Anti-homosexual protesters hit Sierra Leone streets

Image via Wikipedia

Source: Africa Review

Freetown was the scene of a big anti-gay rights protest on Friday organised to “ward-off" the possibility of recognising same sex marriages in the country.

Close to 1,000 protesters thronged the streets at the east end of Freetown attracting scores of onlookers on the process who cheered them on.

The post Friday prayer demonstration was organised by the Inveterate International Islamic Revitalists, who said they were worried that persistent pronouncements from major powers could influence the country`s politicians to recognise “alien” and “immoral” practices in the country.

The organisers say the protests will be a bi-weekly affair.

Sheikh Marrah, one of the leaders of the protesters, referred to a recent statement by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton who said US would use aid to encourage the respect of the rights of gays and lesbians.

That followed an earlier statement by UK`s prime minister, David Cameron, who said the people of Britain wanted to see countries that receive UK aid adhering to “proper human rights”, including “how people treat gay and lesbian people.”

"What we know as human rights will conform with the laws of nature… woman to man so that we can grow in number,” Imam Marrah told the Africa Review in an interview.

The UK Prime Minister`s remarks drew more aggressive responses from a number of African countries who have been openly hostile to same sex marriage, including Ghana and Uganda.

Condemnation

In Sierra Leone, the Deputy Minister of Information and Communications led the wave of condemnations that follow David Cameron`s statement. The minister in October that homosexuality was against the country`s culture.

The head of the Sierra Leone Methodist Church, Bishop Arnold Temple, was more forthright. He said Africa should not be seen as a continent in need to be influenced by the “demonic threat” of the British prime minister “as our values are totally different."

Organisers of last Friday`s protests say the march would be an ongoing one, and that they intend to stage one every Monday`s and Fridays until they cover the length and breadth of the country.

Shiekh Marra said they staged the protest because “we want government to understand well the repercussion of endorsing the practice of same sex marriage.”

Read more »

What preceded Hillary Clinton's UN speech?

By Douglas Sanders

Hillary Clinton’s fine speech in Geneva on LGBT rights saw the US playing catch-up to initiatives of a dozen other Western countries. As activists, we welcome the US to the process. But dawn is not yet breaking everywhere.  There are many time zones.

In the years since the Second World War lesbians and gay men have gradually been recognized as legitimate minorities in the West. Soon half of Western Europe will have legal same-sex marriage (and most of the rest will have registered partnerships in parallel with heterosexual marriage). Latin America has begun to follow the same path, with marriage in two key states (Argentina and Mexico) and equal rights in other places (including strong leadership by Brazil). 

The combination of Western European and Latin America support has turned the tide at the United Nations, allowing (a) the accreditation of LGBT NGOs for lobbying purposes, (b) support from UN human rights experts, and (c) the first resolution by a UN political body in June, 2011, supporting LGBT rights (in the Human Rights Council). 

There is now some jockeying for applause by leading states. Which country has taken the lead and should get special praise? Is it the Netherlands? Is it Brazil? Is it France? Is it Argentina? Is it the UK? Is it the US? We have become fashionable! Hillary Clinton was photographed with a clutch of LGBT leaders from around the world after her speech.

Who is on the other side? Russia. States in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Most of Black Africa. Who says nothing? India. China (which has stopped simply siding with opposing states on the issues).

The Netherlands must get the ‘lifetime career’ Oscar. It had the first post-war gay organization, and led in funding both for local and international LGBT organizations. Its domestic policy was termed gay and lesbian ‘emancipation.’ In 2001 it was the first country to open marriage. HIVOS, a humanist foundation, administers a part of Dutch foreign aid, and its name is inevitably on the supporters list for international events.  Sweden also gets credit now for supporting the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

The 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna was the first ‘coming out’ party for governments. Five stepped forward to state their support for gay and lesbian equality rights: Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands. Singapore also stepped forward – the only government to state their hostility to homosexual rights (and skepticism about human rights in general). 

Read more »

Workers face curb on bringing foreign spouses to UK

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

The UK is proposing a rule change which would mean half of all workers wouldn’t be able to bring a foreign-born spouse to live with them in Britain.

An advisory committee is proposing the introduction of a minimum gross (i.e. before tax) income threshold of at least £18,600 ($29,388) and perhaps as much as £25,700 ($40,606), which would be required to bring your partner to live with you in the UK.

The committee estimates that 45% of current applicants would not meet the lower income threshold and 64% of current applicants would not meet the higher threshold.  Around 50,000 family visas are granted to immediate relatives of British residents every year.

Prime Minister David Cameron has already expressed support for the idea, saying it is aimed at reducing “a significant burden on the welfare system and the taxpayer.” But the committee which dreamt it up was tasked with finding ways of meeting the British government’s target reduction plan for immigration.

Partly due to the pound losing its value, emigration has fallen to its lowest level in a decade. And according to Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, once you cut out British people coming home, migrants from the EU, student visas and work visas (which are also being cut), you are left with very few immigrants to stop. Hence the focus on people entering via marriage or civil partnership as a means to meeting the pledge to ‘cut immigration.’

The proposal would lead to a significant bias against applicants from Scotland and the north of England, where average incomes are lower. There would therefore be a bias in favor of migration to the London area. It would also make it harder for women to bring in their partners, as they earn less than men.

The figures cited also assume that there are no children or dependents in the household, and the committee proposes a multiplier formula to address this issue, meaning that much higher income thresholds might be introduced for those with children, possibly over £40,000 ($63,000).

There is no evidence that large numbers of migrants entering by the family route are living on welfare, or that current policy is failing to deal adequately with the problem of forced marriages.

Matt Cavanagh, the associate director of the Institute of Public Policy Research, told The Guardian:

“We’re not talking about people who are destitute or living on benefits, we are talking about people who are working and getting an average wage. If the government goes ahead with this policy, it is likely to be challenged in the courts.”

New international LGBT human rights organisation launches

By Paul Canning

A new international LGBT human rights body based in the UK will launch Tuesday 13 September.

The Kaleidoscope International Diversity Trust has been endorsed by all three major British party political leaders and its Honorary President is the Speaker of the British House of Commons, John Bercow MP.

In his endorsement the British Prime Minister David Cameron said:

“Our country has made real progress on LGB and T equality and, without forgetting how far we've still got to go domestically, it is right that we should now increasingly turn our attention towards bringing about change abroad."

"In some countries, it's simply appalling how people can be treated - how their rights are trampled on and the prejudices, and even violence, they suffer. So I want Britain to be a global beacon for reform. That's why I am delighted to send my best wishes to Kaleidoscope, and wish them well in their work " 

"Be in no doubt, this is a hugely important issue to this Government. Last March, we published an update on our plan on LGB and T issues. It included fourteen areas where we want to act internationally, covering issues like asylum and protecting the rights of British citizens living, working or travelling abroad. We look forward to the contribution that Kaleidoscope will make to the debate on and progress towards equality worldwide.”

At an event for LGBT Pride Month in June Cameron picked on the UK's lobbying of African government's on LGBT human rights as an issue to showcase his government's LGBT credentials.

He specifically singled out Malawi for mention in his remarks, delivered to a Downing Street reception to which many of Britain's gay and lesbian great and the good were invited.

He claimed that the British coalition government's commitment to not cut its foreign aid budget meant it carried "moral authority" when speaking to global south countries about "what we expect from them".

"I’m very proud of the fact we [put] huge pressure on the leader of Malawi about an issue in that country but I’m convinced we can do more. We have got the ability to speak to African leaders, African governments, about this issue that I know concerns everyone here tonight. And it concerns me," he said.

Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, Nick Clegg, said that Kaleidoscope has a "innovative and unique approach".

"The vision this organisation is articulating - for a world where everyone can express their secuality without fear of prejudice - is one all liberals stand behind."

Read more »

Cameron's Africa LGBT rights comments are rhetoric and could backfire

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

At an event for LGBT Pride Month the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, picked on the UK's lobbying of African government's on LGBT human rights as an issue to showcase his government's credentials.

He specifically singled out Malawi for mention in his remarks, delivered to a Downing Street reception to which many of Britain's gay and lesbian great and the good were invited.

He claimed that the British coalition government's commitment to not cut its foreign aid budget meant it carried "moral authority" when speaking to global south countries about "what we expect from them".

"I’m very proud of the fact we [put] huge pressure on the leader of Malawi about an issue in that country but I’m convinced we can do more. We have got the ability to speak to African leaders, African governments, about this issue that I know concerns everyone here tonight. And it concerns me," he said.

The 'issue' I presume he means in Malawi is the imprisonment for homosexuality of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga last year and their subsequent pardon by Malawian President Bingu Wa Mutharika - which Mutharika said was due to foreign pressure that culminated him being lobbyied by the UN General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon.

Britain is the biggest donor to Malawi however LGBT human rights issues have been only one small part of the 'carrot-and-stick' tactics used by Western donors on an increasingly repressive government. Far more important have been serious concerns about Mutharika's crackdown on media and civil society.

In a warning about how delicate these issues of using aid, especially when it comes with rhetoric like "moral authority", are, and despite LGBT issues being minor in the game being played with Malawi's government, they have used supposed pressure on LGBT issues to play to the local anti-gay gallery and to the 'African sovereignty' gallery and to divert attention from the real reasons aid might be diverted or even withheld. President Musceveni has used similar tactics, as have other anti-gay players in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa.

Mwakasungula (left), Trapence (right)

In Malawi this diversionary tactic has led to direct threats to two NGO leaders: Human Rights Consultative Commitee (HRCC) chairperson Undule Mwakasungula and executive director of Centre for Development of People (CEDEP) Gift Trapence. Both organisations actively support LGBT rights.

Cameron's mentioning of Malawi drew little immediate response but Mwakasungula has welcomed Cameron's statement.

What, exactly, Cameron's rhetoric might mean though is opaque as the actions of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as documented in its 2011 Human Rights report show very little activity in Africa on LGBT human rights.

Threats to individual civil society leaders tying their support for LGBT to supposed 'foreign influence' have occurred in Uganda, Zambia and Cameroon. Apart from Uganda, the FCO appears to have not done anything to support these other leaders, according to what they have said, however other governments have.

The FCO Human Rights report continues to focus largely on Europe and the documented work by overseas Embassies remains patchy.

For example, Nigeria travel advice barely mentions LGBT. It covers the existence of Sharia in Northern Nigeria (though this does not apply to foreigners) and that homosexuality is illegal under Nigerian Federal law.

This lack of coverage for travellers is matched in Home Office country information for decision makers on Nigerian asylum cases, which does not mention the treatment of LGBT people. Neither does this FCO report cover repression of LGBT in Nigeria (or any other West African country, including Senegal and Cameroon, both the focus of serious concerns). Nigeria is a significant source for LGBT asylum seekers and many have been removed there.

Yet the FCO report states that:

"When deciding on which countries to include, we also considered whether the country had been the target of a high level of UK engagement on human rights in 2010, and whether it would be likely to effect positive change in the wider region if their human rights record improved."

The report covers extensive engagement with Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, on human rights but no mention of LGBT. The same applies for other countries which heavily repress LGBT and which the FCO engages with on other human rights grounds, such as Pakistan.

To its credit, work which has had almost no international publicity but the FCO is known to have engaged with is pressure on the Democratic Republic of Congo against introducing legislation to criminalise homosexuality.

In the international system, such as at the UN and joining in with human rights agreements in the EU - including ones linking aid to human rights - the UK under this government has continued the previous government's support for LGBT. But there are over fifty countries in Africa and the evidence so far is that not only is Cameron's promise coming off an extremely low base but also that the rhetoric of "moral authority" has the potential to backfire.

Related articles

• In Zambia, Oxford Uni pulled into anti-gay 'political mudslinging' whilst former president backs gay rights (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Malawi government threatens pro-LGBT groups, activists over foreign aid withdrawals (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• UK Foreign Office 2011 human rights report: LGBT are visible but rights promotion remains patchy (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

What really lies behind refugee policy?

Image via Wikipedia

Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)

By Tad Tietze

The Christmas Island boat tragedy foregrounded debates that were already gaining in prominence and shrillness over the past year or so, disagreements over the ins and outs of Australia’s refugee policy.

I’m sure every reader of [ABC's] The Drum will roll their eyes when they read the subject headings: The threat of invasion. The jumping of queues. The risk to national security. The evil of people smugglers. Who is genuine and who is not. Push versus pull factors. The need for preventative detention. The value of deterrents. Australia’s international obligations versus its national sovereignty. The merits of onshore versus offshore processing. Whether women and children should be detained as well as adult men, and where. How we don’t let enough refugees in and how we risk opening the floodgates if we let too many in. How there is extreme focus on boat arrivals but minimal focus on visa overstayers.

If people feel like they’ve been here before, it’s because most of the arguments were regurgitated almost unceasingly from 2001 until the defeat of the Howard government in 2007. But what if these debates, rather than being the substance of the issue, were more a distraction – a sideshow – behind which the real reasons for these policies were hidden?

Notably, in the same week as there were tussles inside the upper echelons of the ALP over whether to toughen the government’s stance, the avowedly Thatcherite Conservative-led government of the United Kingdom was pushing through changes to liberalise refugee policy in that country, ending the “shameful” detention of children. It must have been disorienting for many progressive ALP supporters to see their party to the Right of a Tory administration on this issue.

It must also have been dispiriting for refugee supporters to recently see the Melbourne academic Robert Manne, a consistent advocate of a humane approach, speak pessimistically of the persistence of race politics in the national discourse, and to suggest the Left must accept the inevitability of state coercion of boat people.

Read more »

Guardian editorial: Home Office LGBT asylum decisions "breathtaking"

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

The Guardian newspaper in an editorial to mark the start of Refugee Week has called on the government to live up to "David Cameron's early words about taking refugees "to our hearts"".

It says that 'hope' has been engendered by Cameron's words - "a contrast with his predecessor as Tory leader, Michael Howard" - as well as "the infusion of Liberal Democrat thinking into the coalition agreement".

However it points to two early examples which 'sit uneasily' with such hope: the coalition government's promise to 'end child detention' whilst removing minors to unstable Afghanistan, and; LGBT asylum:

As for the coalition's promise to bar the removal of asylum seekers who live in fear of their home country's law owing to their sexuality, a great deal of work will be needed to translate warm general words into individual decisions. Practitioners claim 49 sexuality-based claims in every 50 are refused at the first hearing. People can be advised to go home and "be discreet" about their homosexuality, and that is only after they have seen off the breathtaking cases often made against them. Home Office officials will cheerfully cite an individual's failure to visit gay clubs or browse on gay websites as evidence that they may be straight.

... As things stand, asylum seekers are too often made to feel as if they have left one country where they face persecution, only to arrive at another where they are presumed to be liars.

Press statement: Welcome for Coalition's attention to LGBT asylum

Image by The Prime Minister's Office via Flickr

In a joint statement Refugee Action, the Refugee Council and LGBT Asylum News have welcomed the Coalition government's agreement's brief mention of LGBT asylum and hope it will be developed in a way that will lead to meaningful change in the way these cases are dealt with.

The Coalition agreement says (page 18):

"We will stop the deportation of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution."

Jill Roberts, Chief Executive of Refugee Action, said:

"We welcome the inclusion of this statement in the  government's agreement. We look forward to hearing more of the detail of these plans in the near future."

Sarah Cutler, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at the Refugee Council said:

"It is about time that refugees fleeing their countries because of persecution over their sexuality are acknowledged as being legitimately in need of safety here, in line with those fleeing other human rights abuses."

"It is not enough however to say they will not be deported. We would like to see a firm commitment to offering full refugee status to anyone who cannot be removed."

Paul Canning, Editor of LGBT Asylum News, said:

"Asylum seekers who can prove they are at risk are not being deported now. The problem is proving it and the Home Office's resistance as was demonstrated in the UKLGIG report 'Failing The Grade'. It examined fifty refusal letters in sexual orientation cases and practically all were being rejected. In the recent case of a Ugandan lesbian won in the High Court the Home Office is continuing to argue that she is not at risk despite over 300 pages of evidence showing that she is."

Through qualitative analysis of those refusal letters, 'Failing The Grade' demonstrated that UK Border Agency staff lack essential training and access to appropriate guidance on dealing with sexual orientation claims.

"This agreement's wording doesn't actually change the situation of LGBT asylum seekers unless it is followed through with a clear program of action," said Canning.

"The previous government, for example, argued that they did not have a policy of 'telling people to go home and be discreet'. The wording of those refusal letters proved this was not the case. Is the new Home Secretary going to work with non-government organisations to ensure that genuine cases get through?"

Read more »

Urgent asylum issues for the new government; Lobby for UK detention reform

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Source The Refugee Council

The Refugee Council wants to see a fair, humane and effective asylum system that provides protection and enables refugees to rebuild their lives in safety. As we approach the sixtieth anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention next year, we are asking the new government to seize the opportunity to create such a system.

We’ll build on the success of the asylum election pledge signed by 1,031 parliamentary candidates, 219 of whom were successfully elected to parliament, including nine members of the cabinet. Pledge signatories include the Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, as well as Immigration Minister Damian Green.

We’re highlighting to key ministers and all MPs the urgent need for positive, swift action across government, and calling for:

• Politicians to show leadership in defending and promoting Britain as a place of refuge for the persecuted, and using fair and accurate language about asylum and refugees.
• The UK Border Agency to get decisions on asylum claims right the first time round. High numbers of initial decisions by the UKBA are overturned on appeal. Poor decision-making is unfair on applicants, slows down the system and leads to money being wasted.
• Early access to good quality legal advice for asylum seekers. Professional, timely legal advice is essential to ensuring that asylum seekers have access to justice. This would improve the overall quality of the process, build trust in the system, and support those without protection needs who can safely return to do so.
• All asylum claims to be processed in the community. Ending the injustice of the detained fast tracking of asylum claims and processing asylum claims in the community will avoid unnecessary and inhumane treatment, lead to fairer decisions and save money.
• Immediately implement the commitment to end child detention. We are delighted that the Coalition negotiations agreement reached on 11 May 2010 includes this commitment, which should be fulfilled without delay, and in a way that keeps families together.
• Immigration detention for adults who have claimed asylum to be minimised. Detention at the end of the asylum process is massively over-used and is without essential safeguards. It must be used only as a last resort where independently shown to be necessary.
• Access to mainstream benefits and permission to work for asylum seekers. The separate ineffective and expensive system of asylum support should be replaced with access to mainstream benefits, and restoring permission to work for asylum seekers.
• An end to destitution among refused asylum seekers. Destitution is destroying lives. There is no evidence that destitution leads people to return to their home countries. Those who cannot return should be granted temporary, formal status with permission to work. Where asylum seekers do receive support, it should be in the form of cash and not a restricted payment card or vouchers. People who have sought asylum should be entitled to free healthcare and a decent standard of accommodation until they get status or return home.
• Permanent status for refugees. Refugees want to integrate, offer their skills and contribute to the UK but since 2005, most people recognised as refugees are given permission to stay in the UK for five years only. This policy is a waste of money and creates a further administrative backlog for UKBA who from August 2010 will have to review upward of 7000 cases a year. This situation should be resolved by returning to the granting of permanent status for refugees.

We look forward to working with refugee community organisations, partners and members to ensure that the UK continues to be a place of sanctuary for those fleeing persecution.

If you want to keep up to date with current campaigns, you can register to receive campaign support updates.

You can follow our work in parliament and keep track of parliamentary questions, debates and All Party Parliamentary Group meetings by receiving the free Parliamentary Asylum and Refugee Network newsletter, the PARN. To subscribe, email parliamentary@refugeecouncil.org.uk with the word PARN in the subject line.

Lobby for UK detention reform

Read more »

After the UK election: where next for LGBT asylum?

By Paul Canning

As the jostling starts on exactly who will form a British government we have no idea who will be the MP(s) ending up with the key Ministries holding the fate of asylum seekers in their hands.

If we have a coalition government with mostly Conservative Ministers we could end up with a gay Home Secretary. There were many rumours after Tory Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling made his ill-fated and off-camera (but not off-microphone) comments on gays and Bed'n'Breakfast hotels that Nick Herbert might replace him. It wasn't Grayling's first 'gaffe'.

The precedent of Labour's silent gay and lesbian MPs would suggest that just because they're LGB they cannot be relied on to stick up for LGBT asylum seekers, but the Conservatives went into Thursday's election making a late pitch via an 'equalities manifesto' that promised to "change the rules" on LGBT asylum.

Labour didn't, and manifesto commitments are serious business. During the campaign my articles on Labour's record drew strong attacks, including from the gay MEP Michael Cashman, that suggested that - somehow - Labour would be better than the mistrusted Tories on LGBT asylum. But despite their lesbian and gay group passing a resolution promising to work on the issue nothing made it onto the actual promises list beyond vague claims, and the record speaks for itself. The UKLGIG study released in the middle of the election proved once-and-for-all that the system they'd managed is riddled with homophobia, how they might tackle it was a complete mystery.

And Labour ended the campaign with Gordon Brown making sickening comments on the pogrom in Iraq, suggesting that Iraqi gays are better off because of his government's actions and refusing to answer on how come it thought Iraq a 'safe country' to return gay asylum seekers to.

Of course the Iraq war supporting David Cameron would have had to say something similar, though possibly differently on the asylum aspect. But the Tory promise to 'change rules', plus what issue it highlighted which Labour consistently either refused to address ('go home and be discrete') or denied was a policy, plus Cameron's answer to my question which was a non-pat answer showing someone in Conservative Central Office was paying attention and reading about the issues can not but give hope - especially when the 'on side' LiberalDemocrats look to be playing a government role.

Another aspect to their credit is that when Cameron made a brief comment suggesting that they shouldn't be returned and told to 'be discrete' the right-wing mass tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail managed to translate this into "Cameron: Gay refugees from Africa should be given asylum in UK". This racist spin (he never mentioned Africa) lit up the far right blogosphere but the Mail's reaction - showing they were paying attention - didn't scare the Tories into not putting a pledge in a manifesto.

A number of LiberalDemocrat MPs who now may have some real power have long 'walked the walk' on LGBT asylum. Especially Simon Hughes who has showed up and backed Peter Tatchell and Outrage's many years of lonely campaigning. During the campaign Lynne Featherstone showed real understanding, saying: "we need to go further, and use our significant influence abroad to end this persecution because for every person that manages to flee - there [are] undoubtedly many more living in fear unable to escape."

