Showing posts with label conservative party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative party. Show all posts

Monday, 24 October 2011

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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, 7 October 2011

#catgate flap for UK government turning sour for gay couple at centre of it

Pic by @IamHappyToast
By Paul Canning

Since the UK Home Secretary Theresa May uttered those hostage to fortune words on Tuesday 4 October at the Conservative Party Conference ".. and I am not making this up" the British media and both opponents of the government as well as some within her own party have been making hay with her subsequent error - the supposed 'illegal immigrant' who could not be deported because "he had a pet cat".

Her claim, that a foreigner had been allowed to stay in the UK because of the human rights issues involved with owning a cat, was literally laughed at by one of her colleagues - the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke - and led to endless pussy-related headline and pictures like the one above, which a Labour MP happily retweeted. Prime Minister Cameron even made a joke about it in his speech winding up the conference.

The claim in a speech was, May admitted, sourced solely from newspaper headlines, which formed a nice circle coming back to bite the Home Office in the proverbial as the Home Office's PR people are well known for producing tabloid headline friendly stories showing them 'cracking down' on 'illegal immigrants'.

#catgate dates back to a Sunday Telegraph article from 17 October 2009 which had the headline 'Immigrant allowed to stay because of pet cat'. The following day, the Mail, Express, Sun and Star all ran the story, the Express going with the headline 'Got a cat? OK, you can stay'.

The story was then repeated by columnists including Richard Littlejohn, Amanda Platell, Sue Carroll and Eamonn Holmes.

But despite the comprehensive debunking, the Judicial Communications Office issued a statement literally minutes after May's speech, those tabloids are refusing to give up and on Thursday 6 October one leading producer of stories about 'benefits claiming illegal immigrants' The Daily Mail hit back with a front page claim that - yes - this 'illegal' Bolivian was staying for precisely the reason May claimed he was. And, for no particular reason, they 'out' the couple involved as gay.

They quoted at length from the judgment of an Immigration judge to try and prove their point but, of course, they were still getting it wrong and twisting quotes to fit their narrative.

Barrister Adam Wagner comprehensively debunks the Mail on the UK Human Rights Blog.

Wagner writes that "on any reading, the judgment [the Mail cites] does not support the proposition the Home Secretary made in her speech." And he points out the the cited judgment is irrelevant anyway as it was superseded. In that final judgment the Home Office's case was thrown out:
"For entirely separate (to the human rights claim) reasons relating to the UK Border Agency’s failure to follow its own policy, means that the cat issue did not have to be considered and was therefore rendered wholly irrelevant to the final decision not to deport the man."
The Bolivian man could not be deported because it was UK policy to allow someone in a four-year relationship, as he was, to stay. The Home Office had, er, forgotten that policy. The judge did not. The cat came up in a minor role as evidence introduced by a witness for the relationship and the judge made a couple of jokes about it, including one about the cat not having to adapt to Bolivian mice.

The judge said:
"I do not consider that it would be reasonable for the appellant’s partner to move to Bolivia to live with him. There are several considerations that justify this conclusion. The appellant’s counsel addressed these matters in his submissions. The most important perhaps is the condition of the appellant’s partner’s father. The evidence of this appellant’s partner and his siblings is that their father is in a condition that he is not expected to recover from. They stated that a family decision has been taken to give their father collective support as a family and that the support as a family and that the support that the appellant’s partner would give is an integral part of that effort. It would be distressing to the appellant’s partner’s [sic] if he were to have to leave the United Kingdom having regard to his father’s condition."

"I find however that the evidence of the appellant’s friends and of his partner’s siblings is persuasive and telling. In my view it attests to the strong quality of the relationship between the appellant and his partner."
The lawyer involved, Barry O'Leary, also issued a statement pointing out that:
"Their ownership of a cat was just one detail amongst many given to demonstrate the genuine nature of their relationship."
O'Leary also pointed out that:
"It was, in fact, the official acting on behalf of the Home Secretary who, when writing the letter of refusal, stated that the cat could relocate to Bolivia and cope with the quality of life there. This statement was not in response to any argument put forward by this firm or my client (and was, frankly, rather mischievous on behalf of the official)."
The Mail would appear to have none of this though. Facts mean nothing. Ad hominem is their business model.

