quote:

---

Marcia Forrester, a lesbian from Jamaica who came to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1992, lost her bid to stay in the United States despite evidence that she would be tortured if sent back to the island nation.

U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr. agreed with a previous Board of Immigration Appeals decision. Forrester was convicted in 2003 for transporting small amounts of cocaine she was paid $10 to deliver. With Ashcroft's Department of Justice this constituted an "aggravated felony" and a "particularly serious crime" posing grave harm to the American people. Prior to her arrival in the U.S. she had been stoned by an angry crowd after she was found having sex with another woman.

---

From queerday.com Link to primary source here.

I can just hear some "Red Staters" saying, "But what's cruel and unusual about stoning?"

The US is set to ban homosexuality so why let one into the US who may 'contaminate' good Christian Americans? Clearly the priority over a silly little stoning.

And yes, Skdadl, gay sex is not a good thing to be caught doing in Jamaica. I do know an awful lot of beatings and harm come to those who are gay or lesbian. I would hope Canada would protect someone, regardless of the minor (IMO) drug charge.

In '98 homosexuality was illegal in Jamaica:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobolink:
It's hard to be sympathetic to Marcia Forrester who gained legal admittance to the United States and then decided to be a criminal.

---

IIRC, this shouldn't matter. For asylum cases (not regular immigration) only war crimes can exempt someone from refoulment. I'll take a look later on at the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees later to make sure, though. If I'm wrong that about this point of international law, though, I would still argue from an ethical standpoint that criminality short of war crimes is not a reason to deny someone asylum when they risk persecution or death in their country of origin.

As to whether she'd make it Canada, I've heard some stories about asylum seekers have to prove they are "gay enough", i.e. that they couldn't just "blend into" a homophobic society. I'd have to check that too. I thought there was a Babble thread awhile ago about a Mexican police officer who was denied asylum in Canada because he wasn't deemed to be "sufficiently gay in appearance" or something like that. I couldn't find it though.

Edit: found a link for the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees:

quote:

---

F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

( a ) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

( b ) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

( c ) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

---

So *maybe* Ms. Forrester could be legally (although, in my personal opinion not ethically) excluded because of 'b'. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the words "serious non-political crime". I wouldn't considered anything not involving physical violence to be serious, although the US gov't likely does not share by assessment.

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: dokidoki ]

[ 19 February 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]