This House believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum.

The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.

Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948[1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”[2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[3]  This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures[4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:

1)      The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person

2)      That this threat was persecutory in nature

What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.

We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda[5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato[6]. In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered[7].  It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.

The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.

[1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.

[3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. 

[4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

[5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.

[6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

[7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation.

1. Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be.
2. There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result[1]. The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others.

[1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.

This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world.

One of the most effective ways to engage the international community on swift action to protect certain rights is to make a clear, bold statement against a particular type of behaviour. By acting to not just condemn a certain behaviour, but actively circumvent states’ ability to carry out such a behaviour, the international community sends a message of the unacceptability of such practices.

Moreover, and more importantly, regardless of if the countries are persuaded into agreeing with the international community on the issues of LGBT rights, this action will still change state behaviour. This will happen for two reasons:

1. Fear of sanction and condemnation. Most countries in the world are heavily interdependent and specifically dependent on the West. Falling out of popularity with Western countries and their populations is a particularly risky situation for most countries.  An action such as this signals seriousness of the international community on the issue of sexual orientation equality and can be used as an influential tool to convince leaders to liberalize sexual orientation laws.
2. Loss of internal support. One of the biggest losses a leader can have in terms of democratic support and the avoidance of violent unrest is being seen as impotent and weak. When the international community effectively sets up a system of immunity to your country’s laws and is more powerful is protecting people and helping people avoid the laws of your country than you are in implementing them, you lose face and integrity in the eyes of your constituents. This can make leaders look weak and incapable of administering justice and fulfilling the needs of society. Furthermore, it makes leaders seem weak and subservient to the rest of the world, removing perceived legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy and support is a major consideration for state leaders. As such, a declaration of an asylum policy for sexual orientation can persuade leaders into changing their anti-homosexuality laws to avoid asylum being granted to people from their country to save face and continue to look strong and decisive as a leader and avoid the damage such a policy would do to their rhetoric of strong leadership.

The best example of this is that due to strong and vocal condemnation of the Bahati Bill in Uganda which would have imposed the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality, the Cabinet Committee rejected the bill[1].

Therefore, this policy is instrumental in changing state behaviour towards sexual orientation and making the first steps towards acceptance and ending discrimination.

[1] Muhumuza, Rodney. "Uganda: Cabinet Committee Rejects Bahati Bill." allAfrica.com 08 May 2010.

Western nations are not as powerful as they would like to think. Their “soft power” cannot propagate norms as effectively as they would like to think. The dominance of Western countries in institutions does not put them in a place of great influence, but rather puts them in a place to be accused of imperialism and exploitation. The West’s preaching to the rest of the world is not seen as constructive or admirable advice by the rest of the world, but rather is viewed as “moral arrogance” and cultural imperialism. It is highly unlikely that most places will change their laws because someone tells them that they do not agree with them, especially when those laws are rooted in a deeper moral or religious obligation.

Moreover, with the hypocritical nature of this particular policy due to countries like the USA not respected homosexual rights either, it is very easy to dismiss this policy as the West simply being hypocritical and telling the developing world to “do as I say, not as I do” and thus is easy to dismiss it as unimportant.

Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy.

One of the most powerful weapons in the international community’s arsenal is the soft power of condemnation. One of the most important things the international community can do is use its weight and influence to advocate protection of vulnerable peoples and promote moral and social causes. The West with its immense wealth and importance in international institutions such as the United Nations have a lot of power when it comes to influencing discriminatory policies in other nations. Granting asylum to people on the basis of sexual orientation sends a clear message to the international community that it is not okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the West not only strongly disapproves of this behaviour, but that, more importantly, they will take active steps to counter-act your discriminatory policies. This has immense impact on pressuring governments to change their policies.

What is important to note here is that there is a gradual normative consensus that is manufactured under this system. Through the use of soft power, the policies of nations are slowly but surely moderated and a global consensus is created. Not only can this policy influence current state behaviour, but that the influence and change that creates becomes part of a larger global move towards universal acceptance of the norm and the diffusion of that idea throughout all strata of society.

This is important in two ways:

1. Creating a discourse centred on a universal consensus against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore making discourse be dominated by agreement with this principle and thus creating a dialogue that creates an accepting atmosphere through disseminating the norm of acceptance throughout the international community and global society.
2. This is important is forging international legal protections for the rights of the LGBT community. International law arrives from a consensus of opinion around a particular issue and its need to be legislated on. Making sexual orientation grounds for asylum creates the framework that explicitly states that legislative international protection is necessary for these groups. This policy therefore begins that process in and of itself. However, more importantly, the reduction of opposition and trend of nations removing discriminatory laws against sexual orientation consolidates this statement of legislative need and furthers the cause for international protection.

Making sexual orientation a category for asylum not only saves lives, but also sends a strong and influential message that helps craft policy in nations who use discrimination as a tool of oppression against the LGBT community. This begins the foundations of global consensus on equality for all sexual orientations and a lasting solution to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

As explained in counterargument two, it is highly unlikely that countries will craft policy based on the preaching of the West.

Moreover, it becomes increasingly unlikely that countries will be receptive to discussions on liberalization of their policies on sexual orientation when the West outright condemns their views as immoral and abhorrent and takes active steps to stop them from enforcing what they see as their moral laws on their populations. 

The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.

Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948[1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”[2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[3]  This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures[4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:

1)      The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person

2)      That this threat was persecutory in nature

What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.

We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda[5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato[6]. In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered[7].  It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.

The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.

[1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.

[3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. 

[4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

[5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.

[6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

[7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation.

1. Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be.
2. There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result[1]. The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others.

[1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.

This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world.

One of the most effective ways to engage the international community on swift action to protect certain rights is to make a clear, bold statement against a particular type of behaviour. By acting to not just condemn a certain behaviour, but actively circumvent states’ ability to carry out such a behaviour, the international community sends a message of the unacceptability of such practices.

Moreover, and more importantly, regardless of if the countries are persuaded into agreeing with the international community on the issues of LGBT rights, this action will still change state behaviour. This will happen for two reasons:

1. Fear of sanction and condemnation. Most countries in the world are heavily interdependent and specifically dependent on the West. Falling out of popularity with Western countries and their populations is a particularly risky situation for most countries.  An action such as this signals seriousness of the international community on the issue of sexual orientation equality and can be used as an influential tool to convince leaders to liberalize sexual orientation laws.
2. Loss of internal support. One of the biggest losses a leader can have in terms of democratic support and the avoidance of violent unrest is being seen as impotent and weak. When the international community effectively sets up a system of immunity to your country’s laws and is more powerful is protecting people and helping people avoid the laws of your country than you are in implementing them, you lose face and integrity in the eyes of your constituents. This can make leaders look weak and incapable of administering justice and fulfilling the needs of society. Furthermore, it makes leaders seem weak and subservient to the rest of the world, removing perceived legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy and support is a major consideration for state leaders. As such, a declaration of an asylum policy for sexual orientation can persuade leaders into changing their anti-homosexuality laws to avoid asylum being granted to people from their country to save face and continue to look strong and decisive as a leader and avoid the damage such a policy would do to their rhetoric of strong leadership.

The best example of this is that due to strong and vocal condemnation of the Bahati Bill in Uganda which would have imposed the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality, the Cabinet Committee rejected the bill[1].

Therefore, this policy is instrumental in changing state behaviour towards sexual orientation and making the first steps towards acceptance and ending discrimination.

[1] Muhumuza, Rodney. "Uganda: Cabinet Committee Rejects Bahati Bill." allAfrica.com 08 May 2010.

Western nations are not as powerful as they would like to think. Their “soft power” cannot propagate norms as effectively as they would like to think. The dominance of Western countries in institutions does not put them in a place of great influence, but rather puts them in a place to be accused of imperialism and exploitation. The West’s preaching to the rest of the world is not seen as constructive or admirable advice by the rest of the world, but rather is viewed as “moral arrogance” and cultural imperialism. It is highly unlikely that most places will change their laws because someone tells them that they do not agree with them, especially when those laws are rooted in a deeper moral or religious obligation.

Moreover, with the hypocritical nature of this particular policy due to countries like the USA not respected homosexual rights either, it is very easy to dismiss this policy as the West simply being hypocritical and telling the developing world to “do as I say, not as I do” and thus is easy to dismiss it as unimportant.

Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy.

One of the most powerful weapons in the international community’s arsenal is the soft power of condemnation. One of the most important things the international community can do is use its weight and influence to advocate protection of vulnerable peoples and promote moral and social causes. The West with its immense wealth and importance in international institutions such as the United Nations have a lot of power when it comes to influencing discriminatory policies in other nations. Granting asylum to people on the basis of sexual orientation sends a clear message to the international community that it is not okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the West not only strongly disapproves of this behaviour, but that, more importantly, they will take active steps to counter-act your discriminatory policies. This has immense impact on pressuring governments to change their policies.

What is important to note here is that there is a gradual normative consensus that is manufactured under this system. Through the use of soft power, the policies of nations are slowly but surely moderated and a global consensus is created. Not only can this policy influence current state behaviour, but that the influence and change that creates becomes part of a larger global move towards universal acceptance of the norm and the diffusion of that idea throughout all strata of society.

This is important in two ways:

1. Creating a discourse centred on a universal consensus against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore making discourse be dominated by agreement with this principle and thus creating a dialogue that creates an accepting atmosphere through disseminating the norm of acceptance throughout the international community and global society.
2. This is important is forging international legal protections for the rights of the LGBT community. International law arrives from a consensus of opinion around a particular issue and its need to be legislated on. Making sexual orientation grounds for asylum creates the framework that explicitly states that legislative international protection is necessary for these groups. This policy therefore begins that process in and of itself. However, more importantly, the reduction of opposition and trend of nations removing discriminatory laws against sexual orientation consolidates this statement of legislative need and furthers the cause for international protection.

Making sexual orientation a category for asylum not only saves lives, but also sends a strong and influential message that helps craft policy in nations who use discrimination as a tool of oppression against the LGBT community. This begins the foundations of global consensus on equality for all sexual orientations and a lasting solution to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

As explained in counterargument two, it is highly unlikely that countries will craft policy based on the preaching of the West.

Moreover, it becomes increasingly unlikely that countries will be receptive to discussions on liberalization of their policies on sexual orientation when the West outright condemns their views as immoral and abhorrent and takes active steps to stop them from enforcing what they see as their moral laws on their populations. 

Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice.

1. No nation has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The moral viewpoints of a nation and its peoples are not what can be considered ‘just cause.’ It is a religious and moral viewpoint to believe that homosexuality should be prosecuted and it is the obligation of any individual living in a state to abide by the laws of the state that they live in. It is not within the rights of other countries to decide if the domestic laws of another country are in line with their views nor is it legitimate for them to violate sovereignty on this basis.
2. If an individual wishes to break the laws of their society on moral grounds, they have knowingly and intentionally violated the law. Just as people who think any other law unjust and thus breaks it, the LGBT community is in no way less culpable for the breach of law nor is any state any more justified in allowing them to evade punishment.

Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.

1. The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.
2. This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.  

This policy damages international discourse and progress in LGBT rights.

This policy makes it very unlikely that governments will be willing or receptive to discussions on liberalization of their LGBT laws and policies. Discourse and compromise only happens when both sides of the debate accept the validity of the other person holding the view that they do. If the West outright rejects the views of other nations as “immoral” or “unacceptable” these nations are unlikely to want to engage with the West on these issues as they feel that their opinions will not be respected or be treated fairly or equally. You effectively remove these countries from the negotiating table when you do this. This can be illustrated by countries deemed “backwards” or “immoral” such as Iran and North Korea, who become more isolationist the more they are categorized as and rejected for being “evil” or “unacceptable.” Construction engagement does not begin with the rejection of the other viewpoint’s right to be on the negotiating table.

