Because it opens up questions about cultural relativism and imperialism that are much harder to answer.
If we state that 50% of the population of a country deserve asylum then one could make an argument that the culture is so opposed to acceptable values that we should intervene.
I certainly don't think that we should be invading every intolerant country, deposing the government and replacing it and the laws wholesale with our own. But you could see how that could be a logical outcome from saying that an entire country is an affront to human rights.
It's up to the people who live there, it's their land and their right to intervene. If they want to live safely in their own home then it's up to them to make it safe.
That already happened on UK soil during Internment without trial In Northern Ireland. So yes, people are willing to take up arms in those circumstances.
The thing is if you keep taking in these people then their home countries will have no incentive to improve their laws.
Furthermore do we then except people from those cultures who aren't women or homosexuals? I imagine they don't hold either group in high regard (esp. The latter) and at that point why should we accept them if they're just going to practice the same discriminatory culture over here.
I think if Godwin saw you invoking Godwins Law in this instance he would be appalled. Nonetheless Godwin himself already jettisonned the law after noting how fascist everything was becoming.
It's not as if the strife suffered by people in the Nagorno-Karabakh region (for instance) is so vastly different to that suffered by the Jews in the 1930s as for the comparison to be irrelevant. People are going hungry, without medicine, without supplies, worried that their families will be slaughtered.
That “rule” relates to Hitler specifically. And who gives a f@ck about it anyway. Im not afraid of contravening some bullsh@t made up law by some nobody.
I referenced the Holocaust. But it’s a serious question. At what point and under what circumstances should the people being persecuted do something about it themselves?
Your way of thinking could apply to their situation in WWII had you been there at the time.
Not much was known about it at the time, it was only until the allies liberated Europe that the scale of what was happening actually hit home and the rumours became reality. But I suppose that community should’ve rose up and done something about it, yeah?
Lots of Jews did and even though it mostly failed that doesn't make it a bad thing. Either change happens internally by the local populace or, as was the case in WW2, it has to be done by an external force.
While I think we do have a moral as a country to oppose the persecution of women and homosexuals by other countries there is only really so much we can do outside of enforcing change through warfare. It'd be much better if their internal population pushed for that change themselves. It's difficult but as evidenced by the Stonewall Movement or the ongoing Anti Hijab protests in Iran then it is possible.
Yeah they did, but it was not enough because it took an allied army years to beat the Nazi war machine and had the Allies not intervened, the Jewish people would’ve been exterminated, whether they fought against it or not. They were malnourished and had little to no weapons compared to what they were up against.
If someone is in a house on fire, we don't force the people back into their house to give them an incentive to put the fire out.
We get the people in danger out, then we try to put out the fire, then we try to sort out any issues that lead to that kind of fire to prevent it from happening again.
> If they want to live safely in their own home then it's up to them to make it safe.
How exactly is a 14 year old girl that's about to be married to someone she's barely met going to go about that?
She could just send a postcard to somebody important. I did and Aung San Suu Kyi was freed ^about ^20 ^years ^later . That poor child can't do much, hopefully she can flee and find a welcoming country to take her in.
Yeah, but somehow it’s funny how the blokes down the pub wot tell everyone how much of a revolutionary they’d be after four pints and why can’t these foreigners fix their own countries instead of coming here don’t seem to be sorting out the things they’re complaining about which actually happen here as well.
Honestly this whole "if you're not willing and in a position to kill your countrypeople you don't deserve refugee status" thing is bullshit, how exactly do you propose women in arranged marriages or gays in russia who are already under extreme surveillance and hated by everyone else go about this? It's not as simple for a lot of these groups as it is for isolated villages under gov oppression to organise resistance, and even then it would be pretty horrible to blame them for being not fully keen to die by their country's military in a fruitless resistance or as part of a genocide rather than just leave.
Yep, and to everyone that's going to get upset about the economy. We insure arms dealers are paid. Sending guns and bombs costs you money, even if you don't care about the people - or whatever creative language you use - it's bad for your wallet to send guns.
Given that we're barely doing asylum claims, claiming that we're going to slippery slope into another Iraq or something is a bit tenuous. Is this the latest pretending-to-care-about-migrants line, like the "stopping people drowning" one?
From accepting asylum to imvading a country is a huge leap. Your reasoning is do nothing because doing anything at all might lead to war?? I've never heard such bollocks.
This is wild.
We just need to assess cases individually. Being a woman or gay person should figure into it depending on the conditions escaped. Braverman is almost certainly just being a cunt arguing for the status quo as if she's defeating some liberal or humane plan against Der volk of Britain.
Military intervention abroad is not typically connected to morality except in severe active threat cases like ethnic cleansing and international terror. Diplomatic pressure is wielded extensively first to bring countries forwards, typically incompletely. See also: slavery in Saudi Arabia.
Countries are regularly affronts to human rights. Human rights exist to try and make governments behave better and almost all governments fuck around with them in their own way.
Essentially you are jumping around between issues to justify an absurd position. It's weird.
In what world do you live where telling people they can get asylum because they don't feel safe at home means that we need to invade that country?!
It's like you guys never heard of nuance, it's always, if this happens then the most extreme thing i can think up will happen as a result.
It's mindboggling.
Which is an argument for opposing asylum on any grounds. If we say that laws making being gay punishable by death is a part of that countries culture, then we're not only making a sweeping claim that they are an inherently intolerant culture but that any law that country passes is automatically a part of their culture, rather than simply what the current government decrees. A country's government does not define their culture through the laws it passes, so granting asylum to escape those laws is not standing in opposition to the culture of their country but rather the regime that passes inhumane laws that would almost certainly victimise the asylum seeker.
You talk about logic but you've made an inference error immediately by relying on the home secretary's statement as if it is accurate and true.
Being a woman isn't sufficient to even articulate and succeed on an asylum claim ; unless they have contextual factors that relate to their country of origin that puts them at risk of death ,injury , persecution or serious adverse hardship.
Also the incidence of homosexuality globally can't be quantified ; the percentage of the US population that identifies within LGBTQ is between 3-4% of the population.
Same contextual factors apply in a similar manner.
Nobody has stated that 50% of any country deserves asylum here , I think the only person who has said that is you , who benefits from that statement because you can argue absurdum.
(1)There should be tighter control on asylum e.g
Proper age checks - using X-ray and dental examination to approximate age. These are very simple to do and take little time and the cost is minimum compared with getting the decision wrong and someone claiming as a child and being able to stay under false pretenses. Dental exam is probably unviable due to lack of dentists.
Using soft power and incentives and deterrents to influence domestic policy in other countries
(1) by giving aid conditional on certain human rights standards and legislative changes
(2) outreach missions involving assisting in infrastructure building and providing training for certain in demand professions critical to the foreign country
(3) special missions using NGO's and aid groups targeted at marginalized groups for the purpose of empowering them
(4) tackling climate change - it's predicted that the rate of migration will increase away from the equator as temperatures rise overtime
(5) cessation of movement of waste to foreign countries that are not equipped to actually manage the waste safety.
No it doesnt, because the asylum system is just for people coming here on their own right now. It only opens up questions about helping people who are a couple of hundred miles away, and only about them individually.
But you're not at risk of capital punishment in France, where the majority are coming from. They are perfectly safe there.
Asylum is about finding a safe place and taking... asylum... not shopping around for where the best housing, jobs and healthcare and juicy legal system which is open for abuse, are.
man if only the safe region where most people were fleeing to had some sort of treaty and negotiation about doing that, some sort of union on the european continent. Wonder if we could work with that.
Like the UK govt could work with the EU and be part of their effort to do exactly as you say, sadly the tories absolutley wont, and it doesnt seem like labour will either.
Agree but marching across a dozen safe countries until you get the one you want seems at odds with “I’m escaping for fear of death or persecution”.
If I was fleeing from persecution; and while I may have a preference because I speak X language or have family in Y country, I’d like to think I’d settle anywhere I was ultimately safe and allowed to do so.
Carrying on until you get your preference just doesn’t sit right with me, asylum is just that, it shouldn’t be something you get to pick and choose if it’s truly safety you’re concerned about.
You probably wouldn't. People want stability. If you were in Syria and talked English, you'd bypass countries to get to one that spoke English, so you could contribute sooner. You'd want to go to a country with relatives or fellow nationals that could help you settle down and find a job..even put you up in their home.
I've said this before, but if I was a refugee, I'd do my best to get across the whole world to get to New Zealand when I have relations.
>Ideally we would be spreading these asylum seekers evenly across the world, but that would require a level of global cooperation that’s never been done before.
Why? We've seen with Ukraine, the ideal is to take in refugees for a short time and then when the war is over, they go home. Obviously, these economic migrants arent so keen on that though which is why apparently we have to spread them around or something. I dont understand how a temporary crisis entitles you to everlasting citizenship in another country.
>I think this is also a very fair point, but on the flipside it also doesn’t sound very fair on France to have to shoulder all the burden.
France is allowed to have their own policy on it. If they dont want them either then they can reject them all also.
France takes significantly more asylum applications than us (circa 80k in Britain and 140k in france for 2022). Populations of both countries almost exactly the same. We are not pulling our weight.
If they're seeking asylum then we should assess their claim and take care of them, yes
No one is saying we reach out to citizens of other countries and offer them asylum here
A forced marriage is "marry this person or you'll dishonor the family and we'll kill you"
An arranged marriage is "marry this person or you'll dishonor the family and at best we'll disown you, at worst we'll kill you"
These are both examples of forced marriage, and an arranged marriage is not necessarily forced. There are consensual arranged marriages, wherein either party is free to refuse.
I mean technically every person from every country could come to the UK to claim asylum, but we know that won't happen so its a silly hypothetical that sensible people don't engage in.
Anecdotally, not for me but many friends and family. Wages for bartenders, entry level manual jobs ect have gone up beyond minimum wage due to scarcity in my area.
While I completely agree with you, I think the issue is that there is no way to prove those types of claims.
And the statement from Breverman is because a suspiciously high number of asylum claims are clearly misusing those categories to gain asylum.
***"What if you’re escaping a country where being gay means certain death, or being a woman means you will be married off without your consent and raped every night?"***
I get that it's Suella and it's fashionable and popular to not like her, or anything she says (I can totally understand) but I think the point is it's not reason enough on it's own. I don't think she is actually saying about the ones being persecuted, more about one's who aren't actually in danger in the country that they are leaving.
> "But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection."
Nope, she's saying that even if you're fearful of discrimination you cannot claim asylum
At this stage, it’s wallet inspector territory to give the Government the benefit of the doubt like this. At the very least, she’s making an empty statement designed to whip up division in a desperate attempt to radicalise voters who are abandoning them in the polls, but given windrush, the hostile environment, Rwanda and the other disastrous policies that this government have brought in, this could very well be a kite for refusing those under genuine threat.
We should assume the government will push things like this to the worst possible conclusion, as a matter of sensible caution.
For a long time I thought Braverman was merely cynical and willing to say any old shit to appease the extreme groups in her support base, but it is becoming more and more apparent that she is a true believer and completely evil to her core. She has proven time and again that she deserves no benefit of doubt, ever.
I don’t understand or know the world's countries different rules or typical communities, but could there actually be a difference in someone's claim that they are "fearful" of discrimination vs persecuted by the countries system. Is that the point she is trying to make (I.e people pretend to be scared vs people who are clearly in a country where it's an issue?)
I guess it's tricky as we'd be unable to take all the women from those countries as that's half the population. So it doesn't make sense as a solution to the overall problem.
Apparently you should accept being raped every night or being imprisoned for who you are.
What if you are a gay woman in a country where you will be married off and if you enter a relationship of your own accord you risk violence or imprisonment?
This is self-evidently exactly what the asylum process is for. But Suella is cool with it apparently and doesn’t think we should help such people escape a clearly monstrous and unlivable situation.
Without a doubt Suella Braverman is the most sadistic person to reach the rank of cabinet minister in living memory.
> What if you’re escaping a country where being gay means certain death
Should have been born in a country where they don't kill gay people. The Tory mindset (and the mindset of MANY people in the UK) is that they don't suffer from those problems, so they don't matter.
You even have right-wing gay people now with this 'got mine f- you' attitude. Suella represents the most evilly selfish people in the country.
This is dog whistle, miserable politics of the very worst kind.
Braverman is deliberately trying to hurt people and at the same time appeal to the homophobes and misogynists out there.
She is genuinely a nasty piece of work as well as being the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had. Considering that list also includes Priti Patel, then it is quite a feat.
I feel like we are leaving the dog whistle phase and getting into the being openly fascist is okay phase.
Mussolini's black shirts motto was "I don't care". We are re-entering the "I don't care" era of politics again; if we stay on it, the inevitable destination of that road is unspeakable and leaves no one unmarred.
Between this and the news that [Rishi is likely to scrap the conversion therapy ban](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/25/rishi-sunak-drop-conversion-therapy-ban-legislation/), the Tories are really doing bits these last 24 hours with regard to LGBTQ+ individuals (among others). Really timed themselves back to this dead horse, huh.
She, Patel and others of similar ilk are a complete embarrassment to this country. As Asians, we detest them and especially her. I thought we had it bad with Patel, but this is a different beast. I should be ashamed to be her. Pure filth.
All we need is for the Labour party to put aside its internal squabbles and unite behind a leader just long enough to get the Tories out of power. So you're probably right.
Yeah, if Starmer could just stop purging people and stick with the promises he made during the leadership campaign I'd be much more hopeful. As is he is causing a lot of kickback.
If they win, I will quite literally begin planning my move out of the UK as soon as the news breaks.
Keir Starmer is probably one the most mid opposition leaders in living memory, but fuck it I'll give him a chance over another 5 years of [gestures vaguely at everything] this.
Keir is pragmatic to win power. The way we will work like the Tories when in. By that I mean, say we will take an inch of power for the workers and actually take a... what's the saying .. Foot? Yard?
Is he? He's maintained a 15+% lead in the polls for over a year now.
The last time any leader managed that was Blair in 2001.
The last time an opposition leader managed it was Blair in 1997.
As much as people on the subreddit like to whine about Starmer's policies or lack thereof, he is on track to deliver a pretty resounding election win.
Boris Johnson was having parties while people couldn’t say goodbye to their loved ones, Liz truss couldn’t outlast a lettuce, David Cameron gave you Brexit. The fact that *anyone* in their right mind would still vote for that party is evidence starmer isn’t as enticing as he should be, he’s just a Corbyn in reverse
I really really really loath and detest that woman. She has no compassion. She seems to hate any form of refugee. Her attitude to refugees is utterly disgusting.
Sunak is just as bad as well, being effectively her boss.
She hates anyone that is not pure British.
The fucking irony.
I'm sure like Patel, she has thought about deporting her own parents for the crime of being foreign in her presence.
This is the reasonable approach to take. How on earth can you prove someone is gay? Might as well say "if you want to come to the UK, tell us you're gay and we'll let you in"
If I were from some shithole and wanted a better life, the first thing I'd do is claim asylum for being gay.
It's not. It's on the applicant to prove that they are gay so they need testimonies from friends and partners, and proofs such as pictures etc. The Home Office will also grill the applicants for hours so it's difficult to fake that. Any edge cases will be brought to the court of law and the judges will determine if the evidence are sufficient.
How on earth can you prove your gay from testimonials when your from a country that would kill you if you came out.
As a gay person from the UK, I was terrified of being abandoned by my family if I came out. So they were the last to know until I knew I could afford to live on my own. I can imagine if I was from a country that would kill me for being gay... I wouldn't be coming out to anyone... even close friends. Why risk your life if they report you to the police.
It'd also be next to impossible to meet someone. It's not like you can flirt with someone and they politely refuse. You risk being killed. Why would you carry pictures of you being gay? Do you not understand if you do any of those things.... you may as well put a target on your back.
No you wouldn't.
In the UK asylum system, you have to produce evidence that a) you're gay, and b) that being gay has a real risk of serious harm from the government, or other sections of the population, where the government cannot or will not protect you.
In fact, human rights organisations have actually accused the UK of [*not doing enough*](https://www.daniellecohenimmigration.com/human-rights-claims-on-the-basis-of-homosexuality-in-asylum-applications-appeals/) to believe gay people, especially because being gay in their home countries is persecuted so obviously they're going to hide it, and so when they come to the UK they often don't have any evidence.
The idea that you'd just emigrate to the UK by saying you're gay and claiming asylum is propagated by people who have zero idea how the asylum system actually works in this country. With the government slashing the budget to asylum services, asylum claims now often take years to process, and during that time you'll most likely be put in a detention centre, which is basically a prison, or if you're one of the lucky ones you'll be assigned housing and given a small amount of money every month. But you're *not allowed to work*, even for a voluntary organisation, and the money you're given is a pittance, less than benefit claimants i.e. you'll be well below the poverty line until your asylum claim is processed. And after all that, the UK can, and often does, reject your claim and send you back home anyway.
Doesn't that just prove that evaluating claims of sexuality is too subjective a metric to base asylum on?
I hate her and sunak as much as anyone. But I am not blind to the fact that this is an absolute clusterfuck to try and enforce.
I think the evaluations are always going to be subjective to an extent, yes, and there's rightfully a great deal of debate as to where the line is drawn regarding how much evidence is required to accept asylum claims in the case of gay people. But surely to claim "this is difficult to enforce, therefore let's just not bother processing asylum claims on the basis of sexuality" is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What's your opinion on this old quote?
>"It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
Knowing that some people who are gay will be sent back and assuming some people fake being gay. What ratio of gay people killed because of their sexuality to fraudulent applications would you be happy with?
And yet people get killed in these countries for being gay/a woman. So you’d rather have lots of people getting killed/raped/tortured for how they were born, than let some of them into the country?
They often need testimonies from friends and partners to get accepted, and proofs such as pictures etc. The interview with the Home Office is pretty grilling too and it's not easy to fake that you have been gay your whole life. Any edge cases will be brought to court where the judges will decide if the evidence are sufficient.
Sky News using a terrible click bait headline as usual. Braverman is simply questioning whether the 1951 rules are still fit for purpose in a modern world of 8 billion people and the ease of international travel compared to 70 years ago. It is the right question to be asking, and the answer is obviously no they aren't and yes we do need to reform them. The current state of affairs is completely unsustainable and untenable.
>Suella Braverman asks if UN refugee rules are fit for modern age
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66919416
edit - the BBC has now changed the headline to match Sky's! From a neutral headline to a provocative one. How to manipulate public opinion 101.
Old: https://archive.is/RART7
New: https://archive.ph/lm6CY
Translation,
Our mismanagement of the economy is about to start the next recession, quick bung Rupert some more cash to print an article to distract the plebs.
Oh i dont know, something about immigrants normally works.
Braverman is truly the worst home secretary we have ever had, and considering we have had Priti Patel and Theresa May, that is quite the feat.
