In Britain, two Iranians fear deportation back to Iran because they face possible execution due to their sexual orientation. Their partners have already been executed. Iran officials replied saying they do not persecute homosexuals. But many feel this is really only because the Iranian government does not "recognize" homosexuality. At the same time homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran and it is estimated that about 4,000 men and women have been executed since 1979.
The thought that someone is executed because of their sexual orientation is absurd to me. Britain is at a stand point in whether to return them to Iran or hold them in an asylum to keep them safe. Should Britain do this? Is it right for them to do this, to interfere with another countries laws and believes. I find similarities between this conflict and the conflicts the US gets involved with..in terms of interfering with other countries ways. But are their times when its morally right to interfere? Is it any different then sending an illegal immigrant such as a Mexican back to Mexico were they will be persecuted and face harsh conditions in their country?
Yes the Us has stuck their nose in everyones business because the governement believes we have the "best" ways regarding individaul rights and maybe thats not true, and maybe other countries like Britian shouldn't follow our lead and should send those men back to Iran yet shouldn't someone stand up for others who can not stand up for themselves,especially when the consequences equal death?
Im stuck, what are everyone elses thoughts?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think that comparing the US and Britain in this instance is a little unfair. Britain isn't declaring war on another country and ruining its economy, etc. Of course they should allow the two Iranians to stay, they should allow them to apply for citizenry also, which would minimalize Britain's meddling in another country's affairs, because that would be the Iranians choice to make a change of address, so to speak. And I don't think that it's the same as deporting Mexicans either. I'm pretty sure that they're not executed.
We've sent people back who were in the exact same situation. It may not be the same as deporting Mexicans, but we're just as guilty as Britain on this one.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
i wasn't comparing Britian with the US war in Iraq i was comparing in general to the US interfering with other countries and i used the Mexican example to question whether one was better than the other in terms of interfering. Yes the people of Mexico are not in the same situation but many are living in extreme poverty with bad living condistions. So i was making a point on whether its right to interfer with one and not the other or neither.
And if Britian allowed these people to become citizens then would that still be considered interfering since in this case they might only be allowing them into their country because they don't agree with how the Iranian government would treat them.
Im simply questioning what makes an idea right and who decides, and if its right to dismember another persons ideas (in this case a countrys) because they are different from your own.
If someone commited a crime in the US and then ran to a different country that did not think that action was a crime does that country have an obligation to send that person back to be punished?
haha sorry long reply : )
I think they should allow them to stay and apply for citizenship also. To sned them back knowing they would be executed would be cruel. I don't think it would be humane on any level. I also don't think it would be interfering with the politics of another nation.
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire
Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" ~Joseph Henry Jackson
LizzieD