Zambian government 'warns homosexuals'

Vice-President George Kunda has warned citizens against practising homosexuality saying the act is unChristian and culprits are liable before the law.

Mr Kunda said the Government was aware that there were some prominent people in society who were practising homosexuality but further urged the public with information of some actors of the vice to report them to the relevant wings.

He said this in Parliament yesterday during the vice-president's question time when he responded to a question from Chadiza Member of Parliament, Allan Mbewe (MMD). Mr Mbewe had asked whether it was appropriate for people in a Christian nation to be practising homosexuality.

Mr Kunda said in 2005, Parliament passed legislation to deal with homosexuality and that the minimum sentence for a person found guilty was 15 years.

"There are people in society who are involved in these acts and some could be lawyers, engineers, journalists and if you have information of others please let us know," Mr Kunda said.

The vice-president said some people were bi-sexual, a scenario he said was well known to the Government.

"At the end of the day we know them, homosexuality is a bad thing and we should all come together and fight homosexuality," Mr Kunda said.

Source

False hope - LGBT rights in the Middle East

By Omar Hassan

Execution, public humiliation and imprisonment have long plagued the lives of the LGBT community in the Middle Eastern world. It is a well-known fact that “LGBT individuals are at a constant struggle,” notes the Imaan secretariat (an organisation dedicated to the wellbeing of gay Muslims, based in Britain). “[They] must [fight] for the right to be LGBT…[and] for the freedom to love somebody of the same sex,” he argues further.

Brian Whitaker, of the Guardian, who authored the book ‘Unspeakable Love’, notes that the subject of homosexuality is as unmentionable in the Middle East as it was in the UK 60 years ago.

This tension can be attributed largely to Islamic conservatism. In 2006, it was reported that radical Islamic militias were attacking homosexuals in Iraq; and it was only a year later that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that there were “no homosexuals in Iran”.

“Ironically, Ahmadinedjad’s remarks and the laughter from his audience probably did a lot to bring [the issue] out in the open’, Whitaker told us. Indeed, soon after, filmmaker Tanaz Eshaghian released a documentary entitled ‘Be Like Others’. The film revealed that the government had been paying for homosexual men to have sex-change operations. Arguably, this was the Iranian administration’s humane ultimatum to the death sentence, which is bestowed on any two men who wish to engage in a homosexual relationship.

At the time of the film’s release, the filmmaker stated that it was easy to find her subjects, noting that gender reassignment surgery is a “public phenomenon [even] encouraged by the Islamic clerics”.

These instances do not begin to explain the extent of the pressures that one faces for being gay in this part of the world.

Even at a basic level, one can argue that Arabic language in itself does not accommodate a neutral definition of the term ‘homosexual’. The most inoffensive branding for an LGBT man for instance is ‘Luti’ or ‘Shaz’, which roughly translate to mean ‘pervert’ or ‘deviant’. How then, is anyone who identifies as part of this minority group going to be able to stand up to such political, social and linguistic barriers?

Human rights activists the world over had hoped that a UN joint statement released last December would help alleviate the situation. Signed by over 60 countries, the assertion called for the decriminalization of homosexuality and the protection of various other LGBT human rights, including the protection against discrimination.

However, according to human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, it is important to note that this is not a resolution.

“It has no force on international law. [Still], it is an important symbolic benchmark, being the first time that the UN General Assembly has ever heard such a statement,” he said.

As expected, the statement was opposed by Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. “They will ignore it…[and it will] have little moderating effect on their abuse of LGBT citizens”, argues Tatchell.

Undeniably, Middle Eastern politicians and religious figures are prone to use arguments relating to cultural rights and relativism, claiming that the West (and its allies) have no authority to infringe on any nation’s legal system, regardless of whether the matter concerns the seemingly universal human rights to life, freedom and personal liberty.

Indeed, one can make an example out of the public reaction to the Queen Boat raid, which took place in Cairo nearly eight years ago. At the time, the relatively liberal Egyptian government enforced a crackdown on an unofficial floating gay nightclub, which was moored on the Nile. The raids subsequently lead to 52 arrests, with many of the victims claiming to be arbitrarily detained whilst simply passing by the docks. The men involved were publicly humiliated (whilst in court, they were placed in cages) with their faces splashed across the covers of newspapers.

Although there is no law in Egypt that explicitly bans homosexual practice, the accused men were charged on the grounds of ‘debauchery’. In the end, over twenty of those arrested faced sentences which ranged between three to five years in prison. Many of those who were released returned home to find that they had lost their jobs and were rejected by their families.

Hossam Bahgat, an Egyptian human rights activist and journalist who was working at the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) at the time, protested against these injustices. He argued that the administration was using the raid as a means to sidetrack public focus from the impending recession, its Western alliances (which are unpopular with the public) and to quell the tensions growing in the Islamic Brotherhood (who are of increasing importance in the Egyptian political arena).

Soon after speaking out, Bahgat was removed from his position at the EOHR. The EOHR’s secretary-general, Hafez Abu Saada told the press at the time: “Personally, I don’t like the subject of homosexuality, and I don’t want to defend them.” He also went on to explain that sexual preference was not a human right.

At the same time, the Egyptian government went so far as to arrest individuals who used online chat rooms and social networking websites as a means for sourcing homosexual relationships. Futhermore, reports were circulating that government officials were masquerading as potential suitors in order to set gay men up for arrest. Scott Long of Human Rights Watch has spoken previously about this matter, asserting that when governments crack down on homosexual gathering places, whether real or online, they do it for political rather than purely moral reasons. “They are saying to their people that they are defending what is authentic, what is Islamic,” he said.

In turn, the politicians, journalists and even the human rights activists of the Middle Eastern world are arguing back at egalitarian impositions that beg for the equal rights of the LGBT community.

Considering the sensitivity of the issue and the rise of anti-Islamic attitude in the West, it is very easy for Islamic states to claim that announcements (such as the UN statement) are imperial infringements by the secular West on the Islamic world. Accordingly, it is evident that the UN’s efforts will reap only meagre benefits for the distressed LGBT community in the Middle East.

How then do we begin to envisage change in the region for this vulnerable community? On an individual basis, many Middle Easterners seeking an escape believe that Western states should implement more liberal asylum policies towards LGBT groups.

However, if we are going to be realistic about safeguarding the rights of these communities than we need a new strategy. The West must use political leverage to bring LGBT rights up on the international agenda as, undeniably, many of the biggest gay rights’ abuses committed in the Middle East are by Western allies.

Undoubtedly, this will require significant effort, especially considering that many of the Arabs and Muslims who live in the diaspora also occupy negative attitudes towards homosexuals. Still, the beliefs of an increasingly blindsided religious majority should not take precedence over anyone’s basic humanity.

According to Tatchell, what is most likely to change is the self-organisation of LGBT people in Muslim states, as has happened in Lebanon, through the work of the LGBT group, Helem.

“Some…changes might also come through HIV prevention work, where governments will have to reluctantly recognise the LGBT communities in order to combat the HIV pandemic,” he added.
Whitaker argues further that “it is becoming more difficult to keep a lid on discussion of homosexuality in the Middle East".

“Western debates about gay priests, films like Brokeback Mountain, and even George Michael’s arrest [coupled with the use of the internet] are all heightening gay awareness” in the region, he says.

