Post by liberaljoe on Jul 17, 2010 1:55:28 GMT -5
We are quite accustomed here to our lawmakers in the form of the Supreme Court (formerly the Lords) making judicial decisions that act directly against our interests, such as refusing deportation orders on foreigners that have plotted to kill us because their 'human rights' would be infringed, and allowing Afghan hijackers to stay here after their criminal convictions (human rights once more)
So I should not be too surprised st their latest mad-hatter judgment in an asylum case involving homosexuals, but I am.
Now sexuality has never formed any part of the international agreements on asylum by which we are bound, but our judge, undismayed by this small irritating detail, have, in their wisdom decided that sexuality can be grounds for granting asylum.
So they have decided that if homosexuals are persecuted in their country of origin, we must grant them asylum.
But this judgement goes further than that. In opposing the asylum application appeal, the Government maintained that the two appellants, one from Iran, the other Cameroon, could live their lives normally in their home countries simply by keeping their sexuality discreet
It is at this point that we enter an Alice-In-Wonderland world and the judges remove their wigs and don their humpty-dumpty apparel
The learned judges rejected the government's argument , saying that homosexuals had the human right to be open about their sexuality and do the things that homosexuals like to do such as attend Kylie Minogue concerts and drink outrageously tall and highly coloured cocktails.
The two were allowed asylum
So all that any homosexual (or purported homosexual) anywhere in the god-forsaken third world has to do to gain asylum here is to show that he is not allowed to watch Kylie Minogue in concert or drink flmboyantly gay drinks
Free entry to the Asylum!
Say you guys in the US, what;s a democracy like?
So I should not be too surprised st their latest mad-hatter judgment in an asylum case involving homosexuals, but I am.
Now sexuality has never formed any part of the international agreements on asylum by which we are bound, but our judge, undismayed by this small irritating detail, have, in their wisdom decided that sexuality can be grounds for granting asylum.
So they have decided that if homosexuals are persecuted in their country of origin, we must grant them asylum.
But this judgement goes further than that. In opposing the asylum application appeal, the Government maintained that the two appellants, one from Iran, the other Cameroon, could live their lives normally in their home countries simply by keeping their sexuality discreet
It is at this point that we enter an Alice-In-Wonderland world and the judges remove their wigs and don their humpty-dumpty apparel
The learned judges rejected the government's argument , saying that homosexuals had the human right to be open about their sexuality and do the things that homosexuals like to do such as attend Kylie Minogue concerts and drink outrageously tall and highly coloured cocktails.
The two were allowed asylum
So all that any homosexual (or purported homosexual) anywhere in the god-forsaken third world has to do to gain asylum here is to show that he is not allowed to watch Kylie Minogue in concert or drink flmboyantly gay drinks
Free entry to the Asylum!
Say you guys in the US, what;s a democracy like?
