EU court blocks gay asylum tests

semi-pro waster said:
It's fairly unlikely to be accurate but not just for the reason that you've suggested. If you think of sexuality as a spectrum then there's likely to be a number of people who identify as heterosexual who are aroused to greater or lesser extents by pornography that is stereotypically gay - that doesn't make it a good test as to whether someone is homosexual or not.

Then you've got the issue that not everyone shares the same sexual preferences, some people like this physical characteristic while others like that physical characteristic, some prefer X personality trait in their partners, some prefer Y personality trait etc etc. It's not that there won't often be some overlap in what arouses people but as a test for "proving" someone is homosexual it's flawed.



I'm not sure what PPG is in this context but I'm far from convinced in the general principle as per the above. It's a big assumption to believe that all people respond to the same stimuli, particularly in something as convoluted as sexual preferences.



Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your point of view) we've signed up to conventions on human rights and the right to liberty and security, freedom from discrimination and private and family life. If we're going to claim any moral authority in the world then we've got to be prepared to back it up. What if you had to hide your sexual orientation - how would you feel about that?



So even that system which manages to be humiliating and demeaning is subject to abuse.
Click to expand...

The problem is that as much as 5 to 7 % of the population is thought to be gay.

Can we really take in that much of Africa? Why should the few that have been able to pay huamn traffickers be allowd in? there are many many safe countries on the way to the uk but they do not seem to be running there? It's safe enough in india and very easy to slip into india from Africa without anyone knowing or caring. Do they go there for safety? No. Because they are economic migrants who are lucky enough to have a way in.
 
Dr House said:
The problem is that as much as 5 to 7 % of the population is thought to be gay.

Can we really take in that much of Africa? Why should the few that have been able to pay huamn traffickers be allowd in? there are many many safe countries on the way to the uk but they do not seem to be running there? It's safe enough in india and very easy to slip into india from Africa without anyone knowing or caring. Do they go there for safety? No. Because they are economic migrants who are lucky enough to have a way in.
Click to expand...

semi-pro waster's post was excellent.

Your response is full of assumptions, and inaccurate assumptions at that.

There are far too many holes in the methods of testing sexuality at this time to do it honestly.

My feeling is, and has always been, that if someone is scared enough of living in their home country, then if we can, we should offer them safety here. We may be growing rapidly, but I believe we can support immigrants, and particularly refugees.

In a country where we are fairly liberal, I think it would be a crime not to stand up for the persecuted from morally bankrupt countries.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
semi-pro waster's post was excellent.

Your response is full of assumptions, and inaccurate assumptions at that.

There are far too many holes in the methods of testing sexuality at this time to do it honestly.

My feeling is, and has always been, that if someone is scared enough of living in their home country, then if we can, we should offer them safety here. We may be growing rapidly, but I believe we can support immigrants, and particularly refugees.

In a country where we are fairly liberal, I think it would be a crime not to stand up for the persecuted from morally bankrupt countries.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People should also remember that asylum seekers make up a small percentage of our immigrants. If you want to reduce immigration, stopping asylum seekers is an ineffective and immoral way to do it.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Realistically, what types of asylum is genuinely testable?
Click to expand...

How decisions are made
UK Border Agency case owners must consider the applicant’s account of persecution and any supporting evidence they offer in order to decide whether it meets the criteria for granting asylum. For example, under the 1951 Geneva Convention, it is necessary to show that
the harmful treatment the person fears amounts to ‘persecution’
the person’s fear of such persecution is ‘well-founded’
the persecution is for one of the five reasons specified in the Convention
the person could not find protection in another part of their country
and
the person would be at risk of experiencing such persecution in the future if they were returned
Click to expand...

But yes, tricky.
 
AGD said:
Exactly. People should also remember that asylum seekers make up a small percentage of our immigrants. If you want to reduce immigration, stopping asylum seekers is an ineffective and immoral way to do it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's been abused by some, a tiny minority for sure but still it's grossly unfair on genuine cases. Like that jihadi that was about to be deported back to the middle-east this year that in the car on the way to the airport he announced he was gay and would be killed if he was deported, they had to turn the car around and now he's claiming asylum. It's cases like this that frustrates people and plays on the good will of the UK.

