more tolerant does not make it a better place to live. The home office should have offered them a means tested way to be sent to other "safe" countries where their skills are required to avoid the fear of persecution and as many have said not force them to go back to a country where they live daily in fear.

Sounds like sensible advice to me.

Send them all home/don't let any in. They can moderate their behaviour so as not to be persecuted. Advice of that kind would seem very good and sensible.

First a few things that are fact. No one chooses their sexuality. It is determined prior to birth and you are stuck with it. People who are heterosexual will never be able to understand what it is like to be gay. We can try but we would not even scratch the surface. Holy books are just about exclusion and have no relevance on this topic. You can argue that they do but they were written in a time of ignorance and that ignorance is carried through to today.

Now try to imagine living in a world where you cannot express your true feelings. I am not talking about argument but touch intimacy love. No one would want to live in such an environment. Where you cannot even hold hands. If you even share a room with that person for that one special night. Try to imagine the person you love not being able to do these things with and you might get some idea.

Suddenly word gets out that you are different to your neighbours. You have done nothing wrong in your eyes, so why do people want you killed often in the most barbaric fashion. You go to work you pay your taxes you fight for your country you are to most intents and purposes a good citizen. Why? because of some ridiculous book written not in the last millennium but the one before that. Why? because there are people who like to show how powerful they are and how they have control over you and the people you love. Why? because there are always ignorant brutes who just have this urge to hand out violence at any turn.

So you manage to flee your country attention is brought on you by the media. You know you can never return for if you do certain death awaits you. If you are an economic migrant you can return back to your country of origin, but if you break some ridiculous holy script then death awaits you.

The U.K./Europe should show tolerance to these people and not send them back to certain death. These people are not going to have children of their own also it is more than unlikely that their relatives will want to join them neither will they be sending money home, so their impact will be minor as opposed to economic migrants. Economic migrants come into the country send money home and can in some cases bring in hordes of dependents who then have their own children placing great strain on society.

No these people are truly vulnerable if they make it here then they should be allowed to stay. They are here for one generation only then they are gone for good.

It isn't so long ago that homosexuality was a criminal offence in the UK. What did the gays do then? Nothing. They kept quiet about it and if they were unfortunate to be caught they went to prison.

Now we've eased up while other countries haven't. But that doesn't mean we should accept asylum seekers on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Next it will be females who don't want to wear black veils etc.

As other posters have said, asylum seekers should take asylum in the first safe haven they reach - we should have almost none in this country... but being Soft-touch Britain they know they'll get a better deal here than elsewmere.

Homosexuals have to urge policies in their own countries to a greater permissiveness - or keep quiet. It is not our problem.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Most of them must have arrived in other European countries first, which will be tolerant of their sexuality. Why did they not stop there?

Yes. We have a duty to make a stand against primitive viewpoints propagated usually by religious entities.

i'd like to know how we know if they are telling the truth about their sexuality-the mind boggles on how this would be achieved.The sooner we leave the human rights act like Cameron promised the better

We in this country only made progress in achieving civil liberties by standing firm and arguing the case for equality no matter what cause we were fighting. Are we really saying that the best way of dealing with tyrany is to run away?

In South Africa, in the majority of the country, if you are openly gay/homosexual/lesbian you are more likely to be multiple raped, mutilated, beaten to death, hacked to death or burnt to death via having a burning tyre upon you.

This, apparantly is a country which was accepted to hold the football world cup because of its supposid modern freedoms/ethics/morals/decency.

Each day of the football tournament, on average, 41 people were murdered (un figures 15,000+ per year)

The jewel of Africa, is in my opinion an unworthy description of such a place.
To be under threat of death/violence, you dont have to be gay, you just have to live in South Africa.

58. At 1:08pm on 06 Jul 2010, Scotch_Broth wrote:
There's something fundamentally different about breaking the law by fact of the way you were born and breaking the law by opting to because you don't like a cultural aspect of it. If there was a country which legislated against, say, disability and it was punishable by death, would you still hold the view that we shouldn't grant asylum because the person has broken the law of the country they were born in?

The insular nature of the UK suggests we should have no asylum seekers except from the Republic of Ireland for whom we are the nearest safe country. But your comparison is a bit far fetched and makes unacceptable assumptions. We simply can't take in everyone who can't stomach the laws of their own countries. Homosexuality has only recently been permitted in the UK but that doesn't mean we have to open the sluice to every such person in other countries where it is still an offence.

They're better off in their own countries working to have the law changed (just as we once did). A few do-gooders are too ready to jump in and involve us in problems that aren't ours...with NO regard for the wants and needs of our own population and economy.