Moreover, you create an antagonistic relationship between the West and those nations with anti-homosexual laws that hinders further discussion on the issue. By dealing with LGBT treatment in this manner, you effectively brand all acceptance of homosexuality as “Western”. This makes the concept of acceptance for the LGBT community nearly mutually-exclusive with religiously conservative nations or nations who have a historical and national narrative that dislikes the West and the concept of imperialism. 

International discourse on this issue has not been working.

1. When society is the one persecuting the LGBT community, the governments have plausible deniability in the matter and thus can skirt their responsibility in negotiations. This means that all talk and “dialogue” is meaningless as the government’s can claim a lack of responsibility or agree to protection for the LGBT community, but then not offer it because they are “unable” to.
2. Many times discrimination against sexual orientation is a religious one, and when it is not, it is a moral one. These views are not reconcilable with alternative moral claims as they are absolutist forms of thought. They are not negotiable or a matters of opinion; they are simply right. This will never lead to consensus-building through friendly dialogue.
3. Even if the leaders of these countries have made laws against certain forms of sexual orientation on a calculated political level, it will be because of the religious/moral views of the citizens within their country. This is important because, given the option of disagreeing with an international community that has no power over them or angering their domestic constituents that either keeps them in power through democratic support or the avoidance of violent unrest, leaders will pick the former. Thus, international consensus-building is bound to fail

These people need protection now. Regardless of any international dialogue about the future, real people are in real danger now. The reason asylum was created was to protect individuals in immediate danger when no immediate solution to the persecution is in sight. This is a perfect fit for the criteria of asylum.

Lasting change to anti-homosexual attitudes will only happen from the ground-up. This hinders the ability of governments to engineer more accepting attitudes toward the LGBT community.

Even if you could get countries to discuss their policies and liberalize them through this policy, this will not actually change the reality for the LGBT on the ground. Nations where anti-homosexuality laws are in place have large swathes of support for these laws as they represent and enforce the morality of the vast majority of their populace. Simply removing anti-homosexuality laws does not protect homosexuals in their home countries. Simply not being pursued by the government does not mean the government is willing or able to protect individuals from society. Moreover, it makes it nearly impossible for the government of that country to try to liberalize and engineer a more LGBT-friendly attitude in their country if they have submitted to Western pressures. Populations feel abandoned by their governments when they no longer reflect or uphold their wishes and what they view as their moral obligations. The government loses its credibility on LGBT issues if it abandons its anti-homosexual platform and thus cannot moderate or attempt to liberalize such views in the future. This simply leads to people taking “justice” against homosexuals into their own hands, making danger to homosexuals less centralized, more unpredictable and much less targeted.

A perfect example of this is in Uganda where the government’s “failure” to implement a death penalty for homosexuality led to tabloid papers producing “Gay Lists” that included people suspected of homosexuality[1]. The importance of this is two-fold. First, it shows that vigilante justice will replace the state justice and thus bring no net benefit to the LGBT community. Second, and more importantly, it means that the violence against LGBT individuals is no longer done by a centralized, controlled state authority, which removes all pretence of due-process and most importantly, makes violence against homosexuality become violence against suspicion of homosexuality. Thus, making it an even more dangerous place for everyone who could associate or in any way identify with what are viewed as “common traits” of the LGBT community.

[1] "Gay Rights in Developing Countries: A Well-Locked Closet." The Economist. 27 May 2010.

As explained in counterargument two, the rationale behind this form of discrimination is nonnegotiable and absolutist due to its religious/moral nature. Consensus-building will not happen in the near future on this issue and even if the potentiality of social acceptance of the LGBT community was in the not-so-distant future, this does not offer any protection to those in danger now, nor remove our obligation to their protection from discrimination and unjust punishment.