General News The Syrian/North African migrant crisis - gay perspective

You raise some important questions about the impact on existing communities, including the LGBT community and I don't think there are any straightforward answers.

Much will depend on how the refugees are received and settled into the host countries and what efforts are made to integrate them into society. Will the host countries offer permanent resettlement, thus incentivising integration, or will it be made clear that we are only offering temporary refuge? A temporary solution may satisfy the hosts and public opinion, but it will not offer long term hope or encouragement to the refugees.

I am concerned that some refugees/asylum seekers have a very false impression about Europe, seeing it as a continent of hospitality, safety and opportunity, when the reverse is true. Sure, it may be preferable to remaining in Syria or North Africa, but it will really stretch some European nations to accommodate and provide for many thousands of people and carry public opinion all the way.

For me, the bigger question is how do we ensure these people are not the victimis of abuse or racism in Europe?

 

LiveLeak.com - Immigrants throw away the food and the water what they get
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbTSdUdQeLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZG3eKi4C0k
There's a line that needs to be drawn when it comes to tolerance, or so I think. What kind of a refugee, that has suffered from the horrors of war, would throw away food and water? Sometimes they throw it just because it belongs to the Red Cross.
I'm highly sceptical about this whole situation.

 

I think it's also important to remember that people escaping the nastiness of the societies they leave are often the most enthusiastic about the culture of their adoptive country.

I think you are quite accurate in saying this:

When LGBT people in the West seem friendly, respectful and every bit as human as heterosexual and cisgender people, it's much harder to reject us out of hand for any newcomers. When we demonstrate prejudicial mistrust, it engenders alienation. Unlike home-grown hatred from far-right Christians, for example, newly arrived migrants need to be given the chance to accustom before we become (rightfully) hostile about any homophobia. There's no way we can give a free pass, but I think it'd be counterproductive to assume them all to be irreconcilably homophobic.

 

I have to admit that the refugee crisis seems like a million miles away - it's kind of hard to believe that this is happening on the same continent when we are so far removed from what is happening, comparatively speaking. Sometimes it feels like 'Fortress Britain' is a real thing.

The UK's response has been completely dreadful, and I don't have any faith in David Cameron to do anything right, so I can't imagine him handling this particularly well - and he hasn't so far at all.

As for any rise in homophobia - you can make the same argument about immigration in general, with significant influxes from India and eastern Europe, but it doesn't appear to have had any impact - not nationally at least. It doesn't worry me - I think such a large intake of refugees in such a short time period will cause some short-term problems, but much like the Jewish refugees who came here to escape persecution in WW2, as generations pass, they integrate and become 'one of us', so to speak

 

If you've never been into development work then you are in no position to conclude that the host government is at fault for a failure of integration and assimilation as it works both ways. Each European nation has different integration models and in the UK where multiculturalism is practised, certain liberties are given to ethnic minorities. However despite this freedom, some minorities want to slowly change their host country's own national identity, tradition and views. Religion is one major contributor to conflict. In this case we have Islam. The religion which has stayed conservative cannot exist with western liberalism. If these people cannot understand that they are in a country that has liberal views and they cannot be open to them, they are making the barriers themselves. This hampers dialogue and they become detached and segregated from the majority. They will feel oppressed.

As a member of the LGBT community I'd really like to help those who are being persecuted because of their sexuality but the influx of people makes it very difficult to assess who's being honest about coming to Europe for a better life. It's rather naive to conclude that everyone is just dying to get into Europe because it's safe. I won't be surprised that there might be more economic migrants than actual asylum seekers.

For once, I actually agree with Cameron on this. Bringing in refugees is not the solution.

 

What alternatives do you propose? I can't think of any short-term solution to this problem. We can sit and talk about the root cause of this crisis in the first place, but that's a long-term problem, and we can't fix it overnight.

For the time being, we have millions of individuals desperately fleeing a war zone, and the solution isn't to ignore them and pretend they don't exist - and public opinion is now demanding that he do more. He backed himself into a corner on this one - and when even the Daily Mail and The Sun are calling for more action, you know you're fighting a losing battle.

You can't tell the difference between refugees and economic migrants, but I don't think preventing genuine refugees from coming here just because there might be economic migrants amongst them is fair.

 

There are other means of helping. The UK has already given billions of pounds to support the refugee camps. That is one short term solution. But that should not be the focus, while temporary shelter must be given, the main goal should be the stabilisation of the region where they come from. This may be costly but it is inevitable.

You cannot allow the whole population of those countries to reside in Europe and I think you are very well aware of that. Sooner or later, something has to be done about the situation in Syria. You can't just let huge populations walk out of the country like that.

About fairness, it really doesn't exist in this situation. There will be opportunists and there will be those who will take advantage of the situation. I might come off as cynical but things aren't that stable and the thing is, the situation is like a weighing scale. If you let them in, more will come. Government resources would need to be allocated for these new arrivals. Where will the government get their money to sustain these refugees? Temporary shelter, food, basic amenities? Probably from tax. Who pays taxes? The people. This tips the scale and makes it unsustainable. This is a long shot but think of the long term effects and weigh the pros and cons. It's admirable to be able to help these people and it is in everyone's heart to wish these people a better life and future but to gamble the condition of the state is asking for too much.

This situation is no different than Britain's homeless and those on benefits. Foodbanks are popping up like mushrooms around the country and I've heard a few peoole giving nasty comments about the people who are dependent on Foodbanks and on benefits but do they know the stories behind them? Not everyone is a druggie or a useless bum. Some were made redundant because business was bad. Some got sick and are unable to go back to work because of certain conditions. It isn't fair but that is how it is.

 

Absolutely - but what's the timescale of such an endeavour? The refugee crisis is immediate and won't wait for any solution to conflict in the Middle East - bearing in mind that much of the instability that we see today is partly the result of our meddling in their affairs - so we at least have some obligation to do something.

I'm well aware - and I never suggested that. Nobody is suggesting that. The whole population of Syria doesn't need to seek refuge in Europe or anywhere else - though a significant number do.

This is what I don't understand. We are talking about human life - yet all you can do is assess them on an economic basis, and the only thing you seem to be concerned about is how much these refugees will cost you or the public purse - no consideration for their well-being. 100 children can be washed up on a beach in Greece and the only thing your ilk will ask is 'How much is all this costing us?'. Sickening behaviour. The UK is one of the wealthiest countries in the world - we absolutely have the financial capability and clout to help many more people than we currently do - we just prefer not to. It's like when we complain about immigration and overcrowding - we complain we lack hospitals, schools and houses, but we do nothing to alleviate this problem and pretend we can't afford to, even though we can.

There are about 3,232 towns and cities in the UK - if we took about 15,000 refugees a year, many more than we currently are, that would only amount to 4-5 refugees per town. Not exactly an inundation, and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Compare that to Lebanon where over 1/4 of the country is now made of up Syrian refugees.

Okay - but nobody is suggesting closing all foodbanks because a few people might use them when they don't actually need to do.

 

warning: this post is cynical.

You're treating them as migrants looking to take away your job and quality of life, but they are actually refugees from war-torn countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. With the exception of Syria these countries were targets of massive military campaigns organized by the western powers, several of them still are. Let us all now enjoy the sprouts of radical islam and millions of refugees. I think we can all congratulate ourselves for the great work we've done!

From what I've read Germany is willing to accept 800k refugees, which is about one percent of its total population, but it's also pushing hard for new, EU-wide refugee policy that will have to be respected by all EU members. This has direct effect on the UK, as they will have to accept certain percentage of refugees regardless of what the parliament or the PM says. And this is what grinds their gears. Brits aren't used to doing what they're told to.

The gay perspective from this aspect is very simple. If the refugees get integrated into society, the chances are they will become just like the rest of the population. But, in order to do that you have to have effective integration policies and influx of people that won't overwhelm the country. So, we're back to better EU refugee policy.

p.s. yet another interesting new article http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-demands...-18695559?maca=en-rss_top_news-13961-xml-mrss

 

At the end of the day, for me, I'd say that living bigots can be reeducated. Dead allies are no good. Just because people have been misinformed by their government's highly homophobic policies it doesn't mean that they can't flee from a war. I mean, I might be misunderstanding Op's point, but eh. And I'm not even getting involved with the big argument in the middle, because why bother. <3

 

I don't know if they have plans for this as of the moment but it should be a concern that should be addressed with other nations. The UN should atleast try to do something other than set up camps because what they are trying to do is putting on plaster over a cut that won't stop bleeding.

This issue has to be taken economically too. There is no way that it couldn't affect us. I understand the importance of helping those who are in need but there is a difference in between merely letting them survive and giving them a good life. I think it's irrational to conclude that all I see is a price tag on a dead boy's body just because I think that it will cost us some money to help them. Quite contrary, I work with an organisation funded by the British government and am currently stationed abroad doing organising and development work for impoverished communities. That costs money too that's taken from tax and donations but you don't see me complain about that. However, the situation with refugees is different as it would not only affect us economically but also culturally and socio-politically.

