This post by Jacob, who is becoming a regular guest poster here, is a brilliant examination of the dangers of allowing people entry to the UK on the grounds that they may and ‘might’ face persecution elsewhere. It was inspired by the video debate between two human rights defenders but who have different areas of human rights defence that they concentrate on. The debate was between Toni Bugle of Mothers Against Radical Islam and Sharia (MARIAS) and the veteran leftist gay activist Peter Tatchell and was about the phenomenon of ‘gay’ asylum seekers. You can view two of the videos of this debate at the bottom of this post.
I strongly urge you to read Jacob’s article and watch the videos linked below. As a courtesy I of course invite Peter Tatchell to respond to this article and I await his response if that is if any is forthcoming. I look forward to Peter Tatchell’s response as, like Jacob, I also believe that Mr Tatchell is not speaking out about and against Islam nearly enough.
Say you’re gay, get to stay. By Jacob.
Being gay is not a physical disability, nor is it a mental impairment. It’s simply an enjoyment in engaging in un-‘natural’ sex acts (which I personally don’t feel merits its own special little societal bubble). And by ‘natural’ I mean in accordance with nature and biology. The anus is an exit and yet many people, not only gays, enjoy inserting their penises into one. And just as many people, particularly men (identifying as gay or bisexual or heterosexual) enjoy having this done to them. A lot of women engage in it and enjoy it too. Men claim to have a prostatic orgasm as the erect penis pushes against their prostate, enhancing the pleasure as they ejaculate. I’m not condemning anal sex, I’m simply pointing out the obvious and standing in support of any agreed sexual acts that occur between two consenting adults so long as it doesn’t involve children or animals.
What’s my point? I recently watched a debate between Peter Tatchell (human rights’ activist) and Toni Bugle (also a human rights’ activist). The topic at hand was tests for refugees who claim to be gay. Peter, big bleeding heart that he is, agrees with the EU’s ruling that psychological tests for ‘gayness’ are disproportionately interfering into the private lives of asylum seekers who claim to be homosexual. This ruling came about after Hungary rejected one Nigerian asylum-seeking man’s claims that he is gay after a psychiatrist’s report concluded that he is not. The man took it to the courts and he won his case. Most ominously, the man said that no one could assess his sexual persuasion anyhow. How very arrogant and telling. And also bearing in mind that the asylum-seeker was not BEING persecuted, he simply feared that he MIGHT be persecuted. It seems like now if you say you’re gay you get to stay, no questions asked.1
I’ll also go off topic here and inform any readers who might not be aware that recently an asylum seeker from Pakistan was denied asylum into the UK because he claimed he was a ‘humanist’, but when shown a bust of Aristotle the man had no idea who or what he was looking at, nor could he answer questions about Plato.2 People lie. Not everyone is a nice person. Controls work, tests work, standards must be met, and they must be in place otherwise people can say anything and we are supposed to blindly believe them. This is madness, complete and utter madness. I’ll cite another case whereby an illegal Jamaican immigrant, who stabbed a 15 year-old schoolboy to death in the UK over a £10 debt, used ‘being gay’ as the reason that he couldn’t be deported back to Jamaica. He claimed he would be persecuted there for being homosexual, even though he made no mention of being gay in his first appeal against being deported (which he lost). And now the UK has another murderer walking around its streets because of someone using the ‘gay’ excuse.3
As a result of this EU ruling, anyone can claim that they’re gay and they won’t be questioned as to whether or not they have a record in their own country of actually having been threatened or beaten because of their sexual orientation, it’s enough that a person fears he or she might be persecuted (which would open up our borders to almost all of Africa and the Middle East). And there I was thinking gay Peter was all about standing up for and protecting the LGBT community (and every other letter of the alphabet that’s now been thrown behind it). I never thought for a minute he’d allow being gay to be used as a device that anyone can lay claim to in order to get into another country. If you flip it, it’s dangerous for gays. Who are we letting into our country? People are coming from areas and regions where being gay is a religious sin punishable by death (and many having been raised in that culture would be in agreement with those laws). If they’re not gay, and if they’re coming from countries where gays are being legally killed, then they’re not going to enjoy the openness that gays are afforded in the UK. Gays are beginning to struggle in the UK in areas that are predominantly Muslim. A gay sauna was denied a license to show movies because it was about a ten minute walk away from a mosque, and because many Muslims signed a petition to say that being gay is a disease of the brain and that it spreads diseases and that gays are ‘crazy’.4 You can contrast Muslims’ attitudes in the UK with Christians’ attitudes. There’s a gay sauna directly behind St. Andrew’s Cathedral on Clyde street in Glasgow and there have been no petitions passed around by Christians, nor has there been any violence directed towards the gay men who attend the sauna from the parishioners. Recently, East London saw a spate of attacks on gays by Muslims (motivated by this same religious law) whereby they stormed a gay bar and attacked the clientele, as well as beating up suspected gay men on the streets. Is the asylum seeker who claims to be gay really gay, or is he another jihadist, or is he one more grown man who is denying a genuine child refugee a place in Britain because he is exploiting our moronic laws?
