Why NGO's do not look kindly on LGBTI refugees - Research Paper Example

Why NGO's do not look kindly on LGBTII refugees “Around the world, 80 countries consider homosexuality illegal, in five of these thedeath penalty can apply. Moreover, the persecution experienced by LGBTI people goes well beyond any official prosecutions” (UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group). LGBTI stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex. In other words, LGBTI represents people who show interests in homosexuality. Even though homosexuality is getting more popularized, it is regarded as a crime in majority of the countries in the world. LGBTI persons are facing severe problems in majority of the countries and therefore they are seeking asylum in other countries which show acceptance towards homosexuality. Even in one of the most civilised countries in the world America, homosexuality is not accepted as a good behaviour even though many American states declared it as legal. In Muslim countries homosexuality is a severe crime whereas Christian and Hindu countries keep strong silence over this issue. Back in June, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at NYU School of Law published the report ‘A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism,’ the first account of how U.S. counter-terrorism efforts have undermined the rights of women and sexual minorities. The report includes the ‘collateral damage’ from the Iraq war, the hundreds of LGBTI people hunted down and killed in Iraq, including some by state actors, and the probably thousands (no one knows) who have fled. The group Iraqi LGBTI has been almost solely responsible for documenting the murders (Caning). It is really interesting to know why LGBTIs in other countries face fewer problems for immigration whereas Iraqi, Iranian and Ugandan LGBTIs are facing more problems in immigrating to other countries. LGBTIs or homosexuals are facing severe problems in Iraq at present. Even American troops patrolling in Iraq are not showing any mercy towards Iraqi homosexuals. It should be noted that America is a country which shows no discrimination towards homosexuals and even same sex marriages are taking place in some states of America. Moreover, homosexuality is widespread among American soldiers who are patrolling in Iraq. Advanced countries like Britain, Canada etc also have no problems in accepting homosexuals in their main streams of social life. However, when it comes to Iraqi LGBTIs, the world in general and America in particular show no mercy. This paper analyses the reasons why NGOs do not look kindly on LGBTI refugees from countries such as Iraq, Iran and Uganda, at the time of processing the applications for immigration. Homosexuality in Iraq, Iran and Uganda Homosexuality is not accepted in Islamic culture even though it is practiced widely among many Muslims secretly. Koran prohibits homosexuality even though it shows liberal approaches towards heterosexuality. It should be noted that unlike other religions, Muslims can keep more than one wives at the same time. Their religious beliefs and principles allow them to do so. However, homosexuality is a severe crime in Muslim countries, especially in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it is a crime even in a Christian country like Uganda etc. One of the surprising facts about Iraqi LGBTIs (LGBTII) is that their prosecution in Iraq has increased a lot after the invasion of Iraq by America in 2003. In other words, American troops are showing more intolerance towards homosexuality in Iraq than the Iraqi authorities which is really surprising. It should be noted that even during the Saddam era, LGBTIIs faced less threats from the authorities. LGBTIIs are labeled as the most endangered minorities in Iraq at present. “Homosexuality is both criminalized and widely considered immoral in Iraq, and the fragmented legal system will neither protect LGBTI persons against attacks nor investigate killings due to sexual orientation” (Iraqi LGBTI). A 2010 Report on Human Rights in Iraq issued from United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) Human Rights Office says the following things; Members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBTI) community usually keep their sexual orientation secret and live in constant fear of discrimination, rejection by family members, social ostracism, and violence. The Iraqi Penal Code does not expressly prohibit homosexual relations between consenting adults. However, a variety of less specific, flexible provisions in the Iraqi Penal Code130 leave room for active discrimination and prosecution of LGBTI persons and feeds societal intolerance. Police and courts regularly take into account the alleged homosexuality of the victim as a mitigating factor in relation to crimes committed against persons on account of their perceived or real sexual orientation (2010 Report on Human Rights in Iraq, p.43). In short, Iraq is no more a safe place for the homosexuals and they are currently trying to seek asylum in more liberal societies such as America, Canada, Britain etc. Apart from Iraqi LSBT, Iranian and Ugandan LSBTs are also facing the same problem in their domestic countries. In fact Islamic rules are stricter in Iran than in Iraq. The influence of religion on politics is more in Iran than Iraq. Homosexuality is a crime which may bring even capital punishment in Iran. Majority of the Iranian LGBTI asylum seekers are looking for opportunities in countries such as Turkey, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and Norway. The case is not much different for Ugandan LSBTs also. “Homosexuality is highly unpopular in Uganda, and pastors in this Christian country speak out loudly against the practice” (Uganda politicians hold hearings on anti-gay bill). Homosexual have no protection at all in Uganda. Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda even though in many other African countries, it is allowed legally. Before 2000, only male homosexuality was a crime in Uganda whereas after 2000, lesbianism also included in the sex related crime activities. According to a recent bill introduced in Ugandan parliament, repeat offenders may get even death penalty for performing homosexuality. In short, homosexuality is a serious crime in countries like Iraq, Iran and Uganda which forced LGBTIs in these countries to seek asylum in other civilized countries like America, Canada, Britain etc. Why NGOs do not look kindly on LGBTI refugees? Reluctance in processing asylum applications from Ugandan LGBTIs can be understandable up to certain extent. Africa is a region in which AIDS/HIV is a severe problem. No other region in the world has such huge number of HIV carriers as do in Africa. In fact, Africa is believed to be the native place of AIDS. Homosexuality is believed to be the major reason for AIDS/HIV. Under such circumstances, Westerners and Americans do not want these people to enter their soil because of the concerns about the possibility of AIDS epidemic in their soil. In other words, LGBTI asylum seekers from Uganda are labeled as HIV carriers and therefore NGOs wanted to reconfirm that those who are getting immigration in America and other Western countries have no problems related to HIV/AIDS. At the same time, it is quite difficult to understand why LGBTIs from Iraq and Iran are also treated in similar fashion as the Ugandan LGBTIs. AIDS/HIV is not a big problem in countries like Iraq and Iran. If homosexuals in Iraq and Iran may develop AIDS, then the same thing may happen to American or Canadian homosexuals also. But the authorities are not much worried about such things in their domestic soil whereas they worried too much about such things foreign countries. According to Doug Ireland (2008), around 22 Iranian LGBTI asylum seekers are in UK, waiting for the mercy of British authorities. “United Kingdom has been extremely reluctant to grant permanent asylum to gay Iranian refugees, and in the recent past two Iranians have committed suicide after receiving deportation orders back to certain torture and possible death in Iran” (Ireland). It should be noted that normal Iranian refugees have not much problem in getting their applications for asylum processed. However, in the case of LGBTIs, NGOs show some reluctance. Even though Americans and westerners are supporting homosexuality publicly, they are not so in their private life. In other words, majority of the people in these countries have still concerns about the spreading of homosexuality in their country. They do not like homosexuals from other countries take shelter in their country. They also think that the acceptance of homosexuals from other countries may provide wrong message to the community. It should be noted that LGBTIs may continue their homosexuality after they get asylum. There is no guarantee that these people may change their behaviour. NGOs do not want to provide such a message that America or western countries are the paradise for LGBTIs. Even though Iranian LGBTI cases receive utmost attention from the UNHCR in Turkey, there are many LGBTI refugees who are in need of urgent attention into their cases. At the present, there are some 20 LGBTI asylum seekers who have not yet received determinations on their refugee claims. There are 12 LGBTI refugees waiting for resettlement in Canada; eight are waiting to be resettled in the USA; there are waiting to be resettled in Australia. The wait time is pretty long for all three countries, with Australia the longest of all three. The long wait period is clearly harsher when taken into consideration that the refugees have been already waiting 2 years before they are referred for resettlement, where they’ll be waiting another year before they are granted visa. One Transsexual refugee has waited 1 year before she was referred to Canada Embassy, and she has been waiting another year for here interviews, and admission. One gay refugee waited 15 months before he was interviewed and accepted by the Australian Embassy, and he has been waiting for 7 month and hasn’t yet received his visa (Iranian Queer Organization). America’s