mcgillianaire | Entries tagged with lgbt

WORLD:
1. Foul play: how al-Jazeera's live World Cup football coverage got in a jam [29 Sep]
2. How evil is Facebook? | Film Preview of The Social Network [29 Sep]
3. It's right to boycott the Commonwealth Games [28 Sep]
4. Indian papers pioneer talking adverts [28 Sep]
5. TripAdvisor could face legal action over reviews [24 Sep]
6. Compared to a lootfest like London or Beijing, Delhi is just an also-ran [23 Sep]
7. Let's put a stop to this cliche – "right now" | Mind Your Language column [22 Sep]

UK:
1. Thieves on the line: copper raids on railways hit record levels [28 Sep]
2. Barclays launches prisoner bank accounts scheme [28 Sep]
3. UK transport mapped: Every bus stop, train station, ferry port & taxi rank in Britain. The ultimate transport data. [27 Sep]
4. Human rights lawyers condemn English tests for spouses coming to UK [27 Sep]
5. Legal aid: Who qualifies and how much help can you get? [25 Sep]
6. Reviewed – the CycleStreets navigation iPhone app [24 Sep]
7. 1.5% of Britons say they are gay or bisexual, ONS survey finds [23 Sep]

"This judgement should be celebrated as a victory for progressive thought; but it is nothing more than justice being done." [LINK]

Until yesterday, gay asylum-seekers could be deported under a controversial Home Office policy, even if they faced persecution in their home country. But in a unanimous ruling that mirrors a 2002 decision by the High Court of Australia, five of the country's senior-most judges have upheld the right of gay refugees to live in Britain, if they can establish that they faced persecution in their home countries.

The case of the two unnamed men (one from Cameroon and the other from Iran) was heard by the Supreme Court after their applications had been rejected on the basis that they could choose to keep their sexual orientation a secret upon deportation. However Lord Hope, deputy president of the court, who headed the panel of five justices said that to compel a homosexual to pretend that their sexuality does not exist or can be suppressed was to deny him his fundamental right to be who he is. Lord Rodger added that the normal behaviour of gay people must be protected as it was for heterosexual people, while Lord Walker noted that "the notion a gay man could (and so, some might say, should) avoid trouble by adopting a "discreet" lifestyle (or leading an entirely celibate life) is not limited to the context of asylum law. It is the way in which hundreds of thousands of gay men lived in England before the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 1967."

The Home Office's 'reasonable tolerability' test (that was also used by the Court of Appeal) has been rejected in favour of a new three/four-stage test, in which asylum tribunals must first ask if the appellant is gay or would be treated as someone who is gay by potential persecutors in his/her home country. Second, is there evidence that someone who lived an openly gay life would be at risk of persecution in that country? Third, how would the appellant actually live if returned? If they would live openly then clearly they are not a refugee. But if they would live discreetly, a fourth question must be asked: why will they exercise discretion? The justices offered a distinction between discretion on grounds of persecution and discrimination. If for example an appellant simply wanted to avoid social pressures or family shame, the asylum tribunal would have to reject the application. Persecution means more serious harm, for example: prison, rape, torture or death.

There was also an interesting reference to pop culture by Lord Rodger who said: "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." And you thought senior judges were cricket-loving, wig-wearing, out-of-touch, senile old farts.

Well done Supreme Court for correcting a series of wrongs. It's decisions like these that reaffirm one's confidence in our legal system.

Last month, a middle-aged gay couple were barred from sharing a room at a B&B because of their sexual orientation. It kicked off a bit of a storm, culminating rather clumsily for the Tories in the form of Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary. He was recorded off-camera suggesting B&B owners, unlike hotels, should have the right to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation as it was their own home in question. The off-the-cuff statement seemed to contradict not only the law pertaining to situations just like the one involving the gay couple, but Grayling's vote in favour of the law itself in 2007. Having closely followed Dave Cameron's uncomfortable interview with Gay Times a few days earlier, the timing could not have been worse. With an election looming, it seemed like the Tories true colours were finally shining through. Despite Cameron's most fervent protestations, one really wondered whether their party had really changed. Grayling disappeared off the face of the earth for nearly a week, before reappearing briefly to offer a feeble apology and explanation.

Initially, there was some chatter about this being the final straw for his inevitable drop from the Tory Frontbench, and his colleagues didn't even bother trying to support him in the immediate aftermath. But it seems like Cameron has forgiven him again and given Grayling yet another chance. Let's see how long this one lasts. Already, a poll conducted by PinkNews, Europe's largest gay news publication, suggests a fall in LGBT support, and there has been one potentially real significant casualty. The founder (Anastasia Beaumont-Bott) of LGBTory, the biggest Conservative group campaigning for gay rights, has announced her intention to vote Labour. Will others follow her lead?

Conventional wisdom may suggest that Labour and the Lib Dems would be substantially more gay-friendly than the Conservatives, but think again. According to analysis of MPs' votes in the latest Parliament (2005-10) conducted by Stonewall, the LGBT charity, George Osborne (Shadow Chancellor) and Francis Maude (fellow Tory MP) have better recent voting records on gay equality than one in five Lib Dem MPs. And what's more? Kate Hoey, the least gay-friendly of all Labour MPs, has a voting record worse than more than 120 Tories.

Surprised? Well you shouldn't be. According to a survey conducted in the week ending 24 March by Gaydar, the gay social networking site, 1,500 respondents were asked who they voted for in the 2005 general election and who they would vote for in next month's general election. The results were startling. In 2005, Labour was easily the winner with 39.9% of the gay vote, compared to 22.1% for the Tories and 19.8% for the Lib Dems. That the Lib Dems were only the third most popular party really shook me up. But it gets better/worse, depending on how you look at it. Bearing in mind the survey coincided with Cameron's uncomfortable interview and preceded Grayling's comments, 28% of the respondents said they would vote Conservative on May 6th. A higher percentage than both Labour and the Lib Dems with 27.5% and 27% respectively. Sure it's a tight race between them, but if you ask me, there's everything to play for. Gay-m on!

That Bloke In The Big Smoke

"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life..." -Samuel Johnson

Entries tagged with lgbt

14 Guardian Articles of the Week

UK Supreme Court Rules In Favour of Gay Refugees

UK General Election 2010: Who's Got The LGBT Vote?

Profile

2025

Syndicate

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags