When the Liberal-Conservative coalition led by Lars Lokke Rasmussen came to power in Denmark in 2001, it relied on support from the right-wing and staunchly anti-immigrant Danish People's Party (DPP). As a result of that union, Denmark passed some of the strictest immigration and asylum laws in Europe.
Among other things, its policies restricted benefits to immigrants, limited their ability to work and required Danes marrying a foreigner to post an $11,600 bond. The number of asylum seekers and relatives of immigrants applying for entry into the country dropped by nearly 70% over nine years, and the DPP moved closer to its goal: a complete end to immigration from non-Western countries.
But Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark's new prime minister, has plans to change all that. Thorning-Schmidt, who led a left-leaning, three-party alliance to victory on Sep. 15 and formed her government on Oct. 3, has already announced bold policy moves that will dramatically alter the tone of Denmark's debate on immigration.
The government's common policy outlines a number of concrete changes. They include automatic citizenship for children born and raised in Denmark, regardless of their parents' citizenship; equal welfare rights for immigrants and Danes; vast reductions in application fees and cash securities; expanded work benefits for asylum seekers; and the possibility of dual citizenship, which will ease the naturalization process.
The coalition also plans to ease family reunification rules, which have seen 800 children denied residency permits since 2005, frequently leading to the separation of children and their parents. (In March, the immigration minister resigned after it emerged 36 stateless Palestinians had been wrongly denied citizenship. The government subsequently contacted 400 Palestinian young people who had not been informed of their rights and entitlement to apply.)
Thorning-Schmidt has also binned the previous government's plans to erect permanent customs control points along the Danish border. The previous government had, at the behest of the DPP, insisted on the checkpoints to curb crime and reduce illegal immigration. But the European Commission and Germany, Denmark's neighbor to the south, complained they would violate the continent's visa-free travel rules.
"In cooperation with our neighbours, Denmark will carry out an effective customs control based on a mobile, flexible and intelligence-based effort in keeping with the common rules in effect in the E.U.," the government's policy plan says. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who had criticized Denmark's border plans, praised the about-face. "This is a decision in favour of liberty for European citizens," he said in a statement.
Denmark's coalition will abolish the Immigration Ministry—a strong signal that the far-right's grip on immigration really is over. Its functions and its 300 employees will be divided between the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. That reallocation of responsibility hints that asylum and immigration should be dealt with against a backdrop of justice and not separate from it. Just as symbolic, perhaps, is the appointment of Indian-born Manu Sareen as the head of the Equality Ministry, making him the country's fist minister of immigrant origin.
Symbolism, of course, will do little to dampen resentment from the moderate and right-wing politicians who oppose the government's more open approach. Speaking to Denmark's Berlingske newspaper, Søren Pind, the outgoing immigration minister, suggested that the new policies will unleash a flood of problems. "This is open borders and an open till," he said. "We will see an increase in people on public assistance who do not come from Denmark. And abolishing the point system will just bring the Anatolian Plateau that much closer. This is certainly not what they promised during the election."
Why do we see relatively few transgender asylum seekers among LGBT-persons fleeing from persecution? Does this indicate a relatively low level of persecution? Does it indicate a relatively low number of transgender persons? Seeking out information on persecution and discrimination of transgendered people around the world – including Europe – this paper first sets the scene for the analysis before focusing on a number of cases of transgender asylum seekers in Denmark.
Observations are made of the similarities and distinctions between asylum seeking of transgendered persons and other groups of LGBT asylum applicants. Furthermore, recommendations are made on how to counter systemic inequalities within the processes.
Søren Laursen is an activist and spokesperson of LGBT Denmark – The Danish National Organisation for Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered Persons. Former member of the Refugee Appeals Board (the tribunal).
The [Danish] Immigration Ministry was criticised this week for using information illegally acquired by police to affect their decisions to grant asylum.
Avisen.dk broke the story with a series of articles on Sunday 19 July, with several other Danish papers picking up the story the following day.
The media attention led to the Immigration Service meeting with the police and the Danish Refugee Council on Tuesday to discuss whether regulations were being followed.
Asylum law stipulates that the police, who are the first to interview asylum seekers, are only to determine basic information such as their identity, nationality and how they entered the country.
