Anti-gay discrimination not qualification for asylum, says Suella Braverman
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66919416
So asking on here, as I may get a more reasonable debate from it. Does she have a point, but not in the way she should like us to think. (she is anti immigration)
The UN resolution she is refering to and wants to change, was written and signed back in 1951
Since then the world has changed, we still have wars, and this still causes displacements of people
We have seen the rise in Communism (China, N Korea)
We have seen the fall of communism (Russia)
We have made huge medical strides so people live longer, there is less need for lower skilled jobs that would have been filled by migration BUT we have seen a greater demand for higher skills, which countries need to seek out the best talent from around the world
Populations are aging, so we need a working population too, It seems Japan has a big issue with the number of people who are retired are more than the people of working age.
We have seen the rise of globalisation,
Fall of empires (The British empire for one)
Corporations now call more shots and control much of our lives, they care for profits not the lives of people they employ or even serve.
Inequality is STILL a massive issue for many.
Racism is STILL happening despite it being 2023.
Being LGBTQ is now legal in many more countries than it was back in the 50's and is more widely accepted, however it is still illegal in many and people are risking execution or torture (so Bravermans argument is less valid) Recent events in the USA highlight that the safeguards and laws that are in place can't be maintained or taken for granted.
Weather events are going to be more extreme, the world is heating up and we know why, this is going to cause problems (e.g) for food production etc and if it is too hot for people to live they WILL migrate
Attitudes towards the environment have changed, information age means more people know what is going on,
So the world has changed, and as a result migration has, I guess also changed, so looking at the convention as to what is a refugee, perhaps should be looked at in the context of 2023, and see what has changed so these documents reflect the needs of people today.
Anoter point she seems to be wrong on
"She said: "As case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from 'persecution', in favour of something more akin to a definition of 'discrimination'."
From this side of the atlantic, I would see the policies of DeSantis et al to be persecution and not just discriminatory. People face being arrested and executed in Iran just for not wearing the right clothing, I see discrimination and denying someone a product, or service for falling within a particular group (granted it IS more complex than that).
We need a world wide refugee policy that is fair to all, but perhaps what we need is to start at home, tax the corporations and use the money to invest so that people all over the world can benefit from the global tech age in the right way.
