Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, this isnt a knee jerk posting. I recall reading about an Iranian man who was given asylum a few years back, and then this was on bbc news today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10180564.stm

Now, im as gay friendly as you can be without being into man love personally, i dont see how you can hate people for being gay anymore than you can hate people for being blue eyed or brown haired, you clearly have no choice in the matter of your sexual orientation, and i know this is true, because i really like girls.

But, and its a big but, what on earth can we do about gays being persecuted?

Surely we cant just take in every single gay man that turns up and claims they may be persecuted? There are MILLIONS of gay people, and i am concerned that the EU is now going to be flooded with 50 million gays from pretty much all of Africa and most of the middle east.

So its a serious question as far as i am concerned. I am very gay friendly and condemn people that harass them, let alone threaten them with violence, but i am very very tired of the immigration issue plaguing the EU. I am very very tired of reading about asylum seekers turning up and getting free housing when i have to work to pay my rent, and i am very very tired of this nations population ballooning thanks you the liberal do-gooding idiots that ran it for the last 13 years.

Despite what people may say, it really does affect my life in real terms. 10 million immigrants from the middle east and Africa would affect my kids education, the health services and many other facets of my life in a negative way.

So whats the solution? Every gay that turns up gets a passport? Or send them back to be persecuted?

Im really struggling to see a solution here.. and both are undesirable.

Just one a bit more than the other...

Make them into an army, get them to reclaim their homeland, Bay of Pigs style.

Seriously through, throw them back. These few only got let through because the media took a liking to them, so they -had- to be granted asylum, or someone's reputation would suffer. But remember, one gay couple is a good story. Half a million gay couples is repetitive and not something the public wants to hear about. Once the media spotlight is off them, the higher-ups will go back to booting out.

The problem is that the countries these people are from are in many cases barely civilised, the hatred of homosexuality in many "cultures" stems back to interpretations from archaic religious texts (no one religion in particular, as most of them were pretty anti botty sex and clam jousting at one point or another)

At some point a line must be drawn, I hate persecution but this comes down to logistics. At a time where many civil servants are loosing their jobs because, as a nation, we are having to tighten our belts we can ill afford to take in more people who will have little or nothing to put into our society. Now I don't expect to see a flotilla of pink boats all proudly flying rainbow flags rock up to Portsmouth and disgourge millions with fabulous shoes and hair who proceed to mince there way to the local benefits office any time soon (most of the RN are on deployment for the next few months).

So the question is how to help these people? It would be very easy to say "stay where you are and keep your sexuality a secret" but this is not a long term solution or the message we want to be sending out. The only suggestion I can think of is to impose severe sanctions against those countries which persecute homosexuals.

... clam jousting is the most interesting term I have EVER heard, and for this, I thank you squilverine.

as for the issue at hand... well... civilized countries have a pretty poor track record of stopping things like genocide, don't we? I hardly think oppression of homosexuality is a more widespread issue. Also, look at the middle east, and the oppression of women... again, probably a more widespread problem than persecution of gays.

We of America and Europe can't actively seek to protect these people, without basically telling the countries they live in that they are ass-backwards and wrong, which will cause a host of other problems. So, I suppose my solution would be to do nothing. Persecution has existed in some form for all of human history; the best way we can try to stop it would be to set an example ourselves.

To actively go in and try to stop something like this would just create a more hostile environment in the world.

squilverine wrote:The problem is that the countries these people are from are in many cases barely civilised, the hatred of homosexuality in many "cultures" stems back to interpretations from archaic religious texts (no one religion in particular, as most of them were pretty anti botty sex and clam jousting at one point or another)

At some point a line must be drawn, I hate persecution but this comes down to logistics. At a time where many civil servants are loosing their jobs because, as a nation, we are having to tighten our belts we can ill afford to take in more people who will have little or nothing to put into our society. Now I don't expect to see a flotilla of pink boats all proudly flying rainbow flags rock up to Portsmouth and disgourge millions with fabulous shoes and hair who proceed to mince there way to the local benefits office any time soon (most of the RN are on deployment for the next few months).

So the question is how to help these people? It would be very easy to say "stay where you are and keep your sexuality a secret" but this is not a long term solution or the message we want to be sending out. The only suggestion I can think of is to impose severe sanctions against those countries which persecute homosexuals.

This is the problem I see with this. By what standard do you judge these countries to be "barely civilized"? Surely, they would disagree. The only answer to that question is that you're judging civilization and non civilization from a modern western viewpoint.

So basically if they don't adopt modern western concepts of secular government and democracy then that just isn't acceptable and they need to be coerced into thinking the way we do for their own good?

Grignard wrote:

This is the problem I see with this. By what standard do you judge these countries to be "barely civilized"? Surely, they would disagree. The only answer to that question is that you're judging civilization and non civilization from a modern western viewpoint.

So basically if they don't adopt modern western concepts of secular government and democracy then that just isn't acceptable and they need to be coerced into thinking the way we do for their own good?

Many developing African nations and some in the middle east are made up of feuding tribal communities who live in mud huts without running water or electricity that to me is "barely civilised" as is the persucution of others based upon their appearence or sexuality.

Personaly I couldn't give a fig how people run their own countries as long as this doesn't effect mine in a negative manner. At no point did I mention forcing a western form of government upon anyone, I'm not entirely sure that it works that well in the west. What I did suggest is the only constructive thing I can think of which may persuade a country to change their veiwpoint, other than invading or nuking them.

If you have any constructive suggestions on how to deal with the issue raised by the OP then I would be interested to hear them.

I really don't see how this is our problem. Sorry, but there it is.

Albatross wrote:I really don't see how this is our problem. Sorry, but there it is.

Do you mean the persecution of gays in the middle-east, or the wave of homosexuals heading for US shores?

Reconquer the Empire.

Use the gays to ensure it's tastefully refurbished.

Stamp out any regime that isn't down with caring and sharing, with extreme prejudice.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Reconquer the Empire.

Use the gays to ensure it's tastefully refurbished.

Stamp out any regime that isn't down with caring and sharing, with extreme prejudice.

...and that's what we should do about 'the gays'. Thread over.


Tea, anyone?

@Pika - Both, although only one of those things is actually happening.

Tell them to do something about it.

The countries in the West didn't happen over night, it came about due long and (sometimes) bloody struggles. everyone looks at the West and wants what we have, they forget we started with nothing and changed over hundreds of years. The argument that the West caused their problems is a very thin one IMHO. Yes we had an impact, but you can't blame us for the fact that still want to kill each other to stay in power or that they let religion rule their lives.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Reconquer the Empire.

Use the gays to ensure it's tastefully refurbished.

Putting the Camp into campaign.

but not the Camp into camps

Would they not be persecuted if returned to Iran?
We are so civilised that we want to return people to the hands of butchers?
Iran has a great culture and people. Pity that they always get some gakkhead big cheese to run the show.

Wolfstan
As I understand the politics of the region.
The West's direct involvement in Iran led to the establishment of a theocracy and subsequent repression of her people.

mattyrm wrote:But, and its a big but, what on earth can we do about gays being persecuted?

Surely we cant just take in every single gay man that turns up and claims they may be persecuted? There are MILLIONS of gay people, and i am concerned that the EU is now going to be flooded with 50 million gays from pretty much all of Africa and most of the middle east.

There's this idea that if accept one person you suddenly become legally obligated to take every single person who claims the same situation. Obviously, the UK like every other Western country is limited in the number of refugees you take each year. So what happens is we all agree under treaty to take so many each per year. I know Australia has agree to take 13,000.

So what we do is take that number in each year, provide reasonable accomodation and skills programs to get the refugees to a point where they can gain employment just like everyone else.

I see no reason why persecution on grounds of sexuality would be any different to persecution on any other grounds. There really is nothing to be done about the gays.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Reconquer the Empire.

Use the gays to ensure it's tastefully refurbished.

Putting the Camp into campaign.

but not the Camp into camps

Would they not be persecuted if returned to Iran?
We are so civilised that we want to return people to the hands of butchers?
Iran has a great culture and people. Pity that they always get some gakkhead big cheese to run the show.

Wolfstan
As I understand the politics of the region.
The West's direct involvement in Iran led to the establishment of a theocracy and subsequent repression of her people.

That's fair comment, but the former colonies did kick us out, so why are they now unable to stand up to their own people? Iran & Iraq could / can change their destiny if they want. It's the same with the African countries.

Nuke 'm all and be done with it.

General Order 1: The Prime Directive.

That is all.

God Bless the Cowboys.

I like gaystey make me look not so gay according to one source

But in truth and in my opinion due to the actual gay people i have seen most of them are just desperate for attention(like beating up a two year old to get on the news kind of attention)

Also sorry for anyone who this affends but i just dont think their are enough real gays for it to be a problem if we can figure out who the posers are

Was that post even coherent?

Frazzled wrote:Was that post even coherent?

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Letting them serve in the military is a good first step towards more full integration in the US. Military service is a strong rejoinder to most forms of social abuse an ethnic, political, or social group can face. Saying you served your country or being able to point to people that did is a very strong legitimizer in the minds of many Americans.

