Diplomatic safe sex: No US asylum to Saudi gay
By Julio Severo
A homosexual from Saudi Arabia had his asylum request denied by the Obama administration.
The Jerusalem Post reported that Ali Ahmad Asseri “argued that if he returned to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia he would face execution because the country’s radically fundamental form of Islam mandates the death penalty for same-sex relations.”
Reportedly, the Obama administration denied the asylum to “avoid disrupting US-Saudi relations”. Annoying wasps is less dangerous than annoying a Muslim nation!
Is not the Obama administration the most radically pro-sodomy government in the US and world history? Has not the US government under this pro-Muslim president committed itself to fight “homophobia” whenever and wherever it appears?
To grant asylum to Asseri would show to the Muslim world that the Obama administration is serious about its world policies equaling sodomy to human rights.
Contrary to many asylum seekers, Asseri did not lie: Saudi Arabia really executes homosexuals. Poor Asseri! To tell truth did not help him.
In contrast, Brazilian homosexual Augusto Pereira de Souza, 27, had no such hardship to be granted asylum by the Obama administration. Enough for him was to allege that “Brazil is one of the most violent countries against homosexuals”. Nothing else than falsehood was necessary to get him asylum.
In spite of Pereira’s charges against Brazil as a threat to gays, Asseri could freely and safely live in Brazil. In fact, his troubles to get US asylum have been reported by a Saudi-American blogger and journalist based in Brazil, the “homophobic” country. In Saudi Arabia, Asseri and the journalist defending him would be treated very differently than the Brazilian government and society would do.
On the other hand, Souza is free to criticize and enter Brazil. As in the US, in Brazil media and government agencies are brazenly pro-sodomy and criticism against Christians and their “homophobia” is widespread and most welcome — as long as such criticism is directed exclusively to Christians, never to Muslims. What Souza cannot do is to criticize and enter Saudi Arabia. To enter there would spell his doom. At least, it would change his mind about “Brazil as one of the most violent countries against homosexuals”.
If Saudi Arabia were as Christian as Uganda is, it would be easier for the US to charge it of “homophobia” and grant asylum to the Saudi gay. Christians are always fair game for dishonest charges. But the US cannot afford giving similar treatment to Saudi Arabia, which is so radically against sodomy as the US is radically for it.
Stuart Appelbaum, a prominent gay activist in New York, said that if the Obama administration refuses to grant asylum to Ali Ahmad Asseri because it is afraid of the Saudi reaction, then the US will become complicit in his fate. “It is exactly because of how Ahmad might be treated on his return to his homophobic and brutal land that the United States should grant him refuge,” he said.
As far as Saudi Arabia and its Islamic law are concerned, the Obama administration will never sacrifice its economic interests with Muslim nations to defend sodomy as a human right. This is why it finds safer to grant asylum to a lying Brazilian homosexual than to a truthful Saudi homosexual. Between defending a perverted sexual act and not offending Muslim allies, the latter is priority diplomatic safe sex for a US radically committed to protect the former.
When homosexuality hits its international relations with Muslim nations, the US government commitment is not to annoy its gay-executing, Muslim allies.
Portuguese version of this article: Sexo seguro diplomático: Nada de asilo americano para gay saudita
Spanish version of this article: Sexo diplomático seguro: No hay asilo americano para gay saudí