But so have a number of Tories. During the campaign for gay Iranian Mehdi Kazemi several years ago the strongest supportive and condemnatory comments came from London's Conservative MEP John Bowis. In Parliament the Tory MP Alistair Burt who has the notorious Yarl's Wood detention centre in his constituency has been relentless is asking probing questions and damning the regime there.

The election also saw a number of new MPs who can be expected to be supportive.

Belfast Mayor and new Alliance party MP Naomi Long, who dramatically beat arch-homophobe and Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, is a long standing advocate for refugees, migrants and asylum seekers.

The Greens first MP, Caroline Lucas, has worked for LGBT asylum seekers throughout her term as an MEP and her party has strong policy.

Asylum advocates worked to ensure that candidates were educated and asked to commit on the issues. Over 1000, from all parties, signed a pledge to "remember the importance of refugee protection." Many of those were elected yesterday.

UK LGBT advocates have been discussing how to proceed, how to secure change. Exactly how we'll do it cannot be announced yet - watch this space! - but the election seems to have thrown up the greatest hope for real, meaningful change to our appalling regime we've seen in - oh - thirteen years.

David Cameron answers our question on LGBT asylum

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

The UK Conservative party opposition leader has answered a question on LGBT asylum posed by LGBT Asylum News Editor Paul Canning.

The question draws on differences in answers given by the main party leaders to Johann Haari, who conducted a series of interviews in January for the gay magazine Attitude.

In his interview with Cameron, Haari posed the same question he asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown about the Home Office policy of saying that LGBT can return (to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia) and 'be discrete'.

Haari professed surprise at Cameron's response to his LGBT asylum question ("he is at his best and at his clearest – to my surprise") and quotes him as "unequivocally" saying in response to 'whether it is wrong that gay refugees are told to go back home and hide their sexuality from police forces who would imprison, torture or kill them for it': "I think it is. If you have a legitimate fear of persecution, that it seems to me that is a perfectly legitimate reason to stay."

This was in contrast to the bureaucratic fudge of PM Brown in his reply to the same question. LibDem leader Nick Clegg restated his party's longstanding criticism of the UK's asylum system to Haari. He describes it as “a moral stain on our collective consciousnesses" and "the most inhumane, irrational, cruel system imaginable”.

In his answers to questions posed by readers of pinknews.co.uk Cameron said the following to Canning's question (our highlight):

Q. If there is unfairness in the asylum system against LGBT people (as you suggested in your Attitude interview) what do you plan to do about that?

A: As I said in the interview, this does have to be looked at on a case by case basis, but if you are fleeing persecution and that fear is well-founded, then you should be able to stay. As things stand, the 1951 Refugee Convention doesn't mention sexuality but because it mentions membership of a social group, that phrase is being use by the courts, rightly in my view, to say that if someone has a realistic fear of persecution they should be allowed to stay. It's also important that the guidance the Home Office produces for asylum adjudicators to use in judging claims provides up-to-date and accurate information on homophobic persecution in every country.

Although Cameron does not actually answer the question - he doesn't say what he will do about 'unfairness in the asylum system' - the new comment on the information used by UK Border Agency staff known as country-of-origin information (COI) is interesting as it does suggest that someone in his office has done their homework.

As several reports have found, COI reports on persecution in individual countries is partial, inaccurate and misleading as well as out of date. It often conflicts with the Foreign Office assessment of the risks to UK LGBT citizens visiting the same country as well as information in the Foreign Office Human Rights Report.

Only last month a new report from the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) said that the supposedly independent Advisory Panel on Country Information (APCI) was subject to "undue influence" by the Home Office that "compromised its independence and the transparency of its work". The APCI's "lack of teeth" meant that it was unable "to ensure its recommendations were implemented in full".

Sheona York, Principal Legal Officer, IAS, said:

“This report demonstrates the continuing need for vigilance from those representing asylum-seekers to ensure that the country evidence on which UKBA decision-makers rely is accurate, unbiased and sourced. Too many clients lose their cases because the UKBA treats as gospel some remark by some unnamed source, or relies on information taken out of context. Now we should ensure that the same critical spotlight shines on the UKBA’s internal Operational Guidance Notes.”

pinknews.co.uk has secured a similar opportunity with PM Brown and LGBT Asylum News has submitted the following question:

Do you recognise that there is unfairness in the asylum system for LGBT and if so what do you propose to do to tackle it?

