Suppose, for a moment, that you had the opportunity to save a life. By your actions you could either prevent a needless death or cause one. Many of you would say yes on the spot; others might want more information. For those of you in the latter catagory, here's the situation:
"A gay teenager who sought sanctuary in Britain when his boyfriend was executed by the Iranian authorities now faces the same fate after losing his legal battle for asylum.
Mehdi Kazemi, 19, came to London to study English in 2004 but later discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged...
...Fearing for his own life if he returned to Iran, Mr Kazemi claimed asylum in Britain. But late in 2007 his case was refused. Terror-stricken at the prospect of deportation the young Iranian made a desperate attempt to evade deportation and fled Britain for Holland where he is now being detained amid a growing outcry from campaigners.
He appeared before a Dutch court yesterday to plead with the authorities not to return him to Britain where he is almost certain to be sent back to Iran...
...Mr Kazemi's future will now be decided by a Dutch appeal court, which will rule whether to grant him permission to apply for asylum in Holland, which offers special protection to gay Iranians, or whether he will be deported to Britain. His case has attracted support from leading gay rights groups across Europe who are campaigning to allow him to live in Britain.
- The Independent ("http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-life-or-death-decision-792058.html)
Firstly, I'd like to offer my sympathy to Mr. Kazemi for the loss of his boyfriend. As if life weren't hard enough already he has to deal with that tragedy.
Secondly, I'd like to give Britain a gigantic slap upside the head for this. A gay Iranian man seeking amnesty on the grounds that his country (which doesn't have homosexuals, by the way) will kill him if he returns is somehow unworthy of shelter? What world are you living in? THEY KILLED HIS BOYFRIEND YOU FUCKS. Can't your quotas take a backseat to mercy?
Methinks someone's immigation policy need fixing.
Yes on the personal level, most judges would be willing to let somebody like this in. However they have quotas for a reason.
a) Most people looking for asylum will be killed if they go back home. How does this man's case compare with one for a man from Darfur
b) If too many people come in, and flood the system it creates problems because there are too many people for the resources to support. Also, the countries need to be able to tell if the man may be a security risk or not. If Britain allowed every gay Iranian in, the racial balance would be completely broken and probably would result in racial tensions, and probably lead to murder and riots more loss of life than if they had stayed. Besides how many of terrorists would be willing to pose as gay Iranians to gain access to Britain in order to commit a terrorist act.
BTW there was a really good article about gay Iranians in the Atlantic a while back, and how gays can actually get around easier than straight people because there are such strict rules about males and females being together.
A) It is no better and no worse. If I had found an article on a refugee from Darfur being denied amnesty I might have had the same reaction. In this case the man is a specific target since his name is now known, and sending him back could easily result in his death. Is that worse than Darfur? No.
B) In this case it seems very clear he was not posing. A terrorist might sneak into Britain by pretending to be gay, but that doesn't appear true here.
Sexuality in general is repressed there, and you're right that men holding hands is considered normal. But God forbid there be something behind it.
T.k.
Actually homosexuality is very common in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other middle-Eastern countries. It just isn't as open as in Europe, because as you said the country considers homosexuality a crime. But the practice is still very common, because its easier to arrange to spend time with a man than a woman and therefore easier to have sex.
Well the courts don't want to set precedent which they will then have to uphold. Their job is to limit the number of people coming in. If there is a reason with which they can reject somebody they will.
"Methinks someone's immigation policy need fixing."
Clearly Britian's does, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same response would come from our government in a similar situation.
It wouldn't surpise me either, but that doesn't make it right. I'm an equal opportunity hater of brutality.
T.k.
You may find it important that law has always been considered separate from Justice. justices have to follow the law, not dispense justice as they see fit. If a law is broken, it is broken. It doesn't matter that there may have been a reason for it.
England actually developed the court of chancellery in order to promote equity (justice). They would retry cases where somebody's lawyer argued a case too well and justice was not served. Eventually the court became corrupt, but that happens.
I confess my ignorance at the UK system of immigration, but what laws were broken before he fled for Holland? His case was refused before he did anything objectionable.
Their decision rests on the assumption that he does not need protection. If he needs protection, they are wrong and need to allow him asylum. If he does not need protection they have every right to deport him. It seems clear to me that he is in need of protection; ergo, the government acted wrongly in rejecting his case. Feel free to debate this point with me.
That's an interesting fact about their courts. Thank you for sharing. :)
T.k.
I'm sorry if this has been a presented point and i overlooked it, but what do you think Englands assumption is based on when the Iranian law is clearly stated, and he will clearly be deported? To me, it makes no sense at all. It seems that since he is not one of England's own, AND he's Iranian, it's a lot easier for the court to just brush it off without second thoughts. To me they are not only ignoring the injustice, they are aiding it.
"Prefiero morir parada que vivir la vida en mis rodillas"
From what I've heard it's based entirely on the desire to limit immigration. As to what specifically they're saying about his rejection, I have no idea.
T.k.
I just want to cry and can't even say anything intelligent about it. I guess that's the definition of "bleeding heart liberal," huh? So be it. That's me.
:(
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
What's worse is that the U.K. is not alone. I have another article about an incident in Canada I need to blog about soon.
T.k.