Tweet
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/42682 •
Asylum seekers fleeing "poverty" and "persecution" (in Bangladesh) are now turned away from Australia if they are not homosexual enough. Public displays of sodomy are not regarded as sufficient evidence by the communistic, atheistic, fornicating, unmarried, female and Welsh Prime Minister or by the government more generally.
• I've left the url at the top of the page so that everyone can see it links to greenleft - a body that many might prefer not to link to. Here are some quotes from their coverage:
At least in Bangladesh people know how to treat homosexuals - but was it a mere publicity stunt? Why were the sewer "emercency exits" not blocked before the stoning? The Australian government says "YES" (i.e. it was a put up job: these men are not homosexual enough to be welcomed in modern Australia)
........so that's that. Not homosexuals? LOOK ELSEWHERE!
Apparently in Australia brothers sodomising one another doesn't count: NOT PERVERT ENOUGH
sorry boys, still not gay enough..
Hey, kiddo - think you're queer enough to get asylum here? 
THINK AGAIN!!
And so to cut a long story short, we cut to the ultimate finding of the Refugee Review Tribunal:
Asylum seekers fleeing "poverty" and "persecution" (in Bangladesh) are now turned away from Australia if they are not homosexual enough. Public displays of sodomy are not regarded as sufficient evidence by the communistic, atheistic, fornicating, unmarried, female and Welsh Prime Minister or by the government more generally.
• I've left the url at the top of the page so that everyone can see it links to greenleft - a body that many might prefer not to link to. Here are some quotes from their coverage:
The two men fled to Australia in 1999 after they were beaten, dragged out of their shared home, held up against a wall and pelted with stones. They escaped by crawling through a sewer.
..on their flight to Australia the couple ticked "married" on their visa papers. They had fallen in love four years before
..They ticked "married" because they considered themselves married to each other.
In 1999 the pair applied for permanent residency in Australia.
..They ticked "married" because they considered themselves married to each other.
In 1999 the pair applied for permanent residency in Australia.
—> but were they pervert enough for Australia??
The second RRT hearing then ruled the men weren't gay.
They based the decision on an anonymous phone caller who told the immigration department the couple "were brothers".
a third RRT hearing ruled they were second cousins
The couple..have become so desperate they sent a letter to the RRT saying they can prove their homosexuality by having sex in front of a witness who can confirm the act to the RRT. The RRT replied that one act of homosexuality does not prove one's homosexuality.
The the third RRT hearing also asked one of the men blunt questions about his sex life..
When he balked about discussing yhoevpngvba [de-noodle HERE] this was used as evidence that he was not truthful.
When he balked about discussing yhoevpngvba [de-noodle HERE] this was used as evidence that he was not truthful.
THINK AGAIN!!And so to cut a long story short, we cut to the ultimate finding of the Refugee Review Tribunal:
..blah ..blah ..ultimate finding that the appellants were not in a homosexual relationship."
which in this neck of the woods means:
GO AWAY. WE DON'T WANT YOU.
GO AWAY. WE DON'T WANT YOU.