A British immigration judge has been reported as having rejected a gay asylum seekers application to enter the UK because he 'lacked a homosexual demeanor' and 'did not look around the room in an effeminate manner'.
Rehana Popal, the lawyer for the asylum seeker, has complained that the unnamed judge was guilty of stereotyping their client, and rejecting them based on prejudice. Their client, who has also been unnamed in the report, comes from a country where homosexuality is illegal and was seeking asylum in the UK through fears that they will be targeted for being gay.
According to the report made by Ms Popal to The Guardian the judge compared her client to previous applicants, who they claimed 'wore lipstick' and were 'effeminate'. The judge compared this man to the other applicants, and deemed him not to be gay as he was not effeminate.
'He has taken a stereotype, used it as a benchmark and compared my client to it,' said Ms Popal, in relation to the judge's ruling. 'That is totally wrong. You do not need to dress a certain way, carry yourself a certain way or look a certain way to be homosexual. The only thing that makes a person gay is if they are attracted to someone of the same gender.'
Ms Popal also claimed that the judge made comments about the man's older partner, who has been successful in their asylum application a month earlier, claiming that 'younger men are highly valued' in homosexual relationships. A comment that Ms Popal believes falls into the myths that gay men are connected to paedophiles.
Ms Popal and her client have challenged the judge's ruling on this case, and an appeals court granted her client a second hearing. They also criticised the judge's ruling.
This has not been the first time that a judge has been criticised regarding a ruling concerning asylum from members of the LGBTQ+ community. In the past judges have ruled against lesbian asylum seekers due to them having previously had male partners, believing that they cannot be lesbians if they had been married to a man in the past.
Ms Popal also said that she has encountered a number of cases where asylum seekers have been refused by the Home Office because of 'absurd' reasons to deny their sexuality. She said that it has happened so often to become routine. Most disturbingly, many of these rulings are upheld by judges in the appeal stage.
'The system has definitely become harsher in recent years.' She explained. 'The quality of decision-making has reduced. You come across decisions that are genuinely absurd. You think, how did anyone write this?
'One that comes up a lot is when they say to gay Muslim men that being gay is unacceptable in Islam, and therefore it’s implausible that they can be gay and Muslim. Or when they say to a woman who was previously in an arranged marriage with a man that she therefore cannot be gay. The Home Office do not abide by their own policy guidance. If they followed them we wouldn’t have a problem. But they don’t.'
When asked about these incidents a Home Office spokesperson said, 'The UK has a proud record of providing protection for asylum seekers fleeing persecution. Each case is considered on its individual merits by experienced caseworkers, with all available evidence carefully and sensitively considered in light of published country information.'
Despite these assurances from the Home Office the director of the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group, Leila Zadeh, said that these kinds of cases are not isolated incidents.
'The biggest challenge facing LGBTQI+ people in need of international protection is proving their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics.' She said. 'When someone appeals against a refusal, they should be given a fair hearing without expectation that they should fit a stereotype. We urge the tribunals to ensure all judges follow the judiciary’s guidance on equal treatment of LGBTQI+ people.'
These kinds of incidents seem to be far from isolated, however, and there have been reports from asylum seekers across the world who have had similar experiences. Recent reports came out that the Australian government asked offensive and invasive questions regarding the sex lives of LGBTQ+ asylum seekers.
In documents that the Australian government spent over a year trying to suppress, it was revealed that two gay men from Bangladesh were asked questions regarding how often they had sex, how long their sex lasted, where and when they had sex, and if they 'drink cum'. The interviewers repeatedly asked them questions regarding their sexual activities in order to try and 'trick them' into revealing conflicting details that would prove they weren't actually gay.
The interview occurred in 2012, but the Australian government spent eighteen months trying to prevent the release of transcripts and audio recordings of the interview following a freedom of information request from Buzzfeed News. The government claimed that it did not want to release the files as it would 'violate the men's right to privacy' (ironic considering how they invaded their privacy, and because they felt it would cause a 'negative media reaction'.
It's clear that there are still many problems in regards to LGBTQ+ people seeking asylum because of their sexuality and gender, and that the practices and views of those conducting these cases needs to be updated as soon as possible. Sadly, many of these people are fleeing their own countries as they are actively in danger because of who they are, and who they love. There are still more than 70 countries where it is illegal to be LGBTQ+, and close to a dozen where the death penalty is in place.
Buy Amy A Coffee
Go to Amy's Blog
That judge is not only a fraud as well as a downright terrible person, but also a fucking idiot.
ReplyDelete