Audio: LGBT asylum in UK: LibDems 'not happy', Labour 'ashamed'

By Paul Canning

The political party conference season has ended in the UK, marking the return to full time politics after the summer break. The season hosted a number of forums where LGBT issues were discussed, and this included LGBT asylum.

At two events, Labour representatives derided their record in government - one called it 'shameful'. The LGBT+ Liberal Democrat was fed up, "not happy, of having to lobby for individual cases. And the Conservatives? One attacked Labour's record, another said the whole system needed overhauling.

At the Labour Party conference LGBT fringe event, the Chief Executive of Stonewall Ben Summerskill, highlighted three things that had gone well over the first year of the Conservative-LiberalDemocrat government. One was "LGB+T asylum seekers not being sent back to countries where they face persecution".

On a round table for BBC Radio Manchester, LGBT+ LibDem Chair Adrian Trett said that LGBT asylum was a "key plank" of their work and that he was far too often lobbying in individual cases. Kevin Peel of LGBT Labour said that the previous government's record "is to Labour's utter shame" and said that his group had "attacked [the previous] government" over the issue. He 'would like to think we would have changed' if Labour had been re-elected in 2010. And he attacked the Coalition's record. The Conservative's Sean Anstey attacked Labour's record and professed his faith in Immigration Minister Damian Green.

There was no reporting of LGBT asylum being raised at the Conservative conference, save from Ben Summerskill (I assume) repeating that it was a Coalition success, however it did feature on the conference floor when Home Office Minister Theresa May's infamous #catgate mistake happened - which involved a gay immigrant, although that became clear only after the event.

Writing for Freedom From Torture, Camilla Jelbart-Mosse said that 'rational discussion' on asylum trumped hysteria at the Conservative conference, but she said that questions were left unanswered for refused asylum seekers living in limbo. Speaking to the conference Damian Green warned party members not to confuse protection via the UK's asylum system with general immigration before reminding everyone that asylum numbers have fallen dramatically in recent years.

Adrian Trett, James Asser (Labour), Matthew Sephton (Conservative) with special guest Claire Mooney answered a question on LGBT asylum at the Lesbian and Gay Foundation's 'Queer Question Time' in Manchester 2 October (audio below).

Trett said "I'm not happy" several times, noting that he was aware that week of one case of a gay Ugandan being removed. He said that the Coalition Agreement commitment - 'not to remove LGBT asylum seekers to danger' - was "not being enforced".

Asser said that the system is "rotten" and one reason why was because all parties are "pretty rotten" on and "run a bit scared" of asylum issues. "My party wasn't very good," he said. He said that training of civil servants remains a problem. Expanding this point in correspondence after the event, Asser said:

"It [isn't] just about the policy it .. also about implementation and the need for better training for and understanding from the people who have to administer the system and the rules."

Sephton said that the asylum system is "in chaos". He claimed that over the past decade there had been "numerous" people falsely claiming asylum and that people who deserve asylum were not getting it and the whole system needed "overhauling".




In none of the comments from party representatives on LGBT asylum which I have either heard or read were serious policy suggestions advanced on how the system could be improved. This contrasted sharply with detailed policy in other areas.

Perhaps most surprisingly, neither of the Coalition's representatives mentioned one substantial and potentially far-reaching change which the government has enacted to its credit - and which they are only the second government in the world to do - namely, recording sexuality-based asylum claims so we will have data on the level of refusals and removals, who they are, where they are from and why.

Related articles

• UK LGBT asylum activists react strongly to Ugandan activist comments (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Voice of LGBT asylum seekers raised at Manchester Pride (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Gay Burundian wins UK asylum after eleven year battle (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

New Stonewall guide on LGB asylum in the UK

Stonewall's report last year 'No going back: Lesbian and gay people and the asylum system' revealed that many LGBT asylum seekers are not granted protection because of fundamental errors of judgement and presumptions made by UK Border Agency (UKBA) staff and judges about sexual orientation.

They have just published a guide, 'Asylum and Humanitarian Protection for lesbian, gay and bisexual people', written by City University Law School and sponsored by the Big Lottery Fund and Herbert Smith, which they hope will help those who work with asylum seekers to more fully understand the asylum process for claims based on sexual orientation.

UK Asylum Guide: Asylum and Humanitarian Protection for lesbian, gay and bisexual people

Related articles

• UK Home Office again saying Uganda safe to return LGBT asylum seekers to (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Breakthrough: UK to record sexuality-based asylum claims (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Breakthrough: UK to record sexuality-based asylum claims

By Paul Canning

LGBT Asylum News has learned that information on sexuality-based asylum claims have been imputed into the Central Information Database of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) since 1 July.

The UK joins only five other countries which record data on the number of LGBT persons benefiting from
asylum/subsidiary protection due to persecution on the ground of sexual orientation: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Latvia and Estonia.

Correction: This information from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency is incorrect, according to research currently being conducted on LGBT asylum in Europe. Researchers say that only Belgium and Norway records sexuality-based asylum claims.

The Home Office say as well that:

"We are also reviewing all first asylum decisions in these cases taken between 1 April and 30 June to evaluate the success of our new guidance and training."

After the Supreme Court decision one year ago that ended 'go home and be discrete', the UKBA said they would collect data on LGBT asylum but Immigration Minister Damien Green said earlier this year that this wouldn't happen because of "disproportionate cost".

UKBA has made no official announcement but we understand that retiring manager Bill Brandon (Deputy Director, NAM+ Quality and Learning; Refugee Integration and Resettlement) told a event organised by the law firm Mischon de Reja last month about the developments on data and auditing.

UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) Group Manager Erin Power said:

"I don't know why UKBA didn't say publicly that they were trying to find an accurate way to do this."

LibDem peer Lord Avebury has pressed the Home Office on the issue of recording data and auditing.

UKLGIG, which works with LGBT asylum seekers, have been lobbying on the issue for some time and in the last 12 months has held discussions with the Home Office on several occasions.

Power said that following the announcement last year that UKBA would record data attempts were made but failed because of IT problems and "because different areas of the country collated different stats."