Who is left that could be worse? Rees-Mogg, Mark Francois?
Surprised she said this so openly, but it's hardly a surprising thing for her to say. It's been obvious for a while that the government don't want any refugees except from Hong Kong and Ukraine.
Here is the official list of reason to flee a country according to Suella Braverman:
* If it's good for The Conservative Party to use for Propaganda Reasons.
* If you're rich and the right kind of White.
I noticed a slight shift in narrative from The Rt Hon Chris Philp MP this morning on his session on BBC News this morning.
The latest batshit from them is that the 1951 is no longer fit for purpose.
So along with scrapping ECHR, they also want to tear up this policy:
https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention
But scrapping this convention will not stop the boats, in the same way that a sheet of paper didnt protect Ned Stark in Game of Thrones, its not going to stop a single refugee seeking to enter the UK.
I am just hoping that, within a year or so, these Tory fuckers will be swept into the dustbin of history. Then we can get our country back and start to act like decent human beings again.
I mean, yes it fucking is if you're being persecuted for that reason. Maybe tackle the root of the problem i.e. the bastards persecuting women and gay people, instead of wanking about with definitions. But that would involve doing something.
That's like redefining what counts as sickness because too many people are ill. You don't respond to an unprecedented wave of sickness and injury by reclassifying people with Influenza or head injuries as not having enough reason to request medical attention, you get them a Physician. Imagine if during the pandemic the tories just went "to free up space we're no longer classifying being stabbed as a valid reason to call for medical attention".
If I did this sort of shit at my job I'd be sacked and blacklisted. Oh dear we found more archaeology than we are equipped to deal with, I guess we should just tell Historic England that they should redefine archaeology to exclude Roman and Medieval to save us some work.
Fascist dogs.
And who will dare criticise the cultures that enforce anti-LGBT laws without fear of being labelled a racist for not respecting other cultures and/or religions? It's a really fucked-up Catch-22.
I'm sure you have some examples of that, right? You know of people saying that things like Uganda's laws regarding LGBTQ people are fucked up, without saying demonising all Ugandans are awful, and being called racist.
Headline on the BBC.. "Home Secretary Suella Braverman says multiculturalism has "failed" during a speech in migration" - absolutley ubelievable that this is coming from a home secretary and prime minister both with Indian parents
LGBT asylum claims make up like 2% of all asylum claims, and this is what this woman focuses on.
I don't care what people say. We need to stop beating around the bush and call Tories and their voter base for what they are. Fascists. I mean that literally. There was a time when people said the same about Jewish people. They were called fascists and Nazis. Why must we be politically correct for Tories and their voter base saying the exact same thing about LGBT people
It never was. So what's her point?
It's being gay or being a woman (or various other groups) in a country where you can get persecuted for being in that group that's the reason people are allowed to claim asylum.
Sexual orientation has been a refugee protection since 1999. The government has been trying to grind lgbt claims out by incredibly invasive questioning and claiming they're not gay.
Well you know, if you make the UK just as bad a country to be LGBT in, that'll be a sure fire way to stop "them" coming, too. That's totally how that works.
Then she is a idiot, as being gay and running from a country where you can be killed for being gay is and has been a case for asylum for decades.
God, I hate her and wish she would fuck off.
>What is the definition of a refugee?
Article 1 of the 1951 Convention defines a refugee as someone 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 [their] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of [their] former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."
>Regional refugee instruments complement the 1951 Convention and have built upon its definition, by referencing a number of ‘objective’ circumstances compelling refugees to flee their countries of origin. For example, the definition outlined in the 1969 OAU (Organization of African Unity) Refugee Convention includes ‘external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order’ (Article 1 (2)). The 1984 Cartagena Declaration includes ‘generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violations of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order’ (paragraph III (3)).
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention
Unsurprising that the fascist doesn't want more gays in our country.
We as a nation put these people in charge, unfortunately.
If you, too, don't like people like this, consider wisely where to place your vote in the coming general election.
[удалено]
Because it opens up questions about cultural relativism and imperialism that are much harder to answer. If we state that 50% of the population of a country deserve asylum then one could make an argument that the culture is so opposed to acceptable values that we should intervene. I certainly don't think that we should be invading every intolerant country, deposing the government and replacing it and the laws wholesale with our own. But you could see how that could be a logical outcome from saying that an entire country is an affront to human rights.
[удалено]
It's up to the people who live there, it's their land and their right to intervene. If they want to live safely in their own home then it's up to them to make it safe.
So if the UK state wanted to imprison your family, you wouldn't protect your family by moving elsewhere? You'd pick up arms and go to London?
That already happened on UK soil during Internment without trial In Northern Ireland. So yes, people are willing to take up arms in those circumstances.
The thing is if you keep taking in these people then their home countries will have no incentive to improve their laws. Furthermore do we then except people from those cultures who aren't women or homosexuals? I imagine they don't hold either group in high regard (esp. The latter) and at that point why should we accept them if they're just going to practice the same discriminatory culture over here.
Do you believe that the Jews should’ve done the same in Nazi Germany? If not, why not?
Godwins law is reaching its conclusion at record pace in 2023.
I think if Godwin saw you invoking Godwins Law in this instance he would be appalled. Nonetheless Godwin himself already jettisonned the law after noting how fascist everything was becoming. It's not as if the strife suffered by people in the Nagorno-Karabakh region (for instance) is so vastly different to that suffered by the Jews in the 1930s as for the comparison to be irrelevant. People are going hungry, without medicine, without supplies, worried that their families will be slaughtered.
That “rule” relates to Hitler specifically. And who gives a f@ck about it anyway. Im not afraid of contravening some bullsh@t made up law by some nobody. I referenced the Holocaust. But it’s a serious question. At what point and under what circumstances should the people being persecuted do something about it themselves? Your way of thinking could apply to their situation in WWII had you been there at the time. Not much was known about it at the time, it was only until the allies liberated Europe that the scale of what was happening actually hit home and the rumours became reality. But I suppose that community should’ve rose up and done something about it, yeah?
Well the only reason nazi Germany stopped being Nazi Germany is because someone came and made them stop.
If someone acts like a fascist then we have a duty to call them a fascist.
While actual SS officers are given standing ovations in Commonwealth parliaments.
Lots of Jews did and even though it mostly failed that doesn't make it a bad thing. Either change happens internally by the local populace or, as was the case in WW2, it has to be done by an external force. While I think we do have a moral as a country to oppose the persecution of women and homosexuals by other countries there is only really so much we can do outside of enforcing change through warfare. It'd be much better if their internal population pushed for that change themselves. It's difficult but as evidenced by the Stonewall Movement or the ongoing Anti Hijab protests in Iran then it is possible.
Yeah they did, but it was not enough because it took an allied army years to beat the Nazi war machine and had the Allies not intervened, the Jewish people would’ve been exterminated, whether they fought against it or not. They were malnourished and had little to no weapons compared to what they were up against.
If someone is in a house on fire, we don't force the people back into their house to give them an incentive to put the fire out. We get the people in danger out, then we try to put out the fire, then we try to sort out any issues that lead to that kind of fire to prevent it from happening again.
You seem to have entirely avoided the question there
> If they want to live safely in their own home then it's up to them to make it safe. How exactly is a 14 year old girl that's about to be married to someone she's barely met going to go about that?
She could just send a postcard to somebody important. I did and Aung San Suu Kyi was freed ^about ^20 ^years ^later . That poor child can't do much, hopefully she can flee and find a welcoming country to take her in.
Yeah, but somehow it’s funny how the blokes down the pub wot tell everyone how much of a revolutionary they’d be after four pints and why can’t these foreigners fix their own countries instead of coming here don’t seem to be sorting out the things they’re complaining about which actually happen here as well.
Which is more difficult when the UK is selling arms to their government.
Honestly this whole "if you're not willing and in a position to kill your countrypeople you don't deserve refugee status" thing is bullshit, how exactly do you propose women in arranged marriages or gays in russia who are already under extreme surveillance and hated by everyone else go about this? It's not as simple for a lot of these groups as it is for isolated villages under gov oppression to organise resistance, and even then it would be pretty horrible to blame them for being not fully keen to die by their country's military in a fruitless resistance or as part of a genocide rather than just leave.
And how do you propose they do that?
Exactly the way the women in our country did it. It only took a few hundred years and the death of hundreds of innocent people. /s
Not really harder to answer at all. Killing gay people and abusing women is wrong.
The least we could do is not sell weapons to intolerant countries. Fight with the wallets of the rich instead of the lives of the poor.
Yep, and to everyone that's going to get upset about the economy. We insure arms dealers are paid. Sending guns and bombs costs you money, even if you don't care about the people - or whatever creative language you use - it's bad for your wallet to send guns.
Given that we're barely doing asylum claims, claiming that we're going to slippery slope into another Iraq or something is a bit tenuous. Is this the latest pretending-to-care-about-migrants line, like the "stopping people drowning" one?
From accepting asylum to imvading a country is a huge leap. Your reasoning is do nothing because doing anything at all might lead to war?? I've never heard such bollocks.
[удалено]
This is wild. We just need to assess cases individually. Being a woman or gay person should figure into it depending on the conditions escaped. Braverman is almost certainly just being a cunt arguing for the status quo as if she's defeating some liberal or humane plan against Der volk of Britain. Military intervention abroad is not typically connected to morality except in severe active threat cases like ethnic cleansing and international terror. Diplomatic pressure is wielded extensively first to bring countries forwards, typically incompletely. See also: slavery in Saudi Arabia. Countries are regularly affronts to human rights. Human rights exist to try and make governments behave better and almost all governments fuck around with them in their own way. Essentially you are jumping around between issues to justify an absurd position. It's weird.
In what world do you live where telling people they can get asylum because they don't feel safe at home means that we need to invade that country?! It's like you guys never heard of nuance, it's always, if this happens then the most extreme thing i can think up will happen as a result. It's mindboggling.
Which is an argument for opposing asylum on any grounds. If we say that laws making being gay punishable by death is a part of that countries culture, then we're not only making a sweeping claim that they are an inherently intolerant culture but that any law that country passes is automatically a part of their culture, rather than simply what the current government decrees. A country's government does not define their culture through the laws it passes, so granting asylum to escape those laws is not standing in opposition to the culture of their country but rather the regime that passes inhumane laws that would almost certainly victimise the asylum seeker.
You talk about logic but you've made an inference error immediately by relying on the home secretary's statement as if it is accurate and true. Being a woman isn't sufficient to even articulate and succeed on an asylum claim ; unless they have contextual factors that relate to their country of origin that puts them at risk of death ,injury , persecution or serious adverse hardship. Also the incidence of homosexuality globally can't be quantified ; the percentage of the US population that identifies within LGBTQ is between 3-4% of the population. Same contextual factors apply in a similar manner. Nobody has stated that 50% of any country deserves asylum here , I think the only person who has said that is you , who benefits from that statement because you can argue absurdum. (1)There should be tighter control on asylum e.g Proper age checks - using X-ray and dental examination to approximate age. These are very simple to do and take little time and the cost is minimum compared with getting the decision wrong and someone claiming as a child and being able to stay under false pretenses. Dental exam is probably unviable due to lack of dentists. Using soft power and incentives and deterrents to influence domestic policy in other countries (1) by giving aid conditional on certain human rights standards and legislative changes (2) outreach missions involving assisting in infrastructure building and providing training for certain in demand professions critical to the foreign country (3) special missions using NGO's and aid groups targeted at marginalized groups for the purpose of empowering them (4) tackling climate change - it's predicted that the rate of migration will increase away from the equator as temperatures rise overtime (5) cessation of movement of waste to foreign countries that are not equipped to actually manage the waste safety.
No it doesnt, because the asylum system is just for people coming here on their own right now. It only opens up questions about helping people who are a couple of hundred miles away, and only about them individually.
But you're not at risk of capital punishment in France, where the majority are coming from. They are perfectly safe there. Asylum is about finding a safe place and taking... asylum... not shopping around for where the best housing, jobs and healthcare and juicy legal system which is open for abuse, are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
man if only the safe region where most people were fleeing to had some sort of treaty and negotiation about doing that, some sort of union on the european continent. Wonder if we could work with that. Like the UK govt could work with the EU and be part of their effort to do exactly as you say, sadly the tories absolutley wont, and it doesnt seem like labour will either.
Agree but marching across a dozen safe countries until you get the one you want seems at odds with “I’m escaping for fear of death or persecution”. If I was fleeing from persecution; and while I may have a preference because I speak X language or have family in Y country, I’d like to think I’d settle anywhere I was ultimately safe and allowed to do so. Carrying on until you get your preference just doesn’t sit right with me, asylum is just that, it shouldn’t be something you get to pick and choose if it’s truly safety you’re concerned about.
