The European Court of Justice has ruled that when aslyum claims are made based on homosexuality then the officials processing the case must be very careful not to ask any questions about the purported homosexuality of the one making the claim.
Since the European Court of Justice has seen fit to make a ruling, it must consider that the issue of claiming asylum falls within its remit. But it is surely the basis of justice that it must operate based on fact, and much of the legal process within a court is to do with establishing the facts of the case.
The court has ruled that asylum seekers should not be required to identify the terms on which they claim asylum immediately, nor be asked about their sexual practice. It seems that we are to be required to adopt an approach that simply takes asylum seekers claims at face value. Will the European Court insist that this method will be rolled out to other, domestic, cases? Will a suspected murderer simply be asked, “Did you murder the victim?”, and when he replies, “No, it wasn’t me, Guv”, his word will now be taken as the only evidence allowed to be presented? It would certainly make court cases shorter and reduce the prison population!
Surely the questions being asked of asylum seekers should be those which will allow a proper judgement to be made as to their character? Are they truly seeking asylum, or are they economic migrants? There is nothing wrong with wishing to be an economic migrant, but there is equally nothing wrong with a nation regulating which economic migrants are of value to the society they wish to join. There is great virtue in a nation offering asylum, but there is also wisdom in ensuring that they are those with a genuine claim.
One important question that should be asked, whether or not it infringes on various pseudo-rights as determined by the European Court of Justice, is “How did you reach the UK?”. An asylum seeker, if genuinely fleeing persecution and the threat of violence, will be willing to take refuge in the nearest and closest safe haven. Someone who has crossed continents to reach the UK, unless by air, may reasonably be doubted to be seeking asylum. And having reached the UK, if the claimant is not then to be required to answer fundamental questions about his claim what is proposed is not an asylum process, but simply another mechanism for mass immigration.
From my own experience, I know that Middle Eastern Christians and especially converts to Christianity from an Islamic background, are not treated with such kid gloves. The Home Office is ready and willing to send many back to certain death. It requires great effort to achieve a review and a reconsideration of such cases. But homosexuality, as one of the privileged minorities, trumps all sense of justice.
There is no justice if the facts of a case may not be established. There is no justice if a Christian may be sent back to face murder at the hands of jihadists, unless he declares himself a homosexual, in which case he will be granted asylum without question.