“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.”
This man should win a ‘Moron of the Year’ award for his comment above.
I agree! Can the idiot not see the stupidity of that comment? The very fact of it BEING illegal is persecution enough.. The beatings, imprisonment etc is just the obvious way it manifests itself.
Whats the matter? Don´t they appreciate being shown-up around the world for the homophobic cretins that they really are?
This ´minister´ seems to be at odds with his own logic…
He cannot see that making someones consensual acts illegal is persecution, but he seems to dislike the idea that Cameroon will be seen as a place that ´persecutes´ gay people? Simple. Then don´t!
Either have the courage of your convictions, say you agree with homosexuality being illegal and that gays should be persecuted, or not. You cannot have it both ways dear!
Homophobic bigots. I think I should open a clinic in Cameroon and start converting their straightguys into ex-straights immediately! :-)
I’m confused a little by these cases, I understand that the UK shouldn’t send back people who will be prescuted in their own country becuase they are gay but surely the word presucation is important. There are loads of countries where homosexuality is illegal but are they perscuted? surely the argument that it is illegal to be gay in a country isn’t enough to get asylum in the UK. Afterall there are many places in te UK if you were seen kissing a bloke you may be set upon by a mob. It’s a good case to show up countries and shame them but is it really now the intention of the UK to take all gay asylum seekers from Cameroon?
Now, “Dr.” Boycock – Are you referring to people who will be prescuted, to presucation, or to whether countries where homosexuality is illegal are being perscuted? It would be good to know what exactly we’re dicsussing here.
I know the answer to only one of your questions: Countries where homosexuality is illegal are NOT being perscuted, but they certainly should be PROSECUTED in any international forum that may be available!
Oh, and by the way: The difference between certain UK backwaters and Cameroon is that PERSECUTED gay people in the UK can safely solicit the state’s PROTECTION and the PROSECUTION of the perpetrators, whereas gay people in Cameroon would only be inviting further PERSECUTION by doing so. They may therefore be forced to find PROTECTION abroad.
I apologize, Dr. Boycock, sir – My comment above was a response to John’s earlier comment, not to yours.
As Mandy Rice-Davies said in 1963…..
“Well, he would, wouldn’t he?”…..
Jonas – I’m not trying to be nasty, I just can’t understand how the UK can take in all gay asylum seekers where homosexuality is illegal – yes Cameroon is quite different to the UK but so are many other countries – the legal age , for instance, for gay sex in some countries is much higher than the UK, surely in British terms this is against humna rights to deny someone rights to be discreet/suppress their sexuality until 21 or older – I still think you have to apply some form of persucation clause or something, laws are different everywhere, not just homosexuality laws – … admittedly I know very little about the sitution in Cameroon, but what is the implication of this ruling, is it a blanket acceptance that gay people form countries where homosexuality is iiiegal (and there are obvious implications eg jail/fines ) are allowed in the UK to stay or is there some other criteria going to be applied? Afterall there are also other asylum/refugee people that have to be considered as well who may be in a much worse position … don’t countries have quotas on how many refugess/asylum seekers they take?
A “persucation clause”? Perhaps you mean persecution.
The “persecution clause” you’re looking for is found in the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Protocol, which the Supreme Court of the UK has carefully applied in these cases. Almost every country in the world is a party to the Refugee Convention.
The Convention and Protocol define a refugee as a person who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
Homosexual men or homosexual women are considered as “members of a particular social group” under this clause.
A violation of a person’s human rights by the laws of a country does not generally qualify as persecution. A higher age of consent, for example, or even the death penalty for gay sex, doesn’t mean that every gay man from that country is entitled to refugee status in another country. There has to be a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ of that particular person.
This summary of the Supreme Court’s judgment is very instructive: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0054_ps.pdf
If a person is present in a country and qualifies as a refugee, he or she must be given protection by that country. This obligation is not limited to a certain number. As you may be aware, most of the world’s refugees have sought refuge in relatively poor countries next to major conflict zones, notably Ethiopia, Kenya, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon. Those countries are making great efforts to honour their commitments under the Refugee Convention. Western Europe receives only a minor portion of the world’s refugee population.
(A “refugee quota” is a number of refugees that a country such as the UK has voluntarily undertaken to receive for resettlement from a refugee camp abroad. Otherwise, a refugee claim can only be made by a person who is already present in the country of protection.)
I suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee
The full judgment of the Supreme Court is at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0054_Judgment.pdf