³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Commentators look at the significance of the Supreme Court ruling that two gay men from Iran and Cameroon have the right to asylum in the UK.

that the judgement highlights the difference between the need to be discreet about homosexuality because of social pressures and to avoid persecution:

"Lord Hope begins by pointing out that the refugee convention was not drafted with sexuality in mind. That it has become such an important issue today is attributed in part to the rise of religiously motivated ideologies - Christian, Muslim or otherwise - in certain countries.
Ìý
"But this understates the point. It is only because of the progress gay rights have made in the west during the last 50 years that the law can now clearly see it as an issue of fundamental human rights. It is only by the distance we have travelled as a society that we are now obliged to offer protection to those who would face prison, rape, torture or death for their sexual identity."

that the ruling goes against a recent trend against immigration and asylum:

"What increasingly came to characterise the administration was an openly professed illiberalism, presumably designed to suggest a hard-headed modernity.
Ìý
"Nowhere was this more evident than with asylum policy, where ministers seemed unable to make the imaginative leap necessary for sympathy with those fleeing persecution. The results of which - the deportation of children, the humiliating restraining techniques, and the overcrowded detention centres- continue to make front pages.
Ìý
"These were moral lines which no party of the left should have crossed- yet again and again they were crossed. Again and again, morality and compassion were forgotten in a mad rush to outflank those on the far-right.
Ìý
"The case of these two men is the apotheosis of this".

The about the implication the ruling has on the number of people in Britain:

"For at this time when our public services are strained beyond endurance, it means Britain must now, in a dramatic reversal of policy, give a home to all gay asylum-seekers who are prevented from displaying their sexuality openly in their home countries. Where are we to draw the line? This is all about numbers and a small island's ability to absorb an ever-increasing population."

[subscription required] that the risk this ruling brings of an increase in fraudulent asylum claims is worth it:

"Issues of immigration and asylum strike at the heart of who we are as a nation. For every generous impulse to extend a welcome to the oppressed or disadvantaged, there is a miser's urge to protect that $35,200 a head. It's an entirely understandable impulse; sitting in the UK, looking out at a troubled, violent, poverty-stricken world, it is incredibly tempting to put up the gates and, Gollum-like, hug our riches close...
Ìý
"There cannot, however, be a limit on the acceptance of those facing persecution. And if, in our noble quest to accept the genuinely persecuted, we find ourselves letting in the fraudulent, so be it. There are times when the principle outweighs the consequences. It's not just the money that maketh the country. Britain must throw open its liberal arms and give men and women persecuted for their sexuality a great big gay hug."

that the ruling against homophobia in Cameroon should mean that the country doesn't get aid from the UK either:

"[W]hy does Britain give that country £6.8m a year in foreign aid? In fact why do we give money to so many countries that persecute people for their sexuality? The DfID map shows that British taxpayers give money to some of the most rabidly anti-gay states in the world... If they want our money, they can start embracing our values."

Links in full

•
•
•
•
•