At the end of their article is an appeal for information on the couple and a phone number. They'll pay some 'friend' of the couple to give them dirt.



Update: The Daily Torygraph has named the Bolivian, and repeated the falsehood about the centrality of the cat to him staying in the UK.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 7 July 2011

Is it getting worse for UK LGBT asylum seekers?

Funny SignsImage 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.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Has the UK government met its promise on LGBT asylum? We don't know

By Paul Canning

During last year's election campaign LGBT voters may have been surprised to notice the Labour government outflanked in the progressive stakes by the Conservative Party.

Labour's promise to LGBT voters had nothing to say on the treatment of LGBT asylum seekers. This was perhaps unsurprising as to say anything would have required saying something which was bound to draw attention from the anti-asylum seeker tabloids and on the other hand would have reminded LGBT voters of a record which involved defending a policy of telling those seeking sanctuary to 'go home and be discrete'.

Following the election, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats produced a Coalition agreement document which actually said nothing more than the status quo - those at proven risk wouldn't be returned - but politically drew a line under Labour's record and promised something better. A few weeks after the election came the landmark decision of the Supreme Court which ended the 'go home and be discrete' policy of Labour - and see S.Chelvan's article which explains exactly why the decision was LGBT legal history - which was welcomed by the Conservative Home Secretary.

Page, turned?

Friday, 8 April 2011

In UK, trade unions to lobby for LGBT asylum seekers

Pete Wilcox proposes the motion
By Paul Canning

The Northern Trades Union Congress has passed a motion on the 'Continued deportation of Asylum Seekers on grounds of Sexual Orientation' at its annual gathering 2 April.

The resolution was proposed by Pete Wilcox, a Fire Brigades Union Regional Secretary, and seconded by Unison, and there were speakers in support from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and Spennymoor (Durham) Trades Council.

It says that although the government made a commitment in its programme for government: "It is clear from recent reports of on-going deportation cases that the Home Office, through the auspices of the UK Border Agency, remain committed to the continued deportation of LGBT asylum seekers back to their home countries."

Citing Ugandan cases in particular, it said "our Government remains determined to send LGBT asylum seekers back to Uganda."

The resolution called on unions to support the Northern TUC LGBT Network in lobbying North East MP’s and the government to "end the deportation of LGBT asylum seekers back to countries that clearly discriminate against LGBT people with imprisonment, torture and death due to sexual orientation or gender identification."

Pete Wilcox's speech:

Saturday, 2 April 2011

UK Foreign Office 2011 human rights report: LGBT are visible but rights promotion remains patchy

William Hague at the US Dept. of StateUK Foreign Secretary William Hague image via Wikipedia   
By Paul Canning

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) released its 2011 Human Rights report, its third, 31 March. The report more extensively covers LGBT rights internationally than the previous year's, which was marked by a focus on Europe, but still shows major gaps.

It says that "human rights are an indivisible part of our foreign policy" and that the report demonstrates  practical steps taken to improve and strengthen UK human rights work.The UK has played a leading role in promoting LGBT rights in intergovernmental organisations such as the EU, Council of Europe and UN. It has also developed a LGBT rights toolkit which has influenced a similar one for the EU. However work by overseas missions 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 Nigeria, 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 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 other engagement with Nigeria on human rights. The same applies for other countries which heavily repress LGBT and which the FCO engages with on other grounds, such as Pakistan.

Thursday, 31 March 2011

Video: Migrants and refugees at massive London anti-cuts march

On 26 March up to half a million people gathered in London to protest swingeing government cuts, many of which will massively impact refugee and migrant services. See 'UK government takes axe to refugee and asylum services' for more details.

Source:



Donna Covey, Chief Executive of the Refugee Council gave an inspiring speech at the rally in Hyde Park at the end of the march.

Source: TUC


Donna Covey speaks at March for the Alternative from Trades Union Congress on Vimeo.

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

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:

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Hague urged to question Mid-East governments on LGBT rights

William Hague at the US Dept. of StateImage via Wikipedia
By Paul Canning

Update: Hague gave the following response:

Q. @nowishconceived: @WilliamJHague Are you going to address the human rights of LGBT people with this middle-east visit? #askFS

A. @nowishconceived: We object to discrimination against LGBT people in all circumstances & all places and yes, we make this very clear #askFS

~~~~~~

Activists have launched a campaign aimed at Foreign Secretary William Hague asking him to raise LGBT rights during his latest visit to the Middle East. Hague just visited Syria, is today in Tunisia and visiting Jordan next.

Our trendy diplomatic leader has asked for questions about foreign policy to be tweeted at him (@WilliamJHague) with a #askFS hashtag which he will answer tomorrow.

Two months ago he had a similar Q&A session but did not answer the few questions about LGBT issue.
 
Dan Littaeur, Editor of Gay Middle East website, said:
"There are several cases of people accused of alleged homosexual acts due to be executed in Iran, the incident in Bahrain, and hunting down of LGBT people in Iraq, and generally discrimination and persecution of LGBT people throughout the Middle East and North Africa."
The Conservative Party's 'Equalities Manifesto', launched during last year's election promised to "Fight for LGBT rights around the world." It said:
"Unfortunately there are still far too many countries around the world that discriminate against gay and lesbian people. We would use our relationships with other countries to push for unequivocal support for gay rights. For example, shadow Cabinet Minister Nick Herbert will attend the EuroPride rally in Warsaw as part of our commitment to making  the case for gay equality in Eastern Europe." 
"We would also use our influence in international groups like the Commonwealth to put pressure on countries where gay people are persecuted, such as Uganda, and we would change the rules so that gay people fleeing persecution were granted asylum."
Following the election and her appointment as Home Secretary, Theresa May was criticised over her past votes as an MP against LGBT rights.

Responding to questioning on BBC Question Time, she said that she would now vote differently and had "changed her mind" on issues such as lesbian and gay adoption.

However she went further and [my emphasis] said that she wanted to be judged on what the government did rather than said and pointed to the Conservatives Equalities manifesto.

The previous Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, launched the first Foreign Office annual human rights report. However, as we pointed out, in covering LGBT rights it almost exclusively focused on Europe through in a long country round-up it did include criticism of two Mid-East countries with the death penalty for homosexuality, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But the annual report claimed that Iraqi "official figures do not show a significant overall increase in violence against, or systematic abuse of, the homosexual community by fundamentalists or militia groups". Neither Miliband's or Hague's Foreign Office has offered any criticism of Iraq's government, even when evidence mounted of their direct involvement in the killing of LGBT.

The Foreign Office under both Miliband and Hague also refused to support LGBT Muscovites.

Russian and Western activists blasted European national governments and the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, for denying them permission to host Moscow Pride on the grounds of an embassy. That would have greatly reduced the threat of violence to which activists are subjected while meeting in Russia.

'I was shocked by how these embassies sold human rights for the sake of economic interests,' Russian gay rights activist Nikolai Alexeyev said.

The Foreign Office has, however, developed a LGBT rights toolkit and the UK has participated in efforts to use EU foreign policy to push for LGBT rights internationally.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, 28 January 2011

Brenda Namigadde wins second chance, no thanks to Theresa May

Terengganu Sports Complex at dawnImage by NeeZhom Photomalaya via Flickr
By Paul Canning

In an extremely last minute decision, Barrister Abdulrahman Jafar has managed to pursued an Appeal Court judge to grant an injunction stopping tonight's removal of Ugandan lesbian Brenda Namigadde on Flight VS671 at 9.20pm to Nairobi.

What is clear at this point is that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, had decided not to use her powers to prevent the removal.

All day and evening activists have been hoping for any sign that the government, particularly in the light of the murder of the Ugandan activist David Kato, would reconsider Namigadde's case. In the hours up to her flight, hopes were raised when The Guardian reported that the Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has put out a statement saying that she had been told that the 'case would be reconsidered'. Her lawyer last Monday filed a new claim for asylum, based in part on the deteriorating conditions for LGBT in Uganda. Did this mean that the new claim had been accepted?

The support for Brenda could not have been greater. At time of writing over 50,000 people have signed a petition from 160 countries. Theresa May's office had apparently been "deluged". Those using London's transport system today would have seen the free newspaper 'Metro' which splashed with Brenda's story on its cover. As the Guardian wrote, MPs have been making representations to May as have Euro MPs. Numerous media outlets have covered her story and shortly the BBC's flagship news shows 'Newsnight' will cover it.

I have been working on this case with the indefatigable  Melanie Nathan of LezGetReal - who secured the admission by 'Kill the gays' bill author David Bahati MP that Brenda must "repent" or be imprisoned if she returns to Uganda - and the great, new international LGBT defence organisation allout.org since last Sunday, when we first became aware of it.

Says Nathan:
"I am so relieved for Brenda - that she is safe. During those many hours of uncertainty, while advocating behind the scenes, I kept thinking of what it must be like to be Brenda in each of those given moments. How it must have felt to not know. How it must have felt when David Kato was murdered, when she thought all was lost; that ride to the airport. I believe notwithstanding the fact that she is safe, she has endured cruelty at the hands of the UK asylum system. What she has gone through has been psychological  torture.I hope this case will change how asylum is handled  for all LGBT people around the world. In the USA and in the UK."
However despite all the signatures, all the media attention, in the end her legal position revolved entirely on the government contesting whether she is in fact lesbian - and if that failed, which it nearly did, her will to physically resist removal.

As I wrote earlier in response to the statement of Matthew Coats, head of immigration at the UK Border Agency, who said: "Ms Namigadde's case has been carefully considered by both the UK Border Agency and the courts on two separate occasions and she has been found not to have a right to remain here.An immigration judge found on the evidence before him that Ms Namigadde was not homosexual."

UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group has shown that almost all of a sample of cases examined by them were initially thrown out, so Brenda's case could properly be said to have only been examined once. (There is no evidence to suggest that the rate of rejection has changed since the UKLGIG report was published a year ago. Anecdotal evidence is of an increase in challeges to whether claimants are gay or not.)

The one Tribunal hearing she had was missed by two witnesses who would have spoken to her sexuality - so on the basis of two people missing a hearing the risk would be taken to return her to a country where it is patently unsafe to be a lesbian? And there was other evidence presented by Brenda, including sworn statements.

At that point of rejection the odds were stacked against her. She was on the 'fast track' to removal.

The placing of sexuality-based asylum claims in the 'fast track' system has been heavily criticized. Once disproportionately initially rejected at 'first blush' LGBT are more likely to be placed in 'fast track' where applicants and their lawyers had much less time to prepare an appeal, for, it is argued, often complex claims to be properly considered.

LGBT are far more likely to initially claim on other grounds - because they come from the 'global south' and are closeted (it has been suggested that Brenda's decision to 'come out' late weighed against her). They can come up against homophobic translators or even those judging their claim, as documented in Stonewall's landmark report which includes interviews with Border Agents with little or no understand of the cultures they come from and hence the claimant's own regard of their sexuality. There are numerous reasons why these asylum claims are complex.

By coincidence this week the Conservative MP for Brighton, Kemptown, Simon Kirby, asked the Immigration Minister, Damien Green MP, in the House of Commons about whether he had given consideration "to the participation of (a) women and (b) lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in the detained fast-track procedure."

Green replied:
"Entry to the detained fast-track procedure is determined by reference to published policy available on the UK Border Agency website. The policy lays out categories of claimant who, for reasons of particular vulnerability such as late pregnancy, children or serious disability, are excluded from entry to the process. For all other claimants, the key factor determining entry to the process is whether a quick, fair and sustainable decision can be taken on the case."

"We do not intend to specifically add to an exclusion list all applicants on the basis of claimed or accepted gender, gender identity or sexuality. However, if on a case by case basis, any claimants from these groups are identified as having a claim of particular complexity, the general consideration referred to previously regarding amenability to a quick, fair and sustainable decision will apply."
Translation: we don't accept that these cases are complex. Green is here rejecting the evidence of the Stonewall report.

