"Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now!

[Republic_Of_Public]

Hmmm, the trendy-left Lordships'll be ordering them their own banknotes next! Aren't they lucky people....




http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/185617/Now-asylum-if-you're-gay/


We've come a long way since physical homosexual activity was legalised, with homosexuality generally accepted as a fact of life for many people. So far, in fact, that the sexual orientation is now treated as an entitlement to immigration, qualification for employment, basis for an entire educational syllabus, justification to be given a swimming pool to yourself, reason not to be deported, and much more!


I'm not the sort of person to think someone should be bullied, beaten up or denied jobs just because their mating habits are non-reproductive. What they get up to behind closed doors at night is up to them, as long as kids aren't involved (even in the classroom), it's not paid for from the public purse and I don't have to hear about it. It's all for equality and tolerance, right?

But Equality means that the sexuality of one group alone should not be a pretext to hold open the immigration doors. God knows people are suffering across the world due to persecution of one sort or another, but we just don't have the room to rescue them all!


____________________________________________

The Express' own editorial puts the common sense on this issue as well as anyone.

(Not to mention their view on the 'fuhrer' of Canterbury Gypsy Support Group, who, like Hitler before him, believes that living space should be forcibly taken from other people if he doesn't think he has enough for his own people!)



_____________________________________________

BOOK REPOSITORY:

What's more, who's to say millions of chancers won't be clamouring for asylum on the basis that they're a bit like John Inman:
Pakistani woman given asylum because she's 7ft 2in tall | Mail Online


But once they're safely here, they'll know that the nation's schoolkids will be forced to hear all about them, even the unfounded historical rumours. Impressive special treatment, especially as more and more kids don't even know who Churchill is nowadays!
Parents face court action for removing children from gay history lessons | Mail Online


And not just the kids getting their 'noses rubbed in Diversity'!
Navy's gay drama classes | The Sun |News


Oooo, can't complain about skinny dipping sessions! They're gay!
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Outcry over naked gay sessions in public Pool



Do kids get taught about toilets, bushes and pools used as haunts too?
A cat's eye view: Gay Swimming Pool

action4men

Can't think that's hygenic or the best way to spend public money, but who am I in the grand scheme of things: Cruising or cottaging for gay sex in Surrey



I suppose there's not enough tailing jobs to go round, so it's time to ring-fence a few others:
Complaint over charity’s gay-only job advert - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

Quota for Homosexual and/or Atheist Clergy? | The Brussels Journal

'Choose women, gay and disabled judges over white, middle-class men' - Times Online

Met advertises for lesbian and gay police to guard the Queen | News

'You're out of date - Not gay, female or black enough': David Cameron's plan to impose more women, gays and ethnic candidates | Mail Online


One size fits all, or not at all mate: And if you thought WPCs in burqas were ridiculous | Mail Online

Dublin: GreenockMorton.org > Pub Owner Defends 'gays Only' Entry



Worse in America...

Obama czar's 'homo-genda' proposed for U.S. schools

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

gays to redress the balance, using employment quotas if need be. Unfortunately, no proof is offered to show that quotas will improve matters here. ...

<quote from Google search return>

 

[iangb]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

I saw this headline today. Ugh. This should go straight into Media Bias.

For the records; here's the judge's comments in slightly more context (bold mine): "What is protected is the applicant's right to live freely and openly as a gay man. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.".

I bet I could find a 'straight' equivalent of all the 'gays do bad sex things!' links you've posted. I just can't be bothered - conformation bias is not worth responding to in type.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Hence the stupidity of positive discrimination! One group's no purer than another.

So 'gay' as a unique pass of admittance to the country is plain bizarre.

 

[German guy]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Hence the stupidity of positive discrimination! One group's no purer than another.

Ahh, let them have the banana. They've been discriminated for ages, so I don't begrudge them a little formally inappropriate positive discrimination.

 

[iangb]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Hence the stupidity of positive discrimination! One group's no purer than another.

So 'gay' as a unique pass of admittance to the country is plain bizarre.

It's not 'gay' as a blanket invitation - it's 'gay and in a country where you are forced to hide your sexuality to avoid persecution'. Just like any other minority (or majority!) group that is granted asylum because they are persecuted in their current country.

Essentially, what has changed is this: previously, the law said "if gays are being persecuted they can just pretend they're straight, quit your whining". Now, the law says "forcing gays to live 'in the closet' to avoid persecution is persecution in it's own right - therefore gays can seek refuge from such persecution here".

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

How many are we supposed to expect? Not too many in the scheme of things I'd imagine, barring all those bogus asylum seekers hoping to design a good sob story to blag entry. But on top of all else?

But it's the inferrence that anybody can just come in from wherever if they say they got hurt and politically-correct 'quota' attitudes I can't stand. We'd have to let in half of China on human rights grounds on that logic.

Britain's like the Titanic - too many refugees, not enough space in the lifeboat. If we can't police the world any more then we surely can't be its safety net either. Some of them are just going to have to sit on their hands in silence, as anyone else in a brutal dictatorship would have to. Indeed, there are lonely, desolate people in free countries too so you'd have to draw the line somewhere - unless you invade, as Britain has done quite a lot of under the last PC government.


Just throws the net open too wide in my opinion and sets a risky precedent.

___________________________________________________

Ahh, let them have the banana. They've been discriminated for ages, so I don't begrudge them a little formally inappropriate positive discrimination.

It's been more than just a bit universally. There have been some unique privileges (well, in white hetero terms!), like being protected from criticism even when looking for sex in toilets or being allowed parades purely on the basis of bedroom habits.

 

[German guy]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

It's been more than just a bit universally. There have been some unique privileges (well, in white hetero terms!), like being protected from criticism even when looking for sex in toilets or being allowed parades purely on the basis of bedroom habits.

What's wrong with looking for sex on toilets or parades based on bedroom habits? I don't see a problem with any of that, no matter if hetero or homo, as long as sex and bedroom habits are between consensual adults.

And what's your beef with asylum seekers about? I mean sure, it's obvious that European countries can't just allow everybody in who wants to. But are they really so numerous that they make a difference?

 

[PeteEU]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

What's wrong with looking for sex on toilets or parades based on bedroom habits? I don't see a problem with any of that, no matter if hetero or homo, as long as sex and bedroom habits are between consensual adults.

And what's your beef with asylum seekers about? I mean sure, it's obvious that European countries can't just allow everybody in who wants to. But are they really so numerous that they make a difference?

He is an xenophobe at best.. at worst.. something not nice.

Not to mention most homosexuals who seek asylum would get executed in their homeland, so either he is heartless or a homophobe.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

More name-calling. Class! And some wonder why I dispense my own invective like a lawn sprinkler on here!


As I said right at the top, what happens between consenting adults at home at bedtime is up to them. Just don't involve kids, spend public money, force it onto others or base special concessions on what can be tactlessly called a freak of nature.

Not to mention most homosexuals who seek asylum would get executed in their homeland.

Alright, let's explore this. How would the authorities of a dictatorship know they were homosexual if it wasn't paraded? And what about all those liable for execution for other reasons, say by publishing leaflets criticising the government? They can come in too?

What's wrong with looking for sex on toilets?

It's perverted, weird and heterosexuals can still find themselves arrested for it alright. Heteros weren't promised by the candidates for the 2001 London mayoral election that they wouldn't be 'harassed' by policemen for looking for sex in public! And question that and you get called names and sternly told people might not like you very much!

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Alright, let's explore this. How would the authorities of a dictatorship know they were homosexual if it wasn't paraded? And what about all those liable for execution for other reasons, say by publishing leaflets criticising the government? They can come in too

Hanging out at a place they are tipped off to that homosexuals gather, hearign through people that they are homosexual and being reported, etc. Use your imagination.

 

[German guy]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

It's perverted, weird and heterosexuals can still find themselves arrested for it alright.

Am I correct when I understand your use of the words "perverted" and "weird" as an aesthetic judgment, or a judgement of taste? If so, of course you are entitled to your opinion that looking for sex on toilets is un-aesthetic, but I don't think such an opinion is a basis for legislation. Personally, I find the idea of having sex on public toilets not appealing either. But what would happen if we started to legislate against bad taste? If we started doing that, most of what most people do would have to be considered illegal.

Heteros weren't promised by the candidates for the 2001 London mayoral election that they wouldn't be 'harassed' by policemen for looking for sex in public! And question that and you get called names and sternly told people might not like you very much!

If the laws says looking for sex is illegal and punisheable for heteros, but not for homos, I'd agree, that's not fair. I think it should be legal for any sexual orientation to look for consensual sex whereever they want, as much as non-consensual sex and coercion regarding sexual acts should be illegal.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

There have been laws regarding impropriety and decency, laws I believe to have been just. It's not just a question of coercion in such legislation but also considerations of, yes, taste, common courtesy and good old fashioned decency and propriety. Unfettered sexual depravity outside, regardless of 'orientation', is vulgar and encourages a lack of moral fibre in such perverts.

At least when it's inside it's not in anyone's face.


Sex in public is not very nice to look at or hear, especially in distinctly sleazy and unsexy locations like grubby toilets. Anywhere else is plain inappropriate, like swimming pools or open parks. (And that's not even talking about the possibility of children being present!) You've got to have proper pride in yourself and your behaviour to be proud of anything else of benefit. And if you're lax in such matters you can be lax in other ares of morality - a bit like scruffy clothes you wear to clean the house can cause you to act slobbily too!

(Plus sex in bushes and lavatories creates litter as well!)

 

[German guy]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

There have been laws regarding impropriety and decency, laws I believe to have been just. It's not just a question of coercion in such legislation but also considerations of, yes, taste, common courtesy and good old fashioned decency and propriety. Unfettered sexual depravity outside, regardless of 'orientation', is vulgar and encourages a lack of moral fibre in such perverts.

At least when it's inside it's not in anyone's face.


Sex in public is not very nice to look at or hear, especially in distinctly sleazy and unsexy locations like grubby toilets. Anywhere else is plain inappropriate, like swimming pools or open parks. You've got to have proper pride in yourself and your behaviour to be proud of anything else of benefit. And if you're lax in such matters you can be lax in other ares of morality - a bit like scruffy clothes you wear to clean the house can cause you to act slobbily too!

(Plus sex in bushes and lavatories creates litter as well!)

Ok, I admit I maybe have not thought this through thoroughly, but my general idea is that people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't restrict the freedom of others. I guess public sex is a grey area here. Generally, people should not be confronted with it, especially children.

But I don't have a problem with "gay pride" parades. It's explicitly a kind of party for a special group of people, and people know what to expect of it when they go there. If you don't want to see gays, then just don't go there. And even moreso in gay clubs: When you go there as a hetero, you have no reason to be surprised when gays hit on you.

But yes, people should be protected from running into copulating couples in public, if they don't wish to do so, especially when they have kids with them. Sex should be limited to private homes or specific areas like clubs or establishments where it is expected.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Sex should be limited to private homes or specific areas like clubs or establishments where it is expected.

What in the name of the good Lord above does that mean?!

I can only think of brothels and those are illegal here. Either that or sperm banks and hospitals, but those you must 'do' on your own!

_____________________________________________________________

THE MORE 'RIGHT-ON' THE LAW, THE EASIER IT IS TO CHEAT IT: Michelle Malkin » Asylum fraud tactic: Tell them you’re gay

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Hanging out at a place they are tipped off to that homosexuals gather, hearing through people that they are homosexual and being reported, etc. Use your imagination.

Hmm, suppose so.

Mind, they'd be taking a known risk to gather in a place when they know their behaviour is illegal or have people round to do things which could be reported. Consenting adults cuts no ice with some governments and such gatherings would just so much as wave a red rag before the totalitarian bull. Same with any underground organisation but there's no special call to let in anyone who might be hanged for printing leaflets or opposing a government any other way. That's even more numbers for us, though most people in a dictatorship would actively try to do anything to keep the stasis and gestapos away from their doors.

...Though I do also wonder how they'll manage to escape to here from a police state, especially one halfway round the world. And why here in particular, rather than any closer EU country? Plenty of questions to be asked, with much to ponder and learn I shouldn't wonder.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

An Australian blogger wonders why their similar system hasn't been abused yet...

The Great Asylum Seeker Loophole: Tell ‘em you’re gay | OzSoapbox


Probably because Aussie-land has a sterner reputation in the world than we do. Soft Touch Britain is that much more attractive for people living closer to Australia, bogus or not. They can all come in if many had their way. One tale of woe is as good as another.


Answered my own question evidently.





BELOW: "We said just remain inconspicuous, John!"

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Wonder if these two would be given asylum if coming in from the outside:

THE WEEKLY VICE: Lesbian Couple Goes Rambo On Man After He Allegedly Hit On One While The Other Was Away



Hmm, armed forces service, liberal-friendly 'militancy'.... a shoe-in! Didn't get much of a punishment, so they must be alright.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

So what side do you want to be on - The side of freedom-loving peoples or the side of tyrannical misogynists?

