My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex & gender discussions

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:
SammyScrounge · 27/09/2023 14:26

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?

She is saying we can't rescue the world, that there are limits in what we can do.
She is also saying that we should not try to impose our cultural values elsewhere.

IwantToRetire · 27/09/2023 16:25

Thelnebriati · 26/09/2023 23:52

Why are basic human rights still not the norm in so many countries? What can we do about that?

This is a huge question, because technically each country is autonomous and can decide what it wants its laws or culture to be.

And lets face it when the "west" ie US & UK tried military invasion to impose our(?) culture on them it lead to worse situation in those countries and the rise of ISIS etc..

Some countries international organisations try to "encourage" change through international funding, but even if these do any good, they probably only result in change in small pockets and the country / culture doesn't change.

Added to which there are countries where long standing divisions (and male egos) mean that opposing groups resort to violence against each other. Another reason why people become refugees.

And the one that is probably going to have the biggest long term impact is climate change, with some countries becoming less and less habitable, and those that remain will no doubt, like already happens have their assets appropriate by a greedy over consuming west.

Its not as though the UN can ride in on a white charger and impose law and order and human rights.

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 27/09/2023 16:33

The reasons hotels etc., are being used is because the Tories have totally FU the processing of claims. This means whilst being processed asylum seekers have to be housed by the Government. But as the Tories did in other departments they sacked experienced staff and bought in people with no experience, and fewer of them.

Once the claims are processed the Government has no obligation to house them. either they become legal refugees or they are returned to their country of origin.

The Government itself says 81% of claims for refugee status are granted.

So instead of spending millions on hotels etc., they could use that money to employ and train people to work through the back log.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64991234

UK Border Force staff assisting a female evacuee as refugees arrive from Afghanistan at Heathrow Airport, August 26th 2021

Private firms profiting from UK asylum hotels

The government pays millions each day to house asylum seekers in almost 400 hotels across the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64991234

OP posts:
CCTVcity · 27/09/2023 18:55

So instead of spending millions on hotels etc., they could use that money to employ and train people to work through the back log.

yes totally! This is exactly what they need to do.

IwantToRetire · 04/10/2023 01:35

Saw this by chance and as someone who wanted more facts was interested to read this!

Have UN asylum rules ‘created 780 million refugees’?

In their reporting of the speech, both the Daily Telegraph and ITV News published articles claiming in their headlines that Ms Braverman said “asylum rules have created 780m refugees”. The Guardian also made a similar claim in a newsletter published on its website, saying: “The international asylum framework has created 780 million refugees, Braverman claimed.”

These reports are misleading, as they don’t reflect what Ms Braverman actually said. The figure she quoted is a broad 2022 estimate from a think tank for the number of people worldwide whom it says could potentially meet the UN’s definition of a refugee were they to leave their countries, including a much smaller number of people who are actually refugees.

News publishers should make every effort to achieve due accuracy in all output, including headlines and the articles themselves. False or misleading claims should be appropriately and clearly corrected in a timely manner. 

Both ITV News and the Daily Telegraph did correctly report on Ms Braverman’s use of the figure in the body of the article itself. We’ve contacted the Daily Telegraph, ITV News and the Guardian for comment.

Full article here https://fullfact.org/immigration/780-million-refugees/

Have UN asylum rules ‘created 780 million refugees’? - Full Fact

Headlines about the home secretary’s speech last week were misleading, with the think tank figure she quoted a broad estimate for the number of people who may have a “notional” right to move country.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/780-million-refugees

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.