"We were aware of the initial attempt to record LGBT claims that did not work well and of subsequent work on ensuring that recording was practicable and consistent.  We were also aware of the audit and will, like many others, be interested in the outcome."

"Of course we are delighted that UKBA is looking at the quality of decision making on LGBT asylum claims and we are hoping that it will reveal an improvement in initial decisions."

Anecdotal evidence is of increasing disbelief that applicants are lesbian or gay and this website has documented poor decision making in a number of cases. Power has acknowledged that this is a concern for UKLGIG, telling The Guardian: "It has always been difficult to prove but more frequently now, people are not being believed."

Last October, as a result of the Supreme Court decision, the UKBA introduced new Asylum Instruction guidance and at the beginning of this year ran a one-day 'case owner training' session for UKBA staff. The training was run by UKBA which consulted with UKLGIG, Stonewall and UNHCR

The Home Office say that:

"The government has made it clear that it is committed to stopping the removal of asylum seekers who have genuinely had to leave particular countries because of their sexual orientation or gender identification."

However data recording and the completed audit will only look at new claims and concerns have been raised about the treatment of cases already in the system. As well, there are serious concerns about a decreasing availability of specialised legal advice due to legal aid cuts and the collapse (due to those cuts, it is claimed) of the two biggest providers of legal services to asylum seekers.

The Immigration Law Practitioners Association told The Guardian that:

"The sensible thing to do would be to review cases of removal. When you get to a point where you have to put someone on a plane for removal, you should get their file out and make sure there's nothing of concern. They should check they have not claimed on the grounds of being gay, because they know that there was an important decision in the court which may be relevant."

Says Power:

"Obviously there is no point in collecting the stats if they don't look at them and see if there has been any change in decisions - hence the audit."

"There are still some concerns which we can look at when we see the results of the audit."

The government has specifically ruled out other measures which would help LGBT asylum seekers. It will not exclude sexuality-based claims from 'fast track' decision making - as some other categories of claim are - despite Damien Green in a letter to Dr Hywel Francis MP, the Chair of the House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights, accepting that they "can raise complex and specific issues based on cultural differences and the possible trauma of the individual concerned."

'Fast track' claims are far harder to win because legal options are dramatically reduced and people - often traumatised from torture and other bad treatment, as Green acknowledges - are invariably detained.

In the letter to Francis, Green refers to Stonewall's report 'No Going Back' - however that report made 21 recommendations, which went far beyond training of staff. For example, the report discusses the effect of the dispersal system on LGBT asylum seekers who are sent to towns where it is impossible to access appropriate and safe support. They are often forced to live with people who do not accept them and several reports have found that they can be at risk of violence. We are aware of  cases where UKBA has been asked to move LGBT asylum seekers closer to sources of support but has refused.

Green does acknowledge criticism of the crucial 'country information' on which many case decisions hang. In particular, he acknowledges the criticism made by the Shadow Foreign Secretary in the 'BN' Ugandan case that that country's information was two years old and made no reference to LGBT. In the letter he notes that at the time of writing only three country reports made any reference (since he wrote new Uganda guidance has been published which does include LGBT issues, however problems remain with its contents).

Green says in the letter that other work is "in hand" to address the (wide ranging) issues raised in Stonewall's report - but it is not in any of the plans published by the Home Office (and the department's business plan covers the entire life of this parliament).

Related articles

• In UK, legal aid cuts will make LGBT asylum even harder (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• The testimony of a veteran worker for LGBT asylum seekers (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• How one gay Tanzanian's asylum rejection shows the UK system's unfairness (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• UK's removal of gay tortured, imprisoned Ugandan stopped at last moment (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Is it getting worse for UK LGBT asylum seekers?

Image by doug88888 via Flickr

Source: Migrants' Rights Network

By Paul Canning

One year ago, on 7 July 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously handed down a landmark decision in LGBT human rights.

It said that it was wrong that gays and lesbians fleeing persecution should be forced back because of the Home Office's argument that it was "reasonably tolerable" that they 'behave discreetly'. This, they argued, would mean they'd avoid the persecution they had fled. The two cases they were considering were from the violently anti-gay Iranian theocracy and from the African country of Cameroon, where gays are arrested and imprisoned.

Lord Roger, who passed away last week, famously wrote in his comments about gays and lesbians right to "live openly and freely" comparing the example of a gay man's right in the UK to go to a Kylie concert, drink exotically coloured cocktails and speak about boys with their female mates to those of straight males.

The ruling was welcomed by the Conservative Home Secretary.

Yet one year on from this major legal shift, many working to support LGBT asylum seekers believe that the situation for them is actually getting worse.

The Supreme Court's four new rules on how asylum claims should be judged starts with asking if a claimant is gay - and it is this point on which many claims are floundering.

This is not always for lack of evidence. UK Border Agency (UKBA) rejection letters I have seen have dismissed up to twelve witness statements as well as other evidence. One woman pictured and named as lesbian in an infamous tabloid newspaper from a dangerous African country is still being rejected. UKBA attitudes to someone's 'credibility', the lengths some officers go to dismiss claims, as shown in these letters, would amaze most fair minded people. The test they are supposed to apply is "reasonable likelihood".

The biggest specialist group, the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG), handling sexuality based claims told The Guardian that they had a similar experience to myself and that of others working with claimants - it is becoming more difficult for asylum seekers to "prove" to the authorities that they are homosexual.

"It has always been difficult to prove but more frequently now, people are not being believed," said Group Manager Erin Power.

Not all officers appear to have this approach. One lawyer who has successfully won numerous LGBT asylum cases told me it "depends on the case worker". But others have "become hardened", perhaps because the Supreme Court decision has led to more cases coming forward as it gave them hope of being judged fairly.

After the Court decision the UKBA said they would collect data on LGBT asylum but Immigration Minister Damien Green said earlier this year that this wouldn't happen because of "disproportionate cost". So we have no hard facts on which to judge whether the promise made 13 months ago in the Coalition government's agreement to stop removing LGBT asylum seekers "at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution" has been met.

Unfortunately, in May, Nick Clegg proudly claimed that his promise had been met. Yet all that has been done is one day's training for border agents, new written guidance and a session for immigration judges on who lesbians and gays are.

The government has refused to take LGBT cases out of 'detained fast track', which is supposed to be for straightforward cases from 'safe' countries, despite most LGBT ones not being simple and the places they are fleeing - like Uganda - not being safe. Last week it lost a test case for Jamaican lesbians where the Home Office lawyer made many of the same arguments on 'discretion' it has been making for years.

As Jamaica is now legally not 'safe' for lesbians, neither should be Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda. But don't expect Green to change the rules without a fight.

A change announced last week by Kenneth Clarke's department to how deportation cases are handled, moving them from the High Court to the Immigration Tribunal to 'save money', will, I am told, disproportionately effect LGBT.

When UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group reviewed 50 cases last year it found all bar one being rejected by UKBA. This means they're disproportionately reliant on safeguards like review by the High Court because Immigration judges "make mistakes", a lawyer told me. Cases could end up back before the same judge who previously rejected someone or judges are, essentially, to be asked to rule that their mates got it wrong. He believes this move is another marker of how for LGBT asylum seekers "it is getting worse."

When Stonewall issued its 'No Going Back' report in May 2010 it made 21 recommendations because there are a wide range of issues which effect LGBT cases - like being housed with homophobes, which has led to harassment or worse for example. Or being 'dispersed' to some town with no LGBT community support. Only three have been acted on and we have no evidence - and neither does the government - that anything is actually improving.

Green says in a letter to Dr Hywel Francis MP, the Chair of the House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights that other work is "in hand" to address Stonewall's recommendations - but that work is not in any of the plans published by the Home Office (and the business plan covers the entire life of this parliament).

According to the front line, the Supreme Court decision has had little impact and my feedback is that for an individual fleeing persecution on account of their sexuality for British sanctuary their chances are more down to luck than design and, if anything, the indications are that they're getting worse.

Related articles

• The testimony of a veteran worker for LGBT asylum seekers (madikazemi.blogspot.com) 
• Put your hands up (if you feel love) (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Major campaign launched for LGBT asylum seekers in UK, call for their removal from 'fast track' to removal (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Event: Refugee Week UK: Coventry: LGBT rights to refugee status

No Going Back - "LGBT rights to refugee status"

• Monday 20 June: 18:00 - 20:00

A Coventry Refugee Centre Event supported by Coventry University Student Union to raise awareness of current discrimination issues and to highlight the Stonewall report No Going Back: Lesbian and gay people and the asylum system (2010)

In many countries lesbian, gay and bisexual people face execution, torture, rape and murder from people in their own community or from their government.

• Key speaker: Bhopinder Basi (CEO Coventry Refugee Centre)
• Place: Coventry University, Hillman Lecture Theatre, next to George Eliot Building, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB (map)
  
• For more info call: Jude Smith 024 7622 7254 ext 238

US State Dept human rights report picks up LGBT asylum issues in UK

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

The 35th annual human rights report of the US State Department has picked up on "significant disadvantages" experienced by LGBT asylum seekers in the UK.

In launching the report April 8 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew particular attention to the report’s identification of abuses against LGBT people internationally:

“Because I believe, and our government believes, that gay rights are human rights, we remain extremely concerned about state-sanctioned homophobia,” Clinton said.

She hoped that the reports which cover every country bar the US itself would "give comfort to the activists, will shine a spotlight on the abuses, and convince those in government that there are other and better ways.” They may also be used to bar aid to certain countries if the US Congress passes recently introduced legislation.

Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, told the Washington Blade that Clinton has made LGBT rights one of the State Department's top priorities. Expanded coverage of LGBT rights was begun last year but the 2010 reports show patchy coverage across Africa and the Middle East.

State Department interest in LGBT asylum

The UK report cited last year's Stonewall report 'No Going Back' and pulled out for mention its identification of the "fast tracking" of LGBT asylum claims, repeating Stonewall's finding that LGBT have complex cases and in "denying them quickly, UKBA staff did not give applicants time to talk openly about their sexual orientation."

Home Office Minister Damien Green told the House of Commons in February that the government did not accept that sexual orientation asylum claims are complex and therefore would not exclude them from 'fast track', as it does other types of cases.

Read more »

Ugandan lesbian asylum case demonstrates a broken coalition government promise

By Paul Canning

Following the world-wide spotlight on Britain's treatment of lesbians and gays fleeing persecution in the case of 'BN', another lesbian asylum case from Uganda has come to light which underlines that the coalition govenment's promise to stop returning lesbian and gay asylum seekers to danger has not been realised.

This new case was decided just days before Scott Mills' BBC Three documentary on life for gay Ugandans. His show (reaction to which caused Mills' name to 'trend' on Twitter) graphically demonstrated how unsafe life is if your neighbours know you are gay and how deeply entrenched violent hatred of lesbians and gays is in Uganda. He met one lesbian forced to live in hiding and who had been raped in order to 'cure' her. He spoke with a number of prominent Ugandan agents of persecution including Giles Muhame, Editor of The Rolling Stone newspaper.

Kasha Jacqueline, Executive Director of Freedom and Roam Uganda, was one of those who won the injunction against The Rolling Stone (no relation to US magazine) that prohibited them from publishing any more photos of people (not all of whom actually were gay); stopping any newspaper from 'outing' them, a favourite method of persecution in Uganda. She described in Ugandan newspaper Kampala Dispatch yesterday her experience of being targeted:

Read more »

UK to roll out border agent training on LGBT asylum claims

Source: UK Border Agency

A new asylum consideration training course on sexual orientation has been devised for asylum case owners to help them conduct sensitive and objective enquiries.

The new one-day training module, which was piloted in London and Liverpool, has been developed to support the publication of the recent asylum instruction on sexual orientation.

As part of the training, decision makers learn how to interview applicants whose claims are brought on the grounds of sexual orientation sensitively and effectively, using appropriate lines of questioning. The training will also enhance decision makers’ ability to make the most of country of origin information and write the most effective decisions possible.

