Gay Ugandan Refused Entry To UK Because Homosexuality Is Illegal In His Ho

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/013105visa.htm

A gay Ugandan man has been denied a visa to enter Britain because there is a warrant for his arrest in his home country - a warrant that was issued because he is gay.

Chris Stentaza had been invited to the UK by the Church of England. Stentaza had been a teacher at an Anglican run school in Uganda but was fired and forced to go into hiding after speaking at a conference of gay Christians in Manchester 15 months ago.

Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda, punishable by lengthy prison terms.


does anyone else see this as a Catch-22?

[Dark]

1. Catch-22? n/t

[xchrom]

2. i.e. invited by the anglican church?

this makes me seethe -- fucking barbaric.

[iverglas]

3. reading between the lines

I'm just guessing here of course.

Canadian immigration law denies entry to people who have been convicted of crimes that are equivalent to crimes under the Criminal Code of Canada. If he had been convicted of whatever he's charged with, he would not be inadmissible to Canada on that basis, because it's not a crime known to Canadian law. I'd suspect that the UK has a similar standard; I'd doubt that being convicted of, say, adultery would make someone inadmissible to the UK.

Of course, Mr. Stentaza has not been convicted of anything anyway.

But ... people applying for visitor visas must satisfy visa officers that they are "genuine visitors", i.e. that they are planning to stay temporarily and then go back home, and not planning to stay, or try to stay, in Canada, and the UK (and the US, etc.) would work the same way.

I'm wondering whether the UK visa authorities did not believe that Mr. Stentaza would return to Uganda after his visit to the UK (risking arrest at the airport, I assume). This would make him not a "genuine" visitor. There'd be kind of a reasonable assumption that someone for whom an arrest warrant had been issued -- for anything -- might be planning to leave and not come back.

This is a difficult issue in immigration/refugee law. Countries that apply the principles of the Convention on the Status of Refugees allow people who are within their borders to make claims for protection from persecution in their home countries, but people outside those borders, whether in their home countries or in third countries, don't have access to that process. In practice, this means that the refugee protection mechanism is generally not readily available to women, the poor, and anyone without the resources to get out of their own country and somehow make their way to a country where they can claim protection.

And of course, there are probably millions of people in the world in need of protection from persecution by the state (or non-state actors against whom the state cannot or will not protect them), on grounds of race, religion, political opinion, "membership in a particular social group" (which includes GLBT people and women at risk, e.g.), etc., in their own countries.

Canada, for instance, does admit some people directly to Canada as refugees, when they seek admission at a Canadian visa office abroad. We have tended to choose the educated and able-bodied, of course, although there are programs now for women at risk and people with disabilities. But no one can admit the millions who are genuinely in need of protection, just as no one can admit the millions who are in need of food and shelter.

From one perspective, and assuming that Mr. Stentaza planned not to return to Uganda (which may very well be quite a false assumption; he may have every intention of returning there to continue his struggle, and be entirely credible when he says this), admitting him would be an example of admitting someone who is well known and has the resources to organize an escape, while ignoring all those who aren't as fortunate. Of course, he may in fact be at more risk than many others, because of his high profile. And in this sense, the basis of his fear of persecution is not relevant -- if someone who feared persecution for other reasons (religion, political opinion, etc.) were treated the same way.

What I'm getting at is that it may not be accurate to say that he was denied a visa "because there is a warrant for his arrest in his home country - a warrant that was issued because he is gay". He may have been denied a visa because he was not considered to be a genuine visitor, and was considered to be likely to try to stay in the UK.

And that is the catch 22 -- you can't claim the protection of an asylum-granting country unless you can get there, and you can't get there if they think you're going to claim asylum. It's one of the many very unpleasant results of all the inequality in the world.

[davidinalameda]

4. wonder if he can apply for asylum

on the basis of his being harassed for his sexual orientation and political work in Uganda

[iverglas]

5. in Canada - absolutely

I wouldn't know for the UK without researching it, but sexual orientation has been recognized a potential basis for fear of persecution on the basis of "membership in a particular social group" for years, in Canada.

From an interpretation document issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board in Canada:
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/about/tribunals/rpd/crdef/crdef04_e.htm

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION REFUGEE DEFINITION IN THE CASE LAW

Legal Services
Immigration and Refugee Board

December 2002
Addendum #1 - December 2003

4. GROUNDS OF PERSECUTION

... 4.5. PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP

The Supreme Court of Canada in Ward provided an interpretative foundation for the meaning of the ground of "membership in a particular social group". Mr. Justice LaForest stated as follows:

The meaning assigned to "particular social group" in the Act should take into account the general underlying themes of the defence of human rights and anti-discrimination that form the basis for the international refugee protection initiative.

... Some examples of particular social groups identified by the jurisprudence are as follows:

1. the family;

2. homosexuals (sexual orientation);

3. trade unions;

4. the poor;

5. wealthy persons or landlords were found by the Trial Division not to be particular social groups.36 The Court focused on the fact that these groups were no longer being persecuted although they had been in the past.

6. women subject to domestic abuse;

7. women forced into marriage without their consent;

8. women who have been subjected to exploitation resulting in the violation of the person and who, in consequence of the exploitation have been tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

9. new citizens of Israel who are women recently arrived from elements of the former Soviet Union and who are not yet well integrated into Israeli society, despite the generous support offered by the Israeli government, who are lured into prostitution and threatened and exploited by individuals not connected to government, and who can demonstrate indifference to their plight by front-line authorities to whom they would normally be expected to turn for protection;

10. women subject to circumcision;

11. persons subject to forced sterilization;

12. children of police officers who are anti-terrorist supporters;

13. former fellow municipal employees terrified and terrorized by what they know about the ruthless, criminal mayor;

14. educated women.

15. "law abiding citizens" was held not to be a particular social group.

[iverglas]

6. bit of info re the UK

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi-bin/abstract.pl?6/1/mcghee.html

In this paper the legal institutional practices whereby refugee statuses are determined is subjected to examination through the vehicle of cases where homosexuality has been the basis of the application for refugee status. What emerges in this article is a narrative of homosexuals being excluded from and eventually included in refugee status in the United Kingdom. This narrative is played out within the discursive context of a particular definition of refugee status, namely, that of being a member of a persecuted social group. It is through the analysis of refugee case law in the United Kingdom and internationally that homosexuality is presented, as providing specific problems for refugee law in terms of whom, and in what circumstances, should be included in the 'social group' category. In this paper it will be demonstrated that homosexual cases are significant in relation to the attempt to overcome 'exclusive definitions' of 'persecuted social groups' in refugee law. This is evident, most particularly in terms of the increasing connection between International Refugee Law and International Human Rights Law in the consideration of the persecution experienced by homosexuals in the cases analysed in the paper.

(the link to the paper itself doesn't work)

From the Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly:
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc00/EDOC8654.htm

The Assembly is concerned by the fact that immigration policies in most Council of Europe member states discriminate against lesbians and gays.

The majority of them do not recognise persecution for sexual orientation as a valid ground for granting asylum, and the rules concerning family reunion and social benefits usually do not apply to same-sex partnerships. The Assembly is also aware that the failure of most member states to provide residence rights to the foreign partner in a bi-national partnership is a serious problem for many gays and lesbians.

The Assembly is of the opinion that homosexuals who have a well-founded fear of persecution resulting from their sexual preference are refugees in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention, and proposes the development of guidelines for the treatment of homosexuals who are refugees or partners of a bi-national relationship.

Furthermore, the Assembly calls on the Committee of Ministers to examine these issues and to set up a European system for the documentation of abuses against homosexuals.

Draft Recommendation

5. The Assembly is of the opinion that homosexuals who have a well-founded fear of persecution resulting from their sexual preference are refugees under Article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention as members of a particular social group, and consequently should be granted refugee status. The present practice in some Council of Europe member states to grant them leave to stay on humanitarian grounds, may be detrimental to their human rights, and cannot of itself be considered as a satisfactory solution.

"Big government" really is a good thing sometimes. ;)

The recommendation as adopted seems to have been watered down a little:
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA00/EREC1470.htm

I wouldn't normally cite the source, but I'll trust it on this one:

http://www.fathersforlife.org/letters/letter8.htm

Australia is not the first country in the world in which homosexuals can find asylum, not by a long shot!

As of now, Australia has not set a world precedent for granting asylum to homosexual refugees and never will or can. Australia is merely the last country to cross the line in regard to granting asylum to homosexual "refugees" or those that claim to be. Other countries got to that state long before Australia did, Canada (1993), USA (1994), UK (2000 or earlier), Israel (2000 or earlier), and most likely a few other countries. <stupidity omitted>

That piece cites this:

http://www.hambastegi.org/internationalnews/decnews.htm
(still a secondary source, but it all seems reliable)

In 1990, the US Congress quietly removed homosexuality as a disqualification for admission to the United States. In 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno clarified persecution based on sexual orientation can be considered grounds for asylum. But immigration lawyers said deserving asylum applicants who are lesbian or gay still face significant hurdles to filing, documenting and winning their case. In August, a California-based federal appellate court strengthened the hand of gay asylum-seekers by making it clear they may be considered part of a distinct social group. (The Fort-Lauderdale Sun-sentinel, December 10, 2000)

But of course, the thing remains that he would have to be in the UK in order to claim protection, unless the UK has a (formal or informal) mechanism for admitting people in need of protection directly from their home countries as refugees.