And then subsequent interviews with the Immigration Service establish the individual’s motives for seeking asylum before coming to a judgment on whether their claim is justified.
But information revealed this week alleged that police had also been deliberately asking about asylum seekers’ motives, a practice which has been condemned as illegal.
Several cases have come to light in which asylum seekers gave inconsistent stories to the police and the immigration service, resulting in a denial of asylum. Receiving the most attention was the case of 17-year-old Abdullah from Afghanistan.
According to Avisen.dk, Abdullah revealed two reasons for seeking asylum when speaking with police, but later included another two reasons in his interview with the Immigration Service.
This reportedly led to the Immigration Service believing Abdullah’s story was untrustworthy, even though Abdullah contends that he never told police the other reasons, simply because they never asked.
But according to the Immigration Ministry, the decision to reject a claim for asylum has little to do with what claimants tell police.
“It is not possible that the overall assessment of an asylum claim can have a negative turnout based solely on what the candidate told the police as their motivation,” Jakob Dam Glynstrup from the Immigration Service told The Copenhagen Post.
Regulations from 1995 that govern the interviewing of asylum seekers state that police should determine the identity, travel route and family connections of the individual, and that while they should not interrogate the asylum seekers about their reasons for seeking asylum, the law states that: “It is the intention that police, in registering the applicant, should record their immediate declaration for seeking asylum.”
Despite these guidelines, National Police (Rigspolitet) representatives gave inconsistent responses to Avisen.dk when asked whether they are even allowed to ask asylum seekers their reasons for applying.
In one Avisen.dk article, a police official told the outlet they did not believe they were doing anything wrong asking about motivations for asylum. In a second article on the site, however – published at precisely the same time – a police’s legal advisor said that it was not the role of the police to investigate an asylum claim.
In response to media interest after these articles were published, a meeting was held this Tuesday between the Immigration Service, Danish Refugee Council and the National Police to agree on the correct procedure for interviewing asylum seekers.
Speaking to The Copenhagen Post after the meeting, Andreas Kamm from the Refugee Council said he was pleased with the outcome.
“We agreed on the legislation and the regulations – that the police should not enter into a deep interview about individuals’ motives for asylum, but simply try and determine that they are in fact dealing with an asylum seeker,” he said.
“It’s very uncomfortable for asylum seekers to be confronted by police so it was decided in the mid ‘90s to get lawyers to conduct the interviews instead. Employees in the immigration service now have all the skills to conduct these interviews because they know about the countries and the minorities within these countries.”
It was also decided at the meeting that more regular meetings should be held between the Danish Refugee Council, the police and the Immigration Service to improve dialogue and raise concerns regarding issues of common interest.
Anni Fode, the director for asylum and family reunification at the Immigration Service, commented after the meeting:
“Yesterday we held a meeting with the Danish Refugee Council and the police where the following was agreed: that the police may briefly ask the asylum seeker their reasons for seeking asylum which should be noted.”
The Copenhagen Post has yet to discover any concrete cases where the police have been reprimanded for overstepping their power, despite Avisen.dk’s initial reports this Sunday – which sparked the case – stating that police were asking asylum seekers illegal questions.
The European parliament approved the request of Bulgaria and Romania to join Europe's free travel zone, known as the Schengen agreement, last week. Bulgaria is building a 210km long fence along its border with Tukey, Greece is building a similar fence.
In the first of a special series on European border controls, Al Jazeera's Laurence Lee reports.
The Danish Integration Minister Soren Pind has been asked to explain why asylum seekers with mental disorders and torture victims and trafficked women are imprisoned indefinitely in Ellebæk Institution for Detained Foreigners. Amnesty International, Danish Refugee Council and Danish Red Cross asked him to ensure that Denmark will not put vulnerable people in prison and that the detention of asylum seekers is made only in extraordinary situations.
Amnesty International, the Danish Refugee Council and the Danish Red Cross have called for rejected asylum seekers to be detained only in exceptional circumstances and of they are that they can live in open detention centers.
Amnesty International's member magazine in February revealed that the Danish authorities routinely detained vulnerable groups. They say that this may conflict the European Convention on Human Rights Article three, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. The European Court of Human Rights in a series of judgments has criticized countries for imprisoning vulnerable groups among asylum seekers with regard to Articles three as well as five (right to liberty and security).