The training has been devised with input from key corporate partners including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Stonewall and the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group and is expected to be rolled out to all regions by March 2011.

The course highlights some of the challenges in dealing with lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum claims and offers excellent advice on the correct approaches. Trainees particularly welcomed the opportunity to discuss questioning techniques and to share their own experiences.

~~

This publication led Refugee Action to remark on their Facebook page:

Some success on our campaign for a fairer process for lesbian and gay people seeking asylum: UK Border Agency announce a new 'asylum consideration training course on sexual orientation' for their staff. Massive thanks to all who took action

Related articles

• UNHCR's summary conclusions on LGBTI asylum-seekers and refugees (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• In UK, new instructions on deciding LGBT asylum claims (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Stonewall to be picketed over award for Home Office, keynote speaker slot for Theresa May

By Paul Canning

Refugee advocates and LGBT activists are to picket an event organised by Britain's leading lesbian and gay organisation - because it features Home Secretary Theresa May as the star speaker.

The group Stonewall recently awarded May's Home Office first place in its Workplace Equality Index. The Home Office said this was in part "for accepting Stonewall's recommendations in new training for asylum caseworkers on how to deal appropriately and sensitively with the claims of lesbian, gay and bisexual people."

Stonewall say in their report on this year's index:

"Finally, the Home Office and its agencies have taken their wider responsibility to LGB people in the justice system seriously. This year, the UK Border Agency accepted the recommendations of Stonewall's No Going Back research and has begun to deliver new training to caseworkers on how to deal appropriately with the asylum claims of LGB people."

(NB: Stonewall's report 'No Going Back' made 21 recommendations.)

The website Gay Mafia Watch says:

"The Home Office is the lead government department with a number of subsidiaries including the UK Borders Agency which is directly responsible for forcibly removing failed asylum seekers (including LGBT people) fleeing persecution, rape, torture, and death such as Asylum Seeker from Uganda, [BN] – who was at the high court fighting her deportation only last week."

"Not only has this award been given to one of the most despicable elements of the government, Stonewall’s made a special effort to endorse Conservative MP Theresa May as some sort of hero behind this achievement. Neither have anything to be proud about."

They and the group No Borders will picket Stonewall's 2011 Workplace Conference on Friday 18 March outside the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in central London.

London NoBorders says:

"With the Home Office receiving the award for best place to work for LGB people, Stonewall however picked a winner that leaves us with a bitter taste. While those up in office were able to freely express their sexuality, those that had sought the same in the UK were at the mercy of callous bureaucrats working for the very same employer. London NoBorders condemn this decision of Stonewall and would like to remind them of their key priorities and the historical background of their chosen name."

Related articles

• British judge's ruling on Brenda Namigadde: ignorant but typical (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• In UK, new report says asylum system failing lesbians (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Thousands of UK asylum seekers 'left in limbo', delays effect fight for Iraqi LGBT (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

British judge's ruling on Brenda Namigadde: ignorant but typical

Image via Wikipedia  

By Paul Canning

The UK political gossip website Political Scrapbook this morning leaked the full judgment rejecting Brenda's fresh claim to pinknews.co.uk (overturned soon after by an appeal court judge, actually whilst Brenda was on the plane). Political Scrapbook highlights the judge's point that he was rejecting her in part because she didn’t read lesbian magazines or other media.

The judgment says:

“I find that the Appellant was not and is not, on the evidence before me, a lesbian. That her credibility is affected by her conduct. l am not obliged to accept her say so of these issues. l find such peripheral information to describe what went on, either in Uganda or in the United Kingdom, very generalised and quite simply lacking in the kind of detail and information of someone genuinely living that lifestyle. The Appellant claims to have freedom to live a life unconstrained and without prejudice. l find the information as to how she has done so over the lengthy period she has been in the United Kingdom singularly lacking in detail or coherence. The Appellant appears to have taken no interest in forms of media by magazines, books or other information relating to her sexual orientation. Whilst there is no requirement to do so it does seem strange, if she is exercising the real sense of freedom she claims, that she does not do so.”

As one commentator pointed out, the reference to magazines and books is demonstrably ignorant: "Asylum seekers in the UK live in extreme poverty and she would not have had the money to buy lesbian magazines, books or other media."

But this ignorance is not confined to the UK. The New York Times reported yesterday that American lawyers advise asylum clients to 'gay it up' for judges because of similar ignorance about who LGBTI people are.

Reports by Stonewall and by UKLGIG have found this sort of judgment in previous cases. Stonewall quoted one UKBA senior [my emphasis] caseworker as saying that in order to decide if an asylum applicant was gay, "I would look at how they've explored their sexuality in a cultural context - reading Oscar Wilde perhaps, films and music." The report says that many case workers, unsure how to treat sexuality-based claims, will deliberately refuse in order to hand it on for judicial decision.

Stonewall said that:

"Many judges, like Home Office decision-makers, struggle because they have no reference points to help them understand the reality of gay peoples’ lives in the UK and in other countries." 

"The feelings of shame, stigma and self-hatred that many gay asylum-seekers feel about their sexual orientation make it very difficult for them to answer these questions. Sexually explicit questions being asked by a figure of authority are even more difficult to answer. Applicants’ responses may therefore be vague or even evasive and these responses tend to be interpreted by judges as evidence that an applicant is lying and therefore may be used to dismiss an appeal."

Stonewall's report calls for judges to receive training on the effects of trauma and its impact on how people recount their stories at interview and in court and for The Judicial Appointments Commission to be asked by ministers "to take substantive steps to ensure that asylum and immigration judges start more effectively to reflect the communities they serve."

The government has promised that this culture within the immigration judiciary and within the UKBA would change. But many are cynical (or realistic) about how the system will react to efforts to change it.

An anonymous UKBA worker commentating on the freemovement blog's coverage of the Supreme Court decision which ended the 'go home and be discrete' policy said:

Now it’s down to the hard task of testing peoples sexuality, I am terrified to see what sort of questions the interviewers come up with….. Who is Dorothy?….. Is Lady Gaga a man?….. And of course following on from Lord Rodgers comments any man who can’t describe what Kylie was wearing at her last concert in great details or at least provide his ticket stubs will be disbelieved.