Oh and by the way, that blonde on the left wouldn't be able to walk for a week after i'm done with her! :D
 
bloodiedathame said:
How decisions are made
UK Border Agency case owners must consider the applicant’s account of persecution and any supporting evidence they offer in order to decide whether it meets the criteria for granting asylum. For example, under the 1951 Geneva Convention, it is necessary to show that
the harmful treatment the person fears amounts to ‘persecution’
the person’s fear of such persecution is ‘well-founded’
the persecution is for one of the five reasons specified in the Convention
the person could not find protection in another part of their country
and
the person would be at risk of experiencing such persecution in the future if they were returned
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
In this instance it's still possible to ensure that "the harmful treatment the person fears amounts to ‘persecution’" and "the person’s fear of such persecution is ‘well-founded’"

As long as you can prove that the actual threat of persecution is very real for the person involved then there's surely no need to try to prove the reason behind it as well (i.e. sexuality)?
 
robgmun said:
The problem is that it's been abused by some, a tiny minority for sure but still it's grossly unfair on genuine cases. Like that jihadi that was about to be deported back to the middle-east this year that in the car on the way to the airport he announced he was gay and would be killed if he was deported, they had to turn the car around and now he's claiming asylum. It's cases like this that frustrates people and plays on the good will of the UK.
Click to expand...
The last point you make sadly has another side.

The public is all too quick to see a minority of abuses & then support changes which seriously impact on the genuine cases, this issue has nothing to do with immigration really (as the numbers involved are so small) - really it's an ethical one.

I agree the extreme cases in which abuse is obvious should be dealt with, but those in genuine need shouldn't be turned away either.

Personally I think we should be forcing the issue globally regarding the mistreatment of minority's, in nation A has the death penalty then we should boycott them, apply diplomatic pressure & apply as many sanctions as possible to change the behaviour. Then we won't have to take people in for fear of persecution - solve the problem at source.

Hitting the wallets of those in charge really is the only way to force social change.
 
Last edited:
Depending on your situation you quickly find out what you're willing to do. I'd suck a penis for 10 grand. I'd have no problem banging a dude for an asylum test if it meant getting out of Africa.
 
asylum for sexual preference is difficult, but very understandable...
what would I do if the UK only wanted gay people and being heterosexual was illegal?

I don't think I would apply for asylum on that fact... I would probably go through that route last and say that I'm a skilled worker. my sexual orientation is private and unless I was under imminent threat, I doubt I would use it as a reason to leave the country.
 
As a country we should have the ultimate say over cases of asylum and be able to apply our own rules.

If someone chooses a path that is illegal in their own country (this could apply to lots of things, not just homosexuality), then fear of persecution of that should not automatically be grounds for asylum.
 
I have an idea for a gay test. But not family forum appropriate.

I warned about this few months ago, all of africa is all of a sudden homosexual now.

funny how they can claim asylum from 30+ african countries that are not against homosexuality and 200+ non african countries, yet they pick the countries with the most generous welfare states to claim asylum, just a coincidence.

The real problem with is that when asylum gets abused and exploited and it is and will, when people realy do need to claim asylum they won't be taken seriously because so many people exploited it.

The last thing we need as a society is a million african homosexuals with different morals and different values let in the country. You know the rape rates in africa are ridiculous right?
 
codec said:
asylum for sexual preference is difficult, but very understandable...
what would I do if the UK only wanted gay people and being heterosexual was illegal?

I don't think I would apply for asylum on that fact... I would probably go through that route last and say that I'm a skilled worker. my sexual orientation is private and unless I was under imminent threat, I doubt I would use it as a reason to leave the country.
Click to expand...

if heterosexuality was made illegal it would end the human race, you do realize that heterosexuality is what results in little humans right?
 
Why do we have to "respect human dignity"? They are coming from countries that will kill them for being gay. If I was in that situation then I'd jerk off to midget transexual clown porn if that was all that was keeping me alive, stuff the dignity.

I really think the EU sits there all day thinking of new things to troll Britain with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom