Support NeoGAF

[neorej]

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6...y-rights-groups-welcome-vote-refugee-shelters

Dutch gay rights groups on Wednesday welcomed a vote by lawmakers to give homosexual refugees separate shelters after several received death threats from fellow asylum seekers.
"This is a major breakthrough for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender asylum seekers who are in desperate need of help," said Tanja Ineke of the Amsterdam-based gay rights group COC.
"A safe space for these people will make a world of difference," she told AFP after parliamentarians narrowly voted in favour of the motion on Tuesday.
The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalise gay marriage back in 2001, but homophobia in the country's refugee centres remains rife.
There have been several reported cases of gay refugees being attacked and harassed, some sexually, while others have had their clothes set on fire and beds smeared with food and faeces.
Dutch centre-left daily De Volkskrant reported on Wednesday that a gay asylum-seeker at the large Heumensoord refugee centre near the German border received a note saying "camp not good, kill you gay."
The COC had warned that urgent action was needed to prevent serious injury or even death.
Dutch Deputy Justice Minister Klaas Dijkhoff -- whose ruling VVD party voted against the proposal -- has been asked to make a decision on the issue within the next two weeks.
VVD parliamentary leader Halbe Zijlstra told the Volkskrant the motion sent the wrong signal by addressing only victims.
"Instead, we have to do something about the perpetrators," Zijlstra said.
Germany last month opened a shelter for gay refugees in Berlin capable of housing more than 120 people.

While I agree that separating LGBT refugees from the general populace to protect them is a good move on short term, it's not addressing the underlying problem. Refugees who hold strong beliefs regarding sexuality and violently express their discontent to anyone who doesn't fit into that view will hold those views when they transitition from refugee to citizen.

 

[UrbanRats]

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6...y-rights-groups-welcome-vote-refugee-shelters



While I agree that separating LGBT refugees from the general populace to protect them is a good move on short term, it's not addressing the underlying problem. Refugees who hold strong beliefs regarding sexuality and violently express their discontent to anyone who doesn't fit into that view will hold those views when they transitition from refugee to citizen.

Well isn't the idea of a shelter, inherently temporary?
I agree in principle with the idea of dealing with the perpetrators, instead of the victims, but in practical terms, this seems the easier, safest short term, quick solution to implement.

 

[Rembrandt]

Well isn't the idea of a shelter, inherently temporary?

I think OP is implying once they become citizens, there's a good chance they'll be living in somewhat close proximity together causing issues or they would just generally be bigoted assholes to Dutch citizens.

Didn't Germany(?) do the same?


I also remember that thread leading to people saying they shouldn't be allowed citizenship which is ridiculous, imo.

 

[Rubbish King]

Maybe find the refugees that hate and want to harm LGBT people and send them back to their country so they can enjoy their religious beliefs and bigotries.

 

[UrbanRats]

I think OP is implying once they become citizens, there's a good chance they'll be living in somewhat close proximity together causing issues or they would just generally be bigoted assholes to Dutch citizens.

Well you're not gonna dispel bigotry from one day to the other, so long term solutions are gonna take a long ass time to show some result (education, sensibilization, etc) but in the mean time you have got to protect people getting assaulted in shelters right now, and again, this isn't ideal, but it seems fairly logical approach, at least as a band aid emergency solution

 

[hydrophilic attack]

While I agree that separating LGBT refugees from the general populace to protect them is a good move on short term, it's not addressing the underlying problem. Refugees who hold strong beliefs regarding sexuality and violently express their discontent to anyone who doesn't fit into that view will hold those views when they transitition from refugee to citizen.

Not necessarily. You can do a lot through education. My sister is a teacher in a school with a lot of immigrant students. She's doing a lot to try to instill more liberal values in her students, and says that it seems to slowly be working.

 

[neorej]

Well isn't the idea of a shelter, inherently temporary?
I agree in principle with the idea of dealing with the perpetrators, instead of the victims, but in practical terms, this seems the easier, safest short term, quick solution to implement.

Once they become citizens, they will still be violent against members of the LGBT community, so you're not solving anything, you're just delaying the problem, moving it from the shelters to the cities and towns where they will live. There's a very real chance they will encounter homosexual people in their daily lifes.
The only thing you're solving, is making life easier for both the victims and the perpetrators on the short term. In the long term, you're only making shit worse. IMHO we need to identify the homophobes and re-educate them on morals, beliefs, freedom and respect towards those who do not share your beliefs.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

That is the PROPOSAL witch is very bad btw (in my option).
Its not law or done deal yet.

 

[besada]

Maybe find the refugees that hate and want to harm LGBT people and send them back to their country so they can enjoy their religious beliefs and bigotries.

Returning refugees to the country they are fleeing from is against the law if their lives are likely to be in danger. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, although I think the EU rules on it may be even stricter.

You are allowed to sling their ass into a prison, though. Cultural training and orientation is probably a better first step.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'm confused, is providing extra safety and protection for LGTB refugees somehow mutually exclusive from providing education and moral training for those with strong views against it?


I don't see exactly why this is such a bad idea.

 

[UrbanRats]

Once they become citizens, they will still be violent against members of the LGBT community, so you're not solving anything, you're just delaying the problem, moving it from the shelters to the cities and towns where they will live. There's a very real chance they will encounter homosexual people in their daily lifes.
The only thing you're solving, is making life easier for both the victims and the perpetrators on the short term. In the long term, you're only making shit worse. IMHO we need to identify the homophobes and re-educate them on morals, beliefs, freedom and respect towards those who do not share your beliefs.

First of all, short and long term solutions aren't mutually exclusive.
Second, there is no good reason to keep people into harm's way, unless you have an absurd idea of using them as bait to catch perpetrators.
Lastly, I'm all for educating and all that, but it's not exactly a set of beliefs you can change in a quick sitting, or a sensibility training session.
Someone who will become violent for something like this, is gonna take a lot of work to convince.

And again, in the mean time, there is no reason to not get victims and potential victims to safety.

 

[Aiii]

Returning refugees to the country they are fleeing from is against the law if their lives are likely to be in danger. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, although I think the EU rules on it may be even stricter.

You are allowed to sling their ass into a prison, though. Cultural training and orientation is probably a better first step.

All that is way down the line. People thinking that people who find themselves under constant stress (as, no doubt, refugees in shelters are) are going to be very receptive to someone coming in trying to educate them are fooling themselves.

This is the right move, because all that matters here is that the LGBT refugees have a safe place to stay and hopefully they can quickly be integrated into society. The Netherlands has a long way to go, but as far as LGBT acceptance goes, we're at the forefront. So the sooner they're out of shelters and into normal society, the better. But no reason to keep them in regular shelters in idle hope that you can suddenly change the culture and upbringing of the other refugees.

Once you start integrating the refugees that get granted asylum is when you need to start working on cultural adaptation and acceptance, anything before that seems like wasted effort to me.

 

[Monocle]

Maybe find the refugees that hate and want to harm LGBT people and send them back to their country so they can enjoy their religious beliefs and bigotries.

Exactly my thought. Anyone caught persecuting other asylum seekers ought to be shipped back where they came from. Good luck, jerks.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

unless you have an absurd idea of using them as bait to catch perpetrators.

I didn't want to outright say it, but that seems to be the underlying implication.

Intentional or not that idea makes me so fucking uncomfortable.

 

[Replicant]

Maybe find the refugees that hate and want to harm LGBT people and send them back to their country so they can enjoy their religious beliefs and bigotries.

I don't have problem with this. It's close to impossible to convince people whose religion have told them that it's okay to bash people or set them on fire because of their sexuality.

If they can't reconcile their belief with the way of life the country they are applying for citizenship for, then they should go somewhere. I didn't migrate to another country to avoid LGBT prosecution from dipshits like these only to have to deal with BS like this again.

 

[orochi91]

Returning refugees to the country they are fleeing from is against the law if their lives are likely to be in danger. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, although I think the EU rules on it may be even stricter.

You are allowed to sling their ass into a prison, though. Cultural training and orientation is probably a better first step.

Though it may take a while, this is definitely the correct approach to the issue at hand.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Returning refugees to the country they are fleeing from is against the law if their lives are likely to be in danger. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, although I think the EU rules on it may be even stricter.

You are allowed to sling their ass into a prison, though. Cultural training and orientation is probably a better first step.

It is incredibly sad that we need "cultural training" for not beating up people different from yourself. I have little faith that will work, since we still have trouble with these anti-gay views and such from people who have been here for some time already or are second or third generation immigrants.

 

[BocoDragon]

While I agree that separating LGBT refugees from the general populace to protect them is a good move on short term, it's not addressing the underlying problem. Refugees who hold strong beliefs regarding sexuality and violently express their discontent to anyone who doesn't fit into that view will hold those views when they transitition from refugee to citizen.

I'm reminded of that argument where women are told to keep safe, and the rebuttal is "I shouldn't have to keep safe... you should raise men not to rape!"

It's like yeah, I agree. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or rather the prudent).

Ain't gonna take in an influx of refugees from the middle east without importing people with homophobic views... and you can't change them overnight. In the meantime, let's protect the LGBT peoples....

 

[neorej]

First of all, short and long term solutions aren't mutually exclusive.
Second, there is no good reason to keep people into harm's way, unless you have an absurd idea of using them as bait to catch perpetrators.
Lastly, I'm all for educating and all that, but it's not exactly a set of beliefs you can change in a quick sitting, or a sensibility training session.
Someone who will become violent for something like this, is gonna take a lot of work to convince.

And again, in the mean time, there is no reason to not get victims and potential victims to safety.

I never said the short term solution should not be implemented. By all means, get those people to safety ASAP, they've endured war, and god knows what kind of travel to get here, they deserve to live in peace and not be afraid of getting beaten or stabbed while in a refugee center.

What I'm missing in the current debate, not only in The Netherlands, but in the whole of Europe, is that there's a great deal of people coming in who do not share our views regarding sexuality (or how society should operate as a whole). That underlying problem is not being addressed, at all. Politicians are acting like if we put the LGBT refugees in camp A and the homophobes in camp B, everything is dandy and problem solved.

 

[Monocle]

Though it may take a while, this is definitely the correct approach to the issue at hand.

Seems like a pretty serious burden for the host country to take on. There's no easy solution here. You can't send people to their deaths, even if they are bigots, but at the same time, they shouldn't be welcomed with unqualified hospitality when they're committing hate crimes or otherwise making other migrants' lives more difficult for no fucking reason but their own small mindedness.

 

[UrbanRats]

I'm reminded of that argument where women are told to keep safe, and the rebuttal is "I shouldn't have to keep safe... you should raise men not to rape!"

That's even different, because this we're talking about here, is a very specific context.
Sexual assault in society at large is a more complicated issue to apply band aid solutions to, exactly because it's not a temporary accommodation, like being in a shelter is.

 

[BocoDragon]

That's even different, because this we're talking about here, is a very specific context.
Sexual assault in society at large is a more complicated issue to apply band aid solutions to, exactly because it's not a temporary accommodation, like being in a shelter is.

Sure, I agree.

But in both cases, taking safety measures doesn't necessarily mean ignoring the underlying cause. It's just prudence for the here and now.

 

[YourMaster]

It's not just gay people, the motion that has been approved by parliament also includes sheltering Christians separate from the 'main group'.

I think there's no right way to handle this though, in principle I'm against bending towards bigots, but over the last few months it has become very clear that we are unable to protect the non-straight-moslims from getting assaulted otherwise.

And it's not as simple as just catching the perpetrators, as the large majority of people from the region have an intense negative viewpoint towards Jews, Gays and Christians (in that order). I have no idea which percentage of the people act upon those believes, but for the people locked up with them it's not nice to be hated by people around you even if you're not assaulted.

Returning refugees to the country they are fleeing from is against the law if their lives are likely to be in danger. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, although I think the EU rules on it may be even stricter.

People need to stop using laws as arguments. When a course of action is right/wrong, and a law, constitution or international agreement prevents/mandates it that law must be changed.
Immoral and Illegal are not the same thing, and we should never let the status quo stand in the way of progress.

 

[UrbanRats]

What I'm missing in the current debate, not only in The Netherlands, but in the whole of Europe, is that there's a great deal of people coming in who do not share our views regarding sexuality (or how society should operate as a whole). That underlying problem is not being addressed, at all. Politicians are acting like if we put the LGBT refugees in camp A and the homophobes in camp B, everything is dandy and problem solved.

Well sure that's a whole other can of worms.
But you don't even have to take into consideration people "coming in", to highlight the disparity about LGBT rights and treatment in Europe.
We've just gone through the whole gay adoption/surrogacy debate over here in Italy, recently, and the inane shit you heard coming off (most)politicians, some even from the left, would've got you banned on GAF to say the least.
So yeah, it's not gonna be solved any time soon, when even EU countries show great disparity on the subject.

But in that context, sure, i totally agree that things should be done.

 

[MrBigBoy]

Returning refugees to the country they are fleeing from is against the law if their lives are likely to be in danger. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, although I think the EU rules on it may be even stricter.

Belgium had already send a good amount of people back to their home country. Although I don't know if those people came from dangerous countries.

 

[orochi91]

Seems like a pretty serious burden for the host country to take on. There's no easy solution here. You can't send people to their deaths, even if they are bigots, but at the same time, they shouldn't be welcomed with unqualified hospitality when they're committing hate crimes or otherwise making other migrants' lives more difficult for no fucking reason but their own small mindedness.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. As you've noted, there isn't an easy solution to this, so I sincerely sympathize with the host nations.

Lock up the perpetrators and have them marked for immediate deportation when it's appropriate to do so; have all migrants take mandatory programs in order to educate them or at least make them aware of necessary social conducts native to the host nation.

People need to stop using laws as arguments. When a course of action is right/wrong, and a law, constitution or international agreement prevents/mandates it that law must be changed.

Lol, that's not how international laws work.

They exist for a reason, and not just to be amended or circumvented to suit your whims.

 

[Weckum]

I never said the short term solution should not be implemented. By all means, get those people to safety ASAP, they've endured war, and god knows what kind of travel to get here, they deserve to live in peace and not be afraid of getting beaten or stabbed while in a refugee center.

What I'm missing in the current debate, not only in The Netherlands, but in the whole of Europe, is that there's a great deal of people coming in who do not share our views regarding sexuality (or how society should operate as a whole). That underlying problem is not being addressed, at all. Politicians are acting like if we put the LGBT refugees in camp A and the homophobes in camp B, everything is dandy and problem solved.

It is being addressed, but views on sexuality are not changed in months. It's not even common for western people to accept homosexuality and we've been working on it for decades. PDA by straight people is fine most of the time for most people, but not for gay people. It is usually considered rude and/or gross when they do it.

It'll take years if not decades to have them accept western views on homosexuality.

 

[YoungFa]

Put one gayhating refugee also in this camp, so he can overcome his hate.

 

[zorlaczerohero]

While I agree that separating LGBT refugees from the general populace to protect them is a good move on short term, it's not addressing the underlying problem. Refugees who hold strong beliefs regarding sexuality and violently express their discontent to anyone who doesn't fit into that view will hold those views when they transition from refugee to citizen.

You already said what I came to say. I'm happy the LGBT refugees can at last feel a little safer, but without handling those causing the issue it will just be a problem further down the line.

 

[Faustek]

Returning refugees to the country they are fleeing from is against the law if their lives are likely to be in danger. It's part of the Geneva Conventions, although I think the EU rules on it may be even stricter.

You aren't wrong but you are wrong

Dangerous area of said country would be more apt to say as this is an interpretation of the law and certain countries interpretation of the convention differs greatly.

 

[Nivash]

People need to stop using laws as arguments. When a course of action is right/wrong, and a law, constitution or international agreement prevents/mandates it that law must be changed.
Immoral and Illegal are not the same thing, and we should never let the status quo stand in the way of progress.

The right to asylum is a human right and human rights are inalienable. Good luck ignoring that and then going on to pretend to be be a legitimate state. I mean we're not talking about some simple policy or national law here that you can change with a vote in the parliament, this is pretty heavy, fundamental stuff.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4ab388876.html

 

[BocoDragon]

It is being addressed, but views on sexuality are not changed in months. It's not even common for western people to accept homosexuality and we've been working on it for decades. PDA by straight people is fine most of the time for most people, but not for gay people. It is usually considered rude and/or gross when they do it.

It'll take years if not decades to have them accept western views on homosexuality.

RE: views on LGBT people

 

[YourMaster]

Lol, that's not how international laws work.

They exist for a reason, and not just to be amended or circumvented to suit your whims.

Yes they are. Countries are free to ignore international laws, especially powerful countries, and changing treaties when they don't work is vital.

For example the official EU policy was that all asylumseekers were to be sent back to the country they entered the EU, which didn't work so they made a new policy where they were to be spread out equally across the EU and be relocated. That also clearly isn't working, so again a new policy needs to be made.

The will of the people, their democratic voice, is not a 'whim', but something to be respected. All laws, treaties and articles of constitutions have reasons, but we're never going to be 'done' and improvements will always be needed.

The right to asylum is a human right and human rights are inalienable. Good luck ignoring that and then going on to pretend to be be a legitimate state. I mean we're not talking about some simple policy or national law here that you can change with a vote in the parliament, this is pretty heavy, fundamental stuff.

I agree it is good that there are laws to enable asylum. But when we're discussing on a message board the problems surround it, it is useful to give practical or moral arguments for a viewpoint, on how to improve the lives of all involved. Just stating that something is 'illegal' is pointless.
And there are close to 200 legimate states, and they almost all have different ways of handling asylum seekers and laws surrounding that. And all sorts of international agreements are ignored everyday, sometimes for the best, sometimes quite the opposite. Argue what is best, what's right, not what's legal.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It is being addressed, but views on sexuality are not changed in months. It's not even common for western people to accept homosexuality and we've been working on it for decades. PDA by straight people is fine most of the time for most people, but not for gay people. It is usually considered rude and/or gross when they do it.

It'll take years if not decades to have them accept western views on homosexuality.

Too bad that we then force the LGTB community to again fight for their rights and to be accepted by people for the next decades.

I'd say: if you are not ready to adapt to a society that is receiving you in your time of need, then maybe you do not deserve that help and we have the right to remove you as soon as is possible.

 

[Nivash]

Yes they are. Countries are free to ignore international laws, especially powerful countries, and changing treaties when they don't work is vital.

For example the official EU policy was that all asylumseekers were to be sent back to the country they entered the EU, which didn't work so they made a new policy where they were to be spread out equally across the EU and be relocated. That also clearly isn't working, so again a new policy needs to be made.

The will of the people, their democratic voice, is not a 'whim', but something to be respected. All laws, treaties and articles of constitutions have reasons, but we're never going to be 'done' and improvements will always be needed.

All those examples still respected the right to asylum because the refugees still had their claims processed in safety, even if it wasn't in the exact country they applied in. However, you can only deny a claim if you find that the person is not actually fleeing persecution and therefore isn't a refugee.

You can't just deny the claim based on an unrelated crime, you can be both a criminal and a refugee with a right to asylum. If you don't respect that you're committing a direct human rights violation.

I agree it is good that there are laws to enable asylum. But when we're discussing on a message board the problems surround it, it is useful to give practical or moral arguments for a viewpoint, on how to improve the lives of all involved. Just stating that something is 'illegal' is pointless.
And there are close to 200 legimate states, and they almost all have different ways of handling asylum seekers and laws surrounding that. And all sorts of international agreements are ignored everyday, sometimes for the best, sometimes quite the opposite. Argue what is best, what's right, not what's legal

I can guarantee you that not one of those legitimate states have refugee policies that directly violate the right to asylum. States that do aren't legitimate.