reluctance in accepting LGBTI asylum seekers can be accepted up to certain extent. However, Canada’s intolerance towards asylum seekers simply because of their sexual orientation is quite difficult to understand. Canada is one among the few countries in the world in which same sex marriage is legal. In other words, Canadians have no problems what so ever in accepting homosexuality. They why should they ask LGBTIs to wait for longer time before processing their applications for immigration or asylum? It is quite difficult to answer this question. Jane Anderson, the new chair of the British HIV Association, has expressed her displeasure over the reluctance of authorities in examining the health conditions of the LGBTI asylum seekers. “We've never seen people getting off planes and rushing to HIV clinics," she said”(Boseley). Her words definitely reflect the general attitude of the British public towards LGBTI asylum seekers. In other words, British authorities wanted to send all asylum seekers to immediate medical check-ups when they landed in British soil. They are not ready to accept or honour the medical certificates submitted by the asylum seekers. “The archbishop of Canterbury has urged the government to offer protection to gay and lesbian people seeking asylum in the UK after the "profoundly shocking" killing of a Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato” (Butt). David Kato, one of the prominent Gay activists in Uganda was murdered recently immediately after he tasted a court victory over a magazine in Uganda which argued for capital punishment for LGBTIs. The opinions of archbishop are very much important when we consider the fact that Uganda is a Christian dominated country. In other words, Christian religious leaders in UK has no problem in accepting homosexuality even though many of them are not ready to admit it publicly. At the same time fundamental Ugandan society is not showing any tolerance towards homosexuality. It should be noted that the archbishop of Canterbury holds supreme authorities in religious matters of the Christians in Britain. The archbishop has expressed his deep concern over the brutalities suffered by the sexual minorities. Kato’s murder came as a lesbian due to be deported from Britain to Uganda said she feared she would be killed if forced to return. BN – who fled Uganda in 2003 after being threatened over her relationship with her Canadian partner – is being held at Yarl's Wood detention center. She told the Guardian: "I'll be tortured or killed if I'm sent back to Uganda. They've put people like me to death there. Most of my friends in Uganda have disappeared." Her initial asylum claim was rejected; in part on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence that she is a lesbian. Williams said: "Whatever the precise circumstances of his death, which have yet to be determined, we know that David Kato Kisule lived under the threat of violence and death (Butt). Kato’s murder should serve as an eye opener for the British authorities. It clearly shows the brutalities facing by LGBTIs in Uganda. If Britain like civilized countries failed to accommodate LGBTIs, no other countries in the world may accommodate them. Sexual orientation is a natural right which should not be changed under compulsion. Even in Bible, there are many references about homosexuals. In other words, homosexuality is practiced even in ancient days. Whether homosexuality is advisable or not, is a different question all together. The first and most important thing is to give enough protection to homosexuals. The archbishop of Canterbury’s words should be taken seriously by both American and British authorities. In fact he has expressed his deep concerns to American secretary of states; Hillary Clinton in a meeting in a meeting of Anglican leaders at Dublin. America is a country in which a substantial portion of the Christians believe in Anglican Church. So, the opinions of the Bishop have more value and importance. At the same time “The Anglican archbishop of Uganda, the Most Rev Henry Orombi, has repeatedly said that homosexuality is incompatible with the word of God, while a bill calling for gay people to be imprisoned for life remains before parliament” (Butt). In other words, different leaders in the same church have different views about homosexuality. This is because of the differences in the interpretations of Bible. Many of the biblical words can be interpreted differently. People take undue advantage of that to justify their activities and beliefs. In the case of homosexuality also, different views are kept by the Christian leaders. NGOs are taking advantage of such different views expressed by religious leaders while rejecting or postponing the asylum applications from LGBTIs. “Even in countries where same-sex conduct is legal, such as Turkey, general hostility towards sexual minorities contributes to the isolation of LGBTI refugees which may also prevent them from lodging asylum claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity” (Persistent Needs and Gaps: the Protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Refugees: An Overview of UNHCR’s Response to LGBTI Refugees and Recommendations to Enhance Protection, p.6-7). In other words, patriarchal societies are there in majority of the advanced and civilized countries. They will never reject their beliefs and traditions. In America and Britain, conservative political parties exist. Conservative communities or patriarchal societies will never accept homosexuals in their territories. So, if America, Britain and Turkey like countries give shelter to LGBTI refugees, social problems may arise. In other words, patriarchal communities in these countries may clash with the LGBTI refugees. No country wants to create such unwanted social problems. So, NGOs will keep such a situation in mind while processing the applications of the LGBTI refugees. “Insufficient mechanisms to address protection of LGBTI refugees who face imminent harm and hence require emergency or urgent resettlement: While LGBTI refugees are resettled from different contexts, LGBTI and other refugees face life-threatening protection risks in countries of first asylum” (Persistent Needs and Gaps: the Protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Refugees: An Overview of UNHCR’s Response to LGBTI Refugees and Recommendations to Enhance Protection, p.9). Apart from giving shelter, the host countries should spend a substantial amount of money for the protections of the LGBTI refugees. No governments can spend huge amounts for such things, especially in the current recession time. In other words, when people struggle to find their livelihood, there is no point in spending too much for the protection of LGBTI refugees as per the views of many of the NGOs. In their opinion, LGBTI people should correct their behavioral problems and lead a normal life so that others may not show any aggressive behaviors towards them. If LGBTI people are so adamant in their behavior, they should take care of their safety in their own ways and there is no point in wasting the public money for safeguarding the sexual orientations of the LGBTI refugees. Such thoughts motivate the NGOs while processing the applications of LGBTI refugees. The number of LGBTI people, who are seeking asylum in countries like America are growing every year. UNHCR, one of the largest adjudicators of individual refugee claims in the world received some 119,000 asylum applications in 2009, which represents a 62% increase compared to 2008” (Persistent Needs and Gaps: the Protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Refugees: An Overview of UNHCR’s Response to LGBTI Refugees and Recommendations to Enhance Protection, p.10). NGOs may think that acceptance of all LGBTI refugee applications may motivate such people all over the world to file their immigration applications in prosperous countries such as America or Britain. These countries are already facing several problems with respect to immigration. If all the LGBTI people in the world are trying to immigrate to these countries, it will create huge social problems in their domestic soil. In fact these countries have already strengthened their measures against immigration. Illegal immigration is a big problem in these countries and many controversial laws were passed in these countries recently. 9/11 incident forced these countries to strengthen their immigration laws. In short, the general climates in these countries are not so good even for normal immigrants. Under such circumstances, reluctance of NGOs in processing the applications of the homosexuals is quite understandable. Emily Dugan and Jane Merrick have expressed deep concerns over the rejection of application from asylum seekers in Britain. In an article Virtually all gay asylum-seekers sent back to persecution, written on independent.co.uk on Sunday 23 May 2010, they argued that; “Britain's immigration system is guilty of "institutional homophobia", according to a new report. The result is that 98 per cent of gay asylum-seekers fleeing persecution for their sexuality are returned home to a likely fate of death or persecution” (Dugan and Merrick). LGBTII refugees reported high levels of prejudice within refugee communities, which deny them the ability to tap into the refugee social networks many others use as a major source of social support. The net effect of this is that many LGBTII refugees do not seek assistance from UNHCR or many of the refugee-assisting NGOs or from refugee communities but instead rely on often risky strategies in order to meet their basic needs and provide for their own safety (Sovcik and Breen) Another reason for the reluctance of the authorities in processing the application from LGBTIs is the non-acceptance of them even in the refugee community. It should be noted that even normal refugees from Iraq, Iran and Uganda who are staying in America or Britain, may not show much interest towards LGBTII refugees. Instead of similarities in nationality or cultural beliefs, differences in sexual orientation are taken more seriously by the refugee community. The reluctance