No Room For Gays. That's a Real Desmond Editorial. No Really

The combination of the words Gay and Asylum Seekers, in regards to the outcome of the Supreme courts decision to allow the two gay men, from Iran and Cameroon to be granted asylum in the UK, is enough to make the tabloids go completely insane. Transferring them into foaming at the mouth loonies, running about like mad men. Well almost anyway. The editorials from the asylum bashers are what we would expect. They can't outright say that the two men should have been sent back, and that homosexuals should be left to their fate. That looks pretty shitty, even if spun well. Instead they change the subject (as tabloids are want to do with stuff like this) and invoke the slippery slope argument that if you let two gay men stay, then you open the floodgates (you have a feeling that the writer of the editorials would have wanted to use the term "back passage" instead?) I won't provide the quotes exactly it's standard "they'll all be coming here" fayre, purely speculative and impossible to substantiate. But hell, it hits all the right notes.

Depressing stuff. But as I said, the tabloids were hardly going to give it a "right on" where they? No, what did surprise me was the Stars editorial, headed "NO ROOM FOR GAYS" Homophobia and racism in one package. Desmond's papers are literally not even trying to mask their bigotry with weasel words and bad euphemisms, as the others do.


"OPENING the floodgates to gay asylum seekers is absolute madness.

The idea is bound to be abused. Every illegal desperate to get into Britain will try claiming they’re gay to ensure they stay here.
Some people will do whatever it takes if it means a cushy life in Britain.
This cannot be allowed to happen. The Supreme Court doesn’t want to send back anyone who fears they may suffer in their home country because they’re gay.
That’s admirable ideology. But it’s not practical in the real world.
Their ruling means millions more people will now be eligible to stay in Britain.
And the resulting flood of numbers could push our creaking infrastructure over the edge.
We simply cannot afford to keep taking the world’s outcasts.
Britain is struggling with record debt and millions out of work.
We must look after our own first.
This decision must be overturned.
We cannot solve the world’s problems on our own. "

I literally think the people who write this stuff, think that the readers will imagine that from now on all immigrants will enter Britain dressed as Daffyd of Little Britain, and will keep dropping the phrases "Oooh you are awful!" and "hello ducky!", whilst doing bad impressions of John Inman. The new ruling changes some of the criteria for dealing with those fleeing from homophobic regimes that imprison or execute gays. (which dents the Stars theory that every immigrant can play the "gay card" . Wouldn't work if you were; say Chinese.) It really isn't a case of showing up at your immigration center dressed as the Village People, and saying "I'm gay can I live here." to which they will reply "Of course you can, here's a million pounds in benefits". The tabloids have also seized on a quotation by one of the judges in the case saying that gays should be free to listen to "Kylie Minogue and drink cocktails". It was taken out of its original context, saying that if straight men can pursue stereotypical "guys stuff", then gay men should be able to do vice versa, NOT that the judge literally said they were given asylum on behalf of their human rights to have the freedom to listen to Kylie Minogue CD's. This was seized on to make the judges seem ludicrous and out of touch with all the rest of us, and to trivialise what was a very serious case.

The editorials always claim it's about pragmatic issues with asylum, such as living space and the resources that are required to "keep" these people. I wouldn't have a problem with these being brought up. They are valid concerns and should be addressed. There is always that "Of course genuine asylum seekers should stay" spiel too. But I see no evidence that these editorials care about either. They make claims about resources that are completely unsubstantiated for one thing. The other is that they never clarify what a genuine asylum seeker is to their minds. We are talking about people who "WILL BE MURDERED OR JAILED ON PAIN OF DISCLOSURE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION". Let us not forget that the two men were both outed as well. I can't really see how the "genuineness" of that need for asylum can be topped. It's like that "better suited place" for an unpopular thing. It can't be placed, as it defeats the point. These pieces are there to fling shit, nothing more. It's pushing racism towards vulnerable people, and window dressing it as a genuine concern for the immigration question. Admittedly the windows in Desmonds empire have no glass in them. And it fucking stinks.