Re: British Supreme Court rules for gay asylum seekers

On 07/07/2010 22:49, in article 1jla7ca.xsq5donw7564N%d4g4h4@xxxxxxxxxxx,
"David Horne" <d4g4h4@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(see below) <yaldnif.w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 07/07/2010 22:08, in article 1jla573.1lafa261493dqoN%d4g4h4@xxxxxxxxxxx,
"David Horne" <d4g4h4@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ailuropoda melanoleuca torontonensis <chris.ambidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

These judges "get it". They understand the problem, and have acted
upon it. Hooray.

I don't disagree with that. Yes, it's great. But, it needn't have come
to this if legilsation had been put in place by what was, after all, a
fairly gay-friendly government.

Only "fairly". Many of our advances were dictated to it by the ECHR, and it
chickened out on de jure marriage.

It would never have been acceptable for an immigration judge to suggest
to someone of a particular political or religious belief that they just
be a bit more discreet in their home country. Yet being gay is obviously
far more fundamental than a belief.

So again, I say shame on the government. I'm not comfortable having laws
dictated by a few rich unelected people, even if they happen to have
been right on this one.

You have unrealistic expectations of democracy, I think.

But it was 'democracy' that got UK Civil Partnerships, and Gay Marriage,
in many countries.

Yeah, and it was 'democracy' that unjustly criminalized me for more than
half my life.

Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez