NSW GLRL – recognising refugees
When did going to a club become the determinant of a person鈥檚 sexuality?
Recent decisions by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) have problematically illustrated the preponderance of Western cultural stereotypes to determine the veracity of sexuality-based asylum claims.
The Refugee Convention 1951 outlines that asylum seekers must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of a protected ground to be considered a refugee. The protected categories include ethnicity, nationality, religion, social group or political opinion.
In Australian law, sexuality, or specifically 鈥榟omosexuality鈥�, has been considered a protected identity under the category of 鈥榮ocial group鈥�. Authenticating refugees on the basis of their sexual identity is determined causally, by connecting a 鈥榝unctioning鈥� sexuality to incidents of state-sanctioned persecution.
In May 2011, a lesbian asylum seeker from Uganda had her claim rejected because her relationship with another woman was considered suspect. According to the DIAC delegate, she 鈥渉ad merely adopted the persona of a homosexual鈥� for a protection visa.
鈥淚 have kept my homosexuality private in Uganda because I fear for my life. It is for this reason that I did not directly associate with or join lesbian groups,鈥� the applicant responded.
Asylum seekers are in a double bind. If they remain closeted about their sexuality, or choose not to participate in the 鈥榮cene鈥�, they lack the public visibility to be considered genuine. However, as in the case of the Ugandan refugee, if you script what appears to be a convenient 鈥榟omosexual persona鈥�, you may be discredited.
Sexual orientation is not always a public identity. While the Refugee Review Tribunal in this particular case reconsidered the claim as valid, it does not reject the reasoning that assumes there is a universal 鈥榟omosexual persona鈥� that a person is capable of adopting.
Correspondingly, judging claims against a mythic or stereotypical 鈥榩ersona鈥� privileges consumerism or promiscuity as the authentic markers of non-heterosexuality. Such stereotypical models obscure how asylum seekers negotiate their intimate lives and sexualities in a specific cultural and historical context.
Illogical decision-making on the part of administrators reflects parochial understandings of sexuality and a lack of empathy.
Reforms to administrative decision-making must focus on eroding stereotypes and embracing culturally specific merit assessment guidelines. This will be a crucial step to avoid dismissing the genuine risks faced by so many gay and lesbian refugees.
By SENTHORUN RAJ, NSW GLRL
