Deportation of gay Ugandan halted


by Left Outside    
12:51 pm - September 17th 2011

      Share on Tumblr

Despite being “obviously gay”, and suffering post-traumatic stress disorder from his treatment in Uganda, until two weeks ago Robert Segwanyi was to be deported.

This has now been halted ‘due to complexity and merits of the case’ and the dangers Robert would face were he to be deported to Uganda, home to the infamous “Kill the Gays” Bill (read the full e-mail from LGBT Asylum News here).

The depth of homophobia in Uganda has been well documented. At the time the deportation was ordered the UK Government were still denying the danger faced by gay deportees to Uganda.

This advice was changed in April to reflect the real situation in Uganda but Robert’s deportation was shockingly not halted.

Even though the poor country has also been threatened with having aid payments slashed if moves to impose the death penalty for homosexuality were not stopped, absent the terrific campaign led by LGBT News, Robert would have been deported to Uganda. (I would like to offer a personal thanks to my MP Rushanara Ali, who contacted the Home Office expressing her concern less than 18 hours after I brought this to her attention).

He was released from detention on the 5th of September, with no reason given.

He has since been informed that ‘due to complexity and merits of the case’ he will be allowed to lodge a fresh claim with a right of appeal.

He is by no means now safe, but he does have a court date due on the 2nd October and it is hoped sanity will prevail.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Left Outside is a regular contributor to LC. He blogs here and tweets here. From October 2010 to September 2012 he is reading for an MSc in Global History at the London School of Economics and will be one of those metropolitan elite you read so much about.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Africa ,News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Good news, and congratulations to Change.org and others who campaigned for this.

2. Chaise Guevara

Good. I don’t see how we could possibly justify deporting someone in the knowledge that they’re likely to be executed under a bigoted law.

3. So Much For Subtlety

2. Chaise Guevara

Good. I don’t see how we could possibly justify deporting someone in the knowledge that they’re likely to be executed under a bigoted law.

The law has not been passed yet. There is no reason to think he would be executed under the law as yet. What we are doing is providing asylum for people who fear the law won’t be properly enforced. That is bizarre.

The asylum process has been corrupted beyond usefulness. It ought to be abolished.

I stand by my previously deleted comment relating to SMFS

@3 – So, you’re fine with deporting someone to a country to a country where there are serious efforts to pass a bill to make what is perfectly legal behaviour in this country carries a death sentence there

The UK is, rightly, against the death penalty. To dismiss this result as “corruption” within the asylum system says a great deal about your personal morality, which goes well beyond support for the death penalty…that its not there “as yet”, that until the moment it’s passed it’s somehow a non-entity, and that only a corrupt system would possibly consider the law before that…

No, you say, abolish the system, ship people away to be tortured and killed.

6. So Much For Subtlety

5. Leon Wolfson

So, you’re fine with deporting someone to a country to a country where there are serious efforts to pass a bill to make what is perfectly legal behaviour in this country carries a death sentence there

I am perfectly happy to wait until the law succeeds or fails and decide then. We cannot guarantee the entire world against stupid legislation. We cannot provide a safe haven for everyone. We should not try. Especially not with something that is so fundamentally hard to prove. At least one Ugandan lesbian has been found to be no such thing already. Why should we have such an abuse-prone system that is so ruinously expensive to run?

The UK is, rightly, against the death penalty.

The UK is not against the death penalty. The UK government is. For reasons that are utterly spurious and prove that we are not fit to rule ourselves.

To dismiss this result as “corruption” within the asylum system says a great deal about your personal morality, which goes well beyond support for the death penalty…that its not there “as yet”, that until the moment it’s passed it’s somehow a non-entity, and that only a corrupt system would possibly consider the law before that…

No, the corruption comes from the abuses within the UK. Not from what is or is not going on in Uganda. It is not there yet. It is likely never to be there. Why should the law consider worst possible case scenarios? Here’s a simple compromise – let’s wait and see.

No, you say, abolish the system, ship people away to be tortured and killed.

Or not let them in in the first place. The Left worked hard to make sure the world was full of regimes that tortured and murdered people. It was not the Right that pushed for Ugandan independence. The Left did so specifically on the basis that our values are not their values, we should not interfere with their customs and we are not responsible for what goes on there. We still aren’t. We should not try. If you don’t like Ugandan laws, push for re-colonisation. Or at least the Mission civilisatrice.

@6 – Ah, so because the law hasn’t passed, we should wait. Well, guess what, we’re waiting. That means keeping him here, strangely enough.

And the UK’s official stance, which is cross-party and has widespread support, is against the death penalty. You not only describe our judicial system as corrupt, you now dismiss a cross-party party policy as “spurious” and attack democracy in this country as a whole.

You really ARE a piece of work.

“Why should the law consider worst possible case scenarios”

Because the law, if it is not to be an ass, has to consider what is actually happening, rather than what you would prefer to happen. There is a high chance that the bill will be reintroduced and passed.

“Or not let them in in the first place.”

Close the borders! Right. Never mind that it’s impractical and would kill our economy and give us major demographic problems. No, ideology comes before that! Oh, and we can’t have people who are seeking not to be killed to come here, no, let them me murdered, why should we care? After all, they’re not British and hence in your worldview simply not worth considering.

“The Left worked hard to make sure the world was full of regimes that tortured and murdered people. ”

Cite. In a peer-reviewed paper.

And of course you want recolonisation.

8. So Much For Subtlety

7. Leon Wolfson

Ah, so because the law hasn’t passed, we should wait. Well, guess what, we’re waiting. That means keeping him here, strangely enough.

Seems the sensible thing to do.

And the UK’s official stance, which is cross-party and has widespread support, is against the death penalty. You not only describe our judicial system as corrupt, you now dismiss a cross-party party policy as “spurious” and attack democracy in this country as a whole.

Reading is quite challenging isn’t? Good to see you agree with me though that the UK does not oppose the death penalty, our ruling class does. I describe the system of asylum as corrupt. As it is. And I call their reasons spurious. I know that comprehension is tough but please don’t give up on it yet.

Because the law, if it is not to be an ass, has to consider what is actually happening, rather than what you would prefer to happen. There is a high chance that the bill will be reintroduced and passed.

And what is happening is that no one is being executed for being Gay in Uganda. What is happening is that being Gay is not against the law. You may wish the Courts to listen to your preferred outcome, if it is that, and to their shame they are, but what is happening is that there is no reason not to send him back. That may change in the future.

Close the borders! Right. Never mind that it’s impractical and would kill our economy and give us major demographic problems. No, ideology comes before that!

It is hardly impractical, it would do no damage to our economy and there are no major demographical problems that can’t be overcome with more sensible policies. But the crowning glory of this inanity is that this is not what I argued for. I have no problems with an immigration programme. But that programme should be run for the benefit of British people. Asylum does not do that. If someone is persecuted elsewhere and they have something positive to give to British society, by all means, let them in. Within reason. But not anyone who has a hard luck story and enough cash for a ticket to Heathrow.

Oh, and we can’t have people who are seeking not to be killed to come here, no, let them me murdered, why should we care? After all, they’re not British and hence in your worldview simply not worth considering.

I do not suggest they be murdered. I simply point out that people like you worked for decades to make sure that Ugandans could kill people if they wanted for reasons that we may or may not approve of. We should not care. They are not British. We owe them precisely nothing. By all means consider them. But there are some 600 million Gay people in the world, some 400 million of whom have some claim to persecution. How many do you think we should take?

And of course you want recolonisation.

Why bother having a discussion with me at all if you feel so free to make it up?

@8 – “Good to see you agree with me though that the UK does not oppose the death penalty”

I said nothing such. You are a fantastist on top of everything else. The UK strongly opposes it.

“And what is happening is that no one is being executed for being Gay in Uganda.”

YET. But there is an very good chance that they will. This of course doesn’t matter to you. He’s not British, after all…

“It would do no damage to our economy and there are no major demographical problems that can’t be overcome with more sensible policies.”

Really, a policy of isolation, which would end up with punitive tariffs from the EU countries, and quite likely our other major trade partners, would have no effects, right. And “sensible” polices…cyanide pills for the elderly?

“Asylum does not do that”

Right so, they’re not British, you don’t give a shit if they’re killed. Got it. And yes, you are suggesting just that.

You’re a hateful, xenophobic bigot, no more. Being threatened with being killed is “sob story” if they’re not of the right blood…no wonder you support neo-colonisation!

10. Leon Wolfson

Oh, and of course you’re overlooking the big story for immigration as usual;

Companies will use the global talent pool, if you like it or not. They can do in one of two ways, hiring/insourcing (bringing the talent to THEM, directly or indirectly), or oursourcing (going elsewhere for the talent).

Guess why Canada is going so well right in tech job creation now? (And no, it’s not because they have a death grip on their borders!)

The UK’s system is turning away at least two people I know of who have walked into *American* O1 “superstar” Visa’s…broken, broken, broken…

Picture the scene: SMFS is sitting is his living room of an evening, cutting the heads off golliwogs, when he hears a knock at the door. He opens it to find the child from number 15 standing there, tearfully begging not to be sent home. His daddy will hurt him, he says.

SMFS harrumphs through his handlebar moustache, buttons up his safari jacket and frogmarches Johnny Hardluck straight back to his father. Why the devil should he accept any responsibility for any snivelling brat who comes to him with some sob story? Haven’t the bloody namby-pamby bleeding-heart liberal-leftie bastards spent years telling him that what goes on behind closed doors is none of his business?

Given the Ugandan newspaper that produced a front page with pictures and details of “known homosexuals”, combined with the murder of activist David Kato, you can be forgiven for concluding that lgbt’s already are under threat there. Plus it’s a bit of a stretch to claim it’s the results of leftys demanding an end to colonisation that caused this one, when it’s well documented that it’s the result of an American right-wing Christian anti-gay hate-group having lots of seminars telling Ugandan officials about the fearful dangers of gay folk.

Also since SMFS has the MO of pretending well known things are made up and asking for proof, here’s a Joe-My-God blogpost with links to various sources which confirm my story. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/01/background-evidence-of-scott-livelys.html

14. Just Visiting

Cylux

> … concluding that lgbt’s already are under threat there.

Could not the exact same argument be used for not shipping non-whites to the UK – the EDL marches, Melanie Philips and etc prove that non-whites are ‘already under threat’ here.

@14 We don’t have national newspapers doing front page spreads with “hang them” as the headline for non-whites. Plus aren’t both Mad Mel and the EDL only opposed to Islam, which we’re often told isn’t a race, to make the conclusion that Mad Mel and the EDL make the UK unsafe for non-whites one must first assume that both are in fact just motivated by simple racism. Is that what you are claiming JV?

Some of you are fucking idiots.

Many Ugandan people and, importantly from a legal point of view, the Ugandan State persecute homosexuals.

Robert’s already been tortured, he is likely, as a fairly high profile gay person, to be further persecuted if he returns.

This isn’t just about a law making homosexuality a hanging offence. How dim are you lot?

Being gay is a criminal offence in Uganda at the moment, just not a capital one, how much more persecuted can you get?

Scum, you lot, no of course we can’t save everyone, but neither should we deport people to be tortured.

So Much For Reason @8:

“I have no problems with an immigration programme. But that programme should be run for the benefit of British people.”

Translated: it should be run for the benefit of those ‘British people’ who want a cheap Filipina to bring up their toddlers while they go ‘networking’.

G.O. @ 11:

Applause!

18. douglas clark

Is SMFS not a bit daft?

The asylum process has been corrupted beyond usefulness. It ought to be abolished.

But where would that have left Hermann Hesse? Oh, yes, well….

I call Godwin on this comment of mine.

Oh! And on almost all the bullshit SMFS writes too. We are Godwin twins.

It strikes me that the UK should be very very careful in returning anyone anywhere. Just as a principle. That way we won’t have blood on our hands and we’ll wind up the likes of SMFS upset which is, of course, a bonus benefit in kind.

Just saying…..

@11. G.O.: “SMFS harrumphs through his handlebar moustache…”

Amusing but aren’t you stereotyping handlebar moustache wearers a smidge? Within the Conservative party, members of the officer corps turn up in the liberal wing as often as the hate wing nowadays.

@6. So Much For Subtlety: “The Left worked hard to make sure the world was full of regimes that tortured and murdered people. It was not the Right that pushed for Ugandan independence. The Left did so specifically on the basis that our values are not their values, we should not interfere with their customs and we are not responsible for what goes on there.”

History books tell us that Uganda held general elections in 1961 as preparation for full independence in 1962. The UK Prime Minister (Oct 1959 – Oct 1963) was Harold Macmillan (Cons). I appreciate that some Conservatives regard him as a raving lefty but it requires a bizarre conceptual stretch to argue that he designed independent Uganda to deliver tribal murder.

20. Chaise Guevara

@ 8 SMFS

“I do not suggest they be murdered. I simply point out that people like you worked for decades to make sure that Ugandans could kill people if they wanted for reasons that we may or may not approve of. We should not care. They are not British. We owe them precisely nothing. By all means consider them. But there are some 600 million Gay people in the world, some 400 million of whom have some claim to persecution. How many do you think we should take?”

By what logic do you determine that “we should not care” about non-Brits? Does Britishness confer some special extra level of humanity that makes people worth our concern?

You rightly point out that we can’t take in every single persecuted person in the world. However, from there you seem to illogically jump to the conclusion that we shouldn’t take in any of them. Perfection fallacy.

@6. So Much For Subtlety: “We cannot guarantee the entire world against stupid legislation. We cannot provide a safe haven for everyone. We should not try.”

And we don’t try to provide a global safe haven. In case you haven’t noticed, UK government policy (as a whole, not in absolute, the latter demonstrated by military intervention in Sierra Leone) is to persuade former colonial countries from barbarity via diplomacy and the Commonwealth of Nations.

Robert Segwanyi earns UK protection because he is here today, regardless of how he arrived. There’s this basic humanitarian principle that the UK does not deport people who face persecution.

The same humanitarian principle requires that I tolerate the presence of people who would kill me (my lifestyle would offend them) if given the opportunity. It doesn’t make me like them or agree with their philosophy.

“The UK is not against the death penalty.”

The headline figure in any survey about capital punishment will provide a majority in favour. The survey measures gut reaction at a period in time.

Similarly, every survey will show that the UK population opposes “bogus asylum seekers”. But when real people living real lives become visible, UK citizens respond with humanity. Asylum and immigration opposition is against phantoms, not their neighbours and co-workers.

You’ll find that the same sentiment applies to capital punishment. Hanging is for demons, not for people from their community.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 21 Charlieman

Well said RE the death penalty. Additionally, people’s views about capital punishment change based on the circumstances. If you ask someone whether they support the death penalty just after a series of gruesome murders, they’re more likely to say yes… and that’s exactly when the topic tends to come up, and thus when the surveys are generally taken.

If we had the death penalty, and then you took the same survey just after a major story about someone who had been executed turning out to be innocent, you’d probably get the opposite effect.

@20. Chaise Guevara: “However, from there you seem to illogically jump to the conclusion that we shouldn’t take in any of them.”

Imagine that a bus driver pulled up at a queue of three people. The first two get on, but the driver holds up his hand to granny and says “no room”. Imagine that at the same time, two other people had already signalled their intention to get off at the next stop and that a generous sole was getting out of her seat so that granny could sit down.

To accommodate granny on the bus requires that a few people squeeze up, but the driver would be within rights to declare that the bus was full. Our conclusion would be that the bus driver was acting like a jobsworth.

But SMFS is suggesting something worse than the bus driver in my story. Let’s switch the story a bit and assume that the bus driver allowed granny to get on. SMFS (aka Blakey, the transport inspector) would count the number of people on the bus and determine that granny, last on, should not be there and should be deposited at the next stop.

SMFS/Blakey might be legally correct, but kicking granny off the bus is more ugly than denying entrance.