In another current Ugandan asylum case, still being appealed, gay man Garrick Nyeswa was told in his rejection letter that “there is no evidence to confirm that homosexuals are persecuted in Uganda.”

According to the Home Office's website, the latest 'country information' (known as COI and provided to Border Agents and used to make decisions) is from February 2009.

There has been consistent criticism of the quality of COI. 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.

During the election, then Conservative leader and now Prime Minister, David Cameron told me:
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.
The fresh claim for Brenda is partly on the basis of the new information of the deteriorating situation for lesbians and gays in Uganda, which appears to have been ignored in the assessment of her claim.

Yvette Cooper said in her comment today to the Guardian:
"The UK Border Agency's operational guidance for Uganda is now nearly two years old and does not mention LGBT rights. It needs to be updated as fast as possible to reflect the current situation on the ground."
The UK has previously decided to stop the return of failed asylums seekers: to Zimbabwe during the height of the violence there.

The government has been asked to recognise by Stonewall, UKLGIG and other NGOs that sexuality-based asylum cases are almost always complex, should be allowed more time and therefore not place them in 'fast-track': they have refused.

The Coalition government 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."
The experience we have just been through with Brenda Namigadde demonstrates that they have broken this promise.

LGBT Asylum News has three separate and independent pieces of evidence that say that Brenda is a lesbian. We would not have embarked on this campaign if we believed she was not.

If we can demonstrate that in five days why cannot a system supposed to offer santuary to those who need it?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Human rights champion praises Scots welcome for refugees

Source: Scottish Refugee Council

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, called on Scots to ‘set an example of welcome’ to refugees from across the world today (Friday, 14 January)

Speaking as a guest at the Scottish Refugee Council Annual General Meeting, held at Edinburgh’s City Chambers, Chakrabarti stated the need to recognise the importance of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which marks its 60th anniversary this year.

She said: “The UN Refugee Convention is more important now than ever when we think of the refugees yet to come and the lives yet to be saved by this incredibly important document.

"The Convention isn’t just a wonderful, beautiful antique that we should treasure. It’s just as pertinent now as it was 60 years ago, and even more pertinent in our  shrinking, interconnected world. “I think there's a real opportunity for Scotland to build upon its tradition of warmth and welcome, and set an example here in the UK and in Europe for welcoming refugees. We don’t want a fortress Europe keeping refugees out.”

Chakrabarti is director of Liberty, a UK-wide charity which campaigns to protect our basic rights and freedoms. She is well-known as a commentator and challenger on human rights for us all – including people who’ve sought refuge in our country.

In the run-up to the UK Elections last May, Scottish Refugee Council joined Liberty and the Refugee Council in England to call on party leaders and candidates to sign an asylum election pledge and remember the importance of providing safety to people fleeing war, torture and persecution in debates on asylum and immigration. A total of 1,031 candidates signed the pledge including the leaders of all four main parties (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dems and SNP).

In 2011, Scottish Refugee Council, along with many other refugee charities, will be marking 60 years since the UN Refugee Convention was put in place. It is as crucial as ever that our governments honour their part in this lifesaving document – and continues to protect the rights of people fleeing war, torture and persecution.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 15 November 2010

UK MPs accused of ‘abandoning’ gay Briton arrested by Syrian secret police

Alan Duncan outside The Houses of ParliamentGay Tory MP Alan Duncan  
Source: Daily Mail
By Glen Owen

Three senior Tories have been accused of ‘abandoning’ a Syrian-born Briton who is being held by secret police in Damascus.

Sebastian Akkam, 31, an openly gay shop owner, has been denied access to UK consular staff since his arrest last month. No reason has been given for his detention.

His brother Mohammed said Sebastian had been let down by British establishment ‘friends’ he identified as MP Alan Duncan and former MPs Richard Spring and Michael Portillo.

The trio have privately expressed surprise as to why their names are being linked to the case.

Mr Akkam, who changed his name from Abdo in tribute to Oscar Wilde’s pseudonym Sebastian Melmoth, runs a shop in Damascus which has a shrine to Wilde – a risky move in a country where homosexuality carries a jail sentence.

As a teenager he was held naked for several weeks and badly beaten by the secret police. In 2006 he moved to the UK and took out citizenship on entering into a civil partnership, now dissolved, with a British man.

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

What will Britain's spending review mean for asylum seekers and refugees?

ScissorsImage via Wikipedia
Source: Refugee Council

By Philippa, in the Communications team

The Chancellor took to the podium on Wednesday to reveal the long awaited Comprehensive Spending Review. The headlines in yesterday's newspapers and websites told us all about the rising pension age, cuts in disability benefits, increasing rail fares… But what does this mean for asylum seekers and refugees?
There was very little mention of asylum in the spending review, and the finer details of how the cuts will affect our clients will no doubt be revealed in coming weeks and months. But what was clear yesterday is that the most vulnerable in our society are going to suffer the most. So here is our own attempt at breaking down how our clients will be affected.

1. UKBA spending will be cut by £500 million by reducing service costs, but they will increase productivity by investing more in asylum casework and border control.

Sounds ominous, although we’re encouraged that they will pour more money into asylum casework. It is also crucial that policing our borders is not achieved at the expense of those seeking protection from persecution. Those in need of safety must have access to effective systems for considering their asylum claims at the point that they are entering the country. We are also already concerned about the speed of processing of some asylum claims, and if speed is to be a UKBA priority, they must also make sure that the process is better and fairer. We hope the Asylum Improvement Project which the government is already undertaking, will make sure of that.

2. Major reforms to the legal aid system involving taking tough choices about the types of case that should receive public funding, focusing support on those who need it most, and giving better value for the taxpayer.

Thursday, 21 October 2010

UK: Legal aid delivers justice; kind lawyers won't

Scale of justice, Enhanced version of an image... Image via Wikipedia  

Source: Guardian


By Afua Hirsch


Earlier this year I spent some time at a London law centre. Like many services that offer free legal advice, many of its clients are young adults at risk of homelessness, worklessness, poor mental and sexual health, and becoming involved in antisocial behaviour, drug use and crime.

It's long been said that legal aid, in the 60 years since its birth after the second world war, is the unrecognised fourth pillar of the welfare state. Nowhere is this clearer than at South West London Law Centre, a dilapidated, damp building in Tooting staffed by lawyers with an almost irrational dedication to working on the frontline. I met one of their clients, a 20-year-old called Danni who had lost his job as an apprentice joiner in the recession. He was wrongly told that he could not claim housing benefit to help pay his rent, and found himself in court as the council tried to repossess his council flat.

Danni, who like most people had no knowledge of legal proceedings or civil law, faced the daunting prospect of representing himself in court and being made homeless. He was saved by a lawyer from the centre called Niki Goss, an amazing and vastly experienced man who has spent his career taking on this kind of case, for which he earns less than the average primary school teacher. Goss, funded by a legal aid scheme that enabled him to be on duty in court that day, persuaded the judge to oversee a compromise with the council so that Danni could remain in his accommodation.

The Law Centres Federation estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer of evicting people like Danni is £34,000. The service provided by Goss that day and subsequent court hearings costs less than £1,000. Providing vulnerable people with legal representation saves money down the line.

Thursday, 8 July 2010

Political reaction to Supreme Court decision

The Scottish National Party welcomed the Supreme Court decision on LGBT asylum.

SNP MSP for the South of Scotland Aileen Campbell said:
Last October at SNP Conference I seconded a motion which the party membership voted unanimously in favour of to overhaul asylum rules, which at the time did not allow people to seek asylum on the grounds of sexuality.

While it is shameful that any country in the world would persecute someone for being gay, it is also shameful that the UK has refused in the past to protect those same people.
I’m delighted that that has now changed for the better. Hopefully this is just the start of further significant changes which must still be made so that there is a fair and just asylum system that of which we can be proud.
Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes said:.
I am delighted this ruling recognises the rights of gay asylum seekers, ensuring their freedom from persecution around the world.

This plight is one that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have campaigned on for years. It is an issue that the Coalition Government is committed to addressing as we seek to restore Britain’s reputation around the world as a leader in the protection of human rights. I believe that today’s ruling will go some way to restoring that reputation.