As for the moral argument, I argue that human rights are inherently moral and should be the foundation for any discussion on ethics and morality.

 

[YourMaster]

All those examples still respected the right to asylum because the refugees still had their claims processed in safety, even if it wasn't in the exact country they applied in. However, you can only deny a claim if you find that the person is not actually fleeing persecution and therefore isn't a refugee.

You can't just deny the claim based on an unrelated crime, you can be both a criminal and a refugee with a right to asylum. If you don't respect that you're committing a direct human rights violation.

I can guarantee you that not one of those legitimate states have refugee policies that directly violate the right to asylum. States that do aren't legitimate.

As for the moral argument, I argue that human rights are inherently moral and should be the foundation for any discussion on ethics and morality.

'No true Scotsman'.
But again, countries can do whatever they want, there's no international police. I maintain the argument 'You should never send back a person that's going to be killed when he arrives' is a very valid argument, even if you disagree. Saying 'It's against international law' is a very pointless argument, because it provided no value judgement and a counter argument would always be 'so change the laws'. Your next argument would then be 'but these laws are moral and just because you should not send back a person that's going to be killed when he arrives so they shouldn't be changed' to be a valuable argument again, and you'll notice you could have better skipped the redundant step of making a legal argument first.

I for example don't think wales should be killed, and don't like the policies of Norway and Japan, but have no interest in whether what they do violates the treaties they signed or not, they should stop it either way.

Edit: Feel free to respond again, but I'm stopping this line of argument after this post because I noticed I've moved the topic away from how to protect gay people from getting beat up, so I've went off topic too far.

Edit2:

Are you seriously arguing we should all ignore the Geneva Convention cause it is the actually moral thing to do?

That sure is ballsy.

No, I'm arguing things are right or wrong irrespective of what the Geneva Convention says. I'm not arguing of acting at odds with the convention at all, I'm saying that using laws/conventions as arguments on a discussion board are pointless arguments that do not help the discussion forward at all. If somebody is arguing a point that is against a law, stating that it is against the law will only be followed up by an argument that the law should change. The original point should be countered by an argument against why it is wrong/impractical/immoral whatever.

 

[Aztechnology]

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6...y-rights-groups-welcome-vote-refugee-shelters



While I agree that separating LGBT refugees from the general populace to protect them is a good move on short term, it's not addressing the underlying problem. Refugees who hold strong beliefs regarding sexuality and violently express their discontent to anyone who doesn't fit into that view will hold those views when they transitition from refugee to citizen.

As long as religion plays a large role in a culture this will always be an issue. We are talking multiple generations before you see serious view shifts in the migrant populations. I think this is a really good idea for their safety and mental health.

 

[ElFly]

People need to stop using laws as arguments. When a course of action is right/wrong, and a law, constitution or international agreement prevents/mandates it that law must be changed.
Immoral and Illegal are not the same thing, and we should never let the status quo stand in the way of progress.

Are you seriously arguing we should all ignore the Geneva Convention cause it is the actually moral thing to do?

That sure is ballsy.

No, I'm arguing things are right or wrong irrespective of what the Geneva Convention says. I'm not arguing of acting at odds with the convention at all, I'm saying that using laws/conventions as arguments on a discussion board are pointless arguments that do not help the discussion forward at all. If somebody is arguing a point that is against a law, stating that it is against the law will only be followed up by an argument that the law should change. The original point should be countered by an argument against why it is wrong/impractical/immoral whatever.

Normally this would be a decent argument, except for the part where the Geneva convention is widely agreed to be morally right. You are basically arguing against human rights, so you need a better argument than "just because it is law doesn't mean it is moral".

You are not gonna convince anyone that fucking human rights should change, particularly for reducing them, with that very basic argument.