Loading... Please wait...

LGBT refugees will be marching free from fear this weekend

UnionBy Phil Woolas MP

The Labour Government is committed to providing protection for individuals found to be genuinely in need, in accordance with our commitments under international law - and we are proud to do so. 
 
Under the 1951 UN Convention, a refugee is a person who has, amongst other things, a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.  Individuals who share a particular sexual orientation may be regarded as members of a particular social group depending on their circumstances. If they are considered to be a particular social group then a claimant who is at real risk for reason of membership of that group will fall within the Refugee Convention and will be granted asylum. If a claimant is at risk but not for reason of membership of a particular social group or other Refugee Convention reason, they may qualify for Humanitarian Protection. 
 
We believe the right approach is to consider the protection needs of individuals on an individual basis.  As with all asylum claims, there cannot be a presumption that every asylum seeker who presents themselves as being of a particular sexuality or nationality, regardless of their particular circumstances, should automatically be afforded the protection of being allowed to remain in the UK.  Each asylum application is considered on a case by case basis in the light of its own facts and the situation in the country of origin.

Case owners dealing with asylum applications receive comprehensive training to ensure our obligations under the 1951 Convention are fully realised and receive instruction to do so sensitively, which includes consideration of applications where a claim is based on fear of persecution in their own country because they are a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person.   There are also clear instructions to all immigration and asylum staff, that homophobic and transphobic persecution are legitimate grounds for granting asylum.

Country information is one of the most important parts in assessing an asylum claim.  Case-owners have access to accurate, objective, sourced and up-to-date information on asylum seekers’ countries of origin, compiled from a wide range of reliable external information sources including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), human rights organisations, inter-governmental organisations, NGOs, news media and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  It does not contain any Home Office policy or opinion.

From time to time we are accused of expecting gay men and lesbians to be discreet, effectively to suppress their sexuality in order to avoid persecution. This is not an accurate representation.  The Court of Appeal has found, in line with our policy that whether a gay claimant can reasonably be expected to tolerate behaving discreetly is something that must be considered on the individual merits of the case.  All relevant factors must be taken into account including the person’s previous behaviour, the social norms and religious beliefs of their country of origin, and the fact that a degree of discretion can be required in all sexual relationships, heterosexual as well as homosexual.  It is not our policy to require gay men or lesbians to be discreet about their sexuality.

There will be many genuine refugees marching as part of London Pride who have been granted asylum by the Government on the grounds of their sexual orientation – I am pleased to say that they are free from the fear of persecution and can enjoy the LGBT rights that Labour has introduced in the last 10 years.

Posted on Jul 03, 2009 at 03:03pm

13 Comments · Show / Hide
Leave a comment »   show trash comments ·
Anisa de Jong, Executive Director of the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group has now re-posted a full response here:
http://www.labourlist.org/uklgig_response_phil_woolas__fair_treatment_of_lgbt_asylum_appli,2009-07-06
Alex Smith @ 30 weeks and 6 days ago
Free from fear?
Quite unlike those Gurkhas who fought to defend this country - yes including LGBT chappies - but Woolas didn't want to let THEM in did he?
William Silver @ 31 weeks and 1 day ago
I think we've already established that your flat cap and whippets view of the working class doesn't exist.
Northern Monkey @ 31 weeks and 2 days ago
THIS WILL NOT DO

To post an article as full of puff, spin, and misrepresentation as this one, and then to run away, to fail to even attempt to defend it, may be the nuLabour way, but shouldn't be the LabourList way.

To use Pride for this kind of petty political mendacity is inexcusable. It is a direct insult to all gay people everywhere - I do hope that no further articles from Woolas will be accepted, on any subject whatsoever.

Nick Weeks @ 31 weeks and 2 days ago
So lets have every gay person around the globe who lives in a less than free society making his or her way to the UK for asylum?

Err no thanks and if you don't want the Labour party disappearing under a BNP tidlewave in your core working class areas you don't want it either.
Guy M @ 31 weeks and 2 days ago
Woolas is not believed by the following people, who signed the Number Ten petition to 'stop deporting gays and lesbians to countries where they may be imprisoned, tortured or executed because of their sexuality':

the actors Simon Callow, Ian Flintoff and Cathy Tyson, musicians Andrew Oldham and Tom Robinson, playwright Jonathan Harvey, Green MEPs Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert, Conservative MEP John Bowis, Labour MEPs Eluned Morgan, Claude Moraes and Glenys Kinnock, Mick Houghton, Secretary Greater London Association of Trade Union Councils, Chair of The Gender Trust Rebecca Dittman, authors Neil Forsyth and Bob Cant, activist Peter Tatchell, architect Yvonne Dean, Professors Ken Mortimer MBE and A.P.M. Coxon, former Cambridge Mayor Jennie Bailey, London Assembly Member Darren Johnson, LibDem MPs Lynne Featherstone, Lorely Burt, Tom Brake and Jo Swinson, Labour MP Celia Barlow and former Minister Stephen Twigg. As well, a large group of signatorees are Christian ministers.
http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2009/03/last-call-support-lesbian-gay-asylum.html
paul canning @ 31 weeks and 2 days ago
This is absolute bollocks.

I run LGBT Asylum News and we have documented case after case which contradicts Woolas' claims here.

I refer you to the case of John 'Bosco' Nyombi, who Jacqui Smith was forced to return to the UK after he had been violently deported to Uganda. This despite a well-documented media and government anti-gay campaign in Uganda, which has included articles and photos of Bosco.
http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-major-victory-for-lgbt-asylum.html

It took a major international campaign to save 19yo Iranian Mehdi Kazemi - whose boyfriend had been executed.

In dozens of cases the 'discretion' argument has come out of the Home Office - even in Iraq which is a literal deathzone for LGBT - NOT the courts. I have documents from cases which show this!

There have been suicides because of the government's treatment of LGBT asylum seekers. A recent report shows that LGBT suffer "high levels of homelessness, discrimination and exploitation due to their sexuality or gender identity."
http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-research-by-refugee-support.html

Yes, some LGBT have received asylum but there are many, many more who suffer because of homophobia in the Department which Woolas runs. He should be ashamed, not proud.
paul canning @ 31 weeks and 2 days ago
He looked feeble JM because she was confirming on live television what he was going to have to do. He agreed with her wishes after she asked to agree.
As for (Dicey's) Rule of Law it is not applicable to his meeting with her and upon thier agreement for a meeting and an audience with the PM.


I'll quote Joanna "I think we are ALL going to help in the formation of New Guidlines....so that will be wonderful" (Phill nodding)
Joanna again "These will be Guidlines that will be completed by July" Another Browbeaten nod from Phil.


There you go not so much Rule of Law, but the directed pressure upon Phil to act in changing the Law. remember the Labour Government is the ONLY government to ever help the Gurkhas in any meaningful way, but the policy Labour was implimenting was gradual. They would have eventually have allowed the Gurkhas full settlement rights but during a recession they clealy were being careful, hence quoting this approx figure as to they would not do so.



I am afraid Phil really did show us all what we is made of, and it wasn't a very pleasant sight for anybody.
Ralph Baldwin @ 31 weeks and 2 days ago
Phil,

Your comments about equality and sexual diversity would have more credibility if you and your party were fair and tolerant of ALL branches of sexuality. But alas, there are areas of sexual behaviour that your government do not tolerate and have in the past and still continue to persecute.

Sorry, but for me, words and articles like these are just MPs jumping on the fashionable and vote-catching LGBT bandwagon.

Until your government is TRUELY equal in it's treatment of ALL branches of sexuality, I reserve the right to a healthy dose of anger directed in your direction.
Delphius1 Portsmouth @ 31 weeks and 3 days ago
Interesting that Mr Woolas is leaping aboard the bandwagon after his sometimes intemperate remarks about immigrants and asylum seekers.

Now, must get the shoppping list done, Phil: nail varnish, blouse, Tampax

It's OK - it's within the rules!.....
Alan Giles @ 31 weeks and 3 days ago
I thought that the Joanna Lumley thing showed that government is limited by law, that it cannot change the law without having a regulatory consequences assessment (probably called something else) and this required the MOD to accept the costs of all these extra Gurkhas before the government could change the law to allow them to stay. He looked feeble because the law made him feeble. Since this is all about changing the legal status of gays and the rights they have surely the lesson to be learned is that the rights they have will be as hard to change as the rights Gurkhas have, i.e. a future anti-gay Home Sec would look just as feeble if he was trying to change the law against gays. He might be able to abolish new CP's but not existing CP's. The pros and cons of the rule of law.
Jonathan Morse @ 31 weeks and 3 days ago
"From time to time we are accused of expecting gay men and lesbians to be discreet, effectively to suppress their sexuality in order to avoid persecution. ... It is not our policy to require gay men or lesbians to be discreet about their sexuality."

Oh, c'mon.

This government (and previous ones) no more expect people to be open and transparent about their sexuality than they expect MPs to be transparent about expenses, or nuLabour transparent about the actual effects oof their asylum policies.

This piece of propaganda has no place on a weekend celebrating Pride: our treatment of those claiming asylum because of legitimate fear or persecution or death because they are gay is - to put it mildly - scandalous and shameful.

this article http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12668.html is only a month old, after all.

Nick Weeks @ 31 weeks and 3 days ago
Sounds like you are trying to police everything about a person which is nigh impossible unless you are just closing the doors.

How on earth do you judge someones "behaviour". By what criteria? Sigh why do I bother asking?

I would love to trust what you say Phil, but you bunnies have been very untruthful lately so I am not sure what to make of your article, don't think I'll contribute any more to it or any others released by Ministers until they can prove they can act with integrity. Let's be realistic Joanna Lumley showed your true colours.
Your not exactly a person driven by belief and conviction are you? Whereas she was.....
Ralph Baldwin @ 31 weeks and 3 days ago