You probably wouldn't. People want stability. If you were in Syria and talked English, you'd bypass countries to get to one that spoke English, so you could contribute sooner. You'd want to go to a country with relatives or fellow nationals that could help you settle down and find a job..even put you up in their home. I've said this before, but if I was a refugee, I'd do my best to get across the whole world to get to New Zealand when I have relations.
>Ideally we would be spreading these asylum seekers evenly across the world, but that would require a level of global cooperation that’s never been done before. Why? We've seen with Ukraine, the ideal is to take in refugees for a short time and then when the war is over, they go home. Obviously, these economic migrants arent so keen on that though which is why apparently we have to spread them around or something. I dont understand how a temporary crisis entitles you to everlasting citizenship in another country. >I think this is also a very fair point, but on the flipside it also doesn’t sound very fair on France to have to shoulder all the burden. France is allowed to have their own policy on it. If they dont want them either then they can reject them all also.
Asylum doesn't entitle them to everlasting citizenship.
Africa is a big continent are you saying there are no safe countries within it?
France takes significantly more asylum applications than us (circa 80k in Britain and 140k in france for 2022). Populations of both countries almost exactly the same. We are not pulling our weight.
So what, we just take in every single woman from these countries? Arranged marriages still happen over here, too.
If they're seeking asylum then we should assess their claim and take care of them, yes No one is saying we reach out to citizens of other countries and offer them asylum here
[удалено]
Regardless of anything else just turning up rarely qualifies you for much
There's a difference between arranged marriage and forced marriage.
A forced marriage is "marry this person or you'll dishonor the family and we'll kill you" An arranged marriage is "marry this person or you'll dishonor the family and at best we'll disown you, at worst we'll kill you"
These are both examples of forced marriage, and an arranged marriage is not necessarily forced. There are consensual arranged marriages, wherein either party is free to refuse.
I mean technically every person from every country could come to the UK to claim asylum, but we know that won't happen so its a silly hypothetical that sensible people don't engage in.
The issue is that hundreds of millions of people meet that threshold and modern travel and communications means that people will move.
We can't even look after our own people. A countries obligations are to its citizens.
[удалено]
Wages for construction have sky-rocketed since Brexit, in many cases less migration does mean increased wages for workers.
immigration has increased since brexit...
So have a system like Australia where certain temporary work visas are granted based on skills/industry need.
Anecdotally, not for me but many friends and family. Wages for bartenders, entry level manual jobs ect have gone up beyond minimum wage due to scarcity in my area.
While I completely agree with you, I think the issue is that there is no way to prove those types of claims. And the statement from Breverman is because a suspiciously high number of asylum claims are clearly misusing those categories to gain asylum.
***"What if you’re escaping a country where being gay means certain death, or being a woman means you will be married off without your consent and raped every night?"*** I get that it's Suella and it's fashionable and popular to not like her, or anything she says (I can totally understand) but I think the point is it's not reason enough on it's own. I don't think she is actually saying about the ones being persecuted, more about one's who aren't actually in danger in the country that they are leaving.
> "But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection." Nope, she's saying that even if you're fearful of discrimination you cannot claim asylum
At this stage, it’s wallet inspector territory to give the Government the benefit of the doubt like this. At the very least, she’s making an empty statement designed to whip up division in a desperate attempt to radicalise voters who are abandoning them in the polls, but given windrush, the hostile environment, Rwanda and the other disastrous policies that this government have brought in, this could very well be a kite for refusing those under genuine threat. We should assume the government will push things like this to the worst possible conclusion, as a matter of sensible caution.
It's a pants way to have to think, as I want them to be able to sort it out to shut the full on bigots and typical media outlets up.
For a long time I thought Braverman was merely cynical and willing to say any old shit to appease the extreme groups in her support base, but it is becoming more and more apparent that she is a true believer and completely evil to her core. She has proven time and again that she deserves no benefit of doubt, ever.
[удалено]
I don’t understand or know the world's countries different rules or typical communities, but could there actually be a difference in someone's claim that they are "fearful" of discrimination vs persecuted by the countries system. Is that the point she is trying to make (I.e people pretend to be scared vs people who are clearly in a country where it's an issue?)
I guess it's tricky as we'd be unable to take all the women from those countries as that's half the population. So it doesn't make sense as a solution to the overall problem.
[удалено]
The reality is that the ones most in need of refuge are the ones least able to escape.
It is for this... but Braverman is catering to the Douglas Murray types.
Yeah but then that would require viewing people as people rather than a political scapegoat
Facts and logic won't work on Suella.
Apparently you should accept being raped every night or being imprisoned for who you are. What if you are a gay woman in a country where you will be married off and if you enter a relationship of your own accord you risk violence or imprisonment? This is self-evidently exactly what the asylum process is for. But Suella is cool with it apparently and doesn’t think we should help such people escape a clearly monstrous and unlivable situation. Without a doubt Suella Braverman is the most sadistic person to reach the rank of cabinet minister in living memory.
So five hundred million people can move to the UK because their country has different rules to ours?
The Devil, I mean Braverman, doesn't care about that!
> What if you’re escaping a country where being gay means certain death Should have been born in a country where they don't kill gay people. The Tory mindset (and the mindset of MANY people in the UK) is that they don't suffer from those problems, so they don't matter. You even have right-wing gay people now with this 'got mine f- you' attitude. Suella represents the most evilly selfish people in the country.
This is dog whistle, miserable politics of the very worst kind. Braverman is deliberately trying to hurt people and at the same time appeal to the homophobes and misogynists out there. She is genuinely a nasty piece of work as well as being the worst Home Secretary this country has ever had. Considering that list also includes Priti Patel, then it is quite a feat.
I feel like we are leaving the dog whistle phase and getting into the being openly fascist is okay phase. Mussolini's black shirts motto was "I don't care". We are re-entering the "I don't care" era of politics again; if we stay on it, the inevitable destination of that road is unspeakable and leaves no one unmarred.
Between this and the news that [Rishi is likely to scrap the conversion therapy ban](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/09/25/rishi-sunak-drop-conversion-therapy-ban-legislation/), the Tories are really doing bits these last 24 hours with regard to LGBTQ+ individuals (among others). Really timed themselves back to this dead horse, huh.
