However, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained a court judgement which considers Miss Namigadde's case and concludes that she is not, in fact, a lesbian.Whoops!
The ruling, released following a legal application to the Court of Appeal, discloses that she was unable to remember the surname, age, employer or other details of a woman called Janet with whom she claimed she had a six-year relationship in Uganda.
Nor could she describe a lesbian bar in London that she claimed she visited regularly.
The publication of the facts of Miss Namigadde's case will put a question mark over a campaign by her supporters which gathered more than 60,000 signatures to protest against he deportation, attracting backing from Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, and comments from Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary.Oh, no it won’t.
The ‘Open Borders’ advocates will simply change tack with breathtaking ease:
David Cairns, a Labour MP who signed the Commons motion, said after being told of the conclusions in Miss Namigadde's case: "If she is deliberately lying in order to stay here that is a very serious issue and she should not be granted asylum on that basis.There you are.
"However, the fact remains that she is clearly in danger if she is deported. She has got herself into the situation, genuinely or otherwise, where she will be marked down as a lesbian in the eyes of many oppressors."
‘She lied, we admit that, but now her lies make it ‘unsafe’ to send her back!’
It’s not about providing shelter for those fleeing oppression at all, is it? It’s about advancing the ‘Open Borders’ agenda by any means necessary. So why not just admit that?
Or is it because you are well aware you won’t even get 25 MPs to sign up to that?
Lose deportation battle to homophobic country, file in appeal, claim to be a lesbian, wait for people to claim you are not a lesbian, then wait for people to say your lies would have you killed.
ReplyDeleteEither this woman is unbelievably stupid, or she's worked the system to utter perfection and is a modern day genius.
Which one it is, I can't work out.
Well, I agree with this up to a point.
ReplyDeleteA large majority of people game the system. I myself have spoken to people whose relatives arrived in Europe having flushed their passports down the aircraft toilets and claimed asylum - spuriously - the moment they arrived here. Most "asylum seekers" are nothing of the sort.
But that's not an argument against "open borders" per se, at least not in the sense of allowing more immigrants into the country. We can agree or disagree on how many and how, but if you make it more difficult for people to enter legally, some of them will enter illegally, or under false pretences.
That doesn't make more generous quotas for legal immigration wrong.
The point here is not that there are people gaming the system; I expect that will always be the case. But what is fun is once again to see lefties back-pedalling when, once more, they demonstrate they have been so easily duped.
ReplyDeleteIs it a key factor in being left-wing that you are unable to ask the simple question: is this correct?
Or to be a 'socialist' do you just take everything at face value and then desperately invent reasons to justify your view when you find out things aren't what they appeared to be?
"Either this woman is unbelievably stupid, or she's worked the system to utter perfection and is a modern day genius."
ReplyDeleteI suspect she had a lot of help in concocting it from i8mmigration lawyers and the sort of support groups that flock to this cause.
Pity they forgot about the first rule of a cover identity: practice, practice, practice...
"That doesn't make more generous quotas for legal immigration wrong."
But the 'Open Borders' advocates don't want more generous quotas. They want no restrictions at all, whatever they may say to the contrary.
And they will use any means they can to advance that concept.
"But what is fun is once again to see lefties back-pedalling when, once more, they demonstrate they have been so easily duped."
Indeed! :)