Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Uganda LGBT crackdown: enforcement of new law begins" video.
-
11
-
7
-
7
-
4
-
2
-
​ @radroatch roflmao. You haven't debunked anything. There is nothing to debunk, a definition is a definition.
Objhectively the convention does not protect against discrimination. Objectively Ugandans born gay do not meet the criteria for asylum. There is no interpretation necessary, it's clear. That's the point of definitions, to remove interpretation from the equation.
Again, the UDHR and Refugee Convention were written at a time where homosexuality was illegal across the entirety of Europe. The purpose* of these agreements was to facilitate the post WW2 fallout in Europe.
Article 1, subsection A of the Refugee Convention (1951) defines refugees.
A. For the purpose of the present Convention, the term refugee shall apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the
Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the Refugee Organisation;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organisation during the period of its
activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of
paragraph 2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons
of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of
his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or
who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such
events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
It wasn't until a 1967 amendment that the convention even applied to anyone outside of Europe. Please note the absence of sexuality from the protected list.
Subsection F of the same article states
F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons
for considering that:
(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international
instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country
as a refugee;
(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Under the terms of F-b, having committed a crime prior to seeking asylum (which includes breaking any law in Uganda) makes one ineligible for consideration.
That social attitudes in the UK have changed in the last 70 years is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the refugee convention. To be eligible for asylum you must be either
1. Fleeing war
2. Fleeing specific types of persecution by the state whereby you are in immediate and well-founded fear of death.
The threat of prison time does not count. The maximum penalty stated under Ugandan Bill 3 "Anti-homosexuality Bill (2023) is ten (10) years imprisionment. Time to grow up.
Edit: Fixed a typo.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @radroatch I'm sorry but I'm correct, objectively so.
The high court does not provide definitions, it provides interpretations of existing law, taking definition into account. Definition is provided in legislation itself. Those are different things.
I'm glad you brought the high court up. What Braverman was saying is that the high court interpretation was ideologically led and did not account for definitions in its judgement.
She is at least correct on the definitions part. Persecution is very specifically defined under the convention and no reasonable person would conclude that descrimination met the criteria. Because it does not. Please actually look to the convention itself and it's paired domestic ratified law. Legal definitions do not change with social attitudes, that's the entire point of defining things legally. When the refugee convention was written the entirety of the west felt the same way about homosexuality as Uganda do today and it was still a crime in England to be gay. That is the context in which the convention and it's copious definitions were written
As for whether Braverman is right or wrong on her assertions about the court, I cannot say. The judgement does seem to disregard the definitions, but one can never know the motivations.
End of the day, being born gay in poor, rural Uganda is not cause of asylum under the convention. That's by definition economic migration of unskilled workers. It isn't new that Uganda don't appreciate homosexuality, that was introduced by the British during colonisation. The new law doesn't criminalise all homosexuality either. Indeed the new law if you bother to read it, is based in fantasy. It suggests there are bands of homosexuals roving the countryside kidnapping people and forcing them into sodomy. So long as one doesn't engage in that kind of behaviour the law doesn't effect them.
The evictions, beatings, etc on the basis of homosexuality have been happening for decades. They still happen in the UK too if we're being brutally honest.
1
-
1