Not gay enough for asylum

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Fishnut » Mon Mar 01, 2021 11:08 pm

The BBC highlights three (of what I'm sure are many) cases of people requesting asylum on the grounds that they face persecution due to their sexuality only to be denied because they have been deemed "not gay enough". Despite homosexuality being illegal in their home countries, and despite them having faced persecution already, the government has said that if they keep their homosexuality quiet they'll be safe enough so shouldn't get to stay in the UK.

I really need to get a better vocabulary because I'm fed up of the government's hideous actions leaving me speechless.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by discovolante » Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:17 am

I always go on about this, but I have seen numerous asylum decision letters and honestly these decisions would make a lot more sense if everyone could see how the Home Office approaches these things. Obviously there are very good reasons why not everyone can see the decisions. But it is skepticism for the sake of skepticism with no real consideration of context, with a smattering of 'country of origin' information for the country concerned that is produced by the HO (which is here if you're interested https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... tion-notes ).
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by discovolante » Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:38 am

Suggestions for a few charities/organizations to potentially support refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and other people in precarious migration status type situations (some are a bit er regional but it's just off the top of my head), in no particular order, suggestions not endorsements etc:

https://www.refugeewomen.co.uk/
https://refugeecouncil.org.uk/
https://www.jcwi.org.uk/
https://manuelbravo.org.uk/
https://lassn.org.uk/
https://detentionaction.org.uk/
https://kran.org.uk/
https://www.migrantsorganise.org/
https://www.solace-uk.org.uk/
https://gmiau.org/
https://sfts.org.uk/ - a homeless shelter but often accommodates migrants with no recourse to public funds, as I imagine a lot of other homeless shelters will do as well
https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:03 pm

It's horrible, and a sad indictment of just what a morally bankrupt shithole the UK has become.

People (especially Tories) like to bang on about WW2 and how it was Britain's finest hour etc etc. The country took in 100k Jewish refugees back then (admittedly still quibbling over visas, and with lots of antisemitism from the usual c.nts like the Daily Heil).

Now people are fleeing unpleasant regimes, as well as places the UK has bombed recently, colonised historically, or which are becoming unliveable because of climate change which the UK has disproportionately contributed to, and the w.nkers in charge and the grunts following their orders are determined to send as many people back as possible to suffer and die.

I'm extremely grateful for the many organisations doing their best to help people and triage the crisis, but really this is a moral failure of leadership (and I don't see the opposition banging the drum for asylum seekers either).
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:34 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:03 pm
People (especially Tories) like to bang on about WW2 and how it was Britain's finest hour etc etc. The country took in 100k Jewish refugees back then (admittedly still quibbling over visas, and with lots of antisemitism from the usual c.nts like the Daily Heil).
That's putting a very positive gloss on it. Britain let in about 80 000 Jewish refugees during the 1930s. The assumption at the time was that they would re-emigrate (eg to the US) though about half stayed.

However, about ten times as many were deliberately kept out. During the same period the Home Office had about five to six hundred thousand family and individual case files for Jews who wanted to get into Britain. The policy was to admit only the lucky few and exclude almost all.

Britain's attitude to refugees hasn't changed very much.

Numbers from Whitehall And The Jews, 1933-1948 by Louise London pages 11 to 12.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:46 pm

Blimey, I hadn't realised it was that bad.

And yet, still more generous than today.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:24 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:46 pm
Blimey, I hadn't realised it was that bad.

And yet, still more generous than today.
I was wondering whether it was more generous than today. According to Louise London in September 1939 there were 78 000 refugees in the UK (eight thousand were not Jewish).

Based upon stats here between 2010 to 2019, 124 170 refugees had been allowed to remain in Britain (under various mechanisms). That's more, but then the UK population is higher.

UK population in 1939 was 41 million, or 62% of what it is now. Apply that ratio to the above and we get 82 000.

Given the back of the envelope nature of the calculation, it seems to me that UK willingness to accept refugees is remarkably unchanging.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by discovolante » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:28 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:03 pm
It's horrible, and a sad indictment of just what a morally bankrupt shithole the UK has become.

People (especially Tories) like to bang on about WW2 and how it was Britain's finest hour etc etc. The country took in 100k Jewish refugees back then (admittedly still quibbling over visas, and with lots of antisemitism from the usual c.nts like the Daily Heil).

Now people are fleeing unpleasant regimes, as well as places the UK has bombed recently, colonised historically, or which are becoming unliveable because of climate change which the UK has disproportionately contributed to, and the w.nkers in charge and the grunts following their orders are determined to send as many people back as possible to suffer and die.

I'm extremely grateful for the many organisations doing their best to help people and triage the crisis, but really this is a moral failure of leadership (and I don't see the opposition banging the drum for asylum seekers either).
I don't think anyone expects Labour to really champion asylum seekers' rights to be honest...

Some of those organizations are campaigning organizations, some provide direct support, some do a bit of both. Many of them are probably reasonably well equipped to assess the most significant issues right now and where there might be some scope to push for improvement, in a co-ordinated manner. It's definitely a moral failure of leadership but I was trying to provide some pointers as to where some positive action could be taken to address that, rather than feeling completely despondent and hopeless about it. It certainly wasn't an 'it's ok there are charities, int charity brilliant!' type of post.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by monkey » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:40 pm

Bit dated now, but...

