This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
Good afternoon, everybody. Um, all our speakers are present. And thank you very much for joining us in this session. Um, we have only one hour from 4 to 5. And, um, the people who asked me to chair this session, uh, asked me to really highlight the fact that at five o'clock, some of us need to leave, have other engagements. So we really need And the one hour and after five o'clock, it's over, Unfortunately, because it's a very [00:00:30] interesting session about gender, sexuality and rights. The first speaker we have is Susan Hawthorne from Australia, and the human rights of lesbians are rarely recognised. And until recently, lesbians have been among the few persecuted peoples not to be the subject of a human rights campaign. In the literature on women, lesbians are a footnote. If they are lucky in the literature [00:01:00] of LGBTI, lesbians are sidelined, and Susan will describe to us a range of ways in which the cultural, social, civil, and political human rights of lesbians are violated. How lesbian refugees may gain recognition of their persecution and how the specific needs of the lesbians might be met. Susan, may I ask you to start and you have 15 minutes. And after 12 13, I start waving at you. [00:01:30] Please, go ahead. Um, this paper is, uh, inspired by the work of lesbians in countries around the world. And, uh, there have been enormous struggles, and, uh, Gitanjali Misra described some of those in India this morning, and and I have to say that the campaign following the fire film was one of the successful ones, One of the few successful ones. [00:02:00] My decision some 35 odd years ago, uh, to come out as a as a lesbian, change my life irrevocably and for the better, I wouldn't have it any other way. Um, I I did enter a world that is largely invisible to, uh, many other people in society. Uh, So what I see what follows is what I see through my lesbian lens. Uh, there's a lack of respect for lesbians, uh, distortions of lesbian experience, [00:02:30] human rights, abuses of lesbians and extreme violence and murder perpetrated against lesbians as individuals and and as a group, both by individuals and by state actors across the political spectrum. In my original a, uh, abstract, I said that there had been no successful campaigns for lesbian human rights. However, in the last few months there have been two. And so I'm going to talk about those two, campaigns. [00:03:00] Uh, because I think they show us something useful about why it's so difficult to have campaigns for lesbian, human rights, corrective rape and shame. In late 2010, I received an email about Millicent Geier, a South African lesbian who'd been subjected to corrective rape by a man. That she who whom she knew the image of her bruised face and body as well as her recounting of what [00:03:30] had happened, created the momentum for a global campaign against corrective rape. It's an abusive term that refers to the bat, the rape and battery of lesbians to cure them of lesbian existence. The man who raped, beat and attempted to strangle Milli Gei has said, I know you're a lesbian. You're not a man you think you are, But I'm going to show you you are a woman. I'm going to make you pregnant. I'm going to kill you. So Millicent is not the first [00:04:00] South African lesbian to be attacked in this way. Uh, in 2008, Uh, Judy Sier, who was a star of the South African women's football team, was also gang raped and murdered. More than 100 and 40,000 people signed the petition to uphold the constitutional rights of lesbians to state protection. And South Africa is the only country in the world to have constitutional protection on the basis of sexual orientation. [00:04:30] But the list of violence is not new. So while I'm pleased to know that finally these violations are coming to light, it's a very long wait. Um, how how is it possible that violence against lesbians is such a non headline? And if you actually Google Millicent Geier, you find that she's not in the mainstream papers. She's on blogs and, uh, newsletters and email lists and things like that. [00:05:00] Is corrective rape a new occurrence? No, it's not. Uh, in 2007, C Leasa and Salame Maso Masu were both murdered. Uh, in, uh, 2004. Fannie Anne Eddie, uh, and a lesbian activist from Sierra Leone was found dead and had been working in the offices of the Sierra Leone Lesbian and Gay Association. Not long before her death, she made the following plea to [00:05:30] the UN Commission on Human Rights. Silence creates vulnerability. You members of the Commission on Human Rights can break the silence. You can acknowledge that we exist throughout Africa and on every continent, and that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are committed every day. You can help us combat those violations and achieve our full rights and freedoms in every society, including [00:06:00] my beloved Sierra Leone. In 1995 who was a lesbian activist and a member of gays and lesbians of Zimbabwe, otherwise known as girls Uh, was attacked at the Zimbabwe Book Fair. I. I feel