LGBT Asylum News has also provided an opportunity to all LGBT party groups, plus the Scottish National Party, to submit contributions to the website to be published unedited by May 4.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Never mind Latvian gay rights, what about Iraq's record? (leftfootforward.org)
• Women fast-tracked to asylum denial | Andrew Mawson (guardian.co.uk)
• Asylum seekers 'humiliated' in UK (guardian.co.uk)
• "Get Lost We're Full" (newstatesman.com)

Never mind Latvian gay rights and the EU, what about Iraq's pogrom of gays?

Source: Left Foot Forward

By Paul Canning

Stonewall and Ben Bradshaw's talking points got another outing last week and scored what must have pleased both them and Gay Times no end, a 'gotcha' moment for Cameron on gay issues.

What is frustrating as political leaders do these rare interviews on gay issues is that there's one area where their glaring failure rarely gets questioned: LGBT asylum and - allied to that - support for LGBT in those parts of the world where they are most at threat.

The UK has a terrible record with case-after-case of people fleeing torture, arrest, 'honour' killing and the like needing campaigning and years of expensive legal effort to force the Home Office to grant them sanctuary.

Harriet Harman was booed at the London Pride rally two years ago following the well-publicised case of Mehdi Kazemi. The teenage Iranian had seen his boyfriend murdered by the Mullas but it took a massive campaign before Jacqui Smith relented. Home Office Minister Lord West actually said that "we do not consider that there is systematic persecution of gay men in Iran."

Campaigners have sought Home Office changes for years to little effect.

Only last month the High Court blocked the government from deporting a Ugandan lesbian who was on a police list.

Now we have the leader of Iraqi LGBT, an incredibly brave man who has saved countless lives from the pogroms in Iraq, being denied asylum and hence travel rights - so he can take up American and European offers to talk with politicians and visit TV studios.

Yet only Johann Hari's recent interviews of Brown, Cameron and Clegg for the Independent has mentioned asylum. This produced the irony of Cameron sounding more liberal than Brown as Hari asked the same question about the policy of telling people to 'go home and be discrete'. It also produced a bizarre Daily Mail headline 'Cameron: Gay refugees from Africa should be given asylum in UK' - when Africa hadn't been mentioned.

But Hari did the same thing as other gay journalists and zoomed in on the Conservative's relationship to eastern European homophobes.

Those journalists' priorities match those of gay and lesbian Labour MPs and Labour LGBT. This when we have executions in Iran, a 'kill the gays' bill in Uganda and looming repression in the rest of Africa plus that ongoing pogrom in Iraq. None of those MPs has raised a finger to help (yes Brown did complain to Museveni but one isolated swallow doesn't make a summer).

The Foreign Office proudly trumpets its gay rights work but its almost entirely European. It's second Human Rights report has some information about Iraq - sourced from the same person Labour's Home Office says does not have a "compelling" case. Only Labour's Michael Cashman MEP has a record to be proud of on international LGBT issues.

By contrast look at what's happening in the US State Department through Hillary Clinton's leadership on truly international gay rights work.

As the booing of Harman showed LGBT voters are aware of Labour's big failing on LGBT asylum. And no ammount of spin helped by gay journalists and pointing at the Tories can cover up the big homophobic stink emanating from the Home Office.

Mehdi Kazemi: a reminder

Cameron opposes 'be discrete' gay asylum policy?

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning


In an interview for Attitude magazine - part of a series by gay journalist Johan Haari of The Independent - the Conservative Party leader David Cameron has suggested his awareness of and opposition to a key homophobic part of Labour's LGBT asylum policy.

They support judges who have refused claims on the basis that LGBT can return (to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia) and 'be discrete'. It is homophobic as the policy does not exist for heterosexual asylum seekers and may breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

Haari's article says:

On an hour-long tour of the policies he will make as Prime Minister that specifically pertain to gay people, Cameron is by turns impressive, mediocre, and worrying. He is at his best and at his clearest – to my surprise – when it comes to refugees who are fleeing homophobic persecution. He says: "If you are fleeing persecution and that fear is well-founded, then you should be able to stay. As I understand it, the 1951 Convention [on the rights of refugees] doesn't mention sexuality, but because it mentions membership of a social group, that phrase is being used by the courts, rightly, to say that if someone has a realistic fear of persecution they should be allowed to stay."

At the moment, gay refugees are often told – under a Labour government – to go back home and hide their sexuality from police forces who would imprison, torture or kill them for it. I ask him if that is wrong – and he says unequivocally: "I think it is. If you have a legitimate fear of persecution, that it seems to me that is a perfectly legitimate reason to stay."

