My argument is very clear if ,as the original thread news story is concerned , that Members of Parliament representing the British Government are taking Iran to task over its torture and execution of Homosexuals then why does this same Government refuse to acknowledge Homosexual Iranian applicants for asylum protection on the basis that such persecution is non existent .
This has already been answered. It would amount to an open-door immigration policy for anyone from Iran willing to claim they were homosexuals. Anyway, the status of homosexual persecution in asylum law is a very controversal topic these days; not so long ago, no country in the world considered persecution of homosexuals to be asylum-worthy, but this is in flux right now. Which is to say that there is no settled law on how to deal with this issue, anywhere in the world.
What part of British law dont you understand ?
You are just not accepting the fact that under no circumstances under British law that Refugees and Asylum seekers cannot be deported if they face torture or the death penalty :
Again, what does 'face' mean? Everyone in every country faces the possibility of torture or violent death every day: some psycho could kidnap you and whisk you off to his basement dungeon. Does this mean Britain can't deport anyone, ever? And what makes you think that the actions of the asylum committees will necessarily always be legal in the first place? Governments break their own laws all the time; that's what the court system is for.
More to the point: it doesn't matter what you think the law says, or how straightforward you think it is. What matters is what British judges think it says, and, so far as I know, they have not made any definite ruling about whether the plight of homosexuals in Iran is covered or not. This issue is tied up in courts throughout Europe, and it's extremely childish of you to pretend that no legal controversy exists on this point.
There is only one department which handles all this and that is the British Home office , end of story .
That doesn't mean that the process isn't politicized. Do you even know what the word "politicized" means?
Now , according to yourself and other posters here Homosexual Iranians do face torture and capital punishment simply for being Gay .
No, we've never been given the definition of the word "face" as it pertains to British asylum laws, so you're simply putting words in our mouths at this point. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of law knows that words as they are used in legal writing often have very special definitions, which are sometimes at odds with the colloquial usage. You can go ahead and call this obfuscation if you want, but the fact remains that it's a real issue (millions of people spend their entire careers worrying about things like this. They're called lawyers and judges), and it's central to your misunderstanding of the situation of gay Iranian asylum seekers in Britain.
I know they are and a whole lot of other people as well
Then why do you keep implying that they are not, and demanding proof that they are?
It has nothing to do with British government inter departmental administration ,it is a legal precept that these departments cannot over ride .
The inability to override the law does not mean that they will always follow it. It means that, at some point down the line, somebody will probably challenge them on it, and a higher court will overturn their actions and possibly discipline them. This process can, and often does, require years, and sometimes never happens at all (this is actually the most common method for changing laws, as opposed to formally rewriting or rescinding them).
Not that I accept your interpretation of the asylum laws as they pertain to homosexuals in Iran. How these things are interpretted is not a straightforward matter, and your insistence to the contrary just makes you look stupid.
Moreover, you aren't even making sense here. You're arguing that the asylum laws cover homosexuals in Iran and are perfectly adhered to at all times without any politicization. If so, these guys wouldn't be denied asylum. Since they are denied asylum, and you've just stated that homosexuals in Iran ARE persecuted, that leaves only two options: the asylum laws don't actually cover them, or the asylum laws aren't being followed. You then argue that the asylum laws clearly cover them, and are never deviated from, which leaves no room for your theory to accord with the facts. Thus, your understanding of the situation necessarily is wrong.