Past experience suggests that without serious, top-down leadership and direction, change will come extremely slowly.

S. Chelvan, human rights barrister at No 5 Chambers, says that last year's landmark Supreme Court decision ended the 'discretion test' laid down in a previous judgment. That could have been summed up as 'is being forced to be discrete ‘reasonably tolerable''. He points out in the Stonewall report that years after ‘reasonably tolerable' was clearly defined in law there were still judges making decisions which failed to use the ‘reasonably tolerable' test defined in then case law - and hence rejected asylum cases.

Others quoted in the Stonewall report point to judicial ignorance. Jody, a UKBA presenting officer, said:

"A lot of it comes down to the knowledge of the judges. You get judges who say well a parent would never report their own kids to the authorities for being gay, which shows a complete lack of understanding. They will beat them; they will kill them."

"Judges really bring their own prejudices to court and these affect their decisions seriously. Some will also bend over backwards to make sure the Home Office wins the case.

Robert, UKBA senior caseworker, said:

"The demographics of the judiciary haven’t changed. It’s still white, middle class males of a certain age and I’m not sure they fully grasp the concepts of identity issues."

S. Chelvan:

"I had a Pakistani client who was 17 when he came to the UK. He was found kissing his boyfriend, caught by the police and beaten over the head. In the UK he came out to his uncle who threatened him, told him to leave the house and said he’d inform his family in Pakistan that he was gay who would kill him if he ever returned. All these facts were accepted by the Home Office or the fast-track tribunal. However when the question was posed, on relocation outside his home area, what does he say when somebody asks him ‘Why aren’t you married?’ the judge said, well all he needs to say is, ‘I’m not the marrying kind’. That client is now in Pakistan hiding because he was sent back."

Adebayo, Nigerian asylum-seeker:

"I’ve got scars on my dick from when I was tortured, but the judge said they think the scars are just from having gay sex."

What is clear from this case and many others is that the Home Office has not fulfilled the Coalition government's promise. It is also clear that they have taken no notice of the massive campaign for Brenda and have refused to use the power which they possess to intervene.

Related articles

• Brenda Namigadde wins second chance, no thanks to Theresa May (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Bad decisions, detention, ignoring the courts: How the UK Home Office wastes money (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Thousands of UK asylum seekers 'left in limbo', delays effect fight for Iraqi LGBT (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Happy new year - a look back and a look forward

By Paul Canning

LGBT Asylum News wishes a happy, safe and prosperous 2011 to all our readers.

In 2010 we published about a thousand posts, including 29 'action alerts'. Our daily average number of posts has gone up from about two to about four and they were viewed on the website about 110,000 times. You came from 191 countries, read, on average, one and a half pages and spent about two and a half minutes on the website. A quarter of you have visited and come back.

Our most popular content in 2010 was:

Kiana in a scene from the film 'Cul de Sac'

Iranian lesbian makes her appeal against removal by UK authorities
The story of Iranian lesbian asylum seeker Kiana Firouz, which we broke in April, attracted attention like no LGBT asylum case since that of another Iranian, Mehdi Kazemi. A petition for her drew an astonishing 45,000 signatures. In June, very quickly after a new asylum case was put to the UK Home Office, she won asylum.

Albania: reality TV programme prompts 'explosive debate' 
In March, reader John Hodgson gave us the story of Klodian Çela, an Albanian Big Brother contestant whose coming out on the show had prompted 'riots' in one town (there were claims the 'riots' were orchestrated for publicity). The story we broke was later raised by none other than Hillary Clinton as an example of homophobia in Albania during a speech to mark LGBT History Month in June!

Did X Factor 'out' a gay asylum seeker, putting him in danger?
In July we followed up on a story broken by Lesbian and Gay Foundation in Manchester of Zac, a teenage asylum seeker from the United Arab Emirates. Zac's story had appeared without his consent in the popular British tabloid newspaper The Sun - potentially exposing him to danger if he was returned. At year's end, Zac's claim for asylum has still not be settled

Iranian LGBT: Persecuted, harassed, raped, tortured, threatened with death, forced into operations
Our March post which collated testimony from Iranian transgender people, lesbians and gay men has proved popular throughout the year. Last month we published an in-depth analysis of the first report by a major NGO on the plight of Iranian LGBT.

Austria deports African gay footballer
In May we reported on Cletus B, a gay Nigerian deported by Austria. His case attracted mass support including a big demonstration in Vienna, but the authorities ignored the protests. In June a follow up report, Nigerian gay footballer deported by Austria has gone underground; Austrian police charge his counsellor with 'promoting an illegal stay', also proved popular. This story happened because of another reader, Heinz Leitner in Vienna.

In the US, two new strategies for same-sex binational couples
In November our republishing of a post by the American activist group Out4Immigration drew a lot of links and referrals from email. It looked at new ideas for changing the situation of same-sex couples facing the bald choice of having to leave America to stay together or be split apart.

In Colombia, at least ten LGBT 'cleansed' in one week
In September we reported via Argentina's AG Magazine that a wave of killings of gays had hit Northern Colombia. Although this report drew links from a few American LGBT news sources, shamefully these killings were not more widely reported.

Big victory for USA in fresh United Nations 'gay killings' vote
Last month we 'live blogged' the sensational outcome of an American move to reverse a UN vote on excluding sexual orientation in a resolution on extrajudicial killings. We were the first to post the result and the only news outlet to analyze the vote in depth, showing the massive and possibly game-changing vote by African, Caribbean and Pacific Island countries.

Damning report says practically all UK LGBT asylum claims are being refused; Border Agency "cruel and discriminatory"
In March we looked at a new report by UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) which examined 50 LGBT asylum cases and found that nearly all had been turned down by British authorities. It also documented the then Home Office policy of 'go home and be discrete'. This report later informed Stonewall's 'No Going Back' report, released in May. In June came the historic Supreme Court decision which put an end to the 'go home and be discrete' policy.