Other countries around the world must now follow the UK’s lead and recognise freedom of expression and freedom of sexuality for all people.
Conservative Party Home Secretary Theresa May said:
I welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court, which vindicates the position of the coalition government. We have already promised to stop the removal 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.

I do not believe it is acceptable to send people home and expect them to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution. From today, asylum decisions will be considered under the new rules and the judgment gives an immediate legal basis for us to reframe our guidance for assessing claims based on sexuality, taking into account relevant country guidance and the merits of each individual case.

We will of course take any decisions on a case by case basis looking at the situation in the country of origin and the merits of individual cases in line with our commitment.'
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:
The Government has said that it would not return LGBT asylum seekers to countries where they face severe persecution.

Today's ruling gives legal force to this policy, and means that the Home Office must abandon its shameful practice of using the 'keep quiet and you will be safe' argument to return lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum seekers to persecution and death in their native countries.

The TUC has written to the Home Secretary to seek a meeting to press for the policy and practice of the UK Border Agency to be changed immediately.
In an interview with pinknews.co.uk, former Foreign Secretary and leading candidate for the Labour Party leadership David Miliband said he was unaware of that morning's Supreme Court ruling  and had apparently not heard of the Labour-introduced policy that gay asylum seekers can be returned home if it is decided they can be "discreet".
I don't know about the case. I think the whole point is that [things are done] on a case by case basis.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 6 July 2010

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).


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 14 June 2010

Guardian editorial: Home Office LGBT asylum decisions "breathtaking"

Logo of the British newspaper The GuardianImage 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.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 24 May 2010

Hope on UK LGBT asylum? And a new demand

Photo of Theresa May MP, opening a church fete...Image via Wikipedia
By Paul Canning

In his excellent explanation last Friday of the problems with the Coalition government's one line commitment on LGBT asylum, announced on Thursday, Bernard Keenan pointed out there is one action they can take to show they mean business: withdraw from the Supreme Court test case involving an Iranian and Cameroonian on 'go home and be discrete'.

As Bruce Leimsidor in his piece for us on the reporting of Stonewall's report, being launched today, says:
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.
This incredulity is shown by the comments both Keenan's piece and that of an anonymous gay Iranian also in the Guardian have attracted. With the latter, the fact is that gays do (despite what Ahmajinedad says) exist in Iran and there are YouTube videos showing them having parties. So if you don't 'provoke' the Iranian regime with your 'flaunted' homosexuality why can't you go back?

The research and numbers on persecution is there but it's not great precisely because it's not a priority for most human rights actors and the state makes any sort of advocacy and information gathering hard if not impossible.

Last year the journalist Doug Ireland reported on twelve death sentences in Iran and managed to get some confirmation. This led to a statement from Human Rights Watch but absolutely no subsequent press interest, even from the LGBT media. Amnesty International ignored it.

The Coalition statement says "at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution." Marshaling 'proof' which stands up in a system the Stonewall report describes as riddled with "institutionalised homophobia" ain't easy.

New Home Secretary Theresa May is tasked with implementing the Coalition agreement and this is happening against a background of campaigning against her appointment because of her past votes against LGBT equalities legislation, in particular a 40k+ Facebook petition.

Responding to questioning on BBC Question Time, she said that she would now vote differently and had "changed her mind" on issues such as lesbian and gay adoption.

However she went further and said that she wanted to be judged on what the government did rather than said and pointed to the Conservatives Equalities manifesto, published on the Monday before the election.

She pointed out that this addressed other issues than those she had voted against and first cited homophobic bullying in schools and next cited the LGBT asylum commitments.
"What will show the difference the government will make is what we will do in government on this particular agenda of equalities," she said.

