How do they know?
Is there some kind of test?
*unzips*
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 14:13,
Reply)
Oh god there's *thousands* of comments,
and I can't be arsed to read 'em all. If someone could post up the most outrageous, that would be great.
My favourite so far: I don't want to deny anyone the right to sleep with anyone, but to receive persecution implies that the man or woman has been identified as being gay or lesbian. I have to ask how? I would suggest that they had been indiscreet in public.
'Outrageous' you gasp.
Is it?
In some countries, I can get flogged for kissing my wife in public, having a glass of beer or for wearing shoes in certain buildings
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 14:28,
Reply)
I had to stop reading
as it was making me too FLIPPING ANGRY.
(
Herb Alpert's Taxi Driver I have very beautiful lips, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 14:30,
Reply)
Yeah, it's pretty much
what you'd expect when you cross 'asylum seeker' and 'gay'. All the usual unedifying bigotry, untruths, lies, confusion. eg Gays flaunt their sexuality, they are just claiming asylum so they can live off benefits, why is it our problem etc etc
I am yet to hear a coherent argument against asylum seeking which isn't either based on false premises, racism or isolationism. I think there might be such an argument, but damned if I can formulate it.
(
Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 15:04,
Reply)
Hey hey, careful now.
Logic has *never* had a place in the argument on immigration.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 15:51,
Reply)
You'll be wanting this blog:
ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/
Dedicated to the stupidest of comments from across the Interweb
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 15:04, Reply)
my faves so far:
"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"
and
"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."
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 15:04, Reply)
This is what I don't get.
Surely, the right would want that kind of go getter, self starter, think outside the box, entrepreneur type that would do anything to get into the country.
(
Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 15:16,
Reply)
Maybe that's it - get asylum seekers to do some horrible trial like "i'd do anything to be on TV" from The Word. Such as snog an old lady, lick a fat bloke's armpits, pubes on toast... you get the idea. See how much they really want it.
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 15:22, Reply)
"Gay Israel" is just Israel, in my experience.
Love the last comment, can imagine some rightwing nutjob standing up at a local BNP/UKIP meeting to say that, followed by "In fact, in *my* school..." à la Portillo.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 15:46,
Reply)
really late reply, but only 3 comments inis this absolute gem
"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?"
almost inverse genius
(
Avast is still alive!!!!, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 22:50,
Reply)
Again
this comes down to whether you believe in human rights (and what those rights may be), whether you believe that you should defend other people's rights. Given that the UK, like most of the rest of the world, has said yes we believe in human rights (as defined by the UN conventions), and yes we believe that it is our responsibility to defend these rights, this decision is the logical conclusion.
There would need to be some fairly radical change to make this decision controversial at the levels where these decisions are made. The UK would either need to say we don't believe in human rights (or some particular rights) or that they don't believe that it is up to them to defend these rights for all or some people (such as non-citizens).
It would make a little sense to argue for human rights as "Human" rights, and then say that they don't apply in the same way to particular people. If the UK is to support human rights, then it has to defend these rights for all people and that entails, among other things, giving asylum to people whose rights as humans are not being respected. It also means that the UK (and the EU and UN among others) has an obligation to make other governments live up to their responsibilities to protect people's human rights.
The reality, of course is that, the ends are difficult to achieve without suffering in some shape or form. Any policy regarding asylum will necessarily be either to liberal (allowing in those who might not have a well founded fear of persecution) or to strict (sending back people to be persecuted and killed). Any diplomatic policy too generous (aid, talk) to those persecuting risks perpetuating that persecution and becoming complicit in it, and any policy too strict (war, sanctions) risks the very populations whose rights we are aiming to protect.
Britain is a popular destination for those seeking asylum, because Britain is the where the modern notions of liberty and rights were born, notions now extolled in the global mass media of the anglophone world.
If Britain and the British people believe in this cultural inheritance of liberty, then they must see that connection with that tradition from the Magna Carta, the peasant revolts and the end of serfdom, the civil war and the establishment of constitutional monarchy, the abolition of slavery, of universal suffrage, of active decolonisation and the support of parliamentary democracy, and the articulation of those rights we consider now not as our right as Englishmen but as our birth right as human beings.
(
Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 14:49,
Reply)