In an interview with Haari published in January the Prime Minister's response to the same question on their 'be discrete' policy was:

Asylum law is incredibly difficult, and you can’t ever have a blanket inclusion or exclusion. Every asylum case is going to be dealt with on its merits. I don’t think any party will give you an absolutist commitment on this question. But obviously, our whole party has been built on the idea that where there is persecution, we’ve got to be prepared to help them.

The Liberal Democrats have adopted policy which:

Guarantee any refugees genuinely fleeing a country because of persecution over their sexual orientation asylum in the UK.

Individual Conservative politicians have supported individual LGBT asylum seekers - most prominently in the case of the Iranian Mehdi Kazemi which featured a powerful speech against the UK's LGBT asylum policy by MEP John Bowis. However this website believes this is the first comment on LGBT asylum from the Conservative leadership.

• The coming UK election and LGBT asylum

A strange sympathy

Rhetoric about victims of Mugabe sits ill with the reality we Zimbabweans seeking asylum find here

By Yeukai Taruvinga

When I tell ordinary British people that I came to this country from Zimbabwe to seek asylum because of Robert Mugabe's government, they are always sympathetic. They see the humanitarian crisis, the old people and children dying of cholera - the UN reported yesterday that there were more than a thousand dead and another 20,000 sufferers. They see on the news night after night what Mugabe is doing to my country. And they see the continuing human rights crisis and how he treats those who oppose him.

Hopes were raised when Mugabe agreed to a power-sharing government with the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai. But it is evident that human rights are still not being respected. In the last two weeks prominent human rights defenders have been abducted by groups suspected of having government links. These include Jestina Mukoko, the director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, who has not been seen since she was taken from her home on 3 December.

British politicians have expressed great sympathy towards Zimbabweans. Just last week Gordon Brown said that "we must stand together to defend human rights and democracy, to say firmly to Mugabe that enough is enough", and that it was "our duty" to support the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people. David Cameron has described Zimbabwe as the most important issue in the world today and has pressed for wider sanctions and a rescue package for the Zimbabwean people. And David Miliband has said that, "Zimbabwe's crisis is one that the world has a responsibility to respond to."

It is good to hear all this, but how does it translate into action? It is easy to condemn a government from afar. But if politicians really believe that Mugabe is illegitimate, that his repression of his own people is the most important issue in the world today, why do they behave as they do to his victims?

I got involved in supporting the opposition party when I was a student. Like many MDC supporters, I was beaten up by Mugabe's Zanu-PF thugs when I went to meetings and rallies. When they wrote threats on the walls of my family's house, my mother decided that I should leave the country.

I believed that I would be safe when I came here seven years ago, at the age of 18. When I stepped foot on English soil and claimed asylum, I did not realise that I was in for a long battle. I have been detained - imprisoned - for two and a half months, simply because I claimed asylum. I have been moved between three different detention centres, and taken without notice from Colnbrook at Heathrow, to Yarl's Wood in Bedford to Dungavel in Scotland.

You feel extremely helpless in such places: it is almost impossible to stay in touch with friends or your lawyer, and you believe that anything could happen to you and nobody would know about it. Although suspected terrorists cannot be held without trial for more than 28 days, I was locked up for more than 60 days. In Dungavel at that time there were only half a dozen women and hundreds of foreign criminals awaiting deportation. It was terrifying just to walk around the centre.

It seems to me that political leaders are reluctant to do anything to help those who make their way here. Last week Jacqui Smith said that the government's priority was to ensure that Zimbabwean refugees did not use false passports in order to get to this country. She did not say that refugees should find a fair system when they arrive.

I am still not safe. I have not been given refugee status. After my release from detention I was not allowed benefits nor allowed to work. This is the government's policy of destitution; if you have failed in your asylum claim, then you are forced to live without support. I rely on handouts and gifts from churches and friends, even for the bed I sleep in and the soap I wash with. Most of the people who help me are asylum seekers or refugees themselves, because they understand what it's like.

It is humiliating: not only can I not work, but I cannot study or learn. I am worried about the impact this is going to have on my future. I want to study and work, so that when Mugabe is toppled I and my fellow activists can be the backbone of the new country that will arise from the ashes. But all avenues are blocked to me to grow and give back to society. It is strange that this country, which expresses such sympathy for Zimbabwe's people, condemns its refugees to this kind of life - which is no life at all.

• Yeukai Taruvinga is not allowed to work; the fee for this article has been donated to Women Asylum Seekers Together in London, which she chairs

Source

• refugeewomen.com