Here's a Wordle showing the commonest words on LGBT Asylum News:

Our Twitter account, opened in September 2009, was almost at 2,000 followers at year's end and is now on 161 other 'Twitterers' lists. And we have 277 'likes' for our Facebook page - Facebook has proved an increasing source for referrals to the website in 2010.

We added 17 uploads to our YouTube channel, which we started in March, and 166 Favorites. Our video and audio has been viewed over 4000 times with In Phnom Penh, the amazing work of a 70-year-old transgender sex worker by far the most popular upload.

On the document sharing service Scribd, we've put 47 documents and these have been read over 13,000 times.

Content views by email last week

375 of you subscribe to the website by email and views of posts by this route now average over 1,000 per day - interestingly the content viewed this way is always very different to that viewed on the web. Our content also circulates widely via republishing on other websites as well as via web services like FriendFeed.

Our content has been widely picked up and repurposed by other news outlets - most notably by pinknews.co.uk, LezGetReal and the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News and later in the year by Pink Paper. We've had consistent links from the major US LGBT news outlet Towleroad, which has drawn in a huge new audience for the website.

We'd like to thank all those who have linked to, republished, 'liked' and retweeted our stories in 2010!

We'd also like to thank all those who have contributed to the website whether through their own posts or through suggesting stories or through helping with translations. We are always looking for help with translations so please let us know if you're able to help here.

Early in 2011 there will be major, exciting changes to the website. These will embed and make sustainable our goal of 'documenting the situations in countries from which LGBT people are fleeing to the UK hoping for a safe haven and the problems they can face from the UK asylum system' - and make this truly international. It will also provide a new way for our readers to talk to each other and for LGBT asylum advocates, lawyers, refugees and refugee workers to work together.

Keep watching this space! (And please give us your feedback by email or in the comments below!)

Video: Stonewall UK talk LGB asylum

Source: stonewalluk

Stonewall Policy Officer Nat Miles chats about their ground breaking research into the experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the asylum system.

'Free to be me' campaign call for UK LGBT asylum seekers

By Paul Canning

One of Britain's oldest refugee campaigning groups has thrown its weight behind LGBT asylum seekers.

Refugee Action, founded in 1981 to provide a "radical new approach towards the successful resettlement in the UK of refugees and asylum seekers", has launched the 'Free to be me' campaign. It is calling for the government to 'follow on' from July's Supreme Court decision which nullified government policy that told asylum seekers to 'go home and be discrete'.

The campaign wants proper training for UK Border Agency (UKBA) decision makers, saying that the process LGBT asylum seekers are subjected to is often "unfair and degrading". They say that the methods employed for asylum seekers to 'prove' their sexuality are often "stereotypical and offensive". As a result, many are wrongly assessed, they say.

Stonewall's report on LGBT asylum, released in May and based on interviews with both asylum seekers as well as UKBA workers, documented the lack of knowledge around sexuality in the 'global south' and included pleas from many UKBA workers for better information and training. We've reported on the 'country information' supplied to those workers is often partial or even misleading.

One UKBA senior caseworker is quoted in Stonewall's report as saying that in order to decide if an asylum applicant was gay, "I would look at how they've explored their sexuality in a cultural context - reading Oscar Wilde perhaps, films and music."

It also quotes a Nigerian asylum seeker's experience:

They ask about who you have sex with, how many people and how many times. When you've never told anyone and now you have five people asking you questions about this - I found it difficult to talk about.

An anonymous UKBA worker commentating on the freemovement blog's coverage of the Supreme Court decision said:

Now it’s down to the hard task of testing peoples sexuality, I am terrified to see what sort of questions the interviewers come up with….. Who is Dorothy?….. Is Lady Gaga a man?….. And of course following on from Lord Rodgers comments any man who can’t describe what Kylie was wearing at her last concert in great details or at least provide his ticket stubs will be disbelieved.

Refugee Action say that

Currently, Home Office officials don't understand that:

• If you've had to cover up being gay all your life, evidence of previous relationships is not easy to prove.
• You might be too scared to say you're gay at your first interview. If you've fled torture for being gay, being open with officials will be a terrifying ordeal.
• Even where same-sex relationships aren't illegal. people are cast out by their families, forced into marriages or violently attacked.

What they're asking is that UKBA staff should be properly trained in the law, culture and everyday practice that influence an LGBT person’s ability to live freely and safely in their country of origin. The campaign's theme is:

Living freely and safely is everyone’s right. It’s time to put an end to double standards.

Campaigns officer Sara Ayech says that over 500 people have already taken the action online and when they took the campaign to Brighton's LGBT Pride event earlier this month another 200 people signed the action card.



This Saturday they'll be at Manchester Pride.

• Add your voice to the 'Free to be me' campaign
• Follow Refugee Action on Facebook and Twitter
• Please add to your Facebook page(s) and tweet your support! Use the #freetobeme tag, see example tweets here and here

BBC carries cross-chanel coverage on LGBT asylum; demo at Supreme Court tomorrow

By Paul Canning

The BBC has multiple reports today on LGBT asylum, provoked by the decision coming tomorrow on the 'discretion test' case from the Supreme Court.

The main report by Mike Lanchin interviews H, the Cameroonian involved in the case (the other is an Iranian gay man) and Alexandra McDowall from UNHCR, who intervened in the case on the side of the applicants, alongside the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The report also featured on the top-rating 'Today' show on BBC Radio Four and sparked debate on BBC Five Live Breakfast (which had Stonewall's Ben Summerskill and Sir Andrew Green from MigrationWatch UK, it featured calls from homophobic callers claiming to be a judge and a barrister) and is also a BBC 'Have your say' talking point and was covered on BBC America.



The FiveLive discussion heard all of the repeated myths in all coverage of LGBT asylum (in fact asylum generally) which features comments from the general public - and therefore the need for campaigners to address those myths. Claims by Phillip Green that change would mean 'millions' of LGBT claiming asylum and, answering a caller, on the incredibly widely held myth about 'they should claim in the first safe country' (which is solely about the European Union under the Dublin Regulation) both went unanswered.