@22. Chaise Guevara: “If we had the death penalty, and then you took the same survey just after a major story about someone who had been executed turning out to be innocent, you’d probably get the opposite effect.”

Thankfully, it is a long time since the UK had capital punishment and your hypothesis cannot be tested.

If capital punishment was reintroduced, we can assume that it would be reserved for demons against whom the evidence was very strong. From that I assume that UK justice would rarely if ever use the penalty.

Have a look at the Michael Stone story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(murderer)

I have no doubt that Stone is a very dangerous man (one who needs to be removed from public society) but his conviction was built on a rickety case. His conviction would hypothetically have been for a capital offence but it seems improbable to me that a judge would have put on the black cap. There are/were too many questions about evidence and sanity.

25. Just Visiting

Charlieman

> two other people had already signalled their intention to get off at the next stop

What is that an analogy to?

26. Just Visiting

Cylux 15

> @14 We don’t have national newspapers doing front page spreads with “hang them” as the headline for non-whites.

True – it wasn’t a perfect analogy.

> Mad Mel and the EDL are in fact just motivated by simple racism. Is that what you are claiming JV?

Err no.
Just that some allowing foreign newspapers to be setting our legal agenda here…. feels kind of wrong.

@25. Just Visiting: “What is that an analogy to?”

Apologies for incoherency in what follows. I don’t believe that the bus is always full — we can often breathe in for another journeyer. And some people will alight from the bus en route, and we can relax a bit more.

Sincerely though, Just Visiting, you have to post longer pieces than your one question posts.

28. the a&e charge nurse

[27] I thought your posts were very clear – in this case people can choose to either be compassionate, or cover their lack of compassion with a fig leaf – it’s as simple as that.

Just that some allowing foreign newspapers to be setting our legal agenda here…. feels kind of wrong.

It’s a bit more than just newspapers dear, but then, you fully well know that.

“Just that some allowing foreign newspapers to be setting our legal agenda here…. feels kind of wrong.”

Ahem…

I won’t add to others comments here but if you want to understand why the Home Office and the judiciary were saying it was safe to remove Robert see my post demolishing their case here http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-home-office-is-misusing-law-in-gay.html

It is clear that if we hadn’t organised a campaign then we would be desperately trying to organise security in Kampala for him. As he was being sought by police after having being jailed for being gay then escaped, this would have been very hard.

And thanks to Liberal Conspiracy for your support.

Good news. Let’s make sure we don’t deport any LGBT people to Uganda or any other country where they will be at risk.

34. So Much For Subtlety

9. Leon Wolfson

I said nothing such. You are a fantastist on top of everything else. The UK strongly opposes it.

As we have established, the government does, not the population. Not the same.

YET. But there is an very good chance that they will. This of course doesn’t matter to you. He’s not British, after all…

It may matter to me personally, but as a matter of public policy, no. After all if your neighbour went to Uganda and kill someone, even a gay person, he would not have committed a crime in British law. Yet. So we have established that, as you ranted on about, what is happening *now* is that no one is being executed for being Gay. The law may change. But as it stands now, he is not in any danger from the government. He thus does not have a case for asylum at the best of times.

Really, a policy of isolation, which would end up with punitive tariffs from the EU countries, and quite likely our other major trade partners, would have no effects, right. And “sensible” polices…cyanide pills for the elderly?

Keep trying to change the subject. Maybe you will hit on a better one for you.

Right so, they’re not British, you don’t give a shit if they’re killed. Got it. And yes, you are suggesting just that.

I am suggesting that it is none of our business. Which it isn’t. It used to be but they did not like that and neither did we. We have no reason to start again.

10. Leon Wolfson

Companies will use the global talent pool, if you like it or not. They can do in one of two ways, hiring/insourcing (bringing the talent to THEM, directly or indirectly), or oursourcing (going elsewhere for the talent).

By all means, if someone brings something of value we don’t have, let invite him in. The Asylum system does not do that so it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Guess why Canada is going so well right in tech job creation now? (And no, it’s not because they have a death grip on their borders!)

Nothing to do with the Chinese resources boom then I guess? Again, irrelevant.

11. G.O.

SMFS harrumphs through his handlebar moustache, buttons up his safari jacket and frogmarches Johnny Hardluck straight back to his father. Why the devil should he accept any responsibility for any snivelling brat who comes to him with some sob story?

Pretty much. It is certainly not to adopt the boy on the spot.

12. Cylux

Given the Ugandan newspaper that produced a front page with pictures and details of “known homosexuals”, combined with the murder of activist David Kato, you can be forgiven for concluding that lgbt’s already are under threat there.

Under threat from whom though? We are back at the insanity of taking people because the government of Uganda will not enforce laws as well as we would like. Asylum was for people being persecuted for political reasons without cause. It has become a catch-all for liberals to express their dislike of the rest of the world’s policies. This is nuts. The solution is for Ugandan police to make it clear that murder is murder.

Plus it’s a bit of a stretch to claim it’s the results of leftys demanding an end to colonisation that caused this one, when it’s well documented that it’s the result of an American right-wing Christian anti-gay hate-group having lots of seminars telling Ugandan officials about the fearful dangers of gay folk.

If you have any evidence of Americans telling Ugandans to kill Gays I would be very interested in it. In the meantime what people from country A tell people from country U, which may or may not have any bearing on what people from country U do to each other, has nothing to do with us in country B.

Nor is it a stretch. If the Left had not demanded Ugandan independence, we would still be there and Gays might be jailed but they would not be executed.

You may want to avoid blaming Africans for this, as if Africans utterly lack agency, but the bottom line is that this is an African issue, not ours. It is not our fault. It is not the Americans’ fault. The Left knew perfectly well what sort of people we were handing power to – if nothing else Jomo Kenyatta just next door was awarded a PhD for his defence of FGM – and they did not care then. Nor should we now.

35. So Much For Subtlety

15. Cylux

We don’t have national newspapers doing front page spreads with “hang them” as the headline for non-whites.

We do for some people though. Although it is not strictly relevant, do you think they should be entitled to asylum somewhere else?

17. The Judge

Translated: it should be run for the benefit of those ‘British people’ who want a cheap Filipina to bring up their toddlers while they go ‘networking’.

Not when we have so much unemployment. More Swiss bankers are fine, on working visas, but Filippina nannies, or even French chefs are not.

19. Charlieman

Amusing but aren’t you stereotyping handlebar moustache wearers a smidge? Within the Conservative party, members of the officer corps turn up in the liberal wing as often as the hate wing nowadays.

I thought it was a tad homophobic myself, but I did not mind that much.

20. Chaise Guevara

By what logic do you determine that “we should not care” about non-Brits? Does Britishness confer some special extra level of humanity that makes people worth our concern?

Ummm, yes. Obviously. That is why British people are entitled to things like welfare and people living in, say, Mali are not. Even though they are vastly more in need, and in my opinion, more deserving. Although if you want to argue that people in Pakistan should be entitled to benefits on the same basis as people in, say, Bradford, by all means, I would love to hear it. In the meantime I think we should probably agree that being a member of a community involves benefits and responsibilities – which people outside that community do not share.

You rightly point out that we can’t take in every single persecuted person in the world. However, from there you seem to illogically jump to the conclusion that we shouldn’t take in any of them. Perfection fallacy.

No it is not. If we can’t take them all, in fact we cannot take a reasonable number, why should we bother to try? What is the purpose of a useless gesture? We need a re-think.

21. Charlieman

And we don’t try to provide a global safe haven. In case you haven’t noticed, UK government policy (as a whole, not in absolute, the latter demonstrated by military intervention in Sierra Leone) is to persuade former colonial countries from barbarity via diplomacy and the Commonwealth of Nations.

Yes we do. The fact that we are desperate for people not to use it and so try to buy off people like Gaddafi is neither here nor there. We fully recognise that the system provides for a global safe haven precisely because we are so concerned to stop people abusing other people so that they will use the system.

Robert Segwanyi earns UK protection because he is here today, regardless of how he arrived. There’s this basic humanitarian principle that the UK does not deport people who face persecution.