this because I almost went to the Zimbabwe Book Fair that year. And I, I wish I had been there to protest what was going on. Um, and the thing is that if lesbians are [00:06:30] attacked, it is a signal. Uh, they are the perpetrators. They sorry they are the the canaries in the mind in the mind. And if perpetrators get away with it, other attacks are likely to follow. And we've certainly seen that in Zimbabwe. So we need to be protecting every attack on lesbians. It's a sign of hatred in the social system if lesbians are not protected. And by that I mean, if people don't protest, then people who don't fit some other social dimension will [00:07:00] will not be safe. Either Keep your sister lesbian safe and watch the effect it has on the whole society is my view. Also in Zimbabwe in the 19 eighties, Tina Machida, uh, was violated at the instigation of her parents in an effort to cure her of her lesbian existence, she wrote. They locked me in a room and brought him to me every day to rape me so I would fall pregnant and be forced to marry [00:07:30] him. This they did to me until I was pregnant. The other problem that lesbians face is is that they are often at risk, uh, in prisons and other things both, uh, for rape by the by the, uh, oppressors, uh, and also by the other people in detention. So, in prisons and in mental institutions, lesbians are very frequently raped. They are raped, sometimes by guards and sometimes [00:08:00] by fellow inmates. Uh, and, uh, obviously, uh, heterosexual women are also subjected to rape, but the rape of heterosexual women is not framed as punishment, whereas for lesbians it is in 1976 in Chile. Uh, Consuelo Rivera Fuentes was tortured by the Pinochet regime. The tortures implied that her torture is her all her fault, that which is not unusual in situations of torture. If only [00:08:30] she would do what is best for her, she would not have to suffer. In fact, he the torturer will help help her by raping her by showing her what a real man can do for her. How what she needs is a good fuck from real men, the same justification as that given by Millicent Geier's rapist. Um however, many decades earlier. So to the question, is law the answer? I say it is not enough. Some governments are are also supported [00:09:00] in their homophobia by religious ideologies and an Iranian lesbian. Nazanin says the punishment for lesbians is execution. And then she goes on to explain why the families don't actually protest about these executions, why they remain silent and she says it is to save face for the families involved. It is a cause for disgrace. So rape, torture, silent shame and hatred all combined [00:09:30] so that No-one ever hears of the violations of lesbians. Human rights. It's invisible. It's as if as as if it doesn't exist, just like lesbians don't exist. Shame, I think, takes on huge shape for lesbians. Even the most political of lesbians suffers from shame. It comes in many guises as silence within families as Nazanin and Tina Maidan note. When lesbians put their needs last in political campaigns, [00:10:00] that, too is shame. Because who will support a political campaign if lesbians, if out lesbians political loud lesbians are its leaders, so just keep quiet until the revolution is over. There's also the problem of linguistic silence and lesbian invisibility. And uh, an example from India, UH, is indicated by the omission of the W word lesbian from the glossary of an otherwise Very [00:10:30] Useful Handbook, a book called A Guide to Your Rights. Legal Handbook for Sexual Minorities in India. The glossary does include bisexual, homosexual and transgender. I point out, however, that this is not exclusive to in India. Indian organisations since the National Women's Studies Association in the USA in 2005 had precisely the same kind of omission from its list of keywords for conference presentation. The [00:11:00] key word list included sexuality, the body identity, homosexuality and transgender, but not lesbian. And and I. I copped a lot when I pointed this out. So it it wasn't as if it was just a an accidental thing or they went Oh, sorry. Um, rather I. I was attacked for pointing this out. So like Judas, I think people and organisations de deny their association with lesbians. Another issue is the fear [00:11:30] of the word lesbian as bad for humanitarian campaigns. The second recent successful campaign, uh, was on behalf of, uh, Brenda Nada NAMI Naga Sorry, a a Ugandan lesbian living in the UK. She was due to be deported on the 29th of January, and around 60,000 people signed the petition to put a stop to her deportation on the grounds that she was in danger of her losing [00:12:00] her life. The danger was very sadly reinforced by the murder of gay activist David Kato. Just two days earlier, in 2007, when Iranian lesbian pega Emma Bakir was about to be deported from Britain, there was an email campaign that stayed her deportation. So, uh, these were two rare, uh, instances where, uh, lesbian refugee activists [00:12:30] did have some success. Oh, dear. I'm already running out. Um, there are also problems