Detention is happening because the immigration authorities and police say that there is a danger that asylum seekers will go underground while their cases are dealt with or if they are due to be deported. Amnesty has documented that the legal system only in extremely rare cases, follows the statutory requirement to use less coercive measures than detention - including reporting duties to the police.
Critics of Denmark's tightening rules on immigration and integration say the country is violating European norms, including human rights legislation. How much has Denmark's approach to these issues been transformed under pressure from a right-wing populist party?
It looks, at first, like a familiar Scandinavian scene.
Outside the Danish parliament in Copenhagen, an international crowd mixing Danish citizens, immigrants from all kinds of backgrounds, is enjoying music and theatre.
"Afro-Danes" are here, reflecting Denmark's long interest in African developments and its past offers of asylum to those fleeing conflicts in Africa and elsewhere.
The crowd laughs as a couple stage a mock marriage. An official asks whether they are marrying "purely for immigration purposes" and "plan to live in a ghetto".
Behind the humour, there is serious anxiety. Denmark has recently tightened its immigration laws again, with a points system designed to make it more difficult for "family reunion" to bring foreigners into the country through marriage.
A new report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights titled 'Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity' has condemned the use by the Czech Republic of 'phallometric testing' during the asylum procedure. This practice tests the physical reaction to heterosexual pornographic material of those who file a claim for asylum on the basis of their homosexual orientation.
The Agency says that it believes the practice could be in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits torture and human or degrading treatment, and of Article 8, (respect of one’s private life), “since this procedure touches upon ‘a most intimate part of an individual’s private life’”.
The Agency also considers this practice to be particularly inappropriate for asylum seekers, since “many of them might have suffered abuse due to their sexual orientation and are thus specifically constrained by this kind of exposure”.
Any practice susceptible to impose a duty to conceal one’s homosexuality in the country of origin should be aligned to the same requirements used for assessing persecution on grounds of religion or political opinion, and should be based on the possibility expressing a fundamental trait of one’s personality (as sexual orientation is) freely, including through one’s conduct and relationships.
The report says that although none of the EU Member States explicitly objected to considering sexual orientation as a source of persecution for the purposes of granting the status of refugee, as of 2010 the inclusion of that ground of persecution remains only implicit in the legislation of five Member States (Estonia, Greece, Malta, Portugal, and the UK). This means that the definition of a ‘particular social group’ does not explicitly mention the ground of sexual orientation.
Since 2008, four additional Member States have made it explicit that a ‘particular social group’ includes a group defined by the sexual orientation of its members: Finland, Latvia, Poland, and Spain. The total number of Member States which explicitly refer to sexual orientation is now 21. The FRA says it is "noteworthy how Latvia has legislated positively in this area, despite the ongoing problems with freedom of assembly" for LGBT.
The report notes that in several states LGBT asylum cases have been rejected on grounds similar to those adopted in the UK prior to July's Supreme Court ruling: persecution by non-state actors was not recognised; LGBT were told they could avoid persecution by 'discretion' or relocation. It notes such cases in Spain, Romania and the Czech Republic.
Case law collected by the FRA shows that in some Member States there is a tendency to deny requests for international protection on grounds that there would be no persecution in the country of origin if the applicant had concealed his/her homosexuality or had abstained from any ‘external manifestation’ of it. Several decisions consider that by living openly as a LGB person, the applicant takes upon him/herself the risk of the negative consequences of his/her conduct, and cannot claim international protection.
The Italian Court of Cassation in two instances instructed a lower judge to assess whether in the country of origin the crime consists in homosexuality ‘as such’, and in this case persecution would be established, or only in the ‘ostentation’ of homosexual practices, thus implying that refraining from any conduct would be both possible and tolerable, as homosexual identity without ‘external manifestation’ would not be captured by the prohibition.
This duty to live in chastity, or to ‘practice’ in hiding, also became an important element for some decisions in Belgium, France, Germany, and Ireland, where persecution was not established since the applicants had not sought to ‘ostensibly manifest’ their homosexuality and it was deemed possible for them to live their sexual orientation ‘discreetly in the private sphere’ in the country of origin.
The report notes that "sexual orientation is a personal characteristic protected under the [European Convention on Human Rights] ECHR, not a shameful condition to be hidden."