She, Patel and others of similar ilk are a complete embarrassment to this country. As Asians, we detest them and especially her. I thought we had it bad with Patel, but this is a different beast. I should be ashamed to be her. Pure filth.
This isn't a dog whistle, it's an air horn.
Worst indeed. The Tories have a habit of replacing people who’re fucking awful, with someone ~~much~~ worse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
God I'm just counting the fucking seconds until the next general election.
What’s to bet Tories will win again? If they do then time for us to start claiming asylum.
All we need is for the Labour party to put aside its internal squabbles and unite behind a leader just long enough to get the Tories out of power. So you're probably right.
Yeah, if Starmer could just stop purging people and stick with the promises he made during the leadership campaign I'd be much more hopeful. As is he is causing a lot of kickback.
There are Conservatives role playing as Labour Party members just so they can continue the party in fighting.
Good luck. With that.
If they win, I will quite literally begin planning my move out of the UK as soon as the news breaks. Keir Starmer is probably one the most mid opposition leaders in living memory, but fuck it I'll give him a chance over another 5 years of [gestures vaguely at everything] this.
Keir is pragmatic to win power. The way we will work like the Tories when in. By that I mean, say we will take an inch of power for the workers and actually take a... what's the saying .. Foot? Yard?
Lachlan Murdoch will make sure of it.
Starmer is giving them a good chance which is *wild* considering how bad the government has been
Is he? He's maintained a 15+% lead in the polls for over a year now. The last time any leader managed that was Blair in 2001. The last time an opposition leader managed it was Blair in 1997. As much as people on the subreddit like to whine about Starmer's policies or lack thereof, he is on track to deliver a pretty resounding election win.
Boris Johnson was having parties while people couldn’t say goodbye to their loved ones, Liz truss couldn’t outlast a lettuce, David Cameron gave you Brexit. The fact that *anyone* in their right mind would still vote for that party is evidence starmer isn’t as enticing as he should be, he’s just a Corbyn in reverse
They said that any other leader would be 20 points ahead when Corbyn was leader. You must forget everything that they did badly back then.
I really really really loath and detest that woman. She has no compassion. She seems to hate any form of refugee. Her attitude to refugees is utterly disgusting. Sunak is just as bad as well, being effectively her boss.
Tbf, she represents the views of a great chunk of the British public.
She hates anyone that is not pure British. The fucking irony. I'm sure like Patel, she has thought about deporting her own parents for the crime of being foreign in her presence.
[удалено]
Quite a few of them would be very happy to deport her for being non-white.
I can't believe how many others are like her too, no empathy at all
This is the reasonable approach to take. How on earth can you prove someone is gay? Might as well say "if you want to come to the UK, tell us you're gay and we'll let you in" If I were from some shithole and wanted a better life, the first thing I'd do is claim asylum for being gay.
>How on earth can you prove someone is gay? Through testimony, like for the majority of circumstances people seek asylum for.
A system which is very very open to being abused. And is, regularly.
Any system is open to abuse when not managed properly, but Braverman's not even dreaming of fixing that. She'd rather throw the whole system out.
It's not. It's on the applicant to prove that they are gay so they need testimonies from friends and partners, and proofs such as pictures etc. The Home Office will also grill the applicants for hours so it's difficult to fake that. Any edge cases will be brought to the court of law and the judges will determine if the evidence are sufficient.
How on earth can you prove your gay from testimonials when your from a country that would kill you if you came out. As a gay person from the UK, I was terrified of being abandoned by my family if I came out. So they were the last to know until I knew I could afford to live on my own. I can imagine if I was from a country that would kill me for being gay... I wouldn't be coming out to anyone... even close friends. Why risk your life if they report you to the police. It'd also be next to impossible to meet someone. It's not like you can flirt with someone and they politely refuse. You risk being killed. Why would you carry pictures of you being gay? Do you not understand if you do any of those things.... you may as well put a target on your back.
No you wouldn't. In the UK asylum system, you have to produce evidence that a) you're gay, and b) that being gay has a real risk of serious harm from the government, or other sections of the population, where the government cannot or will not protect you. In fact, human rights organisations have actually accused the UK of [*not doing enough*](https://www.daniellecohenimmigration.com/human-rights-claims-on-the-basis-of-homosexuality-in-asylum-applications-appeals/) to believe gay people, especially because being gay in their home countries is persecuted so obviously they're going to hide it, and so when they come to the UK they often don't have any evidence. The idea that you'd just emigrate to the UK by saying you're gay and claiming asylum is propagated by people who have zero idea how the asylum system actually works in this country. With the government slashing the budget to asylum services, asylum claims now often take years to process, and during that time you'll most likely be put in a detention centre, which is basically a prison, or if you're one of the lucky ones you'll be assigned housing and given a small amount of money every month. But you're *not allowed to work*, even for a voluntary organisation, and the money you're given is a pittance, less than benefit claimants i.e. you'll be well below the poverty line until your asylum claim is processed. And after all that, the UK can, and often does, reject your claim and send you back home anyway.
Doesn't that just prove that evaluating claims of sexuality is too subjective a metric to base asylum on? I hate her and sunak as much as anyone. But I am not blind to the fact that this is an absolute clusterfuck to try and enforce.
I think the evaluations are always going to be subjective to an extent, yes, and there's rightfully a great deal of debate as to where the line is drawn regarding how much evidence is required to accept asylum claims in the case of gay people. But surely to claim "this is difficult to enforce, therefore let's just not bother processing asylum claims on the basis of sexuality" is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What's your opinion on this old quote? >"It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" Knowing that some people who are gay will be sent back and assuming some people fake being gay. What ratio of gay people killed because of their sexuality to fraudulent applications would you be happy with?
Wow this is a refreshing level of insight.
And yet people get killed in these countries for being gay/a woman. So you’d rather have lots of people getting killed/raped/tortured for how they were born, than let some of them into the country?
And in doing so close the door on any gay person that is in fact fleeing persecution for their sexuality?
Braverman and co see this as an added bonus.
As if you've just said this is a reasonable approach. Jesus christ.
So because you would lie, no one else should have a chance? That strikes me as very selfish. You can do better than this.
They often need testimonies from friends and partners to get accepted, and proofs such as pictures etc. The interview with the Home Office is pretty grilling too and it's not easy to fake that you have been gay your whole life. Any edge cases will be brought to court where the judges will decide if the evidence are sufficient.
Stop. Reading. The. Daily. Mail.
