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

[Ewe]

I have been in a bit of a revision bubble so only just picked up this shocking story. It doesn't appear to have been reported in mainstream press but here are some links to blogs and websites that are carrying the story.

The F Word

Another article

Seem to be a few doubts about the story but the second link looks like it has done some digging and authenticated it.

Let's assume it's true, how can the government justify not granting asylum? I'll hold my hands up and say I have absolutely NO understanding how this works in real/practical terms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Kiana Firouz, 27 years old, actress and lesbian activist from Teheran, Iran, has long been engaged in the battle against the discrimination and persecution of homosexuals by the Ahmadinejad regime. After photograms of her video documentary on the condition of lesbians and gays fell into the hands of the Iranian intelligence, agents began to follow and intimidate her. Concerned about her safety, Kiana left Teheran and sought refuge in the U.K., where she could continue her work and studies."

Have any of actually read the links/her story? She left due to intimidation, not just so that she could make a film.

What do you think YOU would do if you were being persecuted just for being who you are? I think she is incredibly brave. It's not just about the fact she is a lesbian, it's also her civil rights activism that she will be punished for.

People must stand up to these archaic regimes, the alternative is that countries/governments/religions never progress.

I have a gay friend who is from Iran and he has to pretend that he is straight, to his family, his friends over there everyone.

He can never be who he really is, despite the fact he lives with his boyfriend (who nobody knows about) over here most of the time it is heartbreaking for him. The fear, the lies, the issues it causes in a relationship, it's really awful.

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.

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.

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?

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

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...

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Johann Hari in the Independent also comments on this case

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"

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.

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....