Stonewall's 2010 report "No Going Back; Lesbian and Gay People in the Asylum System" is a little out of date. It is fortunate that the judgment that the claimant maybe returned home to continue their life with "tolerable discretion," has now been declared in breach of human rights by the recent supreme court ruling. However, this brief report details a lot of major issues still faced by gay asylum seekers including;
- That they may have a sense of shame and stigma attached to being gay, and have rarely spoken about it.
- Due to this they struggle to be consistent in stories and see persecution as "caused" by their sexuality.
- They are penalised for not being immediately open about their sexuality.
- Focus by the UKBA and judges exclusively on same sex sexual activity.
- A failure to understand persecution maybe simply because they are percieved as being different.
- Poor factual knowledge of life for gay people in some countires.
- "Fast tracked" asylum seekers detained in hostile homophobic environment.
- Too shorter time scale in which to reach a decision.
What particularly takes me aback in this report however are the attitudes expressed by some of the legal representatives. Quotes attributed to "Nicholas" of the UKBA make him seem particularly clueless as to how to approach the subject;
I would look at how they’ve explored their sexuality in a cultural context – reading Oscar Wilde perhaps, films and music.
You would expect that if somebody has been sexually active in their home country they should be willing to discuss those subjects.
Which hardly express much empathy for someone from Northern Nigeria or rural Iran. "Nicholas" certainly sounds like the type of idiot who might ask a question such as "Why do you choose to be homosexual when you know it is illegal in your country?" as has apparently been asked at asylum interviews.
Nicholas aside, UKBA staff come across for the most part as very put upon people with huge case loads, not enough training and a very British inability to discuss matters of sexuality effectively. They are at the mercy of very negative policy against the claimant, and have been chiefly trained in looking for inconsistencies in stories rather that to genuinely investigate, and some even express sympathy for their clients.
Judges come across particularly poorly though, with a series of not only offensive but also downright dangerous view points and judgements based on outmoded understanding of homosexuality.
[If he is asked] Why aren’t you married?’ the judge said, well all he needs to say is, ‘I’m not the marrying kind’. That client is now in Pakistan hiding because he was sent back.
This is despicable, but at least the judge was quite as openly homophobic as Judge Freeman whose behaviour is described below;
In a judgement on the case of a gay Iranian in 2005, Senior Immigration Judge John Freeman made repeated references to the applicant having engaged in ‘buggery’. Judge Freeman also described the applicant’s friends as a ‘côterie’ and their sexual orientation as a ‘predilection’ and a desire to ‘go in for that sort of thing’. He also referred to their ‘unseemly activity’ and ‘homosexual liaisons’
This hardly sounds like the sort of person who ought to be in charge of deciding if anyone, let alone gay or lesbian people, be provided sanctuary in this country. Other outrages offered up by the courts include requests for medical inspections to prove passive homosexuality (such inspections are used as part of the torture in countries such as Syria and Iraq (see below)), a refusal to see that passivity comes with an extra set of cultural taboo (two men in a relationship both claimed to be active and their case was dismissed) and claims scars on a man penis from torture were due to sex (!?!).
The report also touches up the homophobic atmospheres of detention centres, where a majority of gay man can end up due to their case being fast tracked (dealt with in two weeks).
The whole place was vile. It was so homophobic. One of the guards called me a poof and there were Jamaicans who kept hurling abuse at some Iranian guys – calling them batty men. I was terrified thinking oh my God, I hope they don’t know I’m one of them. There were always fights – they would provoke them and the guys would try to fight back. Eventually the gay guys had to be taken out. So it was very scary. It was awful. You can’t risk being open about being gay there.
Report can be found at; http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/2583.asp#Asylum
No comments:
Post a Comment