Sexual orientation-based persecution not adequately addressed in asylum procedures
Existing European asylum procedures do not adequately provide for gender and sexual orientation-based persecution, European gender awareness experts have warned.
An EU-wide report on homophobic persecution had found that there were significant discrepancies between EU member states in the ways in which they dealt with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persecution claims by asylum seekers, Aditus director Neil Falzon explained.
The report, titled "Fleeing Homophobia", also found that in many cases current practice fell well short of international and EU standards, with asylum authorities poorly equipped to identify and react to LGBT-related issues.
In many European countries, being LGBT is not considered sufficient grounds for being granted asylum even if it is a criminal offence in the country of origin. The report also found that many countries reject LGBT asylum seekers' applications on the grounds that they can survive in their country if they hide their sexual orientation. Recent UK case law has found that such an expectation runs counter to a person's fundamental human rights.
Difficulties were exacerbated by legislative uncertainty, Jesuit Refugee Service legal officer Celine Warnier De Wailly said. Although the 1951 Refugee Convention does not specifically refer to gender-based persecution as grounds for granting refugee status, case law in some countries had accepted it as part of discrimination based on belonging to a specific "social group". EU legislation states that countries must give "due consideration" to gender-related aspects when assessing asylum applications.
The Maltese Refugee Commissioner, however, has stated that it does not believe gender persecution was sufficient grounds under the 1951 Convention. European legislation is currently being redrafted to reflect modern-day asylum concerns.
ILGA-Europe senior policy officer Joel Le Deroff explained how in many cases, national officials tasked with interviewing asylum seekers had little idea of how to approach or tackle gender-based prosecution.
In many cases, procedures for determining a claimant's sexual orientation were based on outdated medical models or gender stereotypes, with little guidelines, Mr Le Deroff said.
Asylum Aid policy and research manager Debora Singer said that national policies were often culturally insensitive at dealing with such cases. "A female asylum seeker escaping sexual violence is unlikely to willingly admit she was raped when she first arrives in Europe," Ms Singer said.
Despite the several examples of bad practice, there were opportunities for change and improvement, Amnesty International's Elise Petitpas said. Ms Petitpas said that if affected asylum seekers were given access to adequate information, allowed gender-sensitive interviews and afforded separate asylum applications, their fundamental human rights would be better safeguarded.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 22nd 2011, 12:08
I will not quote the person in this article who suggested that queers should play it straight and eliminate their problems(I am pressed for time). Bigoted, and ignorant with it, or what?!.
Homosexuals - who are not a totally separate breed I'll have anyone know - do not have the word tattooed on their forehead or their arse (well, they might on this part of their anatomy, but that is bye-the-bye). The bigot needs to know that many do pass for straight without even trying they are so 'butch and hairy'. I will not quote a source but my own experience, in Malta particularly, with policemen, priests, scaffolders, brick-layers, and so on. M chost of them married with children I should add. Forget the passing for heterosexual: they get married to hide behind their wives and their marriage and their children and say to the community, 'I am as straight as they come!'. Unfortunately, their orientation does not go away and they reduce their life and that of those dear to them, to a sham. This sizeable category of homosexual need their status accepted by the State where they live. They would not have to get married or indeed leave their country. Problem solved. But unfortunately, cultures, especially in countries bordering the Mediterranean basin, have this thing about the superiority of the heterosexual male. Since ancient times, in fact. But little do they know. And China, 'a one-child-per-family society' is not much better I shouldn't wonder. Of course one can not expect queers to be given asylum, there are just too many of them most of them merging seamlessly with the rabble. But their sexual orientation should not be an issue anywhere. Fat chance of that happening! The rabble being too insecure and needful of scapegoats. What's new?!