Then the system needs to be changed.

SMFS

“We are back at the insanity of taking people because the government of Uganda will not enforce laws as well as we would like.”

On the contrary: if they were to do a better job of enforcing existing laws, more gay people would be arrested, tried and imprisoned for up to 14 years. That looks like persecution to me. The ‘Kill Gays’ Bill just makes a bad situation worse.

“the bottom line is that this is an African issue, not ours. It is not our fault.”

Ahem:

“The existing law, Section 140 of the Ugandan penal code, penalizes “carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” with imprisonment of up to 14 years. This legacy of British colonialism was introduced to punish local practices of what the colonial powers deemed to be “unnatural sex.””

(Reference: http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/10/15/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill-threatens-liberties-and-human-rights-defenders)

37. So Much For Subtlety

36. G.O.

“The existing law, Section 140 of the Ugandan penal code, penalizes “carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature” with imprisonment of up to 14 years. This legacy of British colonialism was introduced to punish local practices of what the colonial powers deemed to be “unnatural sex.””

Sure. But fifty years ago Ugandans gained the power to change whatever laws they liked. Before some three quarters of the population was born.

If they have kept it it is because they want to. I think it is worse than patronising to assume Ugandans are too ….. lacking in agency to decide what laws they want.

@34 SMFS: I see you’re playing the “pretend I don’t know what’s required to start off/fan the flames of a pogrom” game. Good game that.

39. Just Visiting

Cylux 38

not sure how accusing your debater with ‘pretending’ and wanting to start a pogram….. is likely to encourage calm, resonable debating.

40. Just Visiting

If the UK says that any homosexual from Uganda gets asylum here:

How about the situationn of Malysia and Muslims. It is already the law there to stop being a Muslim.

So question, should the UK give asylum to any Malaysian Muslims who say they are no longer Muslims?

Or take Saudi – under their existing laws women are not allowed to drive, not allowed to leave the country without a male relative with them -raped women are from time to time sentenced to whipping for having had extra-marital sex: should the UK give asylum to any Saudi women?

Christians in northern Sudan are routinely discriminated against by the majority Muslim authorities: should all Sudanese Christians be allowed asylum?

Coptic Christians in Egypt are suffering more systemic persecuation since the Arab Spring – murders, church buring etc. Should all Coptic Christians be allowed Asylum.

You can see my point – where do we stop? There is no easy answer to that.

41. Just Visiting

whoops edit fail:

> How about the situationn of Malysia and Muslims. It is already the law there to stop being a Muslim.

Should have read:

> How about the situationn of Malysia and Muslims. It is already against the law there to stop being a Muslim.

42. Leon Wolfson

@35 – Right, so the system that we’re not barbarians, sending people into situations where they will be tortured and killed needs to be abolished because…

Right, you’re a barbarian yourself. What a wonderful reason.

And you’re still insisting that your views are those of the British People and I’m a phantom of your imagination I’m sure. Just like you said that murder isn’t an offence under British law. Wait…er….

@39 Oh I never said he wanted to start a pogrom, just that he was pretending that he didn’t know how one might be started and/or increased in magnitude, as anyone with the ability of reading comprehension would know. Mr Subtlety is claiming that right wing evangelicals holding various seminars in Uganda, with governmental ministers in attendance, where they told all the assembled about how gay people have a secret agenda to infiltrate and destroy everything they love and care about, wouldn’t be as effective as them openly demanding the deaths of gay people. Pogroms can be born of much more subtle insinuations, as those from the distant past connected to the dogma of transubstantiation indicate.

To answer the argument that gays are not persecuted in Uganda because the law isn’t being enforced. See http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-happens-if-ugandas-kill-gays-bill.html

I would add that the ‘country guidance’ on Uganda used by UKBA already accepts that LGBT are being persecuted, including being arrested, now in Uganda.

“obviously gay” – Can the OP clarify this please?

“Asylum was for people being persecuted for political reasons without cause.”

No, The Refugee Convention [http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html] was signed by the UK 60 years ago and covers more than politics. It was established in reaction to the treatment prior to the Second World War of Jews fleeing Germany. i.e. ‘never again’.

Sexual orientation has been recognised by UNHCR under the Convention since 1993 under the ‘particular group’ definition.

Hi Dave, I’m quoting directly from the link provided by paul.

49. Bills and Orders

Why has this story got a photo of Muslims on it?

Rather in bad taste as Islam is just (if not more) rabidly homophobic than Christianity.
How many Gay men has Iran hanged so far this year? How are Gay organisations doing in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Somalia???

Uganda is in fact a rare case of a non-majority Islamic country being murderously homophobic.
Though given the massive homophobia in almost all Black communities no matter where they are or what religion they are – Black American Baptists are terribly homophobic – that is not a surprise.

A good story to champion.
But please remember your bedfellow Islam is far worse when it comes to the treatment of Gays on a global scale and also remember that this is a bunch of Black people doing the persecuting, not White Tes Party/EDL/BNP members.

Well thanks for the random rant about Islam, blacks and some mythical persecuted white minority.

With regard to the photo, I couldn’t find a decent photo in LibCon’s archives so I just went with a fairly generic one which we often use for migration stories.

I am very critical of homophobes, the religious, the bigoted etc. and I often say rude words. However, there is little I can do to petition the Ayatollah etc. whereas I can lobby my MP and send angry letters to th Border Agency about this man.

@49 Well I somehow doubt the Tea party/EDL/BNP is overly concerned about Ugandan gays being tortured and killed since said gays will largely also be black. Indeed I fully expect them and any fellow travellers to be asking why we shouldn’t just send these gay men whose lives are in serious danger in their home nation back where they come from, cos we’re full, or not our problem, or some such.

52. Just Visiting

Left Outside

> I am very critical of homophobes, the religious, the bigoted etc. and I often say rude words.

I don;t doubt you – but when I looked at your blog – I didn’t see much critical of Islam’s view of Homosexuals – which is what the post you replied to raised.

Can you point anywhere out?

I did see your readiness to call Quran-burning whackos ‘fucknuts’ – so looking for something equally pointed about Islam.

Also saw your MilkyWhite coloured:
> Radical Islam is deeply unattractive to almost everyone, that’s why terrorist attacks are relatively speaking rare.

53. Just Visiting

Cylux

You ignored the point that Bill and Orders’s sentence made, and went off on a Tea party EDL tangent: He wrote:

> But please remember your bedfellow Islam is far worse when it comes to the treatment of Gays on a global scale and also remember that this is a bunch of Black people doing the persecuting, not White Tes Party/EDL/BNP members.

Do you disagree with him on Islam’s treatment of Homosexuals world-wide? Have you researched it?

@53 Given that the subject matter is Uganda, and this man fleeing it, and being threatened with being returned which would almost certainly be a death sentence, I fail to see what your favourite subject in the entire world has to do with anything. Plus being a gay man myself I am of course opposed to all persecution of gay people, regardless of source.
Plus this map and list hardly paints a one-sided picture of the world’s religions, turns out the hatred be quite well spread about:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

Hi Just Visiting, I’ve not really blogged on Islam, as we’ve discussed before I think, it isn’t a specialist subject of mine, so apart from saying “bad people do bad things” I wouldn’t have much value to add. However, I have been a small part of a campaign which stopped a man getting deported, which is nice.

“Do you disagree with him on Islam’s treatment of Homosexuals world-wide? Have you researched it?”

I suppose, we in the west are much more moral in lots of ways that many muslims, but I’m sure they’ll catch up, people are very flexible.

The middle east isn’t a nice place to be gay, some of that is religious, some cultural, same in Persia, but on the other hand Sufi Islam is pretty tolerant of everything. Similarly, in Afghanistan there is a thriving little gay subculture. The Times Magazine did a nice piece on how mega gay the afghan national police are.

56. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

“In the meantime I think we should probably agree that being a member of a community involves benefits and responsibilities – which people outside that community do not share.”

Sure. That doesn’t mean we, [sweeping absolutist statement], SHOULD NOT CARE about people outside of our country.

People in other countries aren’t entitled to a vote in Britain etc. That’s how it is. But this description of the current affairs does not somehow transmute into a moral truth that anyone born out the UK isn’t worth giving a fuck about. If it does, please connect the dots.

“No it is not. If we can’t take them all, in fact we cannot take a reasonable number, why should we bother to try? What is the purpose of a useless gesture? We need a re-think.”

So your logic is that, as we can’t help all or even most people, it’s not worth helping anyone? Wow, you deny committing the perfection fallacy, then commit the perfection fallacy during the denial.

If you can’t save 1000 lives, does that mean it’s a bad idea to save 5 lives?

If you can’t earn £1m p.a., does that mean you should refuse to try to earn £100,000 p.a.?

If you can’t live forever, does that mean you may as well just kill yourself now?

No. Of course not. And just because we can’t help everyone, that doesn’t logically mean we should refuse to help anyone.

Typical! So the ‘stock’ photo for immigration stories is…yet more Muslims!

What, no room for ‘NON-Terrorist attacks against the UK’ groups?
Yet again it seems shouting loudest and having a body count works wonders for public coverage!

Not even random Asians were used. Oh no.
Because no other Asians BUT Muslim Asians are calling for alien religious laws and blowing people up!

why not non-Muslim Asians?
Non-Muslim Blacks?
Chinese?
Non-Muslim Indians.
Japanese.

No??

No! It’s got to be Muslims. For they represent ALL immigration issues on LC it seems!

Surprising as it may seem, some of us have better ways to spend our time that trying to locate non copyrighted images which match every situation which may arise in the Liberal Conspiracy News column.

@58 Alas, Davey Boy and others find/make the time to carp on about Muslims. Even if the only tenuous link to the subject matter on discussion is as weak tea as the stock photo.

60. Chaise Guevara

That’s the first time I’ve ever seen someone go into a hyperventilating rant over the feckin’ photo. And up until now, Davey Boy has always seemed a bastion of calm rational thought! For shame, Liberal Conspiracy! For shame!

@58. Left Outside: “Surprising as it may seem, some of us have better ways to spend our time that trying to locate non copyrighted images which match every situation which may arise in the Liberal Conspiracy News column.”

Fair enough but the top Google link for Robert Segwanyi is a story at PinkNews. The PinkNews story uses a photo taken by Brett Lock who almost always says yes for photo reuse if credit is given. Perhaps, time permitting, LC could restock its photo library with help from people like Brett.

62. Just Visiting

Left Outside 55

> I have been a small part of a campaign which stopped a man getting deported, which is nice.

It is – similar campaigns I’ve been part of have not always worked…

> I suppose, we in the west are much more moral in lots of ways that many muslims, but I’m sure they’ll catch up, people are very flexible.

Interesting.
Would you apply that same generousity to other groups : I don’t know: Fascists, people-trafickers, pimps in Thailand.

Have you ever thought a bit deeper – asking why – why is Islam in so many places, including the UK and the West, homophobic, and why in a violent way?

It would be hard to imagine a Facist becoming ‘more moral’ – unless they dumped their fascism?

Have you wondered if there’s an analogy to the ideology of Islam?

The argument would go – if homophobia in Islam is central to the ideology, because it goes back to the beginning maybe, because it maybe comes from things that Mohammed did or commanded….. then unless the Muslim rejects Islam, he can’t argue the violent homophobia is wrong.

Have you looked for a campaign by the mainstream, influential islamic groups in the UK, against homophobia? A proper one: targeted at their own community: quoting the tricky Quran passages in depth etc?
I’ve not found one.

> The middle east isn’t a nice place to be gay, some of that is religious, some cultural, same in Persia, but on the other hand Sufi Islam is pretty tolerant of everything. Similarly, in Afghanistan there is a thriving little gay subculture. The Times Magazine did a nice piece on how mega gay the afghan national police are.

That seems like you want to downplay Islam’s homophobia?
100% of Islam is not homophobic? So what?!
Some smokers live to be 100 ; but smoking does cause lung cancer.

But here’s a contrast: you play up that not 100% of Mulsims are homophobic – but you don’t argue that Uganda is 100% homophobic when you said:

> The depth of homophobia in Uganda has been well documented

That’s double standards isn’t it?
Coming down hard on Uganda. But not on Islam?

You don’t think the homophobic nature of Islam has ‘been well documented’?

Have you read Peter Tatchells views on Islam?

@Just Visiting

Yeah, I’ve read Peter on Islam, not a fan, is he?

I don’t think Islam is totemic or inflexible, it is a religion and they are generally flexible, the ones that aren’t don’t last. For example, modern islamo-fascism or whatever we’re calling it these days is a synthesis of modernist, revolutionary western politics and very odd readings of specific Quranic verses (with the silencing of others). It is an example of Islam assimilating “foreign”, “modern” ideas. It just did revolution before it got to liberalism.

Vimothy, a commenter here and at my place, has called me a little Hegelian, and I suppose I am. I imagine that Islam will become more liberal as it comes into contact with capitalism and the modern world because it is a stupid belief system and the modern world is good at reproducing the modern world. I also imagine lots of Muslims will join me in happy atheism/agnosticism/the-western-habit-of-saying-you’re-religious-when-you-don’t-really-subscibe-to-any-of-the-religion’s-practices.

For example, Turkey a country that has developed a culture which has secularised Islam to a tremendous degree. I don’t imagine Islam will be quickly liberalised, but it will happen.

So yeah, just as I agree with Marx that no economic system survives prolonged contact with capitalism (and its a good thing!), so no social system will survive for long unless it assimilates many aspects of modern, liberal, capitalist society.

With regard to me being mean to Uganda, the difference comes from the fact we are talking specifically about deporting someone to Uganda and more generally about the potential in Islam for homophobia.

Uganda is going to be homophobic in the short-medium term as a matter of momentum, so that informs my discussion of Robert. Many muslims are going to be homophobic in the short-medium term as a matter of momentum. However, we can concretely identify the danger in Uganda, whereas dangers from muslims for gay people are more ephemeral in this particular situation.

@Charlieman,

Thanks, I might have a look at some point.

@63. Left Outside: “I imagine that Islam will become more liberal as it comes into contact with capitalism and the modern world because it is a stupid belief system and because it is a stupid belief system and the modern world is good at reproducing the modern world.”

Mellow a smidge, LO, and think. Your words with my interjections.

“I imagine that Islam will become more liberal as it comes into contact with capitalism and the modern world…”

Mostly but not in all cases.

“…because it is a stupid belief system…”

If you start from the absolute position that religion is evil, you will never be able to sustain an argument where religion has a role in community.

“and because it is a stupid belief system and the modern world is good at reproducing the modern world.”

We are not good at reproducing the modern world.

66. Just Visiting

Left Outside

> I don’t think Islam is totemic or inflexible, it is a religion and they are generally flexible, the ones that aren’t don’t last.

Not sure other LC’ers would agree on that. Some here hate all religions, as anti-modernising.
But you only said ‘generally’.
So some could be extremely inflexible.
So where Islam believes that Mohammed was the ‘ideal man’ and to be emulated : maybe that could cause inflexibility?

Say, for example he had said ‘a women’s voice counts half that of a man’.
That could make for an inflexible attitude to women – which is what we see, ‘in general’ across the islamic world.

How can Islam go back on that, without undermining Mohammed?

Don’t take my word on it – look at Big Sisters, http://www.bigsister.org.uk, a commendable UK group:
“Muslim female role models from past to present raising aspirations of girls and women to participate at all levels in society.”

But look at the dancing they have to do to show they are really Muslims despite the role they advocate for women: take a read of the Myth Busters section. its almost Monty Pythonesque:

Eg: “Myth 7 – Husbands are allowed to beat their wives”: starts:

Many scholars tell you wife beating is allowed in Islam. While others tell you that the beating is acceptable as long as it is light and does not inflict serious injury and does not leave marks on your face. Others say the beating is symbolic in that you have to use a miswak (a small thin stick /twig used to brush teeth) – which does not cause harm due to its size.

And they dangerously question fundamentals:

Could have the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) who treated his wives so well, could have really said any of the sayings attributed to him

Interestingly, they are careful to end each myth buster, not by citing scholars who agree with their view, but saying:
“Opinions by Shaista Gohir – founder of the Big Sister website.”

They ignore huge issues – such as why the Islamic declaration of human rights (Cairo Declaration) fails to give women equal rights to men (gives them instead equal dignity).

So the Big Sisters are in a cleft stick – they can’t say they are not Muslims – else Apostasy punishments would get them. But within islam, they have no Islamic theology foundation on which to support their modernising, liberal views.

An organisation with a great aim – but handicapped by their religion!

> For example, modern islamo-fascism or whatever we’re calling it these days is a synthesis of modernist, revolutionary western politics and very odd readings of specific Quranic verses (with the silencing of others).

What to you_ might be ‘odd readings’ – may be mainstream Islamic theology over 1400 years.
As liberal westerners, we find some of that unacceptable: but if it’s founded on a self-consistent theology that goes back to the founder itself – how can the religion change those ‘odd readings’.

> I imagine that Islam will become more liberal as it comes into contact with capitalism and the modern world because it is a stupid belief system and the modern world is good at reproducing the modern world.

It’s a nice world, comforting worldview – probably shared by many on LC.

It’s maybe a comfort blanket…. because it means you don’t need to really think what Islam is and says.

But if you look around you – do you see signs of Islam modernising?
I see the world becoming less liberal as it becomes more Islamic. Which countries would you point to? Sudan? Somalia? Nigeria?
Islam today has considerable power – eg from oil money. That has given organised Islam the ability to fund things all over the world. Including Islamic schools that don’t always preach liberalism!

You know about the extreme literature found even in ‘western, modern UK’ mosques and Islamic schools?

> For example, Turkey a country that has developed a culture which has secularised Islam to a tremendous degree. I don’t imagine Islam will be quickly liberalised, but it will happen.

But hey after, what, 100 years of secular rule – it’s still true that those who commit honor killings are respected in prison,and not criticised at all for killing their own daughters/nieces/cousins – that’s what a Dice University study showed recently.

> So yeah, just as I agree with Marx that no economic system survives prolonged contact with capitalism

That analogy may not apply to a violent worldview.
It may not apply to Islam, where mainstream theology is that apostasy deserves death: that really stops a moderniser putting their head above the parapet!

67. Just Visiting

oh b*gger…a blockquote typo….

68. So Much For Subtlety

56. Chaise Guevara

Sure. That doesn’t mean we, [sweeping absolutist statement], SHOULD NOT CARE about people outside of our country.

By all means, we, as individuals, should care. Doesn’t mean that this should be the basis of public policy.

People in other countries aren’t entitled to a vote in Britain etc. That’s how it is. But this description of the current affairs does not somehow transmute into a moral truth that anyone born out the UK isn’t worth giving a fuck about. If it does, please connect the dots.

Strawman. No one is claiming it does. But it does mean that British people have rights in Britain that Ugandans do not.

So your logic is that, as we can’t help all or even most people, it’s not worth helping anyone? Wow, you deny committing the perfection fallacy, then commit the perfection fallacy during the denial.

I don’t think useless gestures make for good public policy.

No. Of course not. And just because we can’t help everyone, that doesn’t logically mean we should refuse to help anyone.

I am not saying we should not help anyone. We ought to approach this on a case-by-case basis based on what is best for Britain. What I am saying is that we should not pretend to offer universal sanctuary for anyone with a sob story and the price of an air ticket when we cannot possibly provide asylum for them all. Hence the idiotic policy of the British government going around persuading people like Gaddafi not to allow Africans to transit Libya.

This policy is not working. Time to change.

69. So Much For Subtlety

38. Cylux

I see you’re playing the “pretend I don’t know what’s required to start off/fan the flames of a pogrom” game. Good game that.

If I wasn’t trying to play nice I would say it is bizarre to see secret conspiracies everywhere to launch violence when in fact no such things exist. The content of what the Evangelicals talk about is perfectly free available and the idea that it has anything to do with secret plots to launch pogroms is beyond stupid.

How about pulling back from the edge and trying a grown up argument?

43. Cylux

Oh I never said he wanted to start a pogrom, just that he was pretending that he didn’t know how one might be started and/or increased in magnitude, as anyone with the ability of reading comprehension would know.

I said nothing about the growing of brazil nuts either. And yet that would have more relevance. Given these Evangelicals have been teaching this stuff in America for a long time. With no pogroms. They have been teaching it in Uganda for a while too. Still no pogroms. You just need to jack up the hysteria as you’re losing the grown ups’ argument.

So I don’t need to even consider such claims.

Mr Subtlety is claiming that right wing evangelicals holding various seminars in Uganda, with governmental ministers in attendance, where they told all the assembled about how gay people have a secret agenda to infiltrate and destroy everything they love and care about, wouldn’t be as effective as them openly demanding the deaths of gay people.

Actually I don’t think that is so much a secret agenda as an open one. If the Evangelicals stood up and said that there is a Gay lobby that it out to legalise Gay marriage, punish anyone who does not want to rent a room in their hotel to Gay people, to force other people to allow them, for instance, to adopt and so on, what would that be except the absolute truth?

Not that a word of it matters as there is no evidence I know of of them doing so but even if they did it would not be an incitement to a pogrom. So you’re wrong.

Pogroms can be born of much more subtle insinuations, as those from the distant past connected to the dogma of transubstantiation indicate.

And this one is so subtle only you can see it. You might want to rethink that.

70. Leon Wolfson

@68 – Back in reality, I understand Cylux’s point very easily indeed, and you’re ignoring the reality on the ground, because of your contempt for anyone not meeting your criteria for being a worthwhile human being.

Why should I consider YOU a worthwhile human being when you’re a fanatic? You’ve already opened the door to Human worth and life being variable, after all.

@69 I think you’re being overly kind to the evangelicals. They didn’t just stand up and put a negative spin on lgbt campaigns for equality, they made dangerous incendiary shit up. One of the speakers wrote “the pink swastika”, which attempts to pin the blame for all the atrocities of Nazi Germany wholly onto gay folk to give you a good idea of the sorts of things they like to peddle. Another wrote a book about how to “recuit-proof your child”, no pedophile implications in there im sure.
At the seminars there was likening being gay to an insidious disease, discussions about how gay men delighted in targeting children to ‘convert’ them, and how ‘corrective rape’ might assist the process of transforming gays to straights. To detail just the milquetoast stuff.
They were actually grandstanding on their blogs and websites a bit about the Ugandan kill-gays bill till someone drew a line from it to the evangelicals, once journalists began contacting them about their links to the formation of the bill they panicked and started backpeddling like a clown on a unicycle.

72. Chaise Guevara

@ 68 SMFS

So now it is ok to care about non-Brits, and you’ve changed your mind about whether we can help some people despite not being able to help them all… ok. I have no objection to the new position of your goalposts.

59.
Cylux.

YES! You said it yourself!
Absolutely no link (well except for shared Islamic hatred of Gays) to Islam or Muslims in this story at all.
They have fuck all to do with anything here.
And yet it still has to be Muslims representing the story!

Pretty fucking insulting to any other group (and indeed actual, factual, race) and pretty damn enlightening on how vital Islam is to everything LC stands for. Even at the expense of taking a few moments to actually have a photo relevant to those involved in the story…and indeed those who actually face the plight!

Coincidence that Muslims are used in a story where an immigrant may be sent back?
I think not! As Muslims are always held up as the victims of such things….even when (given this story) they are not remotely involved!

A picture paints a thousand words indeed.

@73 To be honest I can’t bring myself to get overly excited about stock photos, I mean the only reason it even has a stock photo is because it’s regarded as a news piece and not an opinion piece. But given Left Outside’s reply @64 it’s pretty much a moot point now.

@73

If I ever do a post reporting on you I’ll call it “HNNNNGGGH” and illustrate it with a man, in a field, shitting in a bucket.