France, the Netherlands and Denmark, however, have "adopted more sensitive and factual approaches."
In the Netherlands, the Aliens Circular specifies that LGB claimants should not be required to hide their sexual orientation in their country of origin. On 27 June 2009 an addition was made to the Aliens Circular the effect that whenever homosexual acts are criminalised in the country of origin, the applicant should not be required to have invoked the protection of the authorities there ... Since November 2008 the Dutch Aliens Circular has also specified LGB people from Afghanistan and Iraq to constitute a ‘risk group’; consequently a lesser degree of evidence regarding the gravity of their persecution is required of them.
In order to prove sexuality, the report says that Hungary has been reported as using psychiatrists. According to information provided by the Czech Ministry of the Interior they might use 'phallometric testing' for sexual orientation asylum cases "where inconsistencies appear in his interview". This procedure came to light in a German court regarding the claim of a gay Iranian.
The test is performed by a professional sexologist and, in principle, only with the person’s written consent, and once that person has been informed about the technique of the examination. Although a refusal to undergo the test may result in questioning the claim made by the person concerned about his homosexuality, conversely, where a person passes the test and shows no reaction to visual representations of heterosexual sex, his allegations about his homosexuality are considered proven.
The report notes the dubious nature of the process, how it would fail for bisexual people and how it "is particularly inappropriate for asylum seekers, given the fact that many of them might have suffered abuse
due to their sexual orientation and are thus specifically constrained by this kind of exposure."
The report notes widespread reports of stereotyping of what constitutes a homosexual person by migration/border agencies. For example the Swedish media have reported that according to two externally conducted studies, administrators and decision-makers at the Swedish Migration Board have prejudiced ideas of LGBT people. The Minister responsible has been reported as conceding that many Swedish authorities still view LGBT asylum as a new and unknown issue. Since the inception of a project called ‘Beyond the border’, 300 employees of the Migration Board have been trained in 'norm criticism'. The Minister emphasised that correct information is crucial to guarantee the quality assurance of the asylum process.
The report notes that some EU Member States rely on lists of ‘safe’ countries of origin that are drawn without reference to the specific risks of persecution by State organs or non-State actors, on grounds of sexual orientation.
For instance, since the decision adopted by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) on 20 November 2009, the list used in France is made up of 17 States (Armenia, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Croatia, Ghana, India, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Senegal, Serbia, Tanzania, Turkey and Ukraine). Persons originating from these countries are not entitled to temporary benefits or a residence permit, they have their claims fast-tracked and the lodging of appeals does not have suspensive effect, i.e. they can be deported before the National Court for the Right of Asylum (CNDA, formerly the CRR) hears their appeal. Yet some of these States have explicit homophobic legislation: this is the case in Benin, Ghana, India, Mauritius, Senegal and Tanzania.
@ILGA Europe conference: Panel on 'Expressing our differences, challenging our prejudices, developing our alliances'
Notes by Jane Carnall
Kamal Qureshi, Member of Danish Parliament
I will stand up, because in my culture we use our hands a lot, and someone will get hurt if I am just sitting here (between Francois and ILGA Europe chair).
Moved to Denmark as a small child, been elected to Parliament in 2001, 2005, 2007, and an election coming soon.
People kept asking me about LGBT issues and I didn't know why, and then I found out that because I have a Muslim background people kept expecting me to have a certain attitude. Equal rights were one of my issues, and soon LGBT rights became my issue. I was one of the first people to attend a gay parade in Denmark who was not gay himself. At first there was opposition within the Parliament and even within my own party, but I said that this was an opportunity to make clear if we really believed in equality or if we did not. And after struggle my party (socialist People's Party) accepted this.
I was a spokesman on integration as well as on equal rights: I was the first male ever to be a spokesman for equal rights in the Parliament. When I joined the gay parade in Denmark in 2002 this became a big issue.
There was a big issue about it on the radio, in the media, especially among conservative Pakistani groups.
Then I began to hear that my mother and my sister were being harassed when out socially among Pakistani friends. Among other things it was being said that I was dancing with naked men on this gay parade, but as many of us know, it is much more boring than that.
My sister was harassed at a wedding party about my work for political equality and she went out and sat in her car and cried. So I thought, I must do something about this. And I called the big Pakistani radio station, and I said - all this campaign was being led by very Orthodox imams - and I wanted time on air, and I would have an open microphone, and anyone could call in and ask me anything. They gave me two hours every Sunday for the next three weeks.
Following a letter from the European Court of Human Rights, Dutch Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin announced on 6 October that the Netherlands would no longer send asylum seekers back to Greece. This suspension will affect 240 asylum seekers who should be returned under the Dublin Regulation. Dorine Manson, Director of the Dutch Council for Refugees, welcomed this news, saying that they had been fighting for this for a long time. She recalled that there was a huge difference in the recognition rate for Somalis who have a 65% chance to receive protection in the Netherlands vs. none in Greece.
On 20 September, the UK Border Agency also decided to suspend the return of asylum seekers to Greece, pending the result of a case that has been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from the UK Court of Appeal. In Denmark, after the Danish authorities decided to forcefully return hundreds of asylum seekers to Greece, the Danish Refugee Council has stopped the return of 15 asylum seekers through the European Court of Human Rights. In its proposal to amend the Dublin Regulation, the European Commission has proposed to introduce a mechanism for the temporary suspension of transfers to particular Member States for example if the level of protection that falls below Community standards.
This is a summary of what was said by UNHCR spokesperson Adrian Edwards at the press briefing, on 3 September 2010, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
UNHCR is very concerned by on-going forced returns of Iraqi citizens from Western European countries. On September 1st, a chartered flight with 61 people on board, mainly Iraqis who had been residing in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the United Kingdom, landed at Baghdad airport. UNHCR has so far not been able to confirm reports that three Iranians were among those on board.
UNHCR's guidelines for Iraq ask governments not to forcibly return people originating from the governorates of Baghdad, Diyala, Kirkuk, Ninewa and Salah Al-din, in view of the serious human rights violations and continuing security incidents in these areas. Our position is that Iraqi asylum applicants originating from these five governorates should benefit from international protection in the form of refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention or an alternative form of protection.
UNHCR considers that serious risks, including indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from violence or events seriously disturbing public order, are valid reasons for international protection.
Asylum seekers workshop at ILGA-Europe annual conference, Malta, 31 October 2009
Description of the workshop:
The EU legislation on asylum defines minimum standards that explicitly include the possibility of granting protection in case of persecution on the ground of sexual orientation. The studies carried out by LGBT organisations show that the implementation by Member States is far from satisfying. In the coming years a “Common European Asylum System” will be establish. It is time to look at the best possible interpretation of the existing directive, looking for harmonisation in the light of best practices.
Presentations from the workshop can be retrieved below.
Presenters:
Joël le Deroff, ILGA-Europe’s Policy Officer, Søren Laursen, LBL (Denmark), S. Chelvan, ALEGRI (UK) & Yahia ZAIDI (Abu Nawas, Algeria)
Main issues discussed:
Presentation on how asylum decisions are taken in Denmark – highlighting the fact that in many cases LGBT applications are rejected in the first stages\In most countries the definition of a refugee is the convention one in 1951 – is it still valid?
LGBT is considered as a basis for refugee claim in the convention. New EU legislation includes sexual orientation as a ground for persecution – however still not enough.
Sexual identity is more than just sexual conduct.
Main outcomes:
LGBT asylum seekers are not getting the help they need. Most of the times it’s a matter of whether officer/agent believes your experience. How to tell if a person is really LGBT?
We need to obtain insight into decisions from other European countries – Good practice.
Belgium asylum seekers assisted by local social workers. Need to be taken into consideration that LGBT asylum seekers might find presence of their communities in the same open centre.
According to the UNHCR Guidance Note on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, if the state forces people to be discreet, that’s a violation of human rights. Everyone has a right to an identity.
In reality when society is against you, that is a form of persecution. Discrimination leads to persecution.
City councillors are calling for measures to ensure that gay participants in next month’s World Outgames in Copenhagen are not forced to return home if they risk imprisonment or capital punishment for their sexual orientation.
It emerged yesterday that 85 participants in the nine-day sports, culture and human rights event come from countries where homosexuality is illegal, and a number of councillors say council leadership should lobby the state to ensure that participants can be granted political asylum or residence on humanitarian grounds if necessary.