Joe Xuereb
Nov 21st 2011, 12:21
A person's sexuality, especially one seen as 'deviant', away from the 'norm' touches nerves and raises hunches. And much, much worse. This is a deplorable state of affairs. A welcome/a show of understanding and compassion without flinching* is what is desired and I would expect this in countries like Holland and Scandinavia but not Malta or even Italy. An interviewing officer or lawyer in Malta would as likely have a crucifix or other effigy on his/her desk or wall. That little symbol dictates his/her outlook and therefore his agenda and outlook. His decision may well be affected by his guilt at appearing to be condoning a sinful lifestyle. But then this would apply too to any heterosexual interviewees. Allow me to explain. With regard to 'flinching' (see earlier in this comment).
@ Flinching. I am surrounded by heterosexual people and that is hardly surprising. But I do not flinch at THEIR sexual orientation. This because they, like me, often copulate for the sheer pleasure of the experience (ie with the creation of a new life farthest from their minds; certainly mine, for obvious reasons, me being as queer as they come - but masculine, and gently so. Machismo is not for me and that I leave to the insecure in whatever god threw at them). So! as far as I am concerned, there is not difference between the beautiful majority, ie straight people, and the minority benders like myself. We are all in the same rocky boat. It is god given. It is our demon to bear for all who have a normal, healthy sexual appetite. So why flinch? Unless one flinches at one's own dark desires. But keep spirituality out of it for you will get precisely nowhere. We are all in this together and don't kid yourself you are a cut above a queer. Just look around and be mindful that flinching is so out of place. And remember, respectability is only a facade. It is those dark desires kept under wraps even from the husband/wife you see. And it is all god-given for god would not bestow this demon on some but not others. He is very fair like that.
What a sorry lot we are, all in one flimsy coracle of a boat.
Thank you for reading this. I enjoyed writing it, a piece of cake as we say. No flinch! No shudder!
Louise Vella. I take you point of course although I would say that the best solutions for 'queers' is for them to be accepted in their own country so they do not have to move away. Which means they would work, pay taxes and be free to be themselves (I am not thinking so much of sexual orientation here, but rather those afflicted by gender confusion which certainly does not make 10% of the population anywhere). In the meantime, ideally, and seeing that queerness is persecuted still in many countries, and at different levels...ideally, people should be able to leave freely and live, and pay taxes, in countries that are more enlightened. I know I did. I had a bright future, jobwise, in Malta but in every other sphere, my situation was stifling and therefore, dire, untenable. My move away - at a price because there always is a price in one's bid for freedom - was a good one and Malta's loss. Some may disagree and think 'good riddance'. I can live with that because that is more their problem to solve than mine.
There! yet again I have bared my soul but that is the wonder of conviction and a strong identity, not pussy-foot. Malta affords an identity of sorts but based on what, exactly?
As we say here - with the deepest meaning one can muster - I'd rather you hate me FOR WHAT I AM, than have you love me for what you think I am (ie me toeing your line to make them, out there, comfy). Again, comes at a price but that's fine by me. I have a life, a real one.
Ms. Vella, this article is not so much about asylum generally (which needs to be reined in for obvious reasons) but more about a marginalised minority and the minority within that minority in particular.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Nov 19th 2011, 22:50
Gay men and lesbians who are likely to face persecution are already covered by the Refugee Convention under one of the Convention reasons - membership of a particular social group. Returning a gay man and or lesbian would constitute a breach of the Convention. Malta, after all, is a State Party to the Convention and Protocol. As to pretending one is straight to avoid persecution which the Australian and other courts have long rejected should not be required of gay men and lesbians. It is like asking Christians to pretend they are pagan in a country that is pagan in order to avoid persecution, or asking a black man to pretend he is white to avoid persecution. With respect, and assuming the accuracy of what is reported above, Malta's Refugee Commissioner appears to have done very little by way of reading cases to come to the conclusion that 'gender' persecution is not a sufficient ground to be granted asylum. Presumably he or she is not talking about gender but sexual orientation. I am thoroughly amazed at the banality of such statements, presuming that the report as set out above is accurate. http://www.unhcr.org/3d58de2da.html
Louise Vella
Nov 19th 2011, 08:47
Refugee status is an exception to the general rule that a country has the right to refuse entry to foreigners. Refugee status is strictly defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention that does not include 'gender' criteria among those giving a right to refugee status. Do-gooder organisations have been trying to stretch the meaning of the Convention. But they cannot be taken seriously. Otherwise Malta would take on the obligation of accepting as refugees all those who face persecution in their country because of 'gender' reasons. That is, if homosexuality and other gender issues are illegal in China we would be obliged to take some 10% of the Chinese population - maybe 130 million - in Europe or indeed in Malta. Which of course is ridiculous. Just by the way, how was this pow-wow by aditus paid for and by whom?
