Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Being gay or a woman isn't reason enough to claim asylum - Suella Braverman

30 replies

IwantToRetire · 26/09/2023 17:54

She will be speaking to the American Enterprise Institute, a centre-right thinktank in Washington DC, to set out her plans to tackle the refugee crisis.
https://news.sky.com/story/home-secretary-suella-braverman-to-question-if-refugee-convention-is-fit-for-our-modern-age-in-us-think-tank-speech-12970029

I cant find a recording of the actual speech but I think this might be it

To paraphrase what I heard earlier today she was going to say, she is arguing that being discriminated against isn't a basis for asylum, but persecution is.

The example given was if you live in a country that culturally opposes same sex attraction you just have to live with it, but if you suffer consequences eg corrective rape of lesbians then you can be an asylum speaker.

I dont see how this distinction would work in relation to state and individual sexism / discrimination against women. Being subjected to violence, rape, lack of schooling and employment.

Or is she saying inequality is acceptable?

Being gay or a woman isn't reason enough to claim asylum, says Suella Braverman

The home secretary is set to deliver a speech to a thinktank in the US later and is spearheading her government's attempts to "stop the boats" - a key pledge of Rishi Sunak's ahead of an election expected next year.

https://news.sky.com/story/home-secretary-suella-braverman-to-question-if-refugee-convention-is-fit-for-our-modern-age-in-us-think-tank-speech-12970029

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
itsmyp4rty · 26/09/2023 18:29

IwantToRetire · 26/09/2023 18:14

What she is saying is that the approach of opening it up into a more generalized sense of "harm" is not going to work.

In fact

What she is saying is that the approach of opening it up into a more generalized sense of "harm" is not working.

ie following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 70s many women were given asylum in the UK on the basis that their human rights would be denied them because of state fundamentalism.

She is saying that those women should not have qualified for asylum as they are just having to live with "discrimination".

At its most extreme what she is saying is that unless you can prove extreme violence you aren't an asylum seeker. But by then you would probably be dead.

Does this mean that minority groups in countries who are denied equal rights in their country of birth to education, employment, religious freedom, shouldn't be considered for asylum.

Of course it does because otherwise you could have half the population of a large number of countries seeking to claim asylum - millions and millions of women and their children or who belong to marginalised groups - and what would become of the system then?

We can't save the world, we can try to fight oppression with who we support but all the Afghan women and kids, all the Saudi women, everyone from North Korea, every minority group from China, the Kurds, the Palestinians, the Uyghurs, all the people around the world who can't get the medication they need to stay alive, all the street kids around the world, all the people around the world that currently live in rubbish dumps, everyone who is gay and living in a country where it's not legal, all the women that are currently working as sex workers as they don't have any other choice, all the people barely surviving on less than a dollar a day, we just can't give them all what they deserve and need - there are too many problems in the world and we cannot solve the worlds problems, as unfair as it is that people are living in this way.

Grumpyold · 26/09/2023 18:21

Obviously you have to feel for people living in countries where they can't be themselves freely, but while that's "all" it takes a huge % of the world's population must be entitled to claim asylum and that's obviously not practical.

Hoardasurass · 26/09/2023 18:20

I heard most of her speach live on the BBC.
My understanding of what she was saying is that the crts have over time reinterpreted the original meaning of a refuge from someone who is at risk of persecution to someone who is discriminated against (or might be) and that we (the west) need to go back to the original meaning. That we should protect and give asylum to people who are sex trafficked by not those who pay people smugglers because they aren't the same (though she claims that the crts insist they are), that someone living in a country that has laws that say they can't adopt due to being gay should not be able to claim asylum whereas someone who could be killed for being gay should. There was more about the way the system is gamed and abused aswell.
So I think that yes she is basically saying that discrimination should not be a reason to claim asylum.

Her speach was clear, well thought out and came across as a logical and reasonable proposal, which Imho was the most terrifying part of it. I can see people nodding along and not realising where this road leads.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 26/09/2023 18:14

What she is saying is that the approach of opening it up into a more generalized sense of "harm" is not going to work.

In fact

What she is saying is that the approach of opening it up into a more generalized sense of "harm" is not working.

ie following the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 70s many women were given asylum in the UK on the basis that their human rights would be denied them because of state fundamentalism.

She is saying that those women should not have qualified for asylum as they are just having to live with "discrimination".

At its most extreme what she is saying is that unless you can prove extreme violence you aren't an asylum seeker. But by then you would probably be dead.

Does this mean that minority groups in countries who are denied equal rights in their country of birth to education, employment, religious freedom, shouldn't be considered for asylum.

OP posts:
Rudderneck · 26/09/2023 18:03

What she is saying is how the international refugee system was set up and worked for most of its history. Which was largely set up after the experience of people fleeing because they were likely to be murdered.

It's not just being discriminated against, being unable to find a job, life being kind of shitty, having to follow unfair laws, etc. Much of the world lives that way, when push comes to shove.

To claim refuge status there needs to be a credible threat of that individual being harmed or killed, basically.

There is a point where these two things can rub up against each other, and a decision has to be made. What she is saying is that the approach of opening it up into a more generalized sense of "harm" is not going to work.

Swipe left for the next trending thread