Deference or interrogation? Contrasting models for reconciling religion, gender and equality

Since the late 1990s, the extension of the equality framework in the United Kingdom has been accompanied by the recognition of religion within that framework and new measures to address religious discrimination. This development has been contested, with many arguing that religion is substantively different to other discrimination grounds and that increased protection against religious discrimination may undermine equality for other marginalized groups – in particular, women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. This paper considers these concerns from the perspective of minoritized women in the UK. It analyses two theoretical approaches to reconciling religious claims with gender equality – one based on privileging, the other based on challenging religious claims – before considering which, if either, reflects experiences in the UK in recent years and what this means for gender equality

Neocolonial agendas and asylum for women and sexual minorities

While the refugee convention was not written to protect women and LGBTI people, subsequent treaties and directives recognise the violence they experience as legitimate grounds for claiming asylum. However, to meet the threshold for persecution, it is expedient for women and LGBTI asylum seekers to present themselves as abject victims of brutal and backward regimes, reinforcing dichotomies between refugee- producing and refugee-receiving countries. Such narratives obscure the misogyny, homo- and transphobia prevalent in the West, potentially appropriating migrants’ rights for neocolonial agendas. This phenomenon has been identified by theorists within feminism, black feminist theory, queer theory, and post-colonialism. However, move to the field of practice and the surest way to secure refugee status is invariably to tell a story that resonates with decision makers; one in which an oppressed individual is given sanctuary in the pro-gay and female-friendly West. To tell a more nuanced story would jeopardise the individual’s claim, and women and LGBTI people already struggle to meet the requirements for refugee protection in a system that was not designed for them. This paper explores this difficulty in bridging theory and practice in relation to gender and sexual orientation based asylum claims

Gender equality, cultural diversity: European comparisons and lessons

A key objective of this report is to identify commonalities across European countries in measures to protect and empower women from minority communities, with a view to beginning to map which policies are more and which less effective

Op-Ed: sexual orientation, gender identity and asylum in the UK: is ‘discretion’ ever a choice?

Asylum seekers fleeing homophobia and transphobia to claim refuge in European countries have a difficult time. They experience many of the problems that all asylum seekers face – the abuses and injustices that forced them to leave their homes in the first place, combined with what was probably a difficult journey, followed by having to engage with a complex and unsympathetic asylum system in whichever European country they ended up in. However, LGBTQI+ people often encounter additional hurdles. Because their persecution may take place in private at the hands of family members or people in the community rather than state officials, it may be difficult to provide evidence to support their claim for asylum. And they are unlikely to be able to seek support from community organisations and their diaspora to the same extent as other refugees. They are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and violence, especially if they are detained pending a decision on their claim

Canada’s guideline 9: improving SOGIE claims assessment?

Asylum seekers making claims relating to their sexual orientation and gender identity often face unfair refusal. New guidance from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada takes admirable steps towards improving claims assessment, and offers a model for practitioners elsewhere

Pathways to refugee protection for women: victims of violence or genuine lesbians?

Failures in UK decision-making for women seeking protection from gender-based violence vary depending on the claimant’s (purported) sexuality. These failures are attributable, at least in part, to the application of the particular social group Refugee Convention ground which channels claims along two distinct pathways: one path, for women assumed to be straight, focuses on the violence that threatens them; in contrast, for lesbian and bisexual women, the focus is on their sexuality. In either case, the claimant’s autonomy and individuality is eclipsed, but different stereotypes come into play depending on her (imputed) sexuality. This article argues that greater use of the political opinion Convention ground, and a holistic, rights-based approach would improve refugee status determination for all women, regardless of their sexuality

Many rivers to cross: the recognition of LGBTQI asylum in the UK

The Refugee Convention was not written with the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) people in mind. This article shows the dilemmas this creates for LGBTQI asylum seekers and their advocates when establishing the case for protection. It uses the United Kingdom (UK) experience as an example and brings the literature on this topic up to date with reference to recent cases with implications for LGBTQI applicants. While there has been a welcome shift to recognize that LGBTQI persecution is a legitimate basis for asylum, contradictions and tensions between United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, European, and UK guidelines and instruments, as well as between UK policy and practice, have resulted in a lack of consistency and fairness in the treatment of LGBTQI asylum seekers. The article identifies three specific areas of concern and goes on to show what happens when they converge, using a case that exemplifies some of the problems – AR (AP), against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2017] CSIH 52. It concludes by suggesting a shift in the focus of questioning, from the identity of the asylum seeker to the persecution in the country of origin, as a possible basis for fairer treatment of LGBTQI asylum claims

Brexit, sexual orientation and gender identity: what about the people? The UK in a Changing Europe [Weblog article, 20 November 2018]

Slowly, but surely, awareness is increasing about the possible impact of Brexit on individuals who identify, or are identified as, members of minorities based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI). After explorations of this theme by Wintemute and by us, Cooper, Cooper et al., and the Trade Union Congress all alerted people to the potentially detrimental effect that Brexit may have on SOGI minorities. It is critical to note that these SOGI minorities are far from monolithic, and any potential impact of Brexit for them will be different at a sub-group and even at an individual level. Broad-brush, abstract policy analyses on this theme – as on any other theme – fail to capture the essentially individual nature of the relationship between SOGI minorities and Brexit, as one of the most divisive and hotly contested topics in British society for many decades. In this short piece, we wish to delve into that individuality, bringing to the fore just some of the voices within the ‘SOGI minorities’ umbrella and listening to their concerns, fears and hopes in relation to Brexit – both specifically related to their identity and more generally about life after Brexit

Brexit and the voice of the people: but which people? The UACES Blog [weblog article, 5 February 2019]

Brexit has been debated and unpicked to exhaustion. Writing in February 2019, Brexit is beginning to feel like a bad soap opera whose scriptwriter has run out of ideas. The plot is going round in circles. And yet, most discussions revert one way or another to sovereignty, migration and economy – all with clear nationalistic and imperialistic overtones. Debates about people or ‘the people’ seem to be at the core of these discussion, especially when it comes to migration. All such debates are implicitly or explicitly about ‘us’ and ‘them’. This binary(ies) need challenging. What is also needed is a recognition of the multiple further intersections and subgroups within these binaries of groups of people