Sean Grima
Nov 20th 2011, 12:44
you are not a lawyer, so stop trying to lecture people about the law.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 19th 2011, 02:15
@ Apap, are YOU being serious? Please tell us you are joking. And concentrate on your spelling and your grammar when submitting a comment. Please! My comment is directed at people like you Danny Boy. Unfortunately l do not think you can read it, let alone understand it.
A person's sexuality, especially one seen as 'deviant', away from the 'norm' touches nerves and raises hunches. And much, much worse. This is a deplorable state of affairs. A welcome/a show of understanding and compassion without flinching* is what is desired and I would expect this in countries like Holland and Scandinavia but not Malta or even Italy. An interviewing officer or lawyer in Malta would as likely have a crucifix or other effigy on his/her desk or wall. That little symbol dictates his/her outlook and therefore his agenda and outlook. His decision may well be affected by his guilt at appearing to be condoning a sinful lifestyle. But then this would apply too to any heterosexual interviewees. Allow me to explain. With regard to 'flinching' (see earlier in this comment).
@ Flinching. I am surrounded by heterosexual people and that is hardly surprising. But I do not flinch at THEIR sexual orientation. This because they, like me, often copulate for the sheer pleasure of the experience (ie with the creation of a new life farthest from their minds; certainly mine, for obvious reasons, me being as queer as they come - but masculine, and gently so. Machismo is not for me and that I leave to the insecure in whatever god threw at them). So! as far as I am concerned, there is not difference between the beautiful majority, ie straight people, and the minority benders like myself. We are all in the same rocky boat. It is god given. It is our demon to bear for all who have a normal, healthy sexual appetite. So why flinch? Unless one flinches at one's own dark desires. But keep spirituality out of it for you will get precisely nowhere. We are all in this together and don't kid yourself you are a cut above a queer. Just look around nd be mindful that flinching is so out of place. And remember, respectability is only a facade. It is those dark desires kept under wraps even from the husband/wife you see. And it is all god-given for god would not bestow this demon on some but not others. He is very fair like that.
What a sorry lot we are, all in one flimsy coracle of a boat.
Thank you for reading this. I enjoyed writing it; a piece of cake as we say. No flinch! No shudder!
Apap seems to think that homosexual people - men and women - are maintained by his taxes because they do not work? he thinks. Pity. He is getting hot under the collar unnecessarily, because he does not know the facts.
Mr Danny Apap
Nov 18th 2011, 18:38
So now we all end up with Gays and lesbians an other kind of sexual orientation, from countries that is against their law! Are you serious? Tear up the human rights act once and for all this is getting diabolical. No wonder every one in the EU is going broke keeping the millions of ILEGAL EMEGRANTS and to top it all now we be paying tax for the up keep of Gay & Lesbians the comes from Africa. GIVE US A BREAKE.
Robert Callus
Nov 18th 2011, 17:18
In Uganda being a homosexual repeated offender might carry the death penalty if the bill passes. The way the law is till now, a man can get life imprisonment for having sex with another man.
http://robertcallus.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/do-they-really-eat-the-poo-poo/
Denying asylum to someone whose crime is being who he/she is, is an atrocity. The excuse that they can "pretend to be heterosexual" is in itself a serious breach of human rights.
Many European countries are discussing/introducing gay marriage. To refuse a gay person asylum because he can't be gay in his own is hypocrisy at its best.