"[The manifesto] did commit that one of the things we would be doing is looking at ensuring that people who are claiming asylum from particular countries because they are at proven risk in relation to their sexuality, that we should be able to take that into account as an issue when looking at those claims."
As Refugee Action, the Refugee Council and LGBT Asylum News explained on Friday, May's words and the Coalition's inclusion of this issue is extremely welcome however the one sentence wording does not actually change the position of LGBT asylum seekers in practice.

The Conservative manifesto expands on the text in the Coalition agreement to address the 'discretion test'. Because there is no clamour around asylum as there is around her past votes I'm encouraged that May chose to point to the asylum commitment as an example of where they will seek change - the manifesto says "change the rules" - and where they should be judged by their actions.

It remains to be seen how 'rules' will be changed - we have identified eight headline issues with current Home Office policy and practice - but, as we have said earlier, it would be churlish not to be encouraged by their choice of language around the emotive issue of asylum. Simply put, they don't need to do this, there are few if any votes in it and they could, like the previous government, simply mention other LGBT equality issues and leave this one out.

They have already been 'stung' on LGBT asylum by the right wing mass tabloid Daily Mail so to have then left asylum in their manifesto as a commitment - problems with the wording aside - should be seen as a positive move.

But we can ask them to "show the difference the government will make" immediately in one straight-forward move: withdraw from the Supreme Court test case. I'd like to see the 40+ Facebook petitioners move at least some of their attention to that sort of demand.

Edited to add: Liz Williams, a refugee lawyer who acted for UNHCR in the Supreme Court case, has fed back that:
"I'd rather the Government didn't fold at this stage, with the hearing complete and only the judgment awaited. All that would achieve would be to leave the unsatisfactory Court of Appeal judgment in place as binding law. That was a favourite tactic of successive Labour Home Secretaries when they saw cases going against them, which I'd rather not see repeated."
We asked:
"Could the new government otherwise indicate its distance from the previous government's opinion without ensuring a negative legal outcome?"
Liz replied that:
"in theory they could perhaps write to the Supreme Court withdrawing their submissions and inviting the judges to adopt ours and/or the appellants' in their judgments, but that would be a very unusual step. Not sure how the court would respond. The key thing is that they need to issue a new Asylum Policy Instruction to deal with the problem (APIs are what UKBA staff follow when approving claims) - obviously the sooner, the better, but I imagine it will take a little while to get the necessary detail drafted and approved by Home Office lawyers."

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, 22 May 2010

As a gay asylum seeker, I was lucky

LOS ANGELES, CA - JUNE 28:  Iranian-Americans ...Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Source: The Guardian

By anonymous

Our note: This writer does not explain here why he has chosen to be anonymous but other Iranians have expressed fears for the safety of family in Iran as the regime is known to have arrested and otherwise harassed them as a way of securing silence from exiles. As well, as Kiana Firouz has said, agents of the Iranian state have been known to harass exiles outside Iran.

A while ago, I was granted refugee status in the UK on the basis of my homosexuality and my political activities in Iran. As a person who has shared the same stress of being a gay asylum seeker in the UK with lots of other applicants, I was happy yesterday to hear that the coalition agreement between the Tories and the Lib Dems included a promise to "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".

Not everybody is as lucky as I was in seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. Within a month after my asylum interview with the Home Office I had the positive decision in my hand, partly because I had a huge international support and also partly because my application was mostly based on my political activities rather than my homosexuality. This is why I was given "the refugee status" rather than "a humanitarian protection". The first one is the strongest but it's the latter that is given to gay asylum seekers in almost all of the cases.

The Home Office's attitude toward gay asylum seekers in the UK has been very controversial in recent years. It is said that the UK protects those homosexuals who have well-founded fear of persecution were they to return to their home countries but arbitrary decisions have been made, too. In regards to Iran, although its notorious record of executing homosexuals is very well documented by international human rights organisations, large numbers of gay Iranian cases have been turned down every year.

Recently, a new report on the treatment of lesbian and gay asylum claims in the UK found that the refusal rate was 90%, compared with 73% for all the claims generally. In two recent Iranian cases, one applicant, known as "J" had to go to appeals court after his claim was refused.

Related Posts with Thumbnails