Political Asylum advantage for Homosexuals?

[Gotno Gizmo]

Two homosexual men, one from Cameroon and the other from Iran were refused political asylum recently in the UK. Their appeal was based on the grounds that in their countries homosexuality was illegal and that they would be persecuted if returned.
The British Home Office dismissed their appeal on the grounds that they could be discreet about their sexual orientation and in their activities to avoid any risk. They subsequently took this asylum refusal further to London’s Supreme Court. Here, their defence compared the Home Office’s advice about discretion to “asking a Jew in Nazi Germany to be discreet about his ethnicity”.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants defence and overruled the Home Office.

I am aware of the ongoing difficulties that immigration authorities have sorting the genuine asylum claims from those persons that are economic migrants. I am also aware that they get it wrong and continue to send appellants from despotic and corrupt regimes back to certain death.
In most major religions homosexuality is considered a sin and I would be angry to think that more deserving asylum appellants could be refused a safe haven because a homosexual appellant had been given a legal advantage.

[dobko]

I don't get it..... are you are using an example of religious persecution to defend your religious persecution?

[Gotno Gizmo]

I do not understand the point you are trying to make.
Firstly it was the defence council of the appellants to the Supreme Court that said the British Home Offices’ requirement for discretion was akin to requiring a Jew in Nazi Germany to be discrete about his ethnicity, by way of forming a legal precedent (which has seemed successful) and not any statement of mine. Secondly I pointed to the counter argument that within the world's major religions homosexuality is a sin. This is a commonly help perspective by a majority of religious believers. Thus the implication of this suggests there should be no legal advantage afforded to homosexuals over others.

My own personal view is that if homosexuals conduct their behaviour discreetly in the privacy of their own homes that is their own business. I would not wish them to be subject to any form of prosecution when they do this. I do feel uneasy that in the west homosexuals "Gays" are allowed to have their "Gay Pride" parades as I fear that young people will come to view this life choice as a norm.
However, my greatest objection is not a religious one, but a politically motivated one. If this Political Asylum advantage continues to be upheld, then the non homosexual asylum appellants will have a greater risk of being forcibly returned to their despotic regimes (the UK Government and others have acceptance quotas – vehemently denied). They will face persecution for the greater probability of their opposition to their countries regime, probably in sympathy with the majority of their countrymen who are too afraid to speak out. If a homosexual is returned to a regime that chooses to persecute him because of his sexual orientation, that person will be suffering because of a much more personal endeavour and in a country where the majority of those citizens hold homosexuality as an abhorrence. As such I would put it to you that this argument of Political Asylum is a weaker one when any persecution is resulting from the popular majority of that country, rather than serving only the interests of a dictatorship.
I hope this explains my position with greater clarity.

[dobko]

Much clearer.

[Gotno Gizmo]

It seems that a legal precedent set by a British court last year by granting Political Asylum on the basis of sexual orientation is gaining momentum.

See:- 28 Homosexual Jamaicans Gain Political Asylum Victory in U.S.