However until these governments recognise that gay rights are of importance, it should be the obligation of the international community to take a holistic approach to ensuring the protection of this vulnerable LGBT population. Only then, will the new UN statement be able to ensure that our universal human rights are protected.

Omar is a writer and freelance journalist. He has also been involved with a range of TV production companies, working predominantly in the area of factual programming. Born in Cairo, Egypt, he has lived in the U.S.A and Saudi Arabia and currently resides in the United Kingdom.

Source

What freedom of information?

When journalists try to find out the true picture of asylum in the UK, the government's secrecy shutters keep coming down

By Matthew Taylor

Another week, another glimpse into the twilight world inhabited by asylum seekers. The latest report offers a grim portrayal of lives lived truly on the edge – where people who came to the UK in search of safety are forced to choose a between a semi existence of grinding poverty and a return to their home countries where they risk persecution, torture or even death.

Shocking though the latest findings are, anyone who has followed the issue of asylum in the UK will not be surprised. Study follows study, one set of findings paints the same picture as the last, and the message is always the same – the system, and those caught up in it, are in trouble.

But when journalists try to find out the extent of the trouble – and, crucially, who is responsible – the government's secrecy shutters come down.

At the end of last year I sent a series of requests to the UK Border Agency under freedom of information legislation. Among the things I wanted to know was how much taxpayers' money had been paid out in compensation to people – migrants and asylum seekers – held in the UK's 10 detention centres in relation to allegations of assault and unlawful detention. This was not a speculative punt: there have been repeated allegations of physical and verbal abuse against detainees and, according to lawyers working in the area, compensation payments are regularly paid by the government and the private contractors that manage the centres – often before cases get to court. I also wanted to know how many children had been locked up in these centres, and how many of them were there without family or friends.

The FOI legislation introduced in 2005 requires 100,000 public authorities, including Whitehall departments, to respond promptly to requests for information and, subject to some exceptions, to give it up. But some weeks later I recieved a curt response to say all my requests had been denied. I was told that in some cases the government did not hold the information and in others that it would be too expensive to collate. Undeterred, MP Diane Abbott took up the case, drafting a range of parliamentary questions to the Home Office minister Phil Woolas, again asking how much compensation had been paid over to detainees – this time over a precise 12-month period – and how many children have been held in detentions centres.

We waited. And waited. And then Woolas responded: "The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only through examination of individual records at disproportionate cost."

So according to the government that's that. Hundreds of thousands of people (again we don't know how many) who came here to find safety are living in destitution. The courts are ruling in favour of an unknown number who claim they have been victims of state-backed abuse and unlawful detention. The government and private security firms are reportedly paying out undisclosed amounts of taxpayers money to compensate these people – including children. But because the "information is not collated centrally" and would be too expensive to dig out, we should all just shrug our shoulders, accept the government knows best and move on.

Source

Human rights groups petition to de-criminalise homosexuality in Morocco

Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Moroccan Association for Human Rights (AMDH) issued a petition on February 26th calling on the Moroccan government to abolish the law which punishes homosexuality with prison sentences and to release 6 men currently jailed under the applicable criminal law chapter.

AMDH President Khadija Ryadi told Magharebia: "The purpose of the petition is to open discussion about this segment of people in society, one of those categories no one talks about."

The issue came to international attention when Moroccan security authorities arrested six people last November, after a video was circulated on the internet showing a private gay wedding ceremony in the northern Moroccan city of Ksar El-Kebir. The ceremony was reportedly organized by a man named Fouad. The tape showed clips of someone dressed in a bride's wedding clothes and walking in front of a group of attendees at one of the houses. On January 15th, the Court of Appeals in Tangier decided to reduce the imprisonment terms for five defendants but maintained the 10-month sentence against Fouad.

Addressing the alleged gay wedding video case, Ryadi said, "The time is now suitable for the government to abolish that chapter which is used to violate the personal freedoms of those people, and which was arbitrarily used in the case of Ksar El-Kebir. This has led to jailing the defendants without evidence in an unfair trial that was conducted under popular pressure and depended on a video tape that includes no proof. We consider personal freedom to be everyone's right as long as it doesn't affect others' freedoms. We call for respecting that freedom and for not intervening in it."

On the other hand, Justice and Development Party official Mustafa al-Ramid said, "The law derives its article from the Moroccan Constitution, which states that Morocco is a Muslim country." Al-Ramid said that "the subject of the petition is out of context and has nothing to do with the nature of Moroccans."

There should be no intervention in personal freedom when exercised in a private framework, he said. However, when that freedom is exercised in a public framework, as was the case of Ksar El-Kebir, then it must be governed by the values of the society and its public system.
Related Articles

Al Ramid expressed his sorrow about the fact that the petition was backed by a Moroccan organisation. "Laws must express the conscience of society," he said.

In response to the Islamist party member's comments, Khadija Ryadi said the AMDH maintains "there should be no discrimination among people based on race, religion, [or] ideas."

She added, "We don't consider that there should be controls in respecting human rights, and we must not depend on private affairs to violate people's freedom."

The petition campaign now under way hopes to repeal Chapter 489 of the Moroccan Criminal Code, which incriminates acts of homosexuality made by any person towards another person of the same sex.

Iraqi gays claim government executing them

Well this should be the last nail in the 'things have improved in Iraq' coffin.

The Iraqi gay group, Iraqi LGBT, claimed today that many of the 128 prisoners, which have been reported elsewhere, to be executed - in batches of twenty - are being executed for being gay.

You read that right.

The group operates in extreme secrecy as many members have been murdered. They run three safe houses but others have been raided.

We have information and reports on members of our community whom been arrested and waiting for execution for the crimes of homosexuality. Iraqi LGBT has been banned from running our activities on Iraqi soil.

Raids by the Iraqi police and ministry of interior forces cost our group the disappearing and killing of 17 members working for Iraqi LGBT since 2005.

The Iraqi authorities have not disclosed the identities of those facing imminent execution, stoking fears that many of them may have been sentenced to death after trials that failed to satisfy international standards for fair trial.

Most are likely to have been sentenced to death by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI), whose proceedings consistently fall short of international standards for fair trial. Some are likely to have. Allegations of torture are not being investigated adequately or at all by the CCCI. Torture of detainees held by Iraqi security forces remains rife.

Iraq’s creaking judicial system is simply unable to guarantee fair trials in ordinary criminal cases, and even less so in capital cases, with the result that numerous people have gone to their death after unfair trials.

Iraq's gays face death, persecution and systematic targeting by the Iraqi Police and Badr and Sadr Militia.

The Iraqi LGBT group raises funds to help provide LGBTs under threat of killing with refuge in the safer parts of Iraq (including safe houses, food, electricity, medical help) and assist efforts help them seek refuge in neighboring countries.

Iraq is yet another country where the Home Office will return refugees to claiming they just need to 'be discreet'.

• Video: The Sexual Cleansing of Iraq

The “Ex-Gay” Star of the Uganda Anti-Gay Campaign

By Jim Burroway

I reported yesterday afternoon on the Uganda media circus surrounding the anti-gay activists who held a press conference, where an ex-gay by the name of George Oundo claimed to have spent a lifetime recruiting schoolchildren into homosexuality. The widespread media coverage of that press conference, along with Oundo’s fanciful statements, may well set the stage for yet another orgy of anti-gay violence and public vigilantism.

Timothy Kincaid followed that up with a report on a meeting held in Kampala on March 22, which featured more outlandish claims by George Oundo. That meeting set the stage for yesterday’s press conference.

Who is George Oundo?

I asked around among contacts in Uganda who wish to remain anonymous. The picture that emerges is both strange and disturbing.

George Oundo was known in Uganda’s tight-knit gay community as Georgina, a “flamboyant, no holds barred homosexual activist.” She had spoken at the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya in January 2007, and she was known for being very outgoing and confident. But because of her “flamboyance” she drew considerable attention and was arrested by police numerous times.

There are reports that she also had some personal difficulties and, some say, was emotionally unstable. Whether it was because of her arrests, or whether she had problems beforehand, it’s unclear. Given what we know about police brutality and torture of LGBT citizens, the former is certainly plausible. She had a difficult time holding down a job, and was dependent on handouts from friends.

She was arrested again on September 10, 2008 along with Brenda Kiiza outside of Kampala for “recruiting homosexuals” — which is not a crime under Uganda’s criminal code. The Uganda constitution provides that suspects cannot be held for more than 48 hours, but she and Brenda were held for eight days and released only after their lawyer threatened to take the police to court. During their detention, they were reportedly beaten and denied food, and Oundo was denied treatment for her diabetes.

And that’s where the story gets really strange. On September 8, just two days before her arrest,Oundo appeared on the pages of the Uganda tabloid The Red Pepper. In this article, she appears with Kiiza talking about a previous arrest that they had experienced and the trouble they were encountering since then. In the article headlined “Stranded Gay Couple Pondering Suicide,” Ounda complains of being shunned by Ugandan LGBT activists, a charge that was denied by Victor Juliet Mukasa of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG).

Red Pepper article featuring Georgina Oundo (Click to enlarge)

Red Pepper article from the 2006 vigilante campaign. (Click to enlarge)"

Red Pepper article from the 2006 vigilante campaign. (Click to enlarge)

What makes this appearance in the Red Pepper strange is that this was the very paper which had earlier been the instigator of previous anti-gay vigilante campaigns. The Red Pepper was notorious for publishing names and identifying details of gay Ugandans, calling on citizens to take action and for the police to round them up. Many gays in Uganda went into hiding or left the country to avoid getting caught up in the violence. Others saw their lives shattered as their identities were splashed across the pages of the Red Pepper. The paper’s reputation as the prime instigator of hatred and violence was firmly established in the gay community, both in Uganda and abroad.

So why did Georgina go to that particular paper to tell her story? It’s not as if the Red Pepper decided to turn over a new leaf in its coverage of LGBT issues. Look at this article from March 5, 2009, just as the anti-gay conference was getting underway:

MPs To Discuss Bum Shafting
Members of Parliament are set to discuss the rate at which bumshafters are slowly but surely entrenching themselves in Uganda, Red Pepper can exclusively reveal. The meeting which is to take place on March 5 at the parliamentary conference hall will be officiated over by the first lady Janet Kataha Museveni.

Snoops have seen an open invitation to all MPs in which the organizers of the meeting want the legislators to among other things understand the Gay movement’s agenda which is bent on destabilizing society. The MPs will also have to understand in detail the Gay blueprint for transforming this nation and also how Uganda can respond to the bumshafters’ secret agenda.

“This is an executive sensitization meeting themed ‘Exposing the truth about bum shafting and the homosexual agenda” part of an invitation seen by RP reads. Recently, State Minister for ethics and integrity Nsaba Buturo informed MPs at Imperial Royale hotel that a group of bum shafting leaning donor countries had approached him seeking for his nod to start funding and campaigning for bum shafting in Uganda, but he refused.

This vice of homosexuality has been reported in several institutions including churches, schools and high institutions of learning.

We don’t know why she chose to be interviewed and photographed by the Red Pepper, despite its well-earned enmity in the gay community. There are rumors — some pretty wild ones of jealousies, betrayals, recriminations and more — which need confirmation before we can repeat them. And that confirmation will undoubtedly be difficult to obtain, if not impossible. But it does appear that whatever Georgina’s motivations may have been, she became too dangerous for the besieged gay community. With her appearance in the hated Red Pepper, the gay community became suspicious of her.

And now, barely five months later, those suspicions are confirmed in the minds of many who knew her or knew of her. Georgina — now George — is back in the spotlight again, completing a journey that began on the pages of the Red Pepper last October.

These developments threaten to inflame an already tense situation in a country that has witnessed repeated campaigns of public vigilante acts and widespread extrajudicial detentions, beatings and torture of LGBT people. Oundo’s statements are particularly inflammatory, claiming that he had been trained and paid by foreign gay activists to recruit Ugandan schoolchildren into homosexuality. With statements like that receiving wide media attention, the ground is now well laid for a fresh round of violence against Uganda’s beleaguered gay community.

Complete BTB Coverage:
Mar 26: The “Ex-Gay” Star of the Uganda Anti-Gay Campaign
Mar 25: More on Uganda Anti-Gay Vigilante Incitement
Mar 25: Another Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign May Have Begun In Uganda
Mar 23: Schmierer’s & Lively’s Uganda Talks Continue to Reverberate
Mar 17: Lively Defends Forced Therapy Proposal
Mar 16: Commentary: When Good Men Do Nothing
Mar 13: Sanctimony Alert
Mar 13: Scott Lively and Alan Chambers Respond to Questions About Uganda Conference
Mar 13: Exodus Applauds Schmierer’s Part in Uganda Conference
Mar 12: South African LGBT Advocates Condemn Exodus
Mar 12: Ex-Exodus Minister Condemns Uganda Conference
Mar 12: Ugandan Conference Leaders Call For Another Meeting While Pushing Pedophilia Theme; Exodus Continues Silence
Mar 11: Open Letter To the Exodus International Board of Directors
Mar 10: Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay”
Mar 9: Exodus Removes Link To Scott Lively From Its Web Site
Mar 9: EU Group Condemns Ugandan Conference
Mar 8: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three — Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide & Pedophilia; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Mar 6: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two
Mar 6: Exodus’ Silence About Uganda: Day Five
Mar 6: Exodus Board Member Participates In Uganda Conference Calling For Forcing Gays Into Conversion Therapy
Mar 5: Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Mar 5: Warren Throckmorton Speaks Out Against Uganda Conference
Mar 5: International LGBT Group Expresses Concern About Uganda Conference
Mar 2: Anonymous Ugandan Blogger Wants Answers From American Anti-Gay Activists
Feb 24: Exodus Board Member Joins Nazi Revisionist At Uganda Conference

Landmark refugee ruling in Canada

IMMIGRATION / UN would set new standards for persecution, proving gayness

Twenty-eight-year-old Tam has never been threatened, beaten or thrown in jail for being gay. In his home country of Vietnam homosexuality isn’t illegal. It isn’t mentioned in any law. In fact, it’s rarely mentioned at all. But the Toronto student, who applied for refugee status in 2006, says gay and lesbian people there are still punished for being themselves.

“As for physical violence, I don’t think it’s common in Vietnam. Mentally, there’s a lot,” says Tam, who, asks that his second name not be used.

He says authorities in Vietnam pressure gay and lesbian people to remain hidden and prevent gay groups from organizing, while state-controlled media deride homosexuality as a disease of the West. If he returned to Vietnam, Tam fears he would be forced to choose between marrying a woman and becoming a social pariah.

“The people who hold power [in Vietnam] are very powerful,” he says. “They can change your life if they want to.”

In a Jan 22 precedent-setting decision the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) accepted Tam’s plea to stay in Canada. Tam’s case is an especially important one because for the first time the IRB cited a new report released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as basis for a decision involving sexual orientation.

Published late last year the report sets out legal opinions on issues critics say undermine requests for asylum by gay and lesbian people around the world. In Canada IRB members have, for example, demanded proof that a claimant is gay and suggested they simply go back to where they came from and avoid drawing attention to their sexuality.

There is no procedure or guidelines for when the IRB requests proof that a claimant is gay or lesbian — proof that might not exist if a claimant was forced to conceal it back home. Without corroborating evidence like photographs or testimony, adjudicators have been left to decide for themselves if a claimant is telling the truth about his or her sexuality.

“There are many cases that have identified problems with the way tribunal members evaluate claims,” says immigration lawyer Michael Battista, who represented Tam before the IRB. “For example, basing the person’s claim of being LGBT on behaviour — being effeminate for gay men or being masculine for lesbian women…. There have been cases where a tribunal member has rejected someone’s claim because they had been married or had kids. These are all based on presumptions about the way the gay community behaves.”

In one high-profile case last year Alvaro Orozco, a gay Nicaraguan man who fled to the US in his teens, was denied refugee status after a tribunal member said a lack of same-sex relationships while Orozco was in the US meant he isn’t gay.

In Tam’s case Battista argued that his client would have been unable to live life as a gay man in Vietnam because the society there doesn’t tolerate same-sex couples in the public eye.

“Pressure to be discreet can be a kind of persecution,” Battista explains. “It’s forcing you to be someone you’re not.”

“The UNHCR Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity considers persecution to include being compelled to forsake or conceal one’s sexual orientation,” wrote the tribunal in its decision to allow Tam to stay. “Where this is instigated by the state, it may amount to persecution.”

The IRB concluded that it is unfair to expect Tam to hide his sexual orientation in return for a normal life.

Source

John Kerry: No Time to Wait for Justice

Justice may be blind, but it sure ain't always swift.

That's why I have asked the Obama administration to help me speed up reuniting two of my Massachusetts constituents, Tim Coco and his husband Genesio "Junior" Oliveira, who have been separated through no fault of their own.

The case of Tim and Junior has attracted a lot of public attention - and rightly so. Their dilemma illustrates just how important it is to inject some justice and compassion into our immigration system and how important it is to overturn wrongheaded laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and pass legislation that guarantees gay couples the same legal protections heterosexual couples are afforded. But in the meantime, I'm asking Attorney General Eric Holder to lend a hand to get Junior back home with Tim in Massachusetts as quickly as possible.

Tim and Junior were married in Massachusetts in March 2005. Two years later, Junior was forced to return to his native Brazil because of his expired immigration status. Immigration laws allow spouses of American citizens to obtain legal permanent residency. But even though Tim and Junior were legally married under Massachusetts law, federal law does not recognize their marriage.

But there are even more immediate humanitarian issues looming in Junior's case. He was forced back to Brazil under orders from the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals, which had denied his application for asylum status. Junior had applied for asylum in 2002 based on a brutal rape and attack he suffered at the hands of government officials in Brazil.

It is astounding that Immigration Judge Francis Cramer, who presided at Junior's asylum hearing, found that Junior's testimony was "credible" and his fear of Brazil "genuine" but nonetheless denied the asylum claim and said that Junior "was never physically harmed" by the rape. The Immigration Appeals Board upheld the ruling in 2007, at which point Junior returned to Brazil and has been separated from his spouse ever since.

Some critics (including Emma Ruby-Sachs, right here on the Huffington Post) have rightly suggested that repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Congress passed in 1996 in an effort to prohibit same sex marriages, would solve Tim and Junior's problem. But Tim and Junior don't have time to wait for that to happen before they can be reunited. That's why I've asked Attorney General Holder to take a closer look at Junior's asylum claim and reunite this loving couple.

I believe Tim and Junior should be reunited based on their legal marriage in the state of Massachusetts. I believe that all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be assured equal protection under the law.

That's why I am trying to win passage of the United American Families Act so that partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents can obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens. That's why I voted against DOMA. That's why I am supporting the suit filed by several couples in Massachusetts to overturn parts of DOMA.

But when you cut to the chase, I don't believe Tim and Junior, or any other couple in a similar situation, should have to wait for Congress to come around to the truth that laws like DOMA are discriminatory and wrong.

No couple should have to wait. And no United States Senator should take off the table the immediate steps a compassionate government can take to reunite two law-abiding, loving people today - not tomorrow.

Source

Downing Street response to LGBT asylum petition

Image by Mrs. Knook via Flickr

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to urgently review the way LGBT asylum seekers are treated.”

Details of Petition

“In the light of the cases of Pegah Emembakhsh and Mehdi Kazemi, Iranian LGBT asylum seekers, who sought asylum in the UK, we call upon the Prime Minister for an urgent review of the treatment of all LGBT asylum seekers. In particular we think that the following are needed for fair treatment - 1. Compulsory training for all asylum staff on sexual-orientation and trans-awareness. 2. Explicit instructions to all immigration and asylum staff, and asylum judges, that homophobic and transphobic persecution are legitimate grounds for granting asylum. 3. Clearer and up-to-date guidance from the Home Office for asylum judges to reflect the accurate scale of LGBT persecution throughout the world using expert information from NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 4. Legal-aid funding for asylum claims needs to be substantially increased.”

The Government’s response

Thank you for your e-petition requesting an urgent review the treatment of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) asylum seekers.

In accordance with our international obligations, the Government is fully committed to providing protection to all individuals who need it.  We have backed this promise with a considerable investment in people and processes in order to deliver a fairer and faster asylum system.  This includes a 55 day foundation training programme for new asylum case owners followed by ongoing learning and development activities.  Consideration of applications from people expressing a fear of persecution on the grounds of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or a transgender person is explicitly covered in the training.  This is reinforced by clear written instructions for decision-makers.  Decision-makers are also supported by accurate, objective and regularly updated country specific information.  Similarly, Immigration Judges all receive full training in diversity and refugee law and carry out their assessment of refused claims impartially, on behalf of the courts.

Each asylum and human rights claim is considered on its individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  Decision-makers in the UK Border Agency have clear instructions about the criteria they must apply and how they should reach a decision.  If an applicant demonstrates a need for international protection and they meet the definition of a refugee under the terms of the 1951 Convention, asylum is granted.  If they are otherwise vulnerable they may engage our obligations under the ECHR, in which case they will be granted Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave.  If their application is refused, they have a right of appeal to the Asylum Immigration Tribunal or an opportunity to seek judicial review through the higher courts.  Asylum Instructions setting out the detailed procedures and criteria for deciding asylum applications are published on the UK Border Agency website at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/guidance/asylumprocess/

To maintain a high standard of decision quality, a Quality Audit team assess 20% of decisions made across the regional asylum teams, using an assessment form designed jointly with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and feed back findings to decision-makers and managers.  The UNHCR currently conduct random peer reviews of the Quality Audit team’s assessments. We recognise that the conditions for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in some countries are such that there may be individuals who are able to demonstrate a need for international protection – instructions to decision-makers are clear that they may qualify for asylum on the grounds of persecution as a member of a particular social group.

However, we do not accept that there should be a presumption that each and every asylum seeker of a particular nationality who presents themselves as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender should automatically be afforded protection in the UK.  It is in keeping with the terms of the Refugee Convention that every case is assessed individually on the basis of all the available information against the Refugee Convention and ECHR criteria.

Legal aid funding is designed to help those who can least afford to pay to obtain legal advice, assistance and representation when necessary.  There is no nationality or residence qualification for receiving either civil or criminal legal aid.  The Legal Services Commission (LSC) administers the legal aid system in England and Wales.  The LSC is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.  We do not believe that the current funding arrangements are inadequate.

Lying border guards to deport man twice

A gay asylum seeker may be deported from Britain for a SECOND time this month – days after being flown back under a High Court ruling.

As we reported in the Pink Paper last autumn, Mr X, as we have to refer to him due to reporting restrictions, was deported to his homeland after his application was rejected, despite homosexuality being illegal and punishable by life imprisonment there.

The Home Office insisted he could be returned there as long as he was “discreet” about his sexuality.

But last month the High Court ruled that officials had deported Mr X illegally, by deceiving him into thinking he was being taken to a detention centre when he was actually restrained and carried onto an aircraft.

In February, Judge Sir George Newman said the refugee’s removal was “manifestly unlawful” and ordered the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, to “use her best endeavours” to bring him back.

He said the UK Border Agency seemed to “deliberately mislead” Mr X and deprived him of his right to seek legal advice before his removal.

Yet, just days after being brought back to Britain under what appears to be a technicality, he faces a second deportation after his latest application was crushed.

The move was predicted by lawyers for the home secretary, who argued that flying him back to the UK was pointless as the 38-year-old was bound to lose the new claim.

Speaking exclusively to The Pink Paper from his safe house on the south coast of
England, Mr X spoke of his disappointment at the latest decision: “I don’t know what to do – I’m confused. I’m gutted and have been feeling so low. You start to feel bitter when just one word changes everything. I thought that maybe they would be fair to me after all this, but they are not.”

Mr X, who claims he was beaten up by Border Agency officials when he was deported from the UK, was assaulted upon his arrival in his homeland, where he spent several days in jail.

“I was arrested at the airport and taken to prison, which was horrendous,” he told us. “There were 156 people sat on the floor in one cell with no mats, no blankets and no running water.

“Everybody got to know about my case, so everyone was calling me names. People didn’t want to sleep next to me, everyone was just looking at me like I should be dead. It was awful. The police were saying that being gay is a European characteristic. I couldn’t give any answer as it’s not a matter of copying gay things – it’s who I am.”

When Pink Paper contacted the Home Office, they refused to comment on the case because – as a rule – they don’t respond on individual cases. However, they did say: “We have a proud tradition of offering protection to those who need it. We are committed to a fair and compassionate asylum system. Crucially we have independent oversight from Courts. We will not remove anyone who has outstanding in-country appeal rights.”

Mr X has two weeks to appeal the decision.

Source

Cary Alan Johnson; IGLHRC's new executive director speaks on his role

By Antoine Craigwell (New York, NY) - Fresh from an outpost office as the senior specialist for Africa in Cape Town, South Africa, Cary Alan Johnson, newly appointed executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), spoke exclusively with GBMNews.com on Mar 6, 2009 about assuming this position, the challenges it brings, and his expectations for himself and the organization.

GBMNews: Mr. Johnson, good day and thank you for agreeing to spare me the time to share with our readers your thoughts about assuming this new position?

Johnson: I am thrilled. This is an organization I've been involved with since its inception as one of the original members of the Board of Directors, since about 20 years ago, about the time when organizations such as Gay Men of African Descent and the Minority Task Force on AIDS were themselves set up. It was really wonderful for me to have been a leader in Africa, which has been my area of expertise. Now I see myself developing IGLHRC's expertise against homophobia in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and the Caribbean. In the Middle East and Caribbean, we need to identify more with our partners in those regions.

GBMNews: What do you bring to this leadership role?

Johnson: I bring four years working as a staff member, a long involvement as a Board member, and 20 years working in Africa. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa since 1983 and I bring solid experience in LGBT politics.

GBMNews: In your new role, what do you see are some of your expectations?

Johnson: I hope that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movements around the world could feel positive about the work of IGLHRC over the years and develop better partnerships with us. My hope is that we could build better partnerships with organizations such as the Jamaican LGBT organization, Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-sexuals and Gays, organizations on the ground, and people who know the cultures. It is only with the people on the ground that IGLHRC can make a meaningful contribution; we can't do it from the outside.

I expect to be busy in this new role.

I recently visited Latin America where I encountered very well developed LGBT and HIV organizations in Argentina and Brazil. But, of concern to me is the types of violations people face in different parts of the world that are different and require different approaches. These underlie the continued violence based on sexual orientation that is promoted by states, families or by non-governmental agencies, or a combination of all three.

GBMNews: Originally you are from New York. How do you feel about returning to your hometown?

Johnson: There's an excitement in the air here in the United States. There are many people looking and waiting for change, and it's exciting to be here to see the manifestation of change. It is exciting to see that Hillary Clinton, who has a strong commitment to LGBT rights, now as the Secretary of State. In South Africa, I was experiencing New York on the Internet and from CNN, but it's great to be here. However, at the same time the financial crisis has already had a severe impact on IGLHRC's funding and maintaining our programs is our biggest challenge. But, it's way too early to tell which programs would be affected by cuts.

GBMNews: What were your thoughts about leaving your office in South Africa?

Johnson: We have a great staff in South Africa. We have superlative activists in Joel Nana, a grassroots activist from Cameroon and from Victor Mukesa, a transgender, from Uganda. We'll be hiring a new head for the office who would be a senior human rights director.

GBMNews: In your position in South Africa, what were some of or one of the moments/ accomplishments you were most proud?

Johnson: When I look back, the original case of the 11 men from the Cameroon who were arrested in May 2005 and released after 13 months in prison. We poured so much into them. These were men who were hanging out in a bar and were arrested. The courts ordered forcible anal examinations to prove they were gay and one of the men who was HIV-positive, died shortly after he was released. We were glad to get a lawyer, Alice Nkom, who took on the cases, because without representation [in Cameroon] a person could spend years in prison without seeing a judge.

GBMNews: What were your disappointments, what did not work, and why?

Johnson: I'm disappointed with mainstream human rights organizations who do not embrace the overall human rights discourse. There were occasions when someone was fired from a job or beaten up and when we went to the mainstream human rights organizations we were rebuffed and told that these cases were not human rights issues. An example is the human rights organization in Rwanda refusing to work on LGBT issues. This is not about color, but opening up their minds to include others, where often it is about religious influence and that homosexuality is un-African.

Johnson whose term of office is contracted for two years, took over from Paula Ettelbrick on Mar 1.

Still Human, Still Here: The hidden despair of Britain's failed asylum seekers

Alain was a respected TV journalist in Congo whose criticism of the government led to his arrest and torture. His father paid a huge bribe for his release and he fled to Britain. His asylum claim was rejected and, unable to support himself, he is destitute, Two years ago a racist attack left him blind in one eye.

Alain is one of 60 failed asylum seekers featured in an exhibition by photographer Abbie Trayler-Smith, Still Human, Still Here at London's Host gallery. The exhibition exposes the hidden lives of those who are trapped in an impossible no-man's-land, unable to return home but prevented from working to support themselves. They can only wait and hope their lengthy appeals are successful.