in in terms of lesbians, cultural and social rights. And, uh, I think this is something I would like to talk about in the question time. Perhaps, uh, how How can we, um, stand up and say, You know, we lesbians need to be visible. We [00:13:00] need to be able to speak for ourselves. We need to have our own campaigns and then not be told. Oh, but, you know, you're making it hard for us by some other other group in the GL BT IQ community. And, um, I the last time I spoke about this at a similar conference, um, in the summing up at the end of the conference, there was either a reference to my paper A as being about separatism, or it wasn't talked [00:13:30] about at all. So, and I don't know which of those it was because I could never find out. Uh, so I hope that we've come, um, some way further, Uh, since then and I think for me, uh, a an an important issue is that for old old lesbians? That's people like me. Um, there there is a kind of double discrimination happening because, um, if we stand up and talk about our lesbian needs, many [00:14:00] of us who are doing so came, uh, to this movement to this social political positions when we were young. Um, we're now quite, um, old relative. Um And, uh, So there's also an ageism factor. I think in there. And I've I, uh, was, uh, part of a A group that was, um, set up as a a women's circus for women who had [00:14:30] been victims of sexual assault. And when the transgender said that they wanted to come, the whole thing fell apart. And I think that the the the most useful thing to do is to say, let's respect some of those spaces. Uh, in in India in 2004, I gave a workshop on the torture of lesbians and my, uh, lesbian only women Only, uh, thing was not respected. Uh, whereas the Muslim [00:15:00] Women's Session on sexuality was, and I think I want to be accorded the same kind of respect that other other groups, uh, get. I also just want to refer briefly to a film that was pulled from the uh, San Francisco film um, film festival a couple of years ago called the Gender cater and the the film was pulled because it was, um, a number of transgender, uh, activists said that they found it [00:15:30] offensive, but there was no consideration given to the lesbians who thought it was a really interesting political movie. Um, about the forced gender reassignment, uh, as a kind of science fiction, um, movie. And so there were two very different political positions and only one was listened to. So are there any answers? Well, consider the question. Who [00:16:00] is the human in human rights? And I think there are some things that we can do. We can use the word lesbian frequently. I think it's important not to silence lesbians even if, uh, somebody disagrees with us. Uh, I think it's far more important to argue, rather than to boycott that to accord lesbians the same human rights as others and not to put lesbians in [00:16:30] the too hard basket to wait until after the revolution has been and gone. Because then it won't happen, Um, and to not contribute to the atmosphere of fear or bad publicity and also to be proud of the lesbians in your life. Do you want to conclude so One last thing, I think. Who among the Le the non lesbian community will stand up and voice their horror at the human rights abuses [00:17:00] of lesbians? Will it be gay men and transgender people who share much of the oppression but from whom support is so conditional? Will it be bisexual and queer community who claim an openness to sexual orientation but so often let down lesbians? Will it be the heterosexual women? Or are lesbians just too dicey to risk making an alliance with, or will it be left to the heterosexual men who have nothing to fear except themselves? Now I do have [00:17:30] some guarded hope for the future. The information available on the Internet is much deeper than it was when I began my research in this area in 2002. But as I've made clear in this paper, there's a lot more to be done, and we really need some more successful campaigns for lesbians. Human rights. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, we agreed with the speakers that questions and answers [00:18:00] will be taking place after the three presentations. So now I would like to give the floor to Nicola Certes from New Zealand and her presentation is called The Legal Recognition of Parent Child Relationships in New Zealand Family Law. And while you are searching for your presentation, I might as well read what's here. Or do you want to start immediately? OK, given the time we were good to see you all here. [00:18:30] Thanks for coming today. So I'm going to talk about the legal recognition of parent child relationships in New Zealand family law and particularly focusing on the positive and negative impacts for lesbian mothers, gay fathers and their Children. The study that this presentation draws from was a small scale qualitative study that I'm now further in with my PhD work. Uh, we were interested in creating, looking at how lesbians [00:19:00] and gay men were creating and maintaining family. We looked at successes and challenges, um, