Political Asylum for Persecuted Homosexuals

[Star Safyre]

I came upon this article about an Ugandan lesbian being deported from the UK who fears severe criminal charges if returned to her country.

Is sexuality a human right which should be protected by the granting of political asylum?  Is persecution under sex or morality crime laws a valid reason to request asylum, regardless of the validity of the law in the eyes of the international community? 

[Jude]

Here in Uganda, homosexuality is not a human right. It is behaviour that is learned and it can be unlearned. We wouldn't want Brenda to be painting a wrong picture of Uganda, that we are harassing homosexuals.

I wonder what it is about Uganda that makes them bend the laws of reality so that homosexuality is magically a behavior there and not attraction to the same sex.  Granted, this is an argument similar to that employed by the Vatican and many other organizations worldwide, but that doesn't make it any less retarded.  You don't choose what turns you on, it just does, the fact that some people still think homosexuality is a choice is beyond baffling.  Personally, I'd like to be turned on by people smiling and running through fields so that I could masturbate to pharmaceutical commercials like it was pornography so hardcore that it would make Ron Jeremy blush, unfortunately sexuality doesn't work that way:  you don't get to choose what turns your crank.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I am a little torn on this issue.  On the one hand there is a certain foul taste in my mouth in regard to the Uganda policies regarding homosexuality.  Wrong does not even begin to touch upon the way I view the laws of that nation and the policies they wish to enact.  Understandably the woman fled the country and I am sure her neighbors were no small part of that sudden desire to flee.  The government there, from the reports I saw on Vanguard, is horrible about stirring up public opinion.  No doubt her life is in danger.

At the other end of the spectrum, a country has the right to govern itself.  To some extent the global community needs to respect the sovereignty of a recognized nation to conduct their affairs on their own.  Certainly funding can be pulled, pressure from political and financial institutions applied and condemnation given but at the end there needs to be respect given for them to lead themselves.  Stating that the government of Uganda, which has elected officials, cannot pass their own laws is tantamount to ruling the country ourselves. 

As I said, I find it reprehensible that they would pass such a proposal into law.  At the same time a country cannot offer asylum to anyone not wishing to obey the laws of their home country.  There is nothing saying the woman could not have forsaken her homosexual practices while in a country that considers them illegal, apply for citizenship in a country that does not and move.  Instead, as I mentioned understandably, she fled to another country to stay there illegally. 

Article 14 from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights details this.
Article 14
1.   Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2.   This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


As for sexuality being a human right, there is certainly something to be said for that.  Sexuality being an integral part of being human.  At the same time, sexuality is not agreed on by everyone and has many meanings for other people.  Stating that a person has the right to be attracted to an individual of their choosing is a very dangerous road to walk.

[Jude]

You do a good job of summing up the competing interests involved in this story, and I especially agree with your point that we can't consider abstract sexual attraction -- or acting on it -- a legal right.  It just flies in the face of anti-bestiality and pedophilia laws.  That doesn't mean however we can't establish a legally recognized universal right for attraction between consenting adults.

[mystictiger]

Cynical Mode Engaged.

I don't like my country. It's poor, has only 100km of tarmac, and no internet access. I manage to get to a nice, friendly, advanced European Country and find that I can't live without access to Fox News. Then the European country wants to deport me. I can't claim any special status. My country isn't all that tough on political dissidents any more.

Oh wait! They don't like homosexuals!

Now, I'm prepared to do anything to keep my access to Fox, even munch a little rug.

[Florence]

While governments have the right to govern themselves, there are certain things you, as a country, are expected not to do. And call me a naive romantic, but executing consenting adults for being in love, or expressing that love physically, should be right on the top of that list.

"Stating that a person has the right to be attracted to an individual of their choosing is a very dangerous road to walk."

Only if you don't think about it. At all.

People always compare gays to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals and sometimes even rapists. People apparently don't know what consent means. There is nothing harmful at all about saying consenting adults have the right to be attracted to another consenting adult. In fact, to be technical, people have the right to be attracted to whoever or whatever they want. Be that man, woman, child, animal, kitchen appliance, etc. The issue of consent comes up when the right to ACT on that attraction comes into the picture. That's what the question is.

Can we say that gays have the right to act on their attraction without starting a slipper slope? Yes. Easily. As long as people are willing to weigh the issues individually instead instead of just assuming yes on one means yes on all.

[Oniya]

Cynical Mode Engaged.

I don't like my country. It's poor, has only 100km of tarmac, and no internet access. I manage to get to a nice, friendly, advanced European Country and find that I can't live without access to Fox News. Then the European country wants to deport me. I can't claim any special status. My country isn't all that tough on political dissidents any more.

Oh wait! They don't like homosexuals!

Now, I'm prepared to do anything to keep my access to Fox, even munch a little rug.

It's hard to tell if this is an actual, if acutely cynical, opinion that you hold, or an opinion that you think the dissenters to her asylum claim hold.  Regardless, I wonder how many of those cynics would accept it as plausible if the genders were switched.

[Callie Del Noire]

Uganda wasn't (and isn't) the only country to persecute people for homosexuality. Iran for one comes to mind.  Of course if you listen to the nutjob in charge, they don't have any homosexuals in their country. And don't forget not to long ago (relatively speaking) it was illegal in a lot of countries.

I mean the UK only apologized for their  persecution of Alan Turing, which by anyone's measure was a major contribution to his suicide.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I suppose to further illustrate the complexity of the issue, the nature of a right must be addressed.  A human right is something integral to being a human.  People are given these rights by the very nature of them being human.  Even if they chose not to honor the right, they still have access to the right and all protection associated.  So declaring something a right is a very tricky dealing that carries quite a bit of weight.  Were a right to be declared, then laws are to follow protecting and honoring that right. 

For instance, we are now discussing the right of attraction.  A human being has the right to be attracted to whomever that person finds desirable.  At least that is what is being discussed at this present time.  Uganda is actually not denying this statement and even states in the article that homosexuals are not persecuted.  This statement of right to attraction is similarly mirrored in the Catholic Church’s doctrine and in the former “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.  Whereby a person might be attracted to another, but the sexual congress and practice is prohibited.  So really we are dealing with a human right to have sex with another person.

So now that attraction is not the focus, but the acting on attraction, a clearer picture can be drawn.  Human beings have the right to act on their sexual desires with another human being, so long as that person gives consent.  Seems rather simple at face value.  The devil lies in the details as so many say.  If a person has a right to act on their sexual desires with another consenting adult then what happens to the contract of marriage?  A person cannot sign a contract taking away a human right, in this case the ability to have sex with someone they are attracted to sexually that consents.  So if a husband cheats on his wife, dissolution of that contract based on the exercising of his human right cannot be carried out.  There is also the issue of prostitution.  A payment of one individual to another grants consent, therefore the human right of sexual practice is being exercised.  Many nations are not going to accept prostitution as part of a human right.

Also, the nature of consent can vary wildly.  For a long time a marriage contract was considered consent for sex.  This of course lead to the concept of marital rape being ignored for a long time in the United States.  Other countries do recognize marriage as consent.  A woman fleeing an abusive marriage may be found to be violating her husband’s human rights by denying him sexual privileges.  Children, being human and thus able to access human rights, could also be seen as able to give consent.  Consent is a messy word used in even one country, much less several.

A right and the laws following cannot be worded to be judged on an individual basis for individual situations.  That leads to an unfair application and interpretation of the law.  Laws are meant to be interpreted and applied uniformly.   

A final note, Finn made a statement that I feel requires rebuttal.  A country does have expectations, but that expectation has to do with governing and leading its people.  The Uganda people have an elected government, these people are put into office by the people of that country.  These people enact laws based on popular sentiment because if they do not, they will be voted out of office.  Are we are so enlightened, powerful and just that we can tell another nation’s people how to vote?  Do we now hand instruction manuals to countries to tell them how best to lead their people, which moral standard to follow and how to conduct their laws?  That is a very bold move by anyone’s standard.

[HockeyGod]

There are legitimate claims to individuals being killed for their gender identity or sexual orientation. They deserve the right to be safe regardless of the country's policies. Just because a country makes a law, it doesn't make it right. I would also caution people in supporting the Ugandan election process as democracy and that the current President - with 24 years in office because he changed the law - represents the people.

Now, I'm prepared to do anything to keep my access to Fox, even munch a little rug.

Very not cool.  :-(

[Sure]

Uganda wasn't (and isn't) the only country to persecute people for homosexuality. Iran for one comes to mind.  Of course if you listen to the nutjob in charge, they don't have any homosexuals in their country. And don't forget not to long ago (relatively speaking) it was illegal in a lot of countries.

Still is in the majority of countries (maybe even a supermajority), though in general gay men have it worse than lesbians. Often times much worse (to the point where there are at least a dozen countries where it is only illegal for men to be homosexual, and some others give men harsher penalties while the reverse is true nowhere).

I have a list somewhere I could dig up if it was relevant.

Anyway, the legal answer to this question is no. The relevant part of the standard is there needs to be a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". I believe they consider orientation to be outside scope. The way to change that would be to get the UN to vote to amend it, unfortunately, tolerance of homosexuality is more or less a first world phenomena.

Morally, excluding the obligation to follow the law over your own morals (which is necessary for a bureaucracy/judiciary), it really depends on whether you believe we have a right to interfere with other cultures and impose our values on them, even in a relatively passive-aggressive sort of way like admitting asylum seekers. If you believe we do, then it is perfectly fine for us to use our own morals to protect people we think ought to be protected. If you believe we don't, then it is effectively telling a culture/nation that they do not have a right to order it how they like, if we do not like how they order it, and we will prevent them from inflicting the punishments for the laws they have decided.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There are people across the world being killed for less controversial topics.  People imprisoned for things even further beyond their control than sexuality.  Asylum is not always granted to them nor do nations enact laws or rights to justify doing so.  Should “advanced” nations of the Western world provide refuge for all of them?  Do we condone the behavior of policing other countries and violating their sovereign right to rule their people?  Political asylum is a serious right and stance by a country, stating that they offer shelter to citizens of other nations from persecution.  Essentially that country is standing before another country to deny them the right to carry out the law as the authority of that country has deemed appropriate.  Laws are not always right, but neither are beliefs.

Do we start nullifying another country’s laws because we don’t agree with some part of their government process?  Agree or disagree with the way the president of Uganda remains in office, but once more that is their law and process. 

[Jude]

I won't lose any sleep if we do so in this case personally.  I agree that the larger issue is complicated, but I can't say I care in the least about violating their sovereignty if they're going to start killing people for being gay -- a condition they have no control over.  I cannot support the right of a nation to execute a homosexual holocaust.

EDIT:  The same goes for imprisonment.

[HockeyGod]

Do we start nullifying another country’s laws because we don’t agree with some part of their government process?  Agree or disagree with the way the president of Uganda remains in office, but once more that is their law and process.

I didn't say that. The point is that these people are being killed for being who they are and should be able to request asylum.

[DarklingAlice]

You do a good job of summing up the competing interests involved in this story, and I especially agree with your point that we can't consider abstract sexual attraction -- or acting on it -- a legal right.  It just flies in the face of anti-bestiality and pedophilia laws.  That doesn't mean however we can't establish a legally recognized universal right for attraction between consenting adults.

I don't want to dig to deeply into the details of this but I do want to point out the problem with the above. Policing attraction, to me, falls clearly in the same realm as policing thought. I think it is fairly easy to make the case that we have a universal semi-Epictetian right to our own minds. If only for the fact that evidence cannot be provided for what we think. What governments have the ability to police are actions. E.g. there is nothing illegal about being a pedophile, there is something illegal about abusing children. Thus I think we have a right to attraction, making the case for any action is a bit more difficult (although for the record I do think we have sexual rights).

I also think a distinction should be made between granting asylum and policing/interfering in the running of another government. People should not be imprisoned in their country of birth merely by having been born there. The ability to emigrate needs to be protected.

[Jude]

Thanks for the correction, I didn't mean to say you can punish people for attraction itself, just acting on it, but I'm glad someone caught that error.  I fully disagree with policing thought.

[Callie Del Noire]

Do we start nullifying another country’s laws because we don’t agree with some part of their government process?  Agree or disagree with the way the president of Uganda remains in office, but once more that is their law and process.

We're not in this case trying to nullify the process of a government are we? I thought this issue was to give an individual asylum or not. Seems, sexuality aside, fairly cut and dried.

Will they be killed if they are returned? Quite likely. From there it's just a matter of finding justification to grant asylum.

My thoughts on the subject and how the issue be handled aside, I hope she gets it somewhere in some shape. 

[RubySlippers]

My view is the woman seems to be in the UK illegally, if she just went in and asked immediately for asylum it would be a consideration to let her stay or find another nation willing to take her. I can't believe one EU nation could not have been asked - Norway, Sweden, France or the Netherlands all come to mind.

After all Norway(?) refused to turn over a murderer to a US state due to the poor conditions of our prisons as not be minimal to decency under the same charter above that was noted, so a woman that could die for -oh my - wanting women lovers seems a higher bar over a criminal in the real sense of the word.

Why not look for another nation that will take her?

[Oniya]

I would think that would be the optimal solution - the one thing that needs to be considered is the length of time that the paperwork takes to get processed, and where she can safely stay until it's done. 

At least a small percentage of illegal immigrants are in that situation because they were unable (through impatience or a more valid reason) to wait through the glacial pace of paperwork.  I personally know of one individual who tried to come over from Canada - had a job basically lined up, as well as a place to stay, but because the right slip of paper hadn't made it to the right filing cabinet in the right office of the right building at the time she tried to come over, she was turned back.

If this woman gets deported back to Uganda while waiting for the processing, she might end up falling afoul of her persecutors.  If she tries to rush the process, and enter another country before they say it's okay, they might kick her back out as an illegal.

[Falcot]

I believe I am squawking everyone else’s shared opinion.

Opinion 1: Country has the right to its own sovereign policies and laws. The United Nations enforces a countries right to do this but also enforces the practicing of human rights.

Opinion 2: Persecution based on sexuality is a political policy that should never be accepted anywhere


Controversy with this article:
1. The woman may be lying (not to sound like a jerk) in order to preserve her asylum status in the UK
2. Freedom of sexual orientation isn't even accepted in the modern world with laws against pedophilia and bestiality


In general i do feel very sorry for this woman and it's a horrible situation she’s been thrown into, but politically we have no right to curse Uganda

[Oniya]

Controversy with this article:
1. The woman may be lying (not to sound like a jerk) in order to preserve her asylum status in the UK
2. Freedom of sexual orientation isn't even accepted in the modern world with laws against pedophilia and bestiality

Freedom of sexual orientation involves consent between the parties involved.  Children and animals (who cannot legally consent) have no place in the discussion at all.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

In regard to children, that depends on the country.  Notice the marriage clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not mention age.

[Silk]

You do a good job of summing up the competing interests involved in this story, and I especially agree with your point that we can't consider abstract sexual attraction -- or acting on it -- a legal right.  It just flies in the face of anti-bestiality and pedophilia laws.  That doesn't mean however we can't establish a legally recognized universal right for attraction between consenting adults.

Well there is that little thing called "Legal consent" that does tend to put a bit of a dampener on it, after all unconsented sex is still rape and against the law, while animals and children are not considered capable of making a informed desision to give a consent.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think I touched upon the problems of assuming consent is the same across the globe.

[Silk]

Giving consent is the same across the board, unless your speaking from "under duress"

[Pumpkin Seeds]

 No, really isn’t.  Neither is the definition of a child or how children are viewed across many different cultures.

[Silk]

Besides legal mandates ages, may you give some examples?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The difference in age mandated by laws is a fairly important distinction to simply place aside.  One culture or country views age of consent at 18 while another might view this age at 15.  That is a large difference to blanket over when crafting a human right dealing with sexuality.  I doubt there are many parents in the United States that would enjoy being reprimanded by the police for violating their daughter’s human right to have sex with her boyfriend.  Some cultures view a woman at the age of puberty as being ready for marriage.  The Yemen have set that age as low as nine. 

There are children in El Salvador that work in dangerous mines.  They smoke, drink and work instead of going to school.  Not so long ago children would work in factories in the United States under near slave like conditions.  The modern view of childhood did not come about till this past century and late into that century.  From one state to the next in the United States the laws regarding age of consent vary greatly and can differ based on conditions, such as if the woman has had a baby.  So if the age of consent varies so wildly in one country, a reasonable assumption is to assume that across vastly different cultures there is the same variation.

[mystictiger]

We in the west treat it as axiomatic that freedom is a good thing. We do this because one of the fundamental norms of our societal-legal structures are that we generally believe that democratic liberalism and respect for human rights is a Good Thing (tm).

Our laws, though, are only laws because they have a legitimising force behind them - that of the due process of law-formation. In the UK this is an act of parliament as discussed and voted on by our elected representatives.

What happens when the legislature of another country does something that we don't approve of? A legislature can do anything they want, provided that their domestic constitutional system mandates it. In a culture as rampantly homophobic as Uganda, this will include outlawing acts such as sodomy, male-male or female-female intercourse. It is therefore possible to be homosexual, just not to practice it.

Telling another country how to run itself is the height of 1st world arrogance. We might as well recolonize people.

[Oniya]

In regard to children, that depends on the country.  Notice the marriage clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not mention age.

Regardless, it's not proper to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality, as the post above mine appeared to do.

[Zakharra]

Telling another country how to run itself is the height of 1st world arrogance. We might as well recolonize people.

Some places are so bad, it would be an improvement.

[mystictiger]

Some places are so bad, it would be an improvement.

How dare you say that? Why are you right and why is conforming to your views an improvement?

I thought it was my job to tell people how they should run their countries as white British male lawyer ;)

[Florence]

How dare you say that? Why are you right and why is conforming to your views an improvement?

I thought it was my job to tell people how they should run their countries as white British male lawyer ;)

Well, in countries where innocent people are being killed thanks to bigotry, religious extremism... I'm pretty sure they could use a few pointers. Yes, morals are shaped by culture and circumstance, but are we really going to entertain the idea that perhaps freedom and ethnic cleansing are on the same moral grounds just because their culture says it's good?

[Jude]

Who are we to say that the Germans shouldn't be killing Jews.  What they're doing might be what's right for their culture in that time and place.  Maybe when you shoot them in the back of the head while they're on their knees in front of a grave they dug for themselves the gunshot wound spouts out golden coins, precious stones, and candy!  After all, jew is the first 3 letters in jewel.

/Godwin

(Please don't take this post too seriously)

[Xenophile]

Who are we to say that the Germans shouldn't be killing Jews.  What they're doing might be what's right for their culture in that time and place.  Maybe when you shoot them in the back of the head while they're on their knees in front of a grave they dug for themselves the gunshot wound spouts out golden coins, precious stones, and candy!  After all, jew is the first 3 letters in jewel.

/Godwin

But in all seriousness, back to the topic.

Isn't it fairly assumed that sending someone back to the country of their origins, and for -whatever- reason they will face death and torture on their return, isn't the guilt on the hands of the people who deports the immigrant? Especially if the individual in question has "committed a despicable act" that is protected by international laws, such as the United Nation's resolution concerning sexual disposition?

[Braioch]

I fail to see how this resembles policing another country at all. (my country is seducing that oh so delicate line with the middle east right now >.>)

She sought asylum in a country that didn't see anything wrong with the way she was. The alternative was going back to a country where her neighbors could have very well killed her because they despised her love of the female genitals. Oh not to mention the corrective rape going on for lesbians, that totally isn't illegal.

I would view it less as policing, as they aren't swooping in and taking all of GLBT people out of Uganda and locking down the whole place while slapping the hands of the leaders with squirt bottles in hand saying 'bad, bad!' They allowed this woman to be somewhere where she would have somewhere safe to live where she wouldn't have to worry about being beaten or raped. If I were to stretch it a bit, I'd say they gave the woman her basic human rights by giving her this new place, preventing bodily harm down to her and her life being made miserable by hateful communities.

[mystictiger]

Who are we to say that the Germans shouldn't be killing Jews.  What they're doing might be what's right for their culture in that time and place.  Maybe when you shoot them in the back of the head while they're on their knees in front of a grave they dug for themselves the gunshot wound spouts out golden coins, precious stones, and candy!  After all, jew is the first 3 letters in jewel.

Well, America and Britain did let the Jewish people die. The massive slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and the mentally deficient was not the reason for WW2. Do not kid yourself, or adopt your smug hindsight sense of superiority about this. The reason there was WW2 is because of the invasion of Poland.

This is also why we, the first world intervened to stop the genocide in Rwanda, to stop the exterminations going on Cambodia. And female genital mutilation in Africa. Or political repression in North Korea.