It’s a funny old world and one more reason to get out of the EU as quickly as possible. Their rulings and laws in relation to asylum seekers are the absolute definition of madness. Grown men with beards and moustaches are coming in and we can’t do dental checks on them to determine their age because it goes against their human rights. We’re supposed to take them at their word and stick them in a class and a changing room with our 14 y/o children. Now they can lay claim to a sexual orientation and their word can’t be questioned. Can anyone see how this system can so very easily be abused, or is it just me sitting here with my tin-foil hat on?
In another debate Peter had with Miss Bugle, the topic of the day was in relation as to how we should now best refer to pregnant women. There was a push being made for expectant mothers to be called ‘pregnant people’ so as not to offend other women who were consuming large amounts of male hormones while identifying as a man and deliberately getting themselves pregnant. Oh, yes. Men can give birth now. It’s been front page news here in the UK.5 This is more lunacy and an even higher standard of bad journalism. The headline shouted ‘Britain’s first pregnant man gives birth to girl’ when it should have stated ‘UK female ingesting male hormones gives birth’. That’s the headline that would have been the most honest and which would have made the most sense. Peter’s logic and his answer to all of this is that we should be accommodating and ‘be nice’. Be nice to trans but be rude to genetic females. It’s not ‘being nice’ to genetic females to remove the words ‘mother’ and ‘women’ from their pregnancy and birthing experience and also their lexicon. We need to ‘be nice’ to genetic females who take male hormones because they are men trapped in women’s bodies while they decide to keep their wombs and bleed monthly (nothing makes you feel more like a man than the need for tampons). We also have to ‘be nice’ to men with breast implants who have no chance of ever being able to be impregnated so that we don’t offend them. Biological females are supposed to give up their rights in order to accommodate these delusions. This is a women’s rights’ issue that feminists need to be addressing but are not.
Let’s discuss being ‘nice’. I don’t think Peter has any idea of how racist the statement can be. Being ‘nice’ doesn’t have a universally agreed meaning. In some countries it’s nice to honour kill your daughter or drown her at birth because you wanted a male-child. In other countries it’s nice and kind to stone adulteresses and kill gays. Peter doesn’t realise he’s imposing his ‘white’ Westernised notion of being ‘nice’ onto other cultures who don’t agree with his sentiment. Let Peter head over to Iran in a rainbow flag and have him tell all of the religious bigots there that they need to ‘be nice’ to him. He’ll find a shower of rocks quickly raining down upon him, or else he’ll be swinging high on a crane with a rope tied around his neck. I find Peter Tatchell to be a hypocrite and a coward of the highest order. He thought nothing of charging the CofE pulpit with a mob of LGBT fanatics behind him, falsely claiming that the church was crucifying (murdering) queers. He was even arrested for it. Yes, very brave to storm a truly peaceful assembly of Christians. He did it because he knew there would be no threat of violence towards himself from the congregation.
Tatchell has not addressed the issue of Islam in the UK in quite the same bold fashion. The closest he has come to ‘storming a mosque’ was when he stood at Whitechapel tube station one rain-drenched day, handing out flyers with a girl to passersby, too afraid to go anywhere near the exterior of the mosque let alone barge through its doors and demand that Muslims denounce the quran (as he did with the Christians and their Bible). The sign outside the mosque says ‘Men Only’. Why wasn’t Peter demanding access for lesbians? As well-intentioned as Tatchell thinks he’s being, he is not advancing gay rights with this kind of readiness to take everyone at their word. He’s being gullible for whatever personal or political reasons he might have, and he is making the gay community vulnerable with his actions. More signs of Tatchell’s recent cowardice are evinced by his physical absence when three London-based Muslim organisations invited a hate preacher to speak in Kilburn and he was nowhere to be seen. This Muslim hate preacher has YouTube videos where he talks of the best 5 ways to kill gays. The closest Peter came to tackling the man or the organisations who invited him or even the Islamic centre who hosted him was to write a letter from the safety of his
room and from behind his screen condemning the Home Office for allowing the man entrance to the UK.
I say it repeatedly – the people in the countries, rooms, and spaces that trans or refugees or asylum-seekers, etc. demand access to have rights also, rights which need to be respected and protected. These rights are continually being violated by EU regulations and by the bullying and gay trans lobby. Yes, at one point in recent history, gays were subjected to the most dehumanising treatment and conditions. Those days are gone now. The war has been won. And finally having found dignity and equality in society, let’s not lose that by allowing others to falsely claim that they’re gay simply in order to get their own way.
Link to video of debate between Ms Bugle and Mr Tatchell