The Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual asylum seekers can now remain in this country, rather than having to return to their own countries and keep their sexual orientation private. The judges ruled that two homosexual men would not be sent back to their own countries, having previously been refused asylum on the basis that they could avoid persecution by behaving discreetly. Lord Roger stated in his decision that homosexual men had a right to live openly, so they could be ‘free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts’ and drink ‘exotically coloured cocktails’.
A Daily Mail commentator wrote that this ‘gratuitously offensive caricature’ did not hide the seriousness of the ruling.
‘When our public services are strained beyond endurance, it means Britain must now, in a dramatic reversal of policy, give a home to all homosexual asylum-seekers who are prevented from displaying their sexuality openly in their home countries.’
The other Supreme Court Judges acknowledged that, from now on, more homosexuals were likely to seek protection in countries like the UK. Migration groups have warned that the ruling could be exploited by asylum-seekers and traffickers.
Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of MigrationWatch, said:
‘This could lead to a potentially massive expansion of asylum claims as it could apply to literally millions of people around the world. An applicant has now only to show that he – or she – is homosexual and intends to return and live openly in one of the many countries where it is illegal to be granted asylum in the UK.’
Christian Concern for Our Nation sent a letter to The Daily Telegraph stating:
‘If homosexuals may seek asylum on the basis that open practice of their homosexuality may attract persecution, then will this right also be extended by the Court to Christians who regularly suffer persecution in foreign countries, yet who may wish to practice their faith openly and without fear? Should Christians have to modify their behaviour in Muslim countries but not homosexuals? Is the practice of homosexuality now considered by the Court to be more worthy of protection than the practice of religious expression? We hope that the same rights will be extended to Christians in the future.’