I'll take freedom-lovers . . . you can keep your tyranny. EVEN if it means we have to accept gays with open arms.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

There have been laws regarding impropriety and decency, laws I believe to have been just. It's not just a question of coercion in such legislation but also considerations of, yes, taste, common courtesy and good old fashioned decency and propriety. Unfettered sexual depravity outside, regardless of 'orientation', is vulgar and encourages a lack of moral fibre in such perverts.

At least when it's inside it's not in anyone's face.


Sex in public is not very nice to look at or hear, especially in distinctly sleazy and unsexy locations like grubby toilets. Anywhere else is plain inappropriate, like swimming pools or open parks. (And that's not even talking about the possibility of children being present!) You've got to have proper pride in yourself and your behaviour to be proud of anything else of benefit. And if you're lax in such matters you can be lax in other ares of morality - a bit like scruffy clothes you wear to clean the house can cause you to act slobbily too!

(Plus sex in bushes and lavatories creates litter as well!)

So, you don't like people having sex or looking for sex in public places (not sure how you feel about the constant hetero aisle cruising that goes on in most supermarkets), so my advice is, don't do it. You are always going on about crime and what a problem we have with increasing (your take) rates of violent crime. Now you are attcking people for engaging in sex in public. Would you like police time and resources diverted to stamping it out? If not, what's the problem? Do you just want to vent over the behaviour of some folks like your Auntie Majory, "Oooh, it's disgusting! They've got no shame. Young folk today, eh?"

Quick reality check, it's always gone on! People have always had sex in public places, read any social history of whatever era and you'll come across it. It was particularly rampant in the late-16th century in London. I read an account of it taking places regularly in the Elizabethan theatres, during performances. Any port city, during any era, open-air prostitution was rife. It's nothing new and very far from being a gays-only phenomenon. The fact that you find sex in toilets "weird and perverted" is your democratic right. I dare say, were it made public, there might be aspects of your sexual fantasies and activities that we'd all find weird and perverted too. So what? I'm not interested in your sexual behaviour (believe me!), so why are you interested in others'?

Cue some guff about not inflicting "weird and perverted" sexual behaviour on unwitting members of the public, wickle children even. Balderdash! It very, very rarely happens. The vast majority of people arrested for sexual acts in public or for the wonderful, old Victorian offence of "persistent importuning for sexual purposes" are arrested by Police agents provocateurs. They learn where people go to cruise and send in coppers in plain clothes to cruise and arrest anyone who makes contact. It's an easy way to bump up arrest stats. It's the same for lots of victimless crimes, they're easy pickings when they fail to solve real crimes.

Now, as far as your OP is concerned, you (and The Express) have, unsurprisingly, twisted the court's ruling to produce nonsense. They have not ruled that the simple fact of being gay gives grounds for immigration approval. What they have said is that persecution of gay people is real. To deport someone to a country where persecution might require them to conceal their identity and their orientation is unacceptable. That's all. The decision related to asylum seekers btw, not people applying to immigrate.

So, thanks for the outrage. I think we all now know that RoP doesn't like people to have sex in public. I'll bear that in mind.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

So, you don't like people having sex or looking for sex in public places (not sure how you feel about the constant hetero aisle cruising that goes on in most supermarkets), so my advice is, don't do it.

The Elizabethan age was years ago, a time of Sir Walter Raleigh, sewage in the streets and other things backward or what we're supposed to consider fascist. I've never actually seen anyone having it away in the ailes at Asda! (And you'd think it may be more likely there as they can have better prices!) Dogging and bushes and importuning and things, it's so downmarket. People determined to do it are going to do it, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to see or know that they've ruined a perfectly good spot.

Open-mindedness isn't quite the same as being debauched you know. You can try new food or a new position with your partner, or you can let your morals drop and give the STD clinic and police a further rise in trade.


Alright, why is sex in public so good and healthy then? (I'd ask Ron Davies but he hasn't been very conspicuous since 1998!)

So what side do you want to be on - The side of freedom-loving peoples or the side of tyrannical misogynists?

Can I go with freedom-loving tyrannical mysoginists? No sitting on the fence for me! :lol:


The numbers game points to disaster if you don't draw the line somewhere.

In this isolated case it may be just a few gays here and a few gays there. But in a country with no official upper limit to immigration (we've never been told anyway), this is just another way to open the doors even wider - particularly when you take into account all those fakers trying to get in, a with even lefties admitting that there are a huge number of rejections. This country's a small island with finite resources, so we'd have enough trouble in our mentality to call for all those refugees from war and pestilence, as well as additional people claiming they have trouble keeping it in their trousers.

I don't think homosexuality should be criminalised. But in many countries it is, like with so many things innocuous or understandable to us. But you can't let everybody in, else (as I say) we'd have to let in all those having to sit tight and not speak out under their dictatorships.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

Open-mindedness isn't quite the same as being debauched you know. You can try new food or a new position with your partner or you can let your morals drop and give the STD clinic and police a further rise in trade.

Well, unless you want or are able to impose your definition of debauched on the rest of the World, you'll just have to be open-minded about how other people define it. Certainly I'm not aware that debauchery is a crime.

Alright, why is sex in public so good and healthy then? (I'd ask Ron Davies but he hasn't been very conspicuous since 1998!)

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that it has always gone on, and that there are more pressing issues for the Police to address.

Can I go with freedom-loving tyrannical mysoginists?

Nice try, but no, you can't.

In this isolated case it may be just a few gays here and a few gays there. But in a country with no official upper limit to immigration (we've never been told anyway), this is just another way to open the doors even wider. This country's a small island with finite resources, so we'd have enough trouble in our mentality to call for all those refugees from war and pestilence, as well as additional people claiming they have trouble keeping it in their trousers.

You love your straw man argument, don't you? The ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. It was a ruling on the law of asylum. If you believe that the persecution of gay people is nothing more than a question of them "keeping it in their trousers", then perhaps you'd enjoy life in Iran, or Cameroon. To think you're one of those who rail against militant Islam but then don't want to do anything to help those who are feeling its sharp end. You wail about the people coming into this country being those with the most mediaeval attitudes and then wail that those being allowed to stay are openly gay. You need to clarify a couple of things...

1. Do you think the UK should accept asylum seekers at all?
2. Do you think that the threat of death because of one's sexuality should or should not be grounds for being offered asylum?
3. For asylum seekers from Moslem countries, do you believe that we should accept only those who have been oppressed for non-sexuality-related reasons?
4. Would you prefer for us not to accept asylum seekers from any Moslem country, for whatever reason?

It seems you want to attack the barbarity of extremist Moslem culture, but God forbid we should hold out a helping hand to its victims.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

There's a bit of a strawman argument by proponents of the other side of the coin, namely the intimation that if asylum seekers can't come here specifically then they're bound to face certain doom. It's as if France, Germany, Spain or many other safe countries nearer to these barbaric lands don't exist. Or haven't signed the same human rights paperwork we have.

Asylum and immigration are tied. The bottom line is the numbers game for me. So if push comes to shove I'd be happy enough to let in some more of the world's genuinely persecuted, but only in exchange for some freshly arrived immigrants being sent back. Or the No Vanacies sign be put up before any more have left home to make things expedient.

So my answer is 'Oh go on then. But genuinely needy only'. Precious little room for sundry others who just fancy the change of scene, especially as the now 20% ethnic minority population is more than enough to be getting by with for cheap labour and 'vibrant culture'.

 

[Andalublue]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

There's a bit of a strawman argument by proponents of the other side of the coin, namely the intimation that if asylum seekers can't come here specifically then they're bound to face certain doom. It's as if France, Germany, Spain or many other safe countries nearer to these barbaric lands don't exist. Or haven't signed the same human rights paperwork we have.

You'll find that France receives far more asylum seekers than the UK. In 2009 they received 42,000, the UK received 29,800.
Reuters AlertNet - Number of asylum seekers in West stable, belies myth-UN

So my answer is 'Oh go on then. But genuinely needy only'. Precious little room for sundry others who just fancy the change of scene, especially as the now 20% ethnic minority population is more than enough to be getting by with for cheap labour and 'vibrant culture'

Do you mean the 9.04% that are of non-white ethnicity?
Demography of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go on admit it, you just make up your numbers and hope that no one will check, don't you?

 

[digsbe]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

I can support asylum to homosexuals. Many countries punish them with death, so I can support giving them asylum just as much as I support giving it to religious people who would be killed/persecuted for their religious beliefs.

 

[mikhail]

Re: "Now Asylum if You're Gay" (Express)! It's both entitlement AND qualification now

I think it should be grounds for asylum when it comes to countries that would kill them or imprison them.I see no different than say a woman who feels she has the right to walk outside on her own.