ShumaGorath wrote:Letting them serve in the military is a good first step towards more full integration in the US. Military service is a strong rejoinder to most forms of social abuse an ethnic, political, or social group can face. Saying you served your country or being able to point to people that did is a very strong legitimizer in the minds of many Americans.

Create a supermean kickdeath elite search and destroy unit of gay chaps and send them in against the fundamentalists in Afghanistan... When those religious zealots go to their god, let them tell him their there because angry sodomites sent them there for poor accessorising and a lack of rousing show tunes.

Can we simmer down the stereotyping slightly? I know lots of macho gay dudes who like football, sports and beer as much as the next "manly" guy. It's like saying all black people dress like people from rap videos or all white guys wear suits and talk like they're newscasters.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Can we simmer down the stereotyping slightly? I know lots of macho gay dudes who like football, sports and beer as much as the next "manly" guy. It's like saying all black people dress like people from rap videos or all white guys wear suits and talk like they're newscasters.

Is it that big a problem?

Britain is open to some 400 million Europeans coming and living here.

Do we really need worry about a few thousand gay people?

Also please note that the assumption that gay people don't have any useful skills or talents is basically wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it that big a problem?

Also please note that the assumption that gay people don't have any useful skills or talents is basically wrong.

Uh?

How on earth did you get that from what i wrote?

Gay men are identical to straight men, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

The point is, illiterate halfwits from gak hole countries without good educations systems dont have many useful talents. It has absolutely nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

And a few thousand? You think there are only a few thousand?

And maybe about a billion who would happily lie about it. gak, what are they going to do to get you to "prove" it? Make you hump a dude in front of the jury?!

The point is, it seems like an easy free passport to me. And this gak pisses me off, my American missus is having a nightmare getting her visa renewed, i bet she would be better off if she was a peasant from Cameroon who could claim she was munching rug.

I'm not sure what the objection is. Clearly the men in the BBC article didn't have an easy time of it, as they were denied asylum at least once. And there was no mention of an unconditional acceptance of all people seeking asylum for reasons of homosexuality. In fact, it was specifically stated that all cases would be reviewed individually.

I didn't get it from you.

The basic assumption of the thread is that gay refugees have no worthwhile skills. If they did have worthwhile skills why wouldn't we want them.

Kilkrazy wrote:I didn't get it from you.

The basic assumption of the thread is that gay refugees have no worthwhile skills. If they did have worthwhile skills why wouldn't we want them.

That may well have been taken from my comment, I wasn't trying to suggest that gay people have no useful skills, far from it. What I was trying to say was that the majority of asylum seekers speak little or no English and are unskilled workers and therefor are of little immeadiate use to our society. I should have been clearer on that.

As an example of a gay man with useful skills I give you all Gok Wan



A man camper than a row of pink tents who has managed to persuade a raft load of women to strip off for him and let him have a feel of their "bangers" now that is a useful skill... on second thought this guy probably isn't gay at all the crafty sod

From a purely economic point of view, if these gay folks get jobs in the country, then they only contribute and don't drain resources.

Pink pound doesn't tend to reproduce, so no children to educate and support in society. Further, not having children allows the pink pound to be spent on luxury items and tertiary goods.

So, of all the immigrants, homosexuals have the most to contribute and the least to take out.

I vote we have more of them and kick the estate dwelling chavs spawning like rabbits and having no intention of doing anything other than appear on Jeremy Kyle's show and wear 'sports fashion' clothes should immediately be shipped out to zimbabwe and iran and other fun-packed nations. They can take the sponging toffs in their lauded manors as well.

mattyrm wrote:The point is, illiterate halfwits from gak hole countries without good educations systems dont have many useful talents. It has absolutely nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

Not necessarily, Iran, for instance, is a gak hole country, but it still has doctors, engineers and all manner of skilled persons. While the level of skills is generally lower, the people who are able to make refugee claims normally come from the middle classes, so that probably works itself out alright.

And maybe about a billion who would happily lie about it. gak, what are they going to do to get you to "prove" it? Make you hump a dude in front of the jury?!

There are tens of millions of refugees facing persecution for being the wrong tribe, being the wrong religion, being affiliated with the losers of the power struggle, or whatever. It sucks to be them, but we don’t take them all because we can’t take them all.

Homosexuality is no different to that, we take the numbers we can take.

The point is, it seems like an easy free passport to me. And this gak pisses me off, my American missus is having a nightmare getting her visa renewed, i bet she would be better off if she was a peasant from Cameroon who could claim she was munching rug.

Where are you getting the idea that a refugee application is easy?