of refugee community to accept LGBTI refugees is motivating the NGOs to reject or postpone the immigration applications from LGBTII refugees. Nobody has any doubt about the human rights of LGBTIIs. Everybody criticizes the brutalities facing by LGBTII people in their home country. As mentioned earlier, Uganda is trying to kill all homosexuals and they are on the verge of passing a bill in parliament for that purpose. The U.S. State Department and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have spoken huge volumes of literature against the brutalities suffered by the LGBTIs all over the world. However when it comes to granting asylum, these authorities are not showing any sincerity. In other words, what the authorities speak publicly is entirely different from what they instructed to the NGOs. NGOs cannot take the public speeches of the political or religious leaders seriously. They act only based on the written documents or legal frame works existing in a country. Such legal frame works and written documents will always be against the interests of LGBTI refugees. Lack of funding is another major issue facing by NGOs while processing the applications of LGBTI refugees. Usually the funds allotted for the refugee rehabilitation are only minimal. There is no specific funding for LGBTI refugee rehabilitation in any country. LGBTI refugees are considered in the general category. So, NGOs will naturally give more preferences to other refugees while processing applications. “Flexible contingency funds will allow NGOs to support short term rental arrangements and/or relocation for the individuals they deem most at risk” (Sovcik and Breen). Another major reason for denying the application of LGBTI refugees is the attitude of NGOs. They may think that why should America or Britain spend more money for the people who are unwanted in their home soil. It should be noted that the LGBTI people are considered as criminals in their home soil and therefore NGOs will never show much interest in hearing the complaints or applications of the LGBTI refugees. Conclusions Homosexuality is widely regarded as a crime and therefore LGBTI people are facing severe problems countries such as Iraq, Iran, Uganda etc. Homosexuality is a crime in all Muslim countries. LGBTI people may face even capital punishment in countries like Uganda. The severe discrimination and aggression facing in the domestic soil force LGBTIs in these countries to seek shelter in advanced, civilized and liberal democratic countries such as America and Britain. America and Britain on the other hand are struggling to escape from the recent financial crisis and they are no more interested in spending too much for the immigrants, especially for LGBTI people. The uncontrolled immigration of LGBTI people from all over the world may create social problems in these countries and therefore NGOs in these countries are adopting a cautious approach while processing the applications of the LGBTI refugees. 9/11 incident forced these countries to tighten their screws on immigration of all types. The declared public policies with respect to immigrations of LGBTI people and the actual policies are actually different from one another in these countries. These countries want to protect their liberal or civilized image and for that purpose they may declare something in public. However, the actual instructions received by the NGOs with respect to LGBTI immigration would be entirely different from the one declared publicly by the politicians. These factors motivate NGOs to take a strong look while processing the applications from LGBTI refugees. Works Cited “2010 Report on Human Rights in Iraq”. 2011. UNITED NATIONS Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) Human Rights Office. Web. 30 November 2011. Boseley, Sara. “Change UK law on HIV drugs for asylum seekers: British HIV Association”. 2011. Web. 30 November 2011. Butt, Riazat. “Archbishop Urges Government To Protect Gay Asylum Seekers”. guardian.co.uk. Friday 28 January 2011. Web. 30 November 2011. Caning, Paul. “Documenting the Lives of Iraq’s Gay Refugees”. Web. 30 November 2011. Dugan Emily and Merrick Jane. “Virtually All Gay Asylum-Seekers Sent Back To Persecution”. independent.co.uk . Sunday 23 May 2010. Web. 30 November 2011. “Iraqi LGBTI”. Web. 30 November 2011. Ireland Doug. “Iranian Queer RR Launched (October 16, 08)”. 2008 Gay City News, Volume seven, issue 42. Web. 30 November 2011. “Iranian Queer Organization”. Web. 30 November 2011. Persistent Needs and Gaps: the Protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and “Intersex (LGBTI) Refugees: An Overview of UNHCR’s Response to LGBTI Refugees and Recommendations to Enhance Protection”. 2010. Web. 30 November 2011. Sovcik Annie and Breen Duncan. “From Persecution to Persecution: LGBTII Refugees in Uganda and Kenya”. 2011. Web. 30 November 2011. “Uganda Politicians Hold Hearings On Anti-Gay Bill”. 2011. Web. 30 November 2011. “UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group”. Web. 30 November 2011. http://www.uklgig.org.uk/ Read More