Comments on: Gays have no legal protection from international persecution says tribunal

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:23:57 +0000

Edward, thank you and you are welcome!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Edward in Los Angeles

Edward in Los Angeles — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:24:51 +0000

"Next, we'll be told to remain discreet in our own country to avoid bullying in schools…" Well said Robert-Edward

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Del

Del — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:49:11 +0000

Shows how 'Don't Ask – Don't tell' enables discrimination to thrive. Learn from the Americans!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:02:07 +0000

I agree with all of you. I wonder how the Home Office will react if something hapopens to JoJo Jako Jacob. What if he IS harrassed, thrown in jail, tortured and possibly executed? Our government will have sanctioned that by its action along with a lot of LGBT xenophobes. Next, we'll be told to remain discreet in our own country to avoid bullying in schools, harassment in the workplace and elsewhere, though I'm sure no government would have any problem with that, whoever occupies number 10. Sickening! Well done, Peter Tatchell, as always, having the courage of his convictions to speak up for the oppressed, no matter where they are. A true mensch!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Edward in Los Angeles

Edward in Los Angeles — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:08:45 +0000

The tribunal made a fool of themselves when they came up with the excuse that "case law does not allow gay people to seek legal protection in the UK from repressive reigmes". That's the kind of logic that will backfire on them…creating a public relations nightmare and making them look slightly more appealing than Nazis. Thankfully for JoJo Jacob, that public relations nightmare has already begun. By the way, Peter Tatchell has got to be commended. That man is a saint in my eyes for sticking his neck out like he does for gay rights around the world. We need a Peter Tatchell in the United States.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:06:23 +0000

The AIT decision will not set a precedent. The broad principle has already been decided (I think by the House of Lords) that a gay man should not be required to behave in a particular way (eg discreetly) to avoid persecution. If his being gay were to bring persecution upon him in his home country, then he would entitled to protection in the UK. This decision should be reversed on appeal if the facts are as you state. It is utterly implausible that the tribunal stated "case law does not allow gay people to seek legal protection in the UK from repressive reigmes" when Asylum and Immigration Tribunals quite routinely find that gay people from repressive and homophobic regimes like Jamaica and Iran are entitled to asylum in the UK. Ask the UK Gay and Lesbian Immigration Group who will confirm this. If though the tribunal simply did not believe that the Syrian was gay, of course, then they would not find that he feared persecution and merited asylum.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Gayasylum UK

Gayasylum UK — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:50:33 +0000

The home secretary Jacqui Smith said:

'In the 21st century, no one should ever feel under threat of verbal or physical violence just because of their sexual orientation.'

She added: she would ask a ministerial action group to tackle the issue.

Does this imply that only those who are British, European or born in the free west are entitled to live without fear, or does this also extend to all asylum seekers who fear for their lives due to their own governments stand on Homosexuality?

If NO ONE should ever feel under treat of violence, Britain and herself must take the stand as other European nations have done that homosexuals fleeing persecution, torture and execution should be grated asylum, Carte Blanche, and not have to prove their personal “threat of verbal or physical violence just because of their sexual orientation.'

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Omar Kuddus

Omar Kuddus — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:37:52 +0000

ON the 25th of June 2008 British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, said:
'In the 21st century, no one should ever feel under threat of verbal or physical violence just because of their sexual orientation.'
She echoed the sentiments of the United Nations High Commissioner Louise Arbour made in November 2007 who said in her statement; "Just as it would be unthinkable to exclude some from protection on the bases of race, religion or social status, so too must we reject any attempt to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."
Ms Smith and the Home office should realise that to have any meaning these words MUST reflect and apply to everyone, not only those born in the free west.

How many times does this government have to be shamed by the word to act responsibly and do the right thing and accept that being who we are and how we are is a part of our natural selves and why should descression come into our normal daily lives.
She and her office don’t expect heterosexuals to behave other than how they are so why should gay asylum seekers be any different. The ruling by the Asylum Immigration Tribunal, sitting in Glasgow, stated: "Syria criminalises and represses homosexuality. Homosexuals have to modify their behaviour and lifestyle accordingly”
Is that not enough or does the world have to be make itself heard every time the home office uses the same old line of discretion.

(Report comment to the moderator)