Image

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:49 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:24 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:46 pm
Blimey, I hadn't realised it was that bad.

And yet, still more generous than today.
I was wondering whether it was more generous than today. According to Louise London in September 1939 there were 78 000 refugees in the UK (eight thousand were not Jewish).

Based upon stats here between 2010 to 2019, 124 170 refugees had been allowed to remain in Britain (under various mechanisms). That's more, but then the UK population is higher.

UK population in 1939 was 41 million, or 62% of what it is now. Apply that ratio to the above and we get 82 000.

Given the back of the envelope nature of the calculation, it seems to me that UK willingness to accept refugees is remarkably unchanging.
Actually, its not that close. The 78 000 doesn't include children who accompanied their parents, and doesn't include 10 000 who had re-emigrated. So it looks like Britain did let in some more refugees during the 1930s compared to the 2010s.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:05 pm

discovolante wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:28 pm
Some of those organizations are campaigning organizations, some provide direct support, some do a bit of both. Many of them are probably reasonably well equipped to assess the most significant issues right now and where there might be some scope to push for improvement, in a co-ordinated manner. It's definitely a moral failure of leadership but I was trying to provide some pointers as to where some positive action could be taken to address that, rather than feeling completely despondent and hopeless about it. It certainly wasn't an 'it's ok there are charities, int charity brilliant!' type of post.
Yes, definitely worth posting them - thanks :)
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:19 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:49 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:24 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:46 pm
Blimey, I hadn't realised it was that bad.

And yet, still more generous than today.
I was wondering whether it was more generous than today. According to Louise London in September 1939 there were 78 000 refugees in the UK (eight thousand were not Jewish).

Based upon stats here between 2010 to 2019, 124 170 refugees had been allowed to remain in Britain (under various mechanisms). That's more, but then the UK population is higher.

UK population in 1939 was 41 million, or 62% of what it is now. Apply that ratio to the above and we get 82 000.

Given the back of the envelope nature of the calculation, it seems to me that UK willingness to accept refugees is remarkably unchanging.
Actually, its not that close. The 78 000 doesn't include children who accompanied their parents, and doesn't include 10 000 who had re-emigrated. So it looks like Britain did let in some more refugees during the 1930s compared to the 2010s.
Thanks for these numbers - I don't want to be romanticising the past!

I was under the impression that the UK was a major destination for refugees in those days. For instance, this page suggests 417,000 Jewish refugees from Germany + Austria by 1939, of which 70,000 is about a sixth. That looks rather generous, compared with how many refugees the UK was offering to take during the recent EU crisis, for example.

I also thought that settlement of refugees in UK continued during and after the war, though obviously that was a bit complicated by the fact that much of the continent had been directly occupied, so maybe not the best comparator.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:58 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:19 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:49 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:24 pm


I was wondering whether it was more generous than today. According to Louise London in September 1939 there were 78 000 refugees in the UK (eight thousand were not Jewish).

Based upon stats here between 2010 to 2019, 124 170 refugees had been allowed to remain in Britain (under various mechanisms). That's more, but then the UK population is higher.

UK population in 1939 was 41 million, or 62% of what it is now. Apply that ratio to the above and we get 82 000.

Given the back of the envelope nature of the calculation, it seems to me that UK willingness to accept refugees is remarkably unchanging.
Actually, its not that close. The 78 000 doesn't include children who accompanied their parents, and doesn't include 10 000 who had re-emigrated. So it looks like Britain did let in some more refugees during the 1930s compared to the 2010s.
Thanks for these numbers - I don't want to be romanticising the past!

I was under the impression that the UK was a major destination for refugees in those days. For instance, this page suggests 417,000 Jewish refugees from Germany + Austria by 1939, of which 70,000 is about a sixth. That looks rather generous, compared with how many refugees the UK was offering to take during the recent EU crisis, for example.

I also thought that settlement of refugees in UK continued during and after the war, though obviously that was a bit complicated by the fact that much of the continent had been directly occupied, so maybe not the best comparator.
Yes, in those terms Britain has taken in a much smaller proportion of refugees. It certainly hasn't accepted anything close to a sixth of Syrian refugees.

As far as I can tell, few refugees escaped to Britain after October 1939. Some made it out via Spain or Sweden, but not enough to alter the picture by very much.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Not gay enough for asylum

Post by tom p » Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:44 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:24 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:46 pm
Blimey, I hadn't realised it was that bad.

And yet, still more generous than today.
I was wondering whether it was more generous than today. According to Louise London in September 1939 there were 78 000 refugees in the UK (eight thousand were not Jewish).

Based upon stats here between 2010 to 2019, 124 170 refugees had been allowed to remain in Britain (under various mechanisms). That's more, but then the UK population is higher.

UK population in 1939 was 41 million, or 62% of what it is now. Apply that ratio to the above and we get 82 000.

Given the back of the envelope nature of the calculation, it seems to me that UK willingness to accept refugees is remarkably unchanging.
Your maths is wrong there mate.
Apply the same ratio (78 k in 41 million) to today (~66million) & you get 125k

Post Reply