11

In a move to alter an agreement that undermined UK plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, the home secretary will argue that the United Nations 1951 refugee convention must be reformed to tackle a worldwide migration crisis.

She will argue that case law arising from the convention has lowered the threshold so that asylum seekers need only prove that they face “discrimination” instead of a real risk of torture, death or violence. As case law has developed, she will say, there has been “an interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’”.

Speaking to the American Enterprise Institute, a rightwing thinktank in Washington DC, Braverman will say the change has expanded the number of those who may qualify for asylum to “unsustainable” levels, adding: “Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.”

“Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary. But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection,” she will say, in pre-briefed comments that have already drawn fire.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Let me ask you this: can you currently get into the UK on asylium simply by being a woman? Because Braverman is indicating that this would be the case.

[-] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 10 points 1 year ago

Clearly not that alone, no. She's being obtuse.. A woman from Afghanistan however may well legitimately want to get out of that country & I think we should be receptive to that.

[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

That's what I am saying. She is pretending like she is just wanting to make it so only women from areas where women are in danger will get considered, but that's already the case.

[-] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 8 points 1 year ago

Pretty on brand for her to lie. She's a member of the National Conservatives.. NatC for short. I'm sure they knew what they were doing when they picked that name.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

The UK is part of the ECHR. It is not a policy she can enforce. She will not be around for much longer. It is all pretty much irrelevant.

[-] DeathWearsANecktie@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

She's a reprehensible scumbag. I hope her plans crumble at every turn.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4048 readers
125 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS