Gay asylum seeker ruling: the good, the bad and the ugly.

by Devil’s Food Cake

In a landmark ruling last week, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the claims of gay asylum seekers must be upheld, and that the law concerning asylum claims based on sexual orientation would be changed in order to facilitate this requirement. Previously, gay asylum seekers were often refused asylum, on the basis that they could go back to their home countries and live in a different city, curbing their identities and ‘gay’ behaviours.

Whilst the judgment is, of course, fantastic news and warmly welcomed, there are some glaring concerns about the specific content of the judgment released.

First, let’s look at the good points of the case: it obviously sets important precedent aimed at protecting the lives of gay people who seek asylum in the UK as a result of persecution suffered in their native countries. It has not been long since we’ve read about such cases as the hanging of minors for homosexual conduct in Iran. It’s relieving to know that the UK is now a country that can be relied on to uphold the rights (at least in theory) of people terrified for their lives because they are gay; that there is a proper basis for protection and recognition of the fact that gay people need protection – that where asylum seekers generally come from, the alternative to being yourself is pretending to be straight – an emotionally and mentally damaging act in itself – ‘corrective’ rape by men in your community, prison or execution or murder. This change in the law is a fantastic leap forward for Britain’s human rights law system, one that should be applauded.

The judgement, however, though very welcome, is another issue. Admittedly, I have not been able to read the judgment in its entirety (anyone..?), but there is one quote which, in whatever context, seems almost blasé about what the issues concerning asylum seekers are. Consider the trauma and fear that causes people to leave their homes, their jobs, their friends and family – the kind of terror that causes them to need or want to leave not just their countries but their entire lives, and then imagine that reduced to this:

‘To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.’

To be fair, the words ‘trivial stereotypical examples’ are included before that rather disappointing comparison. But this is degrading for a number of reasons. Firstly, as described above, there is a great deal of fear and persecution that motivates genuine asylum seekers; and the distillation of that into a desire to hang out listening to Kylie and getting crunk on Cosmos seems more than a little flippant. Secondly, cultural sensitivity goes right out the window with this little stereotype. But thirdly, and most importantly, [because to be honest, there's nothing wrong with a judge having a sense of humor, and if it wasn't for this third problem, the other two might not even be problems] the right wing is crazy enough without being fed more racist, homophobic fodder for their elaborate and ridiculous fantasies about what is ruining Britain.

This, of course, brings us straight onto the final angle on this judgment. The ugly. Observe:

Also see this and this.

Seriously. These people are a pack of jokers, and do not need fuel to feed the hatred they seem able to spew out on a daily basis. As the organizers of today’s protest at the Daily Express offices put it:

‘The only motivation in these tabloid articles is to whip up hatred and division [...] It also risks intensifying homophobia in Britain at a time when reports have shown an increase in reported homophobic attacks of up to 63%. The brutal murder of Ian Baynham in central London last Autumn is a terrible and tragic reminder of where this can lead.‘

Homophobia and hatred need but the slightest provocation to set off some despicable behaviour. Lord Hope and the rest of the Supreme Court have done something monumental and incredible by facilitating a change in the law to afford greater protection to gay asylum seekers. The inclusion, however, of the cocktail-drinking, gossiping Kylie fan as the model, stereotypical or not, of the liberated gay [male] person, weakens a judgment that is otherwise a shining example of progressive thinking and a real victory for gay rights.