These people will have to settle in the country and are we really prepared for that? It may sound ideal in the short term but the long term effects of permanent settlement should also be considered. For their community to be sustainable, jobs need to be created, social security services need to be spread across evenly. You yourself already admitted that our government lacks the initiative to spend for our own people. What makes you think that letting in refugees would magically persuade them to build schools, hospitals and houses? I've told you we already have enough problems at home that need to be addressed. Inviting people in would only create more problems. If it won't be money then there will be a problem somewhere else.

That is IF you can expect people to not move from one place to another. Policing their movements isn't really practical. But with that you're trying to suggest, you expect them to stay put and separate them. With strong evidence, these people tend to live in communities and form ghettos because they cannot seem to adapt quickly. It's a normal way of coping- wanting to clump up together. Many will also feel overwhelmed by the novelty of their new surroundings and their new home's own identity, culture and way of life. It's a comfort to be with those who experience the same things. It is up to the individual of course to try to adjust to their new life in the UK but that won't be easy.

What makes it difficult for them to settle in our country is the difference. We have western ideals and these people are Asians and Africans who have deeply routed traditions, beliefs and religions. I am not saying that they can't but it's all that they have left after leaving their homes.

I've met a lot of migrants in the UK who have settled and integrated well into our society but these people were not forced to come because they were being persecuted or were at risk, they chose to stay in the UK because they wanted to and they knew they had to adapt.

I support most of 741852963's answers though. He's better at explaining them.

 

Given that economic migrants are often coming from detestably poor or unstable conditions, yet are ineligible for refugee status, I'm not particularly concerned about whether migrants qualify as refugees or not.

On top of that, why should borders be shut to economic migrants anyway? The UK and almost all of the rest of Europe have declining birthrates, an ageing population and a steadily shrinking workforce. Economic migrants are, for the most part, a boon to nations such as yours. Without any economic reason to keep them out, I'm really unconvinced. With the presence of such a large humanitarian crisis, I think it's better to be too generous (if such a thing can exist given that migrants are generally positive contributors to economies) than too miserly and let that tightfistedness sink into cruelty.

---------- Post added 6th Sep 2015 at 12:15 PM ----------

Firstly, were a redistribution plan to be effectively worked out across the UK and the rest of Europe, people would largely comply. There is a lack of a clear plan and many people would simply be grateful for being accepted and would agree to resettlement plans far sooner than they would agree to large refugee camps. Though I don't think it necessarily should be a case of even division between localities.

Secondly, ghettoisation is a common fear and I don't think it's really that realistic if redistribution is sufficiently planned. On top of that, a "ghetto" to many white Britons or French simply means "a place where people speak Arabic on the streets", rather than being a genuine concern. Provide enough services and you get prosperous communities rather than insular ghettos, though I'm not going to pretend it's not a challenge to set into place the first steps of social integration without severing people from their cultures.

 

There are other migrants coming in to the UK that aren't necessarily refugees. We have some people coming from the Balkan states and other less prosperous nations within the EU.

What irks me is that these refugees are the ones who selectively pick which country they would like to go to. If their main concern was safety, wouldn't mainland Europe and the countries at the borders be enough for them? Migrants cross the sea to get to Greece, Italy and then they go on trains to Germany or Austria. Some of them trek their ways to Sweden and Norway and yet all countries in the EU offer asylum. Some countries take in more, some fewer. But really, if these migrants were so desperate they should settle for whatever. which is what you said below:

The refugees are at at the doors of Europe's largest countries. Careful planning of settlements and redistribution can't be done overnight. It's absurd and unrealistic for people to expect European leaders to come up with such a decisive plan that would generally affect the whole continent and change asylum policy.

I mean accepting them is fine, but what do we do with them? What will their legal status be? What will happen to the Dublin Regulation? Will we return them to their countries once conflict is over?

You seem to be forgetting that these people are different from the rest of us. Different belief systems, different social behaviours. Everything is different. You've already seen how people can react to different things and seriously, it's your being idealistic that blinds you from the truth. NOT EVERYONE IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THESE DIFFERENCES. We, as members of the LGBTQ, should know how the world can be so cruel with these things. That's why some cities have a "gay part of town" or a "gay community" that's flourishing and alive because it's a place where LGBTQ people feel safe. Like LGBTQ communities, these minorities will also cluster together. We don't know what happens in those clusters. People might become radicalised and become extremists. We don't know. LGBTQ groups fought for their rights in mostly peaceful means but what have those extremists done? They destroy without remorse.