The report description chosen by the Today show editors shows another of the problems with LGBT asylum reporting - most prominently highlighted in the misleading if not dangerous coverage in The Independent. Today says: "Almost all asylum claims based on the threat of persecution on the grounds of homosexuality are rejected by the UK Border Agency. Today reporter Mike Lanchin explains how this is all about to change."

This is similar to the Independent's headline of "98% sent back" when it's actually 98% in one study found to be refused in the first instance. Lanchin was extremely careful to make this distinction. He also, very subtly, through a change of tone in his voice, says that the Coalition's policy simply restates existing policy - that no people will be sent back where persecution is proven. That is, that the actual content of Coalition policy represents no change, and, contrary to Today's description, Lanchin does not explains how this is all about to change - he cannot, no-one in the government has said anything about how it'll change.

This background is true but what I have argued is based on the thrust (perhaps 'hope' is a better word) of change. The very existence of a policy inclusion (particularly its prominence in the first Coalition agreement) represents, coming from longstanding LibDem support as it does and back by restatement as an example of difference by the Tories, including the new Home Secretary, on several occasions, hope.

But the devil is in both the detail plus the ability of advocates to secure change in the Home Office/Border Agency and legal system as it is not just about one aspect, i.e. the 'discretion test', but great swathes of both policy and practice which went neglected during the last government. I'm not convinced by lobbying thus far as a mass campaign is needed to draw in wide support from allies and there are at least four separate sets of demands out there.

The fact of BBC interest is significant though, especially if it sparks and is followed up by more. Media helps, but whatever the Supreme Court announces tomorrow it is pressure on the government which will actually secure change on-the-ground for real LGBT refugees.

Movement for Justice - who marched for LGBT asylum at London Pride - will be holding a demonstration tomorrow, Wednesday 7 July at 9am at The Supreme Court (Parliament Square, London SW1P 3BD, opposite the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben).

Phone Alex Owolade on 0208 674 4051 or 07985 403 781 for more information.

Movement for Justice is also holding a LGBT asylum campaign meeting on Monday 12 July at 6.30pm, in the Social Room at Brixton Recreation Centre, Brixton Station Road, Brixton, London SW9 8QQ (2 minutes from Brixton Tube & BR Stations).

LGBT asylum discussed on BBC Radio Four

By Paul Canning

BBC Radio Four's Women's Hour reached over three million listeners last week in a segment about LGBT asylum which LGBT Asylum News helped organise.

Veteran presenter Jenni Murray spoke with Prossy Kakooza , a Ugandan who finally won UK asylum last year after a long campaign, and Ruth Hunt, Deputy Director of Public Affairs at Stonewall, about their new report on LGBT asylum.

Kakooza told Murray about what she had fled from. How did her family react when they discovered she was a lesbian?

"Not very well. I think it was worse by the fact that I was 'caught red-handed'. It was my family who marched me to the police, naked. Later, when I got out of the prison, I was going to be sacrificed. There's a belief, when something like that happens, to take the curse out of the family, you have to die. I heard them discussing it."

"At the police station I was savagely attacked. I was raped by four different men and burnt."

"It's seven years to life imprisonment in Uganda - and now they are discussing the death penalty."

"I was able to escape because I was in charge of the finances in the business I had with my mother and my brother helped me to escape at night - I was tied up. I paid a lot of money to an agent in town to help me come here."

"Here, I went to Croydon [the UK Border Agency office]. I was interviewed by a lady who wasn't very sympathetic, but I suppose that's their job. I was transferred to Bolton [near Manchester] and I was in so much pain. I went to a [hospital] and the nurses refused to touch me, they called the police who took me somewhere where they examined my injuries and reports were made. It was a very traumatic time."

"[Despite this evidence] at first the [Border Agency] said it was false, but then they had to concede. In my case they did believe I was a lesbian but they still refused me to stay."

"They said that I'm an intelligent, educated women and I could relocate in Uganda. This would be impossible. Uganda is not the same as the UK where a young lady can move from home and live in a different town without family ties, living a normal life. You are expected to have family protection [in Uganda]."

"In the end I won not so much because of the evidence presented but because of the successful campaign. There was an internet campaign with more than 5000 signatures online and more than 3000 on paper. It was only because they considered me to be - in inverted commas - an 'activist'. They said my profile is high in Uganda and it would be easy to recognise me. It was unfortunate that they did not rely so much on the evidence that was in front of them."

"I can't tell you how traumatic the process was. This was only a couple of months after everything had happened to me and you're talking to people who are looking you in the eye and saying 'you're lying'. It's the worst thing that can happen, especially if you have been raped. I tried to commit suicide and spent three weeks in hospital because I just couldn't cope."

"Now the future is good. I'm going back to University, I have a lot of friends around me, I go to Manchester Metropolitan Community Church. But I have a partner back home who is still in prison and some days you really can't cope."

Ruth Hunt, from Stonewall, talking about the LGBT asylum seekers they'd spoken with to compile their report 'No Going Back', described Prossy as "lucky' because she was able to get a successful campaign going.

Asked how the system should change, Hunt said "the first thing is stop applying the 'discretion test'. They can go back and just because they were raped before they won't be raped again. New Zealand, Australia has abandoned this, there's an acceptance that being gay is your human right."

"We can't apply British standards to what sort of behaviour we expect [of LGBT] - one Border Agency staff member told us he would expect someone to have read Oscar Wilde, this is preposterous."

• Listen to the segment (may not be available outside the UK)
• Stonewall's Report 'No Going Back'

UKLGIG: Sensational headlines risk lives of LGBT asylum seekers

Source: UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG)

UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) is concerned that recent publicity, particularly the article in The Independent this Sunday, creates a false impression of what happens to LGBT asylum seekers in the UK.

In April 2010 UKLGIG released a report “Failing the Grade” (PDF) which states that between 2005 and 2009, 98% of lesbians and gay men claiming asylum on the basis of their sexual identity were refused by the Home Office at the initial interview stage. The Stonewall report “No Going Back” reiterates these findings.

Fortunately for LGBT asylum seekers, the justice system in the UK allows for a number of further steps in the process before all avenues have been explored and these further steps ensure that many of these asylum seekers are in fact granted asylum by the courts.

To say that “virtually all gay asylum seekers are sent back to persecution” is absolutely untrue and damages the considerable reputation of UKLGIG and the support that we give asylum seekers in those courts. Sometimes the evidence of UKLGIG is what ensures that a lesbian or gay man wins their claim.

Not only does such reporting damage the credibility of organisations that support LGBT asylum seekers, perhaps more importantly, it creates a climate of fear for those currently going through the process and for those who are thinking about claiming asylum – keeping them illegal and in danger of exploitation and destitution.

UKLGIG asks reporters keen to impress and generate public response if they are prepared to accept responsibility if the loss of credibility of UKLGIG means that an Iranian asylum seeker is returned and executed.

• See also: 98% sent back? The Independent's article makes a bad situation worse

Related articles by Zemanta

• Not all gay asylum-seekers sent back to face persecution (leftfootforward.org)

98% sent back? The Independent's article makes a bad situation worse

By Bruce Leimsidor

It’s painful when one has to criticize a friend, especially when he is trying to be helpful, but an apparently gay asylum friendly article in the May 23 issue of the “Independent,” “Virtually all gay asylum-seekers sent back to persecution” calls for some critical comment. The situation for gay asylum seekers in the UK is, in fact, very grave. It is not, however, made any better through inexact and alarmist reporting.

With in the past two months, two excellent reports, one by the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) and another by the UK based gay rights organization, Stonewall (released today), have closely documented and chronicled the unfair and prejudicial treatment LGBT asylum seekers have received at the hands of the UK immigration authorities (UKBA). The “Independent” article, however, distorts the situation by erroneously citing the Stonewall report, stating that “98 per cent of gay asylum-seekers fleeing persecution for their sexuality are returned home to a likely fate of death or persecution.”

The 98 % statistic comes not from the Stonewall report, which gives no specific figures on asylum refusals; it probably comes, rather, from the UKLGIG report, but let’s not nit pick. What is important, however, is that this figure of 98% is not for deportations, as the “Independent” article wrongly claims. The UKLGIG report is very careful to state that the figure of 98% refers to first instance refusals. A good number of those refusals are reversed on appeal in the courts, and even those that are not, do not necessarily result in deportation.

The essence of the battle for LGBT asylum rights revolves around credibility. Homophobia doubtlessly exists in the public, among elected and appointed officials, and among those adjudicating asylum claims, but the major problem we face in fight for gay asylum rights is not one of prejudice, but rather one of credibility. The persecution inflicted upon gay people in many countries is, in fact, so horrendous, it so defies imagination, that our natural reaction is incredulity. Worse, it is so irrational that there is a tendency to try to explain it through suspecting some sort of provocation on the part of the gay victim. That is what is behind the “discretion” argument, which has produced so many unjust adjudications for LGBT asylum seekers.

The people making the decisions affecting the lives of gay asylum seekers, the UKBA case owners, government officials, and MPs, all have access to the figures on refusals and deportations; they know very well that the figures in the “Independent” article are distorted. One can sincerely hope that they have read the very carefully prepared reports offered by respected organizations of the LGBT community and understand that the source of these distortions is certainly not those in the gay community advocating for justice in asylum adjudications. The fear is, however, that they have read only the Independent article and wrongly suspect that gay asylum advocates are behind these distortions. This is undoubtedly the case with the public, who must sense that such extreme figures on deportations can’t possibly correspond to reality.

The disservice done to the cause of providing protection for persecuted gay asylum seekers doesn’t stop just with diminishing our credibility with those in power and public opinion. It directly and negatively affects the willingness of persecuted gay men and women to seek that protection.

The Stonewall report quite rightly stresses how difficult it is for many LGBT coming from intensely homophobic societies to admit their homosexuality and to subject themselves to the long, humiliating, and uncertain process of filing for asylum on the grounds of their sexual orientation. It has been well established that one of the cruelest effects of persecution is that since it defies rationality, the victim begins to believe that he somehow deserves the mistreatment. It is, in fact, difficult to persuade persecuted refugee gays to file asylum claims as such, and not try to avoid the issue by filing a fictitious claim on political or religious grounds. These false claims are generally fairly transparent, and then, after the examiner destroys them, and the applicant finally lets the adjudicating officer know he is gay, his credibility has already been seriously damaged.

Even worse, many persecuted LGBT who have managed to flee to Europe, because of conflictual feelings about their sexual orientation, simply remain underground and don’t apply for asylum until their situation as irregular immigrants becomes desperate. One can understand how a UKBA caseowner might look a bit askance at any asylum claim on behalf of someone who has lived illegally in the UK for years and has filed only to avoid detention and deportation.

The “Independent” article, of course, paints the situation of the LGBT asylum seeker in the UK as hopeless. Not difficult. Hopeless. In providing erroneous information that clearly would definitively discourage a gay man or woman who has already been damaged by years of persecution from seeking protection, the “Independent” article has done considerable harm to the cause of protecting our vulnerable brothers and sisters.

The article does, however, contain one bright spot, the statement by UK officials that they will not accede to requests by Uganda to extradite people guilty of the “crime” of homosexuality, since homosexuality is not illegal in the UK. It fails, however, to see a subsidiary silver lining in such absurd Ugandan requests. If Uganda files for extradition of a Ugandan asylum seeker, the request for extradition in itself should provide proof positive of the asylum seeker’s claim. Rationally, he need not go much further in convincing the UKBA of the seriousness of his situation. The homophobic Ugandan government is doing our asylum seeker a considerable favor.


Bruce Leimsidor is Professor of EU asylum law at Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, Italy

[LGBT Asylum News Note : The Stonewall press release about their report does include the following in its notes: "Between 2005 – 2009, 98 per cent of cases involving people claiming asylum in the UK on the basis of their sexual orientation were refused by the Home Office."]