"In Kinshasa I was tortured physically and here I’m tortured mentally," Alain told the exhibition launch on Wednesday night. He explained that he had arrived in Britain looking for sanctuary but was treated as less than human, forced to sleep rough and rely on what little money people gave him. He has lost not only his home and family but his dignity and now he has also lost sight in one eye.

Abbie spent many months volunteering at a drop-in centre for asylum seekers before she started taking pictures. She explained that building a relationship with each individual she photographed was vital, not least because she did not want to "be a vulture" and exploit their vulnerability.

The trust she clearly developed with those she photographed has enabled her to shine a light on the drudgery of daily existence for these people. Cheap canned food heated directly on a gas stove in a squat in Leeds, the blackened feet of a figure lying on a shabby mattress, footprints in the snow in North London. Abbie's pictures take us right to the heart of these immigrants' lives and sensitively expose the hopelessness of their predicament.

Boris Johnson has recently faced criticism for suggesting that the government consider an amnesty for all illegal immigrants. Immigration minister Phil Woolas described the Mayor of London's idea as a "road to hell". But at the very least it seems sensible to allow people to work while their claim is being settled.

What seems abundantly clear is that the current removals policy isn't working. A new study by the London School of Economic estimates the number of illegals to be 725,000, up from 430,000 that the Home Office recorded in 2001. People who would have previously been granted Exception Leave to Remain (ELR) for four years are now denied asylum, after the rules were changed in 2003. A recent report from the refugee charity Pafras said that the number of destitute asylum seekers the charity has seen has tripled in two years.

Alain thanked Abbie for "being our voice". Her photos should make us all listen.

Source

UK accused over asylum seekers left to live on $1 a day

Hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers are living in the UK in extreme poverty, because they fear torture or death if they return to their home countries, according to a report released today.

The report warns many failed asylum seekers are living in a "twilight zone", with no housing or financial support, and no right to work. Many failed asylum seekers are living on less than "a dollar a day", the global yardstick for extreme poverty, it claims. Recent research by the London School of Economics estimated there are 500,000 failed asylum seekers in the UK.

Christine Majid, from the refugee charity Pafras, who commissioned the Underground Lives report, says the number of destitute asylum seekers the charity dealt with tripled in the past two years and called destitution a "deliberate" policy to force asylum seekers out of the country.

She said: "In the 21st century the fact that the government is trying to starve people out of the country, it is absolutely inhumane and it just isn't working. These people would rather starve on the street here than return to their own countries."

A series of governmental policy decisions including preventing asylum seekers from working in 2002, cutting legal aid in 2004 and an overhaul of the system in 2007 has lead to an "untenable strain" on local charities, she added.

The report found that, on average, failed asylum seekers were surviving on £7.65 per week, but the majority lived on less than £5. Two thirds had experienced torture in their countries. Following the refusal of their asylum claims, 72% have spent time sleeping outside; of these, 38% have experienced physical attacks. More than a third of the women sleeping rough had experienced sexual assault, including rape.

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg called the report "a timely reminder of how the government has combined incompetence and inhumanity to create one of Europe's most inefficient and cruel asylum systems". "Responsibility for asylum should be taken away from the cack-handed blunderings of the Home Office and given to an independent agency."

Asylum claims have fallen sharply in recent years and are at a 14-year low, with 23,430 applications for asylum in 2007 - 4% of all immigration applications - compared with 103,080 in 2002. A lack of access to proper legal advice is having a significant impact on the number of valid asylum seekers being refused sanctuary, and returned to countries where they could be tortured, said human rights lawyer Louise Christian. "The government's asylum policies are entirely at odds with its human rights obligation - particularly with regards to children in detention. It is a huge source of scandal and shame to this country."

A UK Border Agency spokesperson said the government provided measures to ensure individuals are not left without basic essentials. But the report says only around 9,000 people receive UKBA support, which provides £35 in supermarket vouchers a week and no-choice accommodation. Many are reluctant to apply for it as they must sign an agreement consenting to be removed from the UK at a later date.

The report is being released in conjunction with a major exposition of photographs of failed asylum seekers, launched in association with the Still Human, Still Here campaign, led by a coalition of human rights organisations including Amnesty International and the Refugee Council.

Source

Members of the European Parliament ask Germany to properly apply EU legislation for a gay asylum seeker from Iran

On 18 March Members of the European Parliament's Intergroup on Gay and Lesbian Rights sent a letter to the German Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries and Minister of the Interior Wolfgang Schäuble asking them to find a proper solution for an Iranian gay asylum seeker who has seen his asylum application being rejected in Germany.

"We would like to remind you that Member States of the European Union cannot apply European and national laws and procedures in a way resulting in the expulsion of persons to a third country where they would risk persecution, torture and death, as this would amount to a violation of European and international human rights obligations," states the letter to the German ministers.

Members of the Intergroup also reminded the ministers that Iran is one of the 7 countries in the world punishing homosexual citizens with death penalty. The MEPs urged the ministers to find a solution for the Iranian asylum seeker not to be deported back to the country where he will be prosecuted because of his sexual orientation

Last year the European Parliament issued a resolution Nr.B6-0111/2008 on a similar case involving Mr. Mehdi Kazemi, who also risked deportation from the EU to Iran. The resolution called upon Member States for proper and full application of the Qualifications Directive (Nr.2004/84/EC) and urged them to take actions to avoid that similar situation would happen in the future. Mr. Kazemi was given leave to remain in the UK.

The letter has been signed by the President of the Intergroup Michael Cashman, Vice-Presidents Sophie In´t Veld, Raúl Romeva, Lissy Gröner and member of the Intergroup Baroness Sarah Ludford.

For further information on the Intergroup please visit our website:
http://www.lgbt-ep.eu

Representatives of European Parliament's Intergroup on Gay and Lesbian Rights:
President: Michael Cashman MEP (UK/PSE)
Vice-President: Lissy Gröner MEP (DE/PSE)
Vice-President: Sophie in 't Veld MEP (ALDE)
Vice-President: Raül Romeva MEP (G/EFA)
Vice-President: Sirpa Pietikäinen MEP (EPP-ED)

Gay seminar stirs outrage in Morocco

Outrage swept across Morocco following a gay association's announcement of a planned seminar on sexual problems.

The seminar entitled "Gender and Sexuality," is set to be held in April and will tackle sensitive issues that people are too shy to discuss for religious and social reasons, said Mariam Benebodallah, media spokesperson for the Moroccan homosexual association Kif Kif.

"The seminar will host experts and lecturers who will present their points of view about how Moroccans can develop their sex life," she told AlArabiya.net."We will tackle the issues at the seminar with extreme caution, and we are not trying to provoke anyone."

Foreign Support Blamed

Moroccan observers said it was unlikely that Moroccan authorities would allow the association to hold such activities and blamed foreign support.

Moroccan sex researcher Hassan Serrat said Moroccan homosexuals are a small group and cannot organize such activities on their own.

"They are definitely getting foreign support especially from British and Spanish gay rights associations," he told AlArabiya.net.

Serrat pointed out that Spanish homosexual associations were outraged at the gay arrests that took place four years ago in the northern Moroccan city of Tetouan and a year ago in the northwestern city of al-Qasr al-Kabir.

"It seems the International Lesbian and Gay Association delegated the homosexuals of Spain to defend those of Morocco," Serrat said.

Kif Kif's spokesperson, however, denied all allegations that the association receives foreign funding and stressed that Moroccan law grants them the right of assembly.

An ongoing battle

Serrat insisted there is an ongoing battle between Moroccan authorities and the association, especially since homosexuals have been attempting to infiltrate Moroccan culture.

"The religious background of Moroccans and their knowledge of the curse of homosexuality has made that hard for them," he said.

He claimed the association managed to gain access to the media when a Moroccan state television show hosted a gay writer and when al-Sabah newspaper interviewed the association's coordinator.

Serrat added that Moroccan authorities are in a very awkward situation since they are torn between European pressure and Morocco's conservative community.

However, Serrat said he expected that the authorities to ban all homosexual activities since they tarnish the image of Muslim Morocco.

"How can Morocco severe ties with Iran in defense of the Sunni faith then overlook homosexuality," he said.

Dr. Mustapha Ben Hamza, chairman of a local council, said it is very unlikely that the authorities will allow such a seminar to take place.

Hamza argued that the seminar announcement was just propaganda as part of homosexuals' attempts to be integrated into Moroccan society.

"They will never be accepted in Moroccan society," he concluded.

Source

~~~~~~

HOMOSEXUALITY in MOROCCO & in ISLAM (part 1 - 5)

John Kerry requests asylum for married Brazilian gay man

US Senator and former Presidential candidate John Kerry has come to the aid of a Brazilian man, Genesio "Junior" Oliveira, who requested asylum in the U.S. in 2002. In 2005, he was married in Massachusetts to his husband Tim Coco, but the couple have been separated since 2007 when Oliveira was sent back to Brazil after his asylum requests and appeals were denied.

The AP reports: "Oliveira asked for asylum in 2002, saying he was raped and attacked by a physician as a teenager in Brazil and feared persecution because of his sexuality. The Associated Press does not typically name rape victims, but Oliveira speaks openly about his case and allows his name to be used. In a letter sent Thursday to Attorney General Eric Holder, Kerry said Immigration Judge Francis Cramer found Oliveira’s testimony to be credible and his fear of living in Brazil genuine. However the judge denied the claim, saying the man 'was never physically harmed,' something Kerry called 'outrageous.' ... 'Tim and Junior have played by the rules since day one,' Kerry said. 'Junior’s asylum claim is a legitimate one and has been recognized as such.' The Executive Office for Immigration Review will not confirm or deny whether an immigrant has requested asylum. The Department of Justice said Holder would review the letter."

Cases like these are why the Uniting American Families Act, which was recently reintroduced, is so important. As well, of course, as the repeal of DOMA which prevents the federal government from recognizing anything other than a heterosexual marriage.

Source

Washington Post: Separation Anxiety

Editorial

Gay couples should be allowed to stay together in the United States.

THE UNITING American Families Act would allow gay and lesbian Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the United States. The bill, introduced last month in the Senate by Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and in the House by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), would add "permanent partner" and "permanent partnership" after the words "spouse" and "marriage" in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If passed, it would right a gross unfairness.

Under the proposal, a "permanent partnership" is defined as a "committed, intimate relationship" with another adult "in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment." The couple must be financially interdependent and not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone else. And the partners can't be related. The benefit comes with the same immigration restrictions and enforcement standards that apply to heterosexual couples. Fraudulent permanent partnerships face the same penalties as fake marriages: up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

"Under current law, committed same-sex foreign partners of American citizens are unable to use the family immigration system, which accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the United States," Mr. Leahy said upon introducing the bill. "The promotion of family unity has long been part of federal immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones." According to the most recent census, he added, about 35,000 binational, same-sex couples are living in the United States. The new legislation would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to gays and lesbians.

The strain of the status quo on gay and lesbian binational couples should not be discounted. Because their relationships are not legally recognized by the United States, some couples have resorted to illegal marriages where the foreign nationals marry Americans to get green cards that allow them to stay in the country permanently. In other cases, Americans have exiled themselves to be with their partners. Sixteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom, allow residents to sponsor same-sex permanent partners for legal immigration. American gays and lesbians should not have to choose between their country and their partners.

Source

Help a young gay Mexican be released from detention

Friends,

My colleagues and I are urgently trying to raise $3,000 to get a young gay Mexican man released from detention, where he's being beaten and abused by other inmates. More details follow:

Jose is a 21 year old gay Mexican who is currently detained by U.S. immigration authorities in Chicago. When Jose was 15, a close relative abducted him and forced him into sexual slavery in a brothel in Mexico. For two years, Jose's abusers drugged him and forced him to perform sexual acts with an average of five "clients" per day. Jose escaped when a friend visited the brothel and took pity on him. Jose lived in hiding in various locations throughout Mexico for the next couple years, and was eventually able to flee to the United States in 2007.

Jose was recently apprehended by the immigration authorities and he is now detained in the gym of an over-crowded prison, sharing a space with 50 other men, most of whom come from Latin American countries. Recently, Jose has been threatened by other inmates because of his sexuality. This morning, Jose was attacked by another inmate without provocation. Jose is traumatized and he is now living in fear of further attacks while he is in detention.

Jose is now applying for asylum. U.S. law recognizes sexual orientation as a grounds for asylum, and Jose's lawyers at Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center believe he has a strong chance of success. Unfortunately, the law mandates the continued detention of asylum-seekers like Jose, and requires a bond to secure their release. Jose's bond has been set at $3,000, an amount he is unable to pay. Jose has no family in the U.S., and his family in Mexico has rejected him for being gay. Heartland Alliance is seeking donations for a revolving loan fund (to be repaid by Jose) to secure Jose's release from detention. Donations are tax-deductible, and will contribute to a fund for especially vulnerable asylum seekers. Any funds contributed for Jose release will, in the future, be used to obtain the release of other individuals fleeing persecution on account of their sexual orientation.

Checks made out to Heartland Alliance can be sent to my attention (memo: Urgent Asylum Seeker Release Fund) at the address below. Please forward this appeal to others who might be able to help, as well. We hope to raise these funds by the end of this week to move Jose to safety as quickly as possible.

Many thanks,
Sean

--------------------------------------------
Sean Casey
Coordinator, Global Equality Network
Director, Global HIV Initiatives
208 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 1818
Chicago, IL 60604
www.heartlandalliance.org

Australian gay group wants Iran-talks invite

Gay rights activists have asked to meet former Iranian president H. E. Sayed Mohammed Khatami during his visit to Melbourne, hosted by Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier.

After outrage from the Jewish community, Freier extended an invitation to them and other religious minorities persecuted in Iran under Khatami’s regime from 1997 to 2005.

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said if Freier’s invitation was sincere he would extend it to GLBT groups.

“We want to ask Mohammad Khatami whether he supports the persecution and execution of homosexuals, and what, if anything, will bring the harassment and killing to an end,” Croome said in a statement today.

Khatami was invited to Australia by La Trobe’s Centre for Dialogue and will give a public lecture on 26 March. The Centre asked Freier to host a function at his Anglican Archdiocese residence for Khatami.

The Jewish Community Council of Victoria resigned from the Centre’s board of advisors in protest this week. But the Centre’s director Professor Joseph Camilleri told The Age that the response was an over-reaction.

Source

Sources: US to sign UN gay rights declaration

By MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.

"As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.