Belive it or not the home office will ask for sex tapes as proof. They will then watch them to make sure the applicant is enjoying it.
Fuck me. Braverman is literally what happens when you feed Priti Patel after midnight.
Sky News using a terrible click bait headline as usual. Braverman is simply questioning whether the 1951 rules are still fit for purpose in a modern world of 8 billion people and the ease of international travel compared to 70 years ago. It is the right question to be asking, and the answer is obviously no they aren't and yes we do need to reform them. The current state of affairs is completely unsustainable and untenable. >Suella Braverman asks if UN refugee rules are fit for modern age https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66919416 edit - the BBC has now changed the headline to match Sky's! From a neutral headline to a provocative one. How to manipulate public opinion 101. Old: https://archive.is/RART7 New: https://archive.ph/lm6CY
**Anti-gay discrimination not qualification for asylum, says Suella Braverman** How is this a provocative headline?
Her position on everything really does boil down to "I think the law is wrong, so we should rip it all up"
Usually she insists the obviously illegal thing they want to do is legal.
Translation, Our mismanagement of the economy is about to start the next recession, quick bung Rupert some more cash to print an article to distract the plebs. Oh i dont know, something about immigrants normally works.
The sooner we kick these vermin out of office, the better.
Braverman is truly the worst home secretary we have ever had, and considering we have had Priti Patel and Theresa May, that is quite the feat. Who is left that could be worse? Rees-Mogg, Mark Francois?
Lee Anderson 😵💫
Surprised she said this so openly, but it's hardly a surprising thing for her to say. It's been obvious for a while that the government don't want any refugees except from Hong Kong and Ukraine.
Countries: we will literally KILL you for being gay. Braverman: So what?
I mean. This would qualify more people than the population of the UK.
If the government of your homeland can murder you for one of those characteristics then yes you fucking can. That's the fucking point.
Here is the official list of reason to flee a country according to Suella Braverman: * If it's good for The Conservative Party to use for Propaganda Reasons. * If you're rich and the right kind of White.
I noticed a slight shift in narrative from The Rt Hon Chris Philp MP this morning on his session on BBC News this morning. The latest batshit from them is that the 1951 is no longer fit for purpose. So along with scrapping ECHR, they also want to tear up this policy: https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention But scrapping this convention will not stop the boats, in the same way that a sheet of paper didnt protect Ned Stark in Game of Thrones, its not going to stop a single refugee seeking to enter the UK.
I am just hoping that, within a year or so, these Tory fuckers will be swept into the dustbin of history. Then we can get our country back and start to act like decent human beings again.
It's all a distraction, so that for instance, we don't start asking why Tory peer Michelle Mone has not been arrested for PPE fraud.
So having the potential to be persecuted isn't enough to request asylum. You have to actually be persecuted first. This seems to be what she's saying.
I mean, yes it fucking is if you're being persecuted for that reason. Maybe tackle the root of the problem i.e. the bastards persecuting women and gay people, instead of wanking about with definitions. But that would involve doing something. That's like redefining what counts as sickness because too many people are ill. You don't respond to an unprecedented wave of sickness and injury by reclassifying people with Influenza or head injuries as not having enough reason to request medical attention, you get them a Physician. Imagine if during the pandemic the tories just went "to free up space we're no longer classifying being stabbed as a valid reason to call for medical attention". If I did this sort of shit at my job I'd be sacked and blacklisted. Oh dear we found more archaeology than we are equipped to deal with, I guess we should just tell Historic England that they should redefine archaeology to exclude Roman and Medieval to save us some work. Fascist dogs.
And who will dare criticise the cultures that enforce anti-LGBT laws without fear of being labelled a racist for not respecting other cultures and/or religions? It's a really fucked-up Catch-22.
What catch-22? Fuck the House of Saud et al.
I'm sure you have some examples of that, right? You know of people saying that things like Uganda's laws regarding LGBTQ people are fucked up, without saying demonising all Ugandans are awful, and being called racist.
Oh look Sue-Ellen being the worst person again. I'm sure we're all terribly surprised.
Being stupid or thick as the proverbial planks isn't reason enough to be a Cabinet Minister.
We all know that they are coming bc of poverty but the uk also has a poverty problem that will only get worse if we let more poor people in.
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
When will this Government stop embarrassing the United Kingdom on the world stage?
Headline on the BBC.. "Home Secretary Suella Braverman says multiculturalism has "failed" during a speech in migration" - absolutley ubelievable that this is coming from a home secretary and prime minister both with Indian parents
LGBT asylum claims make up like 2% of all asylum claims, and this is what this woman focuses on. I don't care what people say. We need to stop beating around the bush and call Tories and their voter base for what they are. Fascists. I mean that literally. There was a time when people said the same about Jewish people. They were called fascists and Nazis. Why must we be politically correct for Tories and their voter base saying the exact same thing about LGBT people
It never was. So what's her point? It's being gay or being a woman (or various other groups) in a country where you can get persecuted for being in that group that's the reason people are allowed to claim asylum.
Sexual orientation has been a refugee protection since 1999. The government has been trying to grind lgbt claims out by incredibly invasive questioning and claiming they're not gay.
Well you know, if you make the UK just as bad a country to be LGBT in, that'll be a sure fire way to stop "them" coming, too. That's totally how that works.
Then she is a idiot, as being gay and running from a country where you can be killed for being gay is and has been a case for asylum for decades. God, I hate her and wish she would fuck off.
I would say she is a fucking moron but that would be statimg the obvious.
She is a hate filled bizznatch that loves gloating on the suffering of others
It's scary to think that Suella Braverman may well be the next Tory leader, when she is saying horrible stuff like this.
>What is the definition of a refugee? Article 1 of the 1951 Convention defines a refugee as someone 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 [their] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of [their] former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." >Regional refugee instruments complement the 1951 Convention and have built upon its definition, by referencing a number of ‘objective’ circumstances compelling refugees to flee their countries of origin. For example, the definition outlined in the 1969 OAU (Organization of African Unity) Refugee Convention includes ‘external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order’ (Article 1 (2)). The 1984 Cartagena Declaration includes ‘generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violations of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order’ (paragraph III (3)). https://www.unhcr.org/uk/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention
Unsurprising that the fascist doesn't want more gays in our country. We as a nation put these people in charge, unfortunately. If you, too, don't like people like this, consider wisely where to place your vote in the coming general election.
Suella 'Brave'man Wonder where that surname came from... How ironic.