We would want to avoid that but how do we do that? Germany doesn't have a plan. France doesn't and apparently, the UK doesn't seem to have that too.

The UK's stance on not allowing more refugees is changing because there is increasing pressure coming from the rest of Europe and I really do think that the country has to do something with regard to this issue as it is mostly humanitarian but there will be repercussions for each action and the uncertainty that it will bring to the country is what makes me apprehensive about the whole thing.

I guess for now, the good thing to do is try to help them but I really do hope they won't turn their backs on those who were generous enough to offer them a new home.

 

There's an obvious flaw in the idea that all EU countries offer asylum, but that asylum seekers should remain in the first country they go to. Are boats going to sail to Aarhus from Libya? Are Syrians going to walk through Russia until they reach Estonia? Why should Italy have a larger burden than Sweden?

Absent an effective redistribution plan, people choose what they believe will be best for them. That is not greedy or irrational; nobody wants to move to Albania when they could move to Austria. Your condemnation of them is simply not fair given that the only measures set by the EU so far make far too little provision for the number of people coming. Refugees choose what they feel they can because no effective offer has been made to them.

The idea of "country shopping" is a ridiculous criticism to make. By that measure, it's acceptable for a quarter of Lebanon's residents to be Syrian refugees living in squalor in ghetto-like conditions. It means that Italy should have a larger duty to accept refugees than Germany. It ignores the injustice of the global inequality and assumes that being born in a country means you deserve its good or bad economic conditions, rather than it being merely the lottery of birth. Above all, it's cruel on those fleeing poor conditions, unreasonable for the countries of entry and arrogant on the part of the Northern European nationals who subscribe to the belief.

They cannot be integrated if their residency is too conditional. An offer of permanent resettlement and eventual citizenship upon setting down new roots in a country would probably be better than an indefinite status below citizenship which they might never be able to leave should their home countries fail to be safe during their lifetimes.

The Dublin regulation makes paltry efforts to address the problem and it was inadequate even before this year's crisis. I don't really care about it when its crafting is both insufficient and unfair on Southern Europe.

I strongly object to your characterisation of those refugees and other migrants as extremists. We are not permitted to be cruel on the racist justification that they may be potentially hostile to us, on the assumption that they will be less moral than we are. On top of that, there is very little united "we" in any European country, anyway. Do not paint a picture of invading barbarians and ethical natives. Do not presume yourself and your culture to be more naturally prone to humanitarian urges than anyone else.

I am calling for such a plan to be made within and between Europe's nations. Barely more than 30,000 refugees by previous agreement are to be resettled in Northern Europe. It's undeniably inadequate for the sheer numbers making their way into Europe and causes much of the problem.

The repercussions of failing to make almost a million lives better is much more compelling to me than unspecified or explicitly xenophobic and nasty fears about what will happen to Europe if refugees are let in. The damage of the Hungarian government's disgusting racism is more concerning to me than resettling a few hundred thousand migrants.

 

Well when they treat a gay from their own country like crap beat him up and make him feel like hell ......how will they treat those who to them are all going to hell !?
I dunno how good they will be out there but i know that half of people here have nuts not brains in their heads
Im glad im going as a student who wants to live and learn not a war refuge then again i do feel bad for people from my own country not having the chance to travel safely like me . .....

 

Suppose they are all homophobes, does that mean that they deserve to die?! Even their children?! Aren't we all human beings 1st and everything else 2nd. Shouldn't the LGBT community know 1st hand what it's like to be prejudged?! If you r a homosexual fighting for your right to live, shouldn't u care about other wronged ppl's rights as well? Or should u only stand up for LGBTs and LGBT rights?

I honestly used to believe that the LGBT community is ammune to the "guilt by association" way of looking at others (at least that was the case for me, even though live in one of the most fundamentalst places in the world, being me taught me to never generalize and always keep an open mind), only now I see that I was wrong. I used to dream of one day leaving this place that has been my prison, but only now I can see that I may not be welcomed because I "might" hate a specific group of ppl.

Most those ppl came running for their lives, attacking gay ppl is the last thing on their minds, and I'm sure if u asked them, you'll see that most of them never even hit a gay person.

 

Everyone has done a pretty decent job of it so far, but I just want to remind y'all to keep it civil and to avoid personal attacks or fiery rhetoric, as the latter will most likely lead to the former.

This is a passionate issue on all sides but the rules of EC must be followed nonetheless.