Surprised there isn't already a thread, Kiana Firouz, Iranian, Lesbian being refused asylum

thanks - I'd been wondering what happened.

It's also now official policy (i.e. no deportations of at-risk gays and lesbians) according to an announcement last week - here.

Fantastic news. If Emiline Pankhurst was going to be flogged and/or killed for being a feminist activist we wouldn't be where we are today. This woman could be the very beginning of something.

Bad journalism from Harri - he is very hit and miss the guy - first he says "members" then he says "strong sympathisers" later in the piece. Then he points out "Remember though: this was a Kafka-trial where the defendants were not allowed to hear the evidence against them"

So the premise of the article is stupid. You don't need to compare the two just for a bit of infotainment.

This Guardian article also has more general information on the challenge to existing UK policy on gay and lesbian asylum seekers. Two major cases were heard recently by the Supreme Court.

Send your correction to the editor of The Independent.

They aren't "Al-Qa'ida members."

Shocking that the al-Qa'ida members who had a trial the same day were allowed to stay, but she wasn't.

And being discrete will be a breeze especially as she has now come out of the closet in a big way....

This is the first time I've heard what the grounds for the rejection of her application were:

"The Home Office rejected her asylum appeal on the ground that she could conceal her homosexuality if she went home."

Right.

This is good quote from Hari

"how can we possibly not protect the people who are brave enough to stand up in Iran and Pakistan to denounce everything Islamist thugs try to force on innocent people? This isn't just about basic humanity. It is in our interests, too. There is a battle of ideas going on in Muslim societies between fundamentalists, and sane people who are happy to live alongside people who are different. At first, voices for secularism will be intimidated and small and scattered, as they were in the history of our country. But over time they will prick holes in fundamentalist certainties and bleed them. The more the fundamentalists are challenged ? by their own countrymen, in their own language ? the safer we become"

Johann Hari in the Independent also comments on this case

But Portofino, there is no quota. We signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights more than 50 years ago. When we signed up we said that we would help anyone in need that came to us and claimed asylum not just the first few that asked.

And as for what she is doing making no difference, I guess that we could have said that about the Soviet dissidents that we sheltered during the Cold War. Eventually it did make a difference. But they could not have campaigned against the regime if they didn't have the safety that we provided to do it from.

I never said that she was "asking" for it, but a LOT has to happen in Iran before this kind of campaigning will make an iota of difference.

In the meantime, there are awful things happenings to lots of people. We cannot help everyone. And there are lots of people who need help.

If there is a quota, then I would rather help those who do not go out of their way to incite the wrath of their home countries whilst living somewhere nice and safe.

Yes, that's right. People are claiming that by campaigning against an authoritarian regime, she's brought it on herself. I am forever astonished at how little people in this country care about human rights. But then I guess, we are luckly in that mostly we can take them for granted.

Are people really suggesting that since she made a film, she shouldn't be granted asylum?

"When clips of her video documentary work featuring the struggle and persecution of gays and lesbians in her country were acquired by Iranian intelligence, agents began to follow Firouz around Tehran, harassing and intimidating her. She fled for England."

She made films in Iran and was persecuted for it. She made Cul de Sac while in the UK - good. Lots of people exiled in Britain write critical books here - there's a long tradition of that. It would be pretty bad if she felt as muzzled here as there.

I always thought it was the revolution, and the move from monarchy to Islamic republic, that did for human rights in Iran.

Historical lesson: don't overthrow elected socialist governments and replace them with military juntas who owe their power to the US and Europe.

Oops, what have we just done in Afghanistan...Iraq...

You'll be seeing this story and others like it repeated for the rest of your lives...

There is also the possibility that the immigration authorities get it wrong. Given the lack of public sympathy for all asylum seekers (regardless of whether they are in danger or not) there's a huge liklihood that we are sending people back to torture and death and we don't know as no one bothers to follow up.

Except perhaps Amnesty International. Here's what they have to say on the issue.

Get it right

of course it's relevant. Unless you're suggesting that 81% of asylum seekers aren't genuine/aren't really in danger?

Clearly 81% (perhaps a bit lower as there will always be a percentage or two of chancers but more or less) of people seeking asylum here do feel that they are in danger if they return to their own country, but imigration here do not agree. 9% of asylum seekers are granted leave to stay here temporarily under human rights laws meaning that they are in some danger but obv not enough to warrannt being given permanent asylum here.

But the rest are not, and they must think they are in some danger too?