(H/T 5CC)

76. So Much For Subtlety

70. Leon Wolfson

Back in reality, I understand Cylux’s point very easily indeed

That is not a recommendation for Cylux’s point.

and you’re ignoring the reality on the ground, because of your contempt for anyone not meeting your criteria for being a worthwhile human being.

I have yet to express any contempt for anyone, but it is interesting to see you need to construct some fantasy version of what I said, presumably because you know your objections are dishonest and not based on the evidence.

Why should I consider YOU a worthwhile human being when you’re a fanatic?

I would be concerned if you did Leon. But remember, it is not all about you.

71. Cylux

I think you’re being overly kind to the evangelicals. They didn’t just stand up and put a negative spin on lgbt campaigns for equality, they made dangerous incendiary shit up. One of the speakers wrote “the pink swastika”, which attempts to pin the blame for all the atrocities of Nazi Germany wholly onto gay folk to give you a good idea of the sorts of things they like to peddle.

And other people attempt to blame the Catholic Church or the German Right or just Germans. So what? Why is this interpretation of Nazism beyond the Pale?

But either way, nowhere do I see an incitement to pogrom.

Another wrote a book about how to “recuit-proof your child”, no pedophile implications in there im sure.

They are being blamed for implications now? How interesting.

At the seminars there was likening being gay to an insidious disease, discussions about how gay men delighted in targeting children to ‘convert’ them, and how ‘corrective rape’ might assist the process of transforming gays to straights. To detail just the milquetoast stuff.

I would be surprised if the last was true, as for the rest, so what? Nothing that would not be perfectly fine at a Middle Class dinner in Hackney – as long as it was said about Christians.

Nowhere do I see any sign of incitement to murder.

72. Chaise Guevara

So now it is ok to care about non-Brits, and you’ve changed your mind about whether we can help some people despite not being able to help them all… ok. I have no objection to the new position of your goalposts.

If you do not understand my point, it is not that I have moved the goal posts. I never said it was not all right to care about foreigners. Nor have I ever even suggested that we can help some people. We are certainly helping that Nigerian born rapist the European Court would not let us deport for instance. But we cannot help them all, we pretend we can, we have a dysfunctional system that imposes massive costs on Britain and it needs to be changed.

Not one single point of mine has changed. Not one single one has been shown to be wrong.

77. Laughing Boy

QUOTE – it is interesting to see you need to construct some fantasy version of what I said, presumably because you know your objections are dishonest and not based on the evidence. – QUOTE

That’s all he ever does.

78. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

“Not one single point of mine has changed. Not one single one has been shown to be wrong.”

I can accept your previous statement “we should not care” as meaning “we are not required to care”, or similar. It’s a reasonable interpretation. However, you really did say that we shouldn’t bother helping anyone, on the basis that we can’t help everyone. Quote:

“If we can’t take them all, in fact we cannot take a reasonable number, why should we bother to try? What is the purpose of a useless gesture?”

And that was in response to me raising the perfection fallacy, it’s not like I’m applying a new context to your words.

@76 SMFS

And other people attempt to blame the Catholic Church or the German Right or just Germans. So what? Why is this interpretation of Nazism beyond the Pale?

Oh I don’t know, perhaps because of it’s historical accuracy being comparable to David Irving’s work on the Holocaust, maybe…

I would be surprised if the last was true, as for the rest, so what? Nothing that would not be perfectly fine at a Middle Class dinner in Hackney – as long as it was said about Christians.

I think your attempts to cover for bigotry (and play the persecuted hegemon card) are beginning to cloud your sense of perspective somewhat, what a few imagined middle class tossers discuss over dinner has fuck all affect on the lives of Christians in this nation. However by going to a nation where lgbt’s are already persecuted to a good extent already, whom are making tentative progress toward having homosexuality de-criminalised, and then painting outrageous smears about gay folk to government officials and policy makers, doing all in your power to de-humanise gay people significantly more than they are already in that country, and you are going to cause an upswing in prejudice-motivated attacks.

Now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amVnWtpR1is&feature=related, author of the Pink Swastika, said to the conference “even though the majority of homosexuals are not oriented towards young people, there’s a significant number who are. And when they see a child from a broken home, it’s like they have a flashing neon sign over their head.” and “If you deny and reject the design of your own body, and you engage in conduct that is self-evidentiary wrong and harmful to you, then you’re going to receive in your body the penalty which is appropriate. Can anyone say AIDS?”
So, that’s significant gays are paedos who like to prey upon hard-luck kids and that AIDS is a natural consequence to specifically gay sex (last I checked no one thinks guy+girl sex should be considered ‘conduct that is self-evidentiary wrong and harmful to you’). Personally, I’d think those imaginary middle class dinner goers would baulk at that sort of accusations toward Christians, but then I don’t get about around Hackney to check.

I’ll leave you with the words of a gay Ugandan:

Val Kalende, a lesbian, said it’s dangerous just to walk down the street. “Just the other day a colleague of mine was detained and questioned by police,” she said. “Every time you come back home safe, you thank God you are safe. But then you don’t know what’s going to happen the next day.”

Kalende said that while Uganda has always been a homophobic country, things got worse after the conference the American evangelicals spoke at.

“So those guys should be held accountable for what is happening to us,” she said. “And I hope that the people in America can hold these guys accountable for what is going to happen to us if this bill ever passes.”

Seems at least one victim of the pogrom manages to see the incitement that you don’t.

Well that’s one way to chuff up an embedded link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amVnWtpR1is&feature=related heres the Scott Lively Vid I was trying to link to.

Well, no big surprise, Just Visiting the resident christian extremist is here turning the discussion towards his/her/its favourite subject in all the world; “Islam is evil” or, to be more accurate, “muslims are evil.” This is good because it’s fun making Just Visiting look ridiculous, not that he/she/it needs any help with this.

“How can Islam go back on that, without undermining Mohammed?” well, dumbass, as easily as christianity can go back on various fundamental tenets of the old testament without undermining the assorted authors of that particular book. Which is to say, not at all. The uncomfortable facts, Just Visiting are:

a.) much as you’d like to be able to convince people that the fundamental difference between islam and christianity is that the islamic canon contains exhortations to violence whereas the christian canon doesn’t, you know yourself that this isn’t true. The bible states quite clearly that, for example, the only acceptable punishment for anyone worshipping a false god is death (go on, ask me to quote the relevant section, I dare you).

b.) Luckily large numbers of christians aren’t batshit crazy enough to want to enact this kind of idiocy but, equally luckily, large numbers of muslims have the same sensible attitude to the exhortations to violence in their holy book(s).

So, both canons contain exhortations to violence but both religions are followed by large numbers of people who are selective in the bits of their respective canons they choose to take literally, the bits they choose to interpret figuratively and the bits they are embarassed about and try not to mention. Your vile bigotry, and your stupidity, lie in the fact that you appear unable to accept this and insist on pointing to fundamental differences between these two religions which simply don’t exist.

82. So Much For Subtlety

81. Apathy

well, dumbass, as easily as christianity can go back on various fundamental tenets of the old testament without undermining the assorted authors of that particular book. Which is to say, not at all.

Come on. JV may be a Fundamentalist but you owe the rest of us a sane argument. You cannot possibly claim Muslims can cope as easily with the de-throning of Muhammed as Christians have with the OT. The OT was replaced by a new covenant. The core message of Christianity is that the OT is no longer important. The core message of Islam is that Muhammed is.

a.) much as you’d like to be able to convince people that the fundamental difference between islam and christianity is that the islamic canon contains exhortations to violence whereas the christian canon doesn’t, you know yourself that this isn’t true. The bible states quite clearly that, for example, the only acceptable punishment for anyone worshipping a false god is death (go on, ask me to quote the relevant section, I dare you).

Yes but in that early part that has been superceded. Come on, if you are going to lecture the rest of us on Christianity you need to get the basics right. What the OT says is irrelevant to Christians. The Christian canon does have its own issues with violence, but they are not central in the way the Muslim tradition is.

b.) Luckily large numbers of christians aren’t batshit crazy enough to want to enact this kind of idiocy but, equally luckily, large numbers of muslims have the same sensible attitude to the exhortations to violence in their holy book(s).

I would like to see some evidence that large numbers of Muslims are not. It seems to me they have our problem only worse – an elite alienated from their own traditions and people. What ordinary Muslims want is an interesting question but one that is hard to answer. Certainly Islamists have been popular until very recently. Islamists who murder are still popular.

So, both canons contain exhortations to violence but both religions are followed by large numbers of people who are selective in the bits of their respective canons they choose to take literally, the bits they choose to interpret figuratively and the bits they are embarassed about and try not to mention.

Sure but the other bit you miss is that Christians are not supposed to do this. Doctrine is laid down by the Church, traditionally made up of old men who had very little tolerance for violence from the young. Muslims have a different legal and moral tradition that encourages this sort of behaviour.

There are differences no matter how much you might like to pretend otherwise.

83. Chaise Guevara

@ 82 SMFS

“Come on, if you are going to lecture the rest of us on Christianity you need to get the basics right. What the OT says is irrelevant to Christians. ”

That’s not actually true, though, is it? We’ve got Christians who condemn homosexuality because of what the OT says. They turn up in force every time my town has a Pride march. We’ve got Christians who pretend that evolution is scientifically controversial because it proves that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. They keep trying to give me stupid leaflets. Happily, they’re in a minority in this country, but you’re acting as if “Christian” only includes those whose views you agree with.

84. Just Visiting

Chaise

>> What the OT says is irrelevant to Christians. ”
>
> That’s not actually true, though, is it?

Not 100% true – but true neverthless.
Yes Chaise, some old Testament stuff is used in Christain theology.
But basically the old testament is not treated as a ‘rule book’ – just one example, the OT has many dietary laws – Christianity doesn’t.
Mainstream Christianity has a vital principal that Jesus’ coming effectively renders the old testament rules void – that’s Christianity 101 – so that rules out cherry picking some verses from the old testament and then saying ‘arghh – christians think this stuff’.

But you knew that already, I guess

Apathy it seems does not.
He’s already beeen shot down on LC for making statements that he can’t back up about Islam and christianity.

And he’s still at it again:
> The bible states quite clearly that, for example, the only acceptable punishment for anyone worshipping a false god is death

When he knows that there are no christian scholars he can find who advocate that punishment.
His attitude to the holy books is deceitful – he doesn’t read what the religious scolars say about their own holy books – he wants to reach his own conclusions and then blame the religions today!

Hey Apathy – In the new testament it says Jesus cursed a fig-tree – strange how christianity has never had a downer on fig trees eh? Cf islam – Mohammed once cursed a dog – and how are dogs treated in Islam today?

Compare and contrast !

85. theophrastus

Why didn’t he go to the nearest safe African country?

Turning up here looks like economic migrancy – with the excuse of persecution as a homosexual.

The UK is full. Has anyone driven on our roads or used the London Tube and wished there were more people on this small island? Many liberal societies have much more space — eg Canada or Australia or Ireland…

@85

Turning up here looks like economic migrancy – with the excuse of persecution as a homosexual.

Well it’s a rather shit form of economic migrancy given the restrictions New Labour laid down on Asylum seekers, in an effort to appease tabloids.

87. Chaise Guevara

@ 84 JV

“Not 100% true – but true neverthless.”

I’m nitpicking here slightly, but if you say X is irrelevant to Y, when it turns out that X is in some cases relevant to Y, then the statement is not “true nevertheless”, it is false.

“Yes Chaise, some old Testament stuff is used in Christain theology.
But basically the old testament is not treated as a ‘rule book’ – just one example, the OT has many dietary laws – Christianity doesn’t.”

In many cases, agreed. Although some OT rules are more popular than others, including (but not in any way limited to) some of the more bigoted and vindictive ones.

“Mainstream Christianity has a vital principal that Jesus’ coming effectively renders the old testament rules void – that’s Christianity 101 – so that rules out cherry picking some verses from the old testament and then saying ‘arghh – christians think this stuff’.”

Agreed that you can’t just take the content of the OT and assume that all, or even most, Christians believe it. But there is no such thing as “Christianity 101″, because there are many different types of Christianity, and no single one is definitive (despite what most sects think).

One issue with what you’ve written above is that it mainly applies to European and former Commonwealth countries. In Africa, Christianity-led homophobia is a serious issue. To a lesser extent, this is true in the US too – there are American communities where coming out as gay is an invitiation to ostracisation and verbal/physical abuse.

Another issue is that Jesus didn’t actually overrule all of the worst parts of the OT. Phrases like “love thy neighbour” and “let he who is without sin…” should hopefully inspire believers, but he was never recorded as saying “actually, gays are ok”.

Moderate Christians should not be tarred with the same brush. But it’s unrealistic to say that Christian extremism is a minor issue. For my money, the real differentiator here is whether people come from pre- or post-Enlightenment societies, not which Abrahamic religion they happen to follow.

88. Chaise Guevara

@ theoprastus

“The UK is full.”

No it isn’t. Vast parts of it are very lowly populated. Why do you people always parrot this obvious untruth as if it’s somehow meaningful?

“Has anyone driven on our roads or used the London Tube and wished there were more people on this small island?”

Infrastructure increases to meet demand. The transport where I grew up was far, far worse than the Tube – it was a small village surrounded by woods and fields, and so didn’t merit a good bus service or a train station. If the population had doubled after an influx of immigrants, they might have bothered to run buses on Sundays.

89. So Much For Subtlety

83. Chaise Guevara

That’s not actually true, though, is it? We’ve got Christians who condemn homosexuality because of what the OT says.

No. It is true. The rule is Christians get to pick and choose what they like. There are Protestant groups that like large parts of the OT. And then there’s the Catholic Church which ignores it all. Everyone is between those two.

86. Cylux

Well it’s a rather shit form of economic migrancy given the restrictions New Labour laid down on Asylum seekers, in an effort to appease tabloids.

And yet better than trying, say, Sudan.

88. Chaise Guevara

No it isn’t. Vast parts of it are very lowly populated. Why do you people always parrot this obvious untruth as if it’s somehow meaningful?

Yes it is. Vast parts of it? Britain is not vast. You mean like Cumbria? What’s their population density, something like 75 people per square kilometre? As opposed to Africa’s 30 or so. By what comparison is Britain not densely populated? You mean if we are compared to Hong Kong or Japan? Well yes. But is anywhere in Britain below the world average of 50 or so?

However it is irrelevant as they are all moving to London and a small handful of other cities. Which are very definitely dense.

Infrastructure increases to meet demand. The transport where I grew up was far, far worse than the Tube – it was a small village surrounded by woods and fields, and so didn’t merit a good bus service or a train station. If the population had doubled after an influx of immigrants, they might have bothered to run buses on Sundays.

Because of the Greens there is no change of infrastructure being increased. When was the last Tube line put in apart from Canary Wharf? I guess it would be the Jubilee line in 1979. Before that would you have to go back to the 1940s? Yet the population of London has expanded enormously.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/4PooJCsB

  2. czol

    Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/4PooJCsB

  3. Left Outside

    Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YC5RYt90 via @libcon

  4. MUSHKUSH

    RT: @libcon: Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/BOoCsIW1

  5. Avinash Tharoor

    Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/4PooJCsB

  6. Murray Worthy

    LGBTnews campaign prevents deportation of gay man to Uganda.Many more still face deportation to 'kill the gays' country http://t.co/MI3jQnfX

  7. Murray Worthy

    @kateblaguette @DetentionAction “@libcon Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/qPYl9kyz”

  8. Noxi

    RT @libcon: Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/NhPvPS2w

  9. raincoat optimism

    Deportation of gay Ugandan halted | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/58vUQgPV via @libcon

  10. LGBT Asylum News

    Tnx for report, not over yet RT @libcon: Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/2BstUbWe

  11. Green Party LGBT

    Tnx for report, not over yet RT @libcon: Deportation of Gay Ugandan Halted http://t.co/2BstUbWe





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.