The official added that the United States was concerned about "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and was also "troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."

"In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'," the official said.

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.

When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

Source

Sent back by Britain. Executed in Darfur

A failed asylum-seeker who returned to Darfur under a government repatriation scheme has been murdered by Sudanese security officers after they followed him home from the airport in Khartoum, The Independent has learnt.

Adam Osman Mohammed, 32, was gunned down in his home in front of his wife and four-year-old son just days after arriving in his village in south Darfur.

The case is to be used by asylum campaigners to counter Home Office attempts to lift the ban on the removal and deportation to Sudan of failed asylum-seekers. Next month, government lawyers are expected to go to court to argue that it is safe to return as many as 3,000 people to Khartoum.

But lawyers for the campaigners will tell the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that people who are returned to Sudan face imprisonment, torture and death. Mr Mohammed, a non-Arab Darfuri, came to Britain in 2005 seeking sanctuary from persecution in Sudan, where he said his life was in danger. The village where he was a farmer had been raided twice by the Janjaweed, the ethnic Arab militia, forcing him and his wife and child to flee their home.

His family in Britain told The Independent that Mr Mohammed witnessed many villagers being killed and became separated from his wife during a second attack on the village a few weeks later. He escaped to Chad before making his way to the UK in 2005.

But last year his appeal for asylum was finally turned down and he was told that he faced deportation. In August last year he was flown to Khartoum under the Home Office's assisted voluntary return programme, in which refugees are paid to go back to their country of origin. He stayed in Khartoum for a few months and then, when he believed it was safe, he travelled to Darfur to be reunited with his family.

Mohamed Elzaki Obubeker, Mr Mohammed's cousin and chairman of the Darfur Union in the UK, said: "The government security forces had followed him to another village, Calgoo, where his wife and child had sought help. They came to the village to find him and then targeted him. They shot him in front of his wife and son."

Waging Peace, the human rights campaign group which is to bring Mr Mohammed's case to the attention of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in April, said it deplored any attempt to lift the ban on returning non-Arab Darfuris to Sudan. Louise Roland-Gosselin, the group's director, said: "We are deeply concerned by what has happened to Adam and many like him.

"The Government still wants to send back Darfuri asylum-seekers. But it is difficult to understand on what basis the Government is making this decision. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudan's President, Omar al-Bashir, over murders committed during the genocide. It shows just how out of touch the Home Office is with the reality taking place in Khartoum if it thinks it's safe to send people back to a country where there is clear evidence of genocide."

Amnesty International's UK refugee programme director, Jan Shaw, said yesterday: "Darfur is still incredibly dangerous. A climate of insecurity prevails and human rights abusers act with impunity. Women are still exposed to rape and other civilians are still being murdered or forced to flee their homes. Even in Khartoum we have concerns that Darfuris may be at risk of persecution. No one should be removed to Sudan at the present time.

"The UK should also treat refused asylum-seekers humanely when they have come to the UK seeking sanctuary. People from Sudan have been refused asylum here, but at present they can't be removed. Yet in most cases this means that all their support is cut off and they could be left destitute on the streets with nothing. It's tragic if some people then get so desperate that they return to Sudan despite the risks to their safety."

Between 2,000 and 3,000 Darfuris living in the United Kingdom are at risk of removal to Sudan.

Mr Obubeker added: "The government suspects everyone who returns from the United Kingdom as being anti-government, whether it is true or not. They regard them as enemies of the state. What happened to my cousin is a terrible thing to have happened to someone who thought he had escaped to a country for safety. He wanted to live in Britain because he knew it was too dangerous for him to live in Darfur. But despite making claims for asylum, his case was rejected. He became even more sad when he found out that his asylum case was lost.

"He hadn't made many friends in Birmingham and he started to think about his wife and son. It is a tragedy because all he wanted was a new life in this country – and for that he is dead."

Mr Mohammed spent most of his time in Britain living in Perry Barr, Birmingham, where his family said he found it difficult to integrate with the community.

Home Office guidance for caseworkers deciding asylum claims brought by Darfuris makes it clear that the Government believes it is safe to return people to Khartoum. The guidance states: "The fact that a returnee has unsuccessfully sought international protection in the United Kingdom is likely to be known to the Sudanese authorities... However, a person will not as such be at real risk on return to Khartoum, either at the airport or subsequently, simply because he or she is an involuntary returnee of Sudanese nationality."

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: "We consider every asylum application with the utmost care and, crucially, there is oversight from the independent courts. We are continuing to monitor the situation in Sudan, and in July last year we took the decision to stop returning non-Arab Darfuris until the courts decided it was safe to do so."

Trouble spots: Voluntary returns

Afghanistan

Britain stopped deporting Afghan refugees in 1995 – failed asylum-seekers were granted "exceptional leave to remain". The rules changed after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and end of Taliban rule; a voluntary assisted return programme began in 2003 and single claimants were offered £600 to go back.

Iraq

Iraqis went back to northern Iraq under the voluntary scheme from 2003 and have been offered deals to go back to Baghdad. Under the terms, those returning to Iraq sign a waiver releasing the International Organisation for Migration from any responsibility for or liability towards them.

Zimbabwe

In 2006, 200 failed asylum-seekers voluntarily returned to Zimbabwe. Last year, the Government stopped forced returns but Zimbabweans can still take advantage of the voluntary programme to return.

Source

IFJ Warns of Dangers of Intolerance after Cameroon Union Circulates Anti-Gay Article

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has called on African journalists to beware the dangers of prejudice and discrimination facing gay people after a report that a journalists' group in Cameroon has put at risk colleagues by making public accusations of homosexuality in a country where the practice is forbidden by law.

The IFJ says that the distribution by the Syndicat des Journalistes Employés du Cameroun (SJEC) of a controversial report in the biweekly Aurore Plus, which accuses a rival union leader of homosexuality, was a provocative and unacceptable action.

“In parts of Africa there is a level of intolerance of homosexuality which is unacceptable and this sort of action is aimed at encouraging further prejudice,” said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary.

“It has no place in the trade union movement and should be avoided.”

The IFJ says the message appears to be using intolerance as a weapon in inter-union rivalry.

The IFJ says the SJEC should clarify its position over the message sent in December to a network of regional and international journalists’ groups.

The message reproduced an article that accused a leader of the Syndicat National des Journalistes du Cameroun of homosexuality, knowing that gay activities are widely condemned in Cameroon and punished by the criminal law.

The IFJ says that the article – which is unsigned – was designed to encourage discrimination and to reflect negatively on the SNJC and its leaders.

“On a continent where there is much to be done to build respect and equal rights for everyone in society, it is vital that journalists and their organisations do not engage in actions which can discriminate against any group, whether it is on the basis of their race, religion, gender – or sexuality,” said Mr.White.

The IFJ last month launched a major new campaign – the Ethical Journalism Initiative – which has at its heart the need for journalism to nourish diversity and respect for minorities.

“This incident illustrates only too well that we have much work to do in journalism and the union movement against all forms of discrimination,” added Mr. White.

The IFJ plans to encourage more debate and actions within the journalism community to guard against intolerance.

“We have seen how prejudice such as that expressed by President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe can quickly become the basis for hatred and acts of violence against the gay community,” said Mr. White.

“We must do everything we can to avoid that, which is why the union in this case must clearly repudiate the action of circulating intolerant material about a colleague.”

Source