“So can I ask you why you are applying for asylum in this country Mr John?”
“Well, I am a Gay man and in my country that is illegal. If I am caught being gay then I will imprisoned or worse, I could be put to death in a series of excruciatingly painful ways.”
“Well, that is very interesting. So if you are a caught being gay in your country the government of that country may kill you.”
“Yes, that is exactly what could happen. Your England is a reasonably tolerant place. For instance you give Graham Norton his own TV series and he's rubbish.”
“Oh right, ummm...ok..., this is slightly indelicate but can you prove that you are gay?”
“Prove it? How do you mean?”
“Well you could just be saying that you are gay in order to claim asylum here.”
“How exactly should I prove to you that I am gay? Whoa, wait a minute, is that a come-on? Are you coming on to me? Is that how you want me to “prove it” to you? I'm flattered obviously but you’re not my type.”
No, god no, that's not what I meant at all. I meant, oh actually I don't know. Well, ummm, do you like Rufus Wainwright? How about show tunes? Kylie? How about funny coloured cocktails with little umbrellas in? Judy Garland perhaps?”
“I'm sorry? Those seem to be very crudely drawn stereotypes. Do you work for a tabloid?”
“Well, that is a good point but I have one question,”
“In your own country, have you tried not being gay? Have you considered not standing out so much and doing more, less gay things? Have you thought about not going out so much, staying indoors a little more? In short, have you tried not being gay?”
Up until the middle of this week this was pretty much how interviews with the UK's Border Agency were like. It was actual policy to advice people to go home and try and be less gay. 98% of those who applied for asylum on the grounds of sexuality were turned down at he first attempt.
The Supreme Court has ruled that 2 gay men, one from Cameroon and one from Iran, have the right to stay in the UK.
Lord Hope, who read out the judgement, said: "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny his fundamental right to be who he is.
"Homosexuals are as much entitled to freedom of association with others who are of the same sexual orientation as people who are straight." That, my friends, is a beautiful judgement.
The response to this case has shown again that the coalition Government seems to be considerably more liberal than it's predecessor.
Home Secretary Theresa May said the judgement is in line with the Governments stance (although probably not hers as is not the most Gay friendly MP you have ever come across), adding “We have already promised to stop the removal of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution.”
Of course not everyone was happy with the decision, can you guess who they might be? Why yes, it was the Daily Express,
oh and the Mail and the Star and most of the other papers to be honest but to be honest I don't care. They are uncaring, unpleasant bastards, everyone. I understand that this subject is like a dog whistle for these idiots, it has the words Asylum and Gay in it thus combining two of their least favourite things, but never the less, their response was rabid and incredibly unpleasant. I assume that no one who works for these papers or knows anyone who works for these papers is Gay because if you did know someone and yet you still wrote that shit, what sort of bastard would you be?
Why should the reason that your country wants to kill you make any difference to how we treat you? Politics, sexuality, hair colour, religion, ethnicity, what difference does it make? They want to kill them, that is all that matters.
To be honest the reaction of the press to this story of equality has made me really very angry and upset so I think we should move on to the awards, that and we need to get on because there is a Grand Prix and some football match or other on and (depending on what time you read this) you may want to watch it, I however will be at a fucking Christening. I mean, how bad is their timing? Significant Other has posh friends who care not for such things as sport, bugger.
Oh and as an Atheist can I be a God Parent? Well I am about to find out. If I am still on twitter at about 8 o'clock Sunday evening there is no God. I will have stood up in a church and said that I will, should it's parents have died in a tragic Pimms based accident (they are very posh), look after the child and teach it about God. Teach it about how he's real and not made up by people. If I can do all that whilst being and atheist so obviously lying in a church about God and haven't been struck down then there is no God.
The Award for Very Sensible Decision of the Week,
Some people have really, really bad hair. I believe that the law should be changed so that hairdressers have the right to say “No, that will make you look rubbish”.
It seems, for the first time that I am aware of, that my ideas mesh completely with that of the Iranian Government. They have introduced government sanctioned hairstyles.
They seem to have taken against, what you may describe as, flamboyant “Western” hair cuts. I will be watching President Ahmadinejad locks very closely from now on to make sure he is sticking to the chart.
The Award for Back down of the Week,
To be honest I am going to try and mention President GoodLuck Jonathan every week simply because he has a cracking name.
Last week we heard that he had banned his countries football team for international competition for 2 years after their poor performance in the World Cup but this week it seems he has changed his mind. This is basically because of threats from FIFA to remove funding for Nigeria’s football association and stop that countries referees working outside Nigeria.
The Award for Failing to Understand What a Word Means,
To be honest it happens quite a lot but this week it annoyed me. If you are a newspaper and you have a story that no one else has then, and only then, can you use the word “Exclusive”. If another paper has the story as well then you can’t use it and, obviously, nor can they.
At least the Sun were good enough to admit that others had this story by not using that word,
The Award for Trying to Make Ends Meet (That is a bad pun by the way),
So you type in “large tits” and “nurse” into your favourite porn based search engine and find what looks like a satisfactory piece of film to watch (is critique the wrong word?) and you click on play. That is quite a good set you think to yourself, suddenly distracted from the stilted dialogue and hackneyed plot, they have spent some money on that. You mind is suddenly back on the action when the woman offers to do something that no one that you have ever met (or are likely to meet) has ever admitted to liking or confirm that it is physically possible.
Those little touches on the set draw your eye into the background of the shot again, really they have worked hard on that, it almost looks like…… No wait, it can’t be, can it? There is no way it could be but it does look at little like that London hospital that I stayed in. I can’t imagine that they would rent out a closed ward to a production company not knowing fully what sort of film that they intended to make, could they?
The Award for Pot Calling the Kettle Black of the Week,
Eric Pickles has launched an irony free attack on “Non-Jobs” that some Britain's councils advertise. This man is Communities Secretary.
The Award for Being A Bit of A Dufus,
You remember last week when it was pointed out that Health Secretary Andrew Lansley had not seen/ignored evidence that Jamie Oliver's healthy school lunch thing had actually done some good, well he also said that the number of pupils having the meals had gone down. He was wrong. Again.
The School Food Trust carried out a survey that showed that the number of pupils having schools meals was up 2.1% in Primary Schools and 0.8% in Secondaries. Whilst that isn't a massive rise it is still a rise, the exact opposite of what Mr Lansley said.
Whilst we are on about the lovely Government, what do you think is the best way to fund advertising for anti-obesity drives? The last Government thought it was a good idea to pay for them themselves with public money as it is a public health issue. This way you get no interference from fat food floggers. This is not the way that the new Government goes about things.
Andrew Rapidly-becoming-a-twat Lansley has cut the Governments budget and hopes that the short fall will be made up by companies whose products make you fat.
If there was ever a doubt that the Tories weren't as right wing as they used to be I believe that this one thing has cleared that up. You make people fat and we'll clear up the mess but we won't try and damage your profits by telling people not to eat your products. We were wondering would you do that?
The Government seem to expect Mars to advertise the Mars bar on one hand and then voluntarily pay for some adverts that say that Mars bars are bad for you. I'm sure that Cadbury want to pay for something that tells you not to eat Cadbury products because they are not good for you.
Can I just make it clear that I don't like Andrew Lansley.
I'm sure you are wondering “Is there still oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico somewhere between 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day?”. Why yes, yes it is but BP, or British Petroleum as the Daily Mail and Express really hate hearing them called, are really, really trying to stop it now. As long as the weather holds. And the new top fits.
I'm not saying that I am overly influenced by popular culture but every time I hear someone saying “Spy Swap” I have an image in my head very similar to this,
If it doesn't take place on a foggy bridge it doesn't count.
The sun is still out so let's make the most of it, take the week off week. If we are really honest with ourselves we will realise that most of us won't be missed, not really.
Have a fun week.