‘If these participants will have problems returning home after being in Denmark, then we need to find some solution,’ said Social Liberal councillor Manu Sareen.
Pia Allerslev, head of the council’s Culture and Leisure Committee, called the matter an issue for the Foreign Ministry and immigration officials.
Officials on the Copenhagen organising committee, supported with 30 million kroner in city funding, said they were helping to ensure the safety of participants by allowing them to participate using an alias. So far 13 people have requested to do so.
Thorbjørn Nesjan, Outgames head of security, said other measures, such as suggesting that participants not march in the opening and closing ceremonies could also help protect identities.
Representatives from government and opposition parties in parliament said they had no plans to alter immigration laws to permit people to seek asylum based solely on participation in the Outgames.
Many Russian homosexuals and transsexuals in the face of discrimination, they hope to solve their problems through emigration to Western Europe. However, not all of them are, through what might have them go before to find the desired freedom in the EU.
To the Russian network of LGBT organizations received a letter from Christine - MtF transsexual (as in passport - male), aged 29 - which is currently trying to get asylum in Germany. "Three years ago I left Russia. I want you to tell your story to no one else has experienced something that had to go through me" - says Christina.
We decided to publish (with the consent of the author) this letter as a whole, only providing it with subtitles.
"I had one goal - to ask for asylum in the Netherlands"
In March 2004, I had to leave Russia because of constant harassment. Before his departure could open the only Finnish visa, because it was easier to do. Arriving by bus from Moscow to St. Petersburg, I flew to Helsinki, and then - in Amsterdam. I have one goal - to ask for asylum in Holland. Knowing nothing about Azul (shelter), she went to surrender to police. But there I was told that Azul is closed, so the Ride to the station and leave our country.
The police escorted me to the little station. I had no choice but to go from Amsterdam. I took a train to Belgium (only enough money to get to Brussels). At the heart of the city, I found that very large glass building where the refugees are engaged. Prior to receiving stations each day crowded with a huge backlog. Standing in her shocking people.
Had to spend the night in a shelter for refugees, the conditions there were awful, but still "guests" of the African and Asian countries that have looked at me with wild eyes.
There, I accidentally met with a Syrian, to speak well in Russian. He understood who I am, and took it completely normal. Then he persuaded me to go from Belgium to Germany, saying that here in hellish conditions Azul (I already saw itself).
The next day we went with him to ask for money to churches, gathered a bit, but it was enough to get tickets at bargain to Cologne. There was much calmer than in Brussels. We found a ship that housed refugees, the next morning we were taken to the reception desk. There we passed a fingerprint.
Camp near Oldenburg
Then there was the distribution of refugees in the camps. Syrians sent to a camp near Düsseldorf, and I was in camp near Oldenburg (in 4 km.) The city in the north-west of Germany. Arriving there, I saw the barbed wire, and her many buildings of red brick. It is an eerie place was more like a concentration camp.
A week later, on March 26, I had a long conversation with the officials involved in the refugees. During the three-hour interview I was asked about nearly the same - as I came to Germany. I told everything in detail, much crying.
She told me that Russia is constantly subjected to harassment, ranging from school age, when the teacher sent me to various psychiatric hospitals, and ending bullying in the police. Last year I was afraid to leave the apartment, the upholstery on the door with a knife slashed all the neighbors, and burned a call to lock shoved matches, and when I left the porch, then out of the windows are often flew into my bottle. The police instead of helping, only laughed and mocked them.
I left Moscow disability group III, I was diagnosed with "Post-traumatic encephalopathy." I had a double concussion, broken jaw, and more. All this was recorded on tape.
Rape
After the interview the same evening for me was attacked. I lived in a single tiny room. The room burst into an Arab, he beat me and raped her. I screamed at the camp, but no one came to help. Now it's scary to remember. Humiliating it was when, during a medical examination I stripped down to goals in the presence of two police officers and photographed my strong bruises. I even refused to put in the hospital, citing the fact that I live in the camp and I have other rights, even though I was in a state of severe shock and my head was spinning.
In the camp, having learned of the attack, they gave me very good location, about which other refugees living in camps for years, could only dream of.
At this time I began to help the organization "White Ring". All refugees from the former Soviet Union are automatically sent to another camp. They said that that camp with horrible conditions and the same people, but there is no longer possible to leave, if only back home.
