Comments on: UK Denies Visa for Ugandan LGBT Advocate

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:41:22 +0000

As a UK citizen, I’m appalled at this decision, but sadly not surprised. :<

By: anteros

anteros — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:29:10 +0000

Kasha is the very brave activist who snatched the microphone from an anti-gay preacher while he was spewing hate at David Kato’s funeral… a stunt very few would dare attempt. Much respect to her.

By: paul canning

paul canning — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:32:45 +0000

@David Roberts

I live in UK and work on these issues. Believe me, it is totally ‘in character’ :0

By: g_whiz

g_whiz — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:23:03 +0000

In other words “Your country has a horrible human rights record and we wouldn’t blame you for wanting to get away from it. But sorry, the Inn’s full, and we’re not going to risk the possibility of you trying to stick around illegally.” Its probably the most cynical thing I’ve read all day.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:17:02 +0000

The key reason cited is in the second paragraph of the first statement.

Right, I got that but I was questioning the veracity of the stated reasons. This kind of border control seems out of character for what I would have expected of the UK.

By: paul canning

paul canning — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:13:39 +0000

Jim’s right – and she’s given the same answers to all the other bureaucracies in countless other countries who have all given her a visa. The UK is appalling on this score. We have denied visas to countless ‘global south’ worthy people, such as world renowned theatre and film directors. And every time it is *their fault and not the stupid bureaucrats …

By: paul canning

paul canning — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:11:08 +0000

The speech by Kasha given to AI is A-Ma-Sing

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:53:57 +0000

The key reason cited is in the second paragraph of the first statement.

This may include providing evidence of financial ties to their home country which would indicate that they intend to return home at the end of their proposed visit.

I read that to mean that they fear she will use her LGBT activism to claim asylum as a cover for becoming an economic refugee.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:18:58 +0000

I really don’t understand. Unless their is some evidence she is a criminal or terrorist, what could possibly be the big deal about allowing her to participate and travel freely for a few months? Am I missing something?