Oh wait.

We didn't.

Now, if the first world had had the stones to intervene then and say "Stop, what you are doing is wrong" then they would have the right to tell other countries how to act now. Instead the choice to only intervene in the easy cases makes your argument morally bankrupt.

Further, extermination based on religious-ethnic grounds is not the same thing as outlawing certain practices. It is an utterly invalid comparator - the choice to do so is pathetic. Why? Because I refuse to succumb to any easy 'get-out-of-debate-free' card based on my religion and heritage.

There are two choices. Complain or do something about it. When NATO bombed Serbia, it was the choice to try and do something about it, and this was met with international outcry.

[Xenophile]

Well, America and Britain did let the Jewish people die. The massive slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and the mentally deficient was not the reason for WW2. Do not kid yourself, or adopt your smug hindsight sense of superiority about this.

This is also why we, the first world intervened to stop the genocide in Rwanda, to stop the exterminations going on Cambodia. And female genital mutilation in Africa. Or political repression in North Korea.

Oh wait.

We didn't.

Now, if the first world had had the stones to intervene then and say "Stop, what you are doing is wrong" then they would have the right to tell other countries how to act now. Instead the choice to only intervene in the easy cases makes your argument morally bankrupt and indeed pathetic

Way to be hypocritical, boyo. Don't kid yourself to think that you're alone in noticing the simple fact that no one does anything without making sure they'll benefit from it on the international stage.

[mystictiger]

How am I being hypocritical?

I am adopting a position of non-intervention, because that is the only one borne out by international practice.

When states intervene, they do so because there is oil, because there is a chance to mangle a client-state of another power, not because human rights are being violated.

[Xenophile]

How am I being hypocritical?

I am adopting a position of non-intervention, because that is the only one borne out by international practice.

When states intervene, they do so because there is oil, because there is a chance to mangle a client-state of another power, not because human rights are being violated.

You attempted to point out perceived smugness Jude's post, and then you adopt a smug language yourself. That is hypocritical, and unnecessary on this forum.

[mystictiger]

The smugness is a natural feature of my approach.

What I was objecting to was the hindsight-ness of Jude's approach, not the smugness. His approach is one in which past events are treated with a morality not existent at that time.

Do we regard slavery as wrong now? Yes. Clearly it wasn't always perceived as universally wrong though.

At the time, Nazi extermination efforts were not a sufficient ill to provoke armed intervention. You cannot separte a historical event from its context.

[Xenophile]

The smugness is a natural feature of my approach.

What I was objecting to was the hindsight-ness of Jude's approach, not the smugness. His approach is one in which past events are treated with a morality not existent at that time.

Do we regard slavery as wrong now? Yes. Clearly it wasn't always perceived as universally wrong though.

At the time, Nazi extermination efforts were not a sufficient ill to provoke armed intervention. You cannot separate a historical event from its context.

You assume that the Nazi Extermination was well known. It only became wide-spread and common knowledge after the war. Before, and during, it was only know to the public that there had been a policy that restricted the freedoms of Jews (and other minorities). So it is very obvious that there had to be other causes to spark an intervention, as a policy that was only marginally more strict than the policies that they themselves used against the Negroes in the USA wouldn't be enough.

Still, Jude made a good point. It being sarcastic had nothing to do with smugness, as far as I'm willing to look at it.

[Zakharra]

The smugness is a natural feature of my approach.

What I was objecting to was the hindsight-ness of Jude's approach, not the smugness. His approach is one in which past events are treated with a morality not existent at that time.

Do we regard slavery as wrong now? Yes. Clearly it wasn't always perceived as universally wrong though.

At the time, Nazi extermination efforts were not a sufficient ill to provoke armed intervention. You cannot separte a historical event from its context.

I was under the impression that the Germans did not start extermninating the Jews, gypsies and other 'undesirables'  until several years after WWII started.

[Xenophile]

I was under the impression that the Germans did not start extermninating the Jews, gypsies and other 'undesirables'  until several years after WWII started.

There where discussions on how to deal with ze Jews. But the technical genocide began as soon as the Nazis came into power, and the first of the camps (though more for political dissidents) where built in as early as 1933. The first Death Camps, built specifically to be part of the Final Solution, where built in 1942.

But plenty of people where killed in camps before the war, like invalids and communists. Hell, there where even plenty of people that just died conveniently after medical check-ups.

[Valerian]

*nudges topic back on track*

Please be careful with the accusations.  No one should be resorting to sarcasm, insults, or even extreme smugness.  All you're doing is distracting people from the content of your message (which is what we should be concerned with) by encouraging them to focus instead on the way in which you present your ideas.

[Jude]

I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was just trying to have a little good-natured humor, I apologize :(

You make a good point Mystic even if I disagree.

EDIT:  And I was working on that before Val posted... I feel the need to emphasize this, because I like you a lot Mystic and don't want you thinking I just posted that apology because a moderator stepped in.

[Oniya]

Quirk's Exception:
Intentional invocation of Godwin's Law is ineffectual.


Back to the topic at hand, I think that the problem is that - rather than entering the UK and immediately seeking asylum, the woman in question entered the UK and waited until she was caught as an illegal immigrant before seeking asylum.  I still believe that she should be able to apply somewhere (maybe the UK might not be the best idea for her at the moment) to avoid being sent back to a place where she could suffer severe bodily harm and/or death.

[Xenophile]

Quirk's Exception:
Intentional invocation of Godwin's Law is ineffectual.


Back to the topic at hand, I think that the problem is that - rather than entering the UK and immediately seeking asylum, the woman in question entered the UK and waited until she was caught as an illegal immigrant before seeking asylum.  I still believe that she should be able to apply somewhere (maybe the UK might not be the best idea for her at the moment) to avoid being sent back to a place where she could suffer severe bodily harm and/or death.

Sweden would make for a good option. That country already accept about 50% of all immigrants moving into Europe.

[Sure]

Sweden would make for a good option. That country already accept about 50% of all immigrants moving into Europe.

If you're denied asylum into one EU country, none of the others can take you. It's to prevent people from applying for asylum again and again until they're accepted, then moving to a country that rejected them.

Anyway, I'm not sure if the US would let her in, but the US does accept more refugees than any other country (in fact, if you take the top ten refugee accepting countries, the US accepts more than twice the amount of the other nine combined, if I recall). The thing is that it is notoriously random to get chosen since there's a cap on the amount of people let in and the guidelines are somewhat vague.

[Serephino]

I honestly don't see how this can be tied to trying to police other countries.  By giving this woman asylum, the country wouldn't be telling Uganda that they can't have such laws, only giving the woman a safe place to go.  At most, it would be a statement that the country in question doesn't agree with Uganda's laws, which I don't see as a horrible thing. 

This woman is in fear for life.  She doesn't want to live in Uganda because of their laws.  This is only my opinion of course, but I think it should be a basic human right to be able to leave a country where you don't feel safe, and seek protection in a country where you will be protected, regardless of why you don't feel safe.

Of course, that's not to say people should be able to seek asylum for any silly reason, but if they have just cause to believe they are in danger...

[NiceTexasGuy]

I miss the good old days when the only evil government on the continent was South Africa because white people were in charge and everyone else in sub-Saharan Africa lived in peace and harmony with nature and each other except when the evil Christian missionaries came to rob them of their rich and noble cultural history.

You see, back then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the politically correct Western press would only allow us to know about the evils of Aparthied, and not about other inconvenient truths like genocide and gender discrimination taking place elsewhere on the continent.  Also, this woman wouldn't have to seek asylum in the UK because she, like practically every other person in sub-Saharan Africa, would try to get to South Africa instead, where she would be relatively safe from the government and better able to find a job.  Of course that option is no longer available to her, thanks to a bunch of well meaning people in the "civilized" world who would never dream of imposing their will on anyone, unless the targets of their wrath were overseeing the only stable government in that part of the world, and Jesse Jackson told them to do it.

Cynical?  Just a wee bit.  So, how did the government know this woman was a lesbian?  Seriously, if my country passed a law saying that scratching ones ass is a capital offense, I'd make sure the doors are locked and the shades pulled down before relieving myself of that particular itch.

So, call me when anyone wants to complain about all the white people being raped and murdered in South Africa because of the color of their skin.  Oh, you didn't hear about that?

[Cheka Man]

If you say, yes,homosexuals can have asylum-how do you know people won't claim to be gay to have asylum when they are in fact straight?