I was sent to Hanover, the capital of Lower Saxony. I was in a small hostel, the conditions were decent, and people are different.
I've got a right to receive treatment on an insurance policy in any clinic or hospital. Here, I began receiving social security.
In hiding
After a while, I received an answer from the Federal Office for Refugees, Oldenburg, where it was said that according to the Dublin Convention, I should have been deported to Finland. For me it was a blow.
I said that I should have a trial on my rape. In quick order, I was invited to court, where I was witness to a few days later, on July 26, I was deported to Finland. I never knew what the outcome the court.
The worst thing that had to start all over again. For two days I spent in the Helsinki airport, then I was sent to emigrant camp in Helsinki, then in Kajaani, and again the interview, and again the relocation to another camp, that near the Russian border and within 20 km. from the city Ensuu.
There I spent a month in a depressed state. In this camp were mostly Muslim men, Gypsies, Africans. We had to bathe in a man's soul with common showers. Refugees morally abused me, mentally it was difficult to endure.
To a request for a separate apartment servant I refused, saying that the apartments occupy only married couples, though adding that sexual orientation is not a reason to seek asylum.
A few days later I went totally unjustified refusal without right of appeal to the court. All the Russian police after refusing to take away to the Russian border and pass the Finnish border.
I was forced to flee to Denmark. In Copenhagen, I surrendered to the police. After two days spent in jail, I was sent to a refugee camp "Sandholm", which was financed by the "Red Cross". A month later, police reported that three days later I was sent back to Finland.
After swallowing a few pills prescribed by a doctor as a sedative, I fainted, regained consciousness in hospital. Doctors sent me to a psychiatric hospital. There were good conditions, and could even go out. I was pleased to be among the Danes patients than among the criminal elements in the camp.
A month later I was almost by force - in a bathrobe and slippers - was taken to the camp. That was in December, before Christmas. In the camp I was again told that after two days I was deported to Finland.
After collecting some money, I ran away to Sweden. Surrendered in the city of Malmo. Of Malmo was a transfer for the most north in Swedish Lapland (near the town of Ekmok that near the polar circle). There I lived in a small house in the village. It was very quiet. The first time I saw the northern lights and reindeer.
After three and a half months, I came out of the migration management of paper, where it was said that I should be deported back to Finland ...
"You can live with their inclinations ... a sufficient security"
Almost two days I got to travel to various Hamburg. Surrendered in the same camp in Oldenburg, where there was in March 2005 (year passed). Three days later I was taken to a hostel in Hanover, where I think we have lived. Here I learned that my abuser was sentenced to only twenty-month suspended sentence on the grounds that he, a grown man, was allegedly minors. The fact that almost all refugees shall be without documents.
A month after the May events in Moscow, I wrote a treatment in Bundesamt (Office for Refugees) to show me humanity. A month later, on July 27, I received a refusal, which was written: "transsexuality and homosexuality as a punishment in Russia can not be. The Russian authorities are able and willing to act against such attitudes (against harassment and discrimination). You can live with their inclinations in large cities and the relevant sector is sufficiently safe. "
And what I wrote after the whole of Europe on television saw the gay riots in Moscow-ve on May 27.
In Finland I have not sent, given the right to appeal against the refusal (perhaps in this they showed me humanity?).
August 1, 2006 I filed a protest with the Administrative Court of Hanover, and in December, my lawyer wrote a more detailed justification. Two months ago, in Hanover, I got a separate apartment for health reasons.
Translate this websiteTraduire ce site · ترجمة هذا الموقع · 翻译此网站 · अनुवाद इस वेबसाइट · Traduci questo sito · Перевести этот сайт · Traducir esta página web · Translate tovuti hii · Translate Bu web sitesi
Other languages? Use Google translate
Image by Helle Thorning-Schmidt via Flickr
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vgqHbcvlV2LQ0GQRvtN_WRttyZ36EQAM9rV-a8b32rdd3wqlpWrO6EUFARl_2xYRMURpXsZWPtpjbP9snw9QpTIQGzDyAlMPpxmRB9vPKed1AFvYlut6UQe5ObiaW2qUav9Ao93BIx9xOHu5SPoWg=s0-d)
RSS feed
Join our page
