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

How many asylum seekers are granted asylum is irrelevant. Under International Law we are required to give asylum to anyone who is in danger in their home country. See this from the UK Border Agency website.

happysmiley we don't offer asylum to everyone who comes here from a country at war either. In fact we only grant asylum to nineteen out of every 100 claimants.

So what about the refugees fleeing war? There are far too many wars in the world, far too many people whose lives are affected. We can't have them all so let's not offer asylum to any of them? Personally I'd rather live in a civilised country that does try to assist those in need.

I have to say I agree with wannaBe here - homoesexual relationship are illegal in almost half of the worlds countries (80/195 according to Amnesty) (possibly more) as much as it would be wonderful if we could offer asylum to every single homosexual living in those countries based purely on their sexuality I do think it has to set limits on how we look at the risk before/after leaving their country.

But she didn't flea her country because of persicution. She was here legitimately, making the film, and only once she'd made the film did she try to claim refugee status.

This is different from someone who is being pursued because of their sexuality and who then fleas the country in order to avoid prosicution and claims refugee status elsewhere. This is someone who was not, at the time she left the country, under threat of prosicution, who would have left the country legitimately and returned legitimately without the threat of prosicution, but who made this film while out of the country knowing she then couldn't go back, and expecting the UK not to make her go back.

What I don't understand is the assertion that if we set a precedent that UK will be overrun with homosexuals fleeing their home countries to escape persecution, flogging and death.

That is what we do, as a civilised country. We allow those unfortunate people to live here who have, due to their beliefs or sexuality would not be able to live a free life in their homeland.

Coming from me this is strange, because I don't agree with many MNs in particular Leningrad. I think she should be allowed to stay, I feel whatever the reason for making the film outside of her own country, she has put herself in a lot of danger. It is obvious she will be punished and perhaps later 'got rid of'. Plenty of people come here with £5 in their pocket and manage to stay, why not a woman in danger? I fear the Home Office does not want to start a precedent and allow a person to stay, simply because she's a lesbian, as many countrties, world wide frown on homosexuals and lesbians, and some execute them. On the other hand perhaps she made made the film, knowing it would put her in peril in Iran, and expected to be granted asylum. So it's a tricky one.

But every lesbian living in a country where homosexuality is illegal runs the risk of being caught. It's just not possible to offer refugee status to them all.

This woman essentially offered herself up on a plate knowing what the consequences would be.

What MmeLindt said.

The film is a red herring.

Even before she made the film she was being persecuted in Iran. If she had not made the films she would still be in danger if she were to be deported because she is a lesbian.

Do we really think that it is acceptable to refuse asylum because she spoke out against a regime of tyranny? Merely because she made the film in UK instead of making it in Iran (which would have been impossible).

Why should refugees not be able to draw attention to the plights of those unable to escape their home country?

Applauds wannabe.

well said Wannabe

I think she knew what she was doing when she came here to make the film rather than making it in her own country. I think she thought she could stick two fingers up at them and that she would be protected here.

Had she legitimately emigrated here to live freey as a lesbian and then been ordered back it would be one thing, but she chose to hold on to her nationality and still is claiming protection because of her sexuality.

She's not escaping from her country because of persicution, she knew when she left that if she went back she would be prosicuted, yet she left and made the film anyway.

She's not much of an activist if she's not prepared to protest in her own country. The only way people have historically changed attitudes is to stand up against them, and clearly she's not really prepared to do that, understandable perhaps.

And apart from that, where do we draw the line? Do we give asylum to every gay and lesbian whose country does not permit homosexual relationships (and there are many such countries)? We do not have unlimited space to accommodate everyone who lives in a country where the laws are unfair by our standards and the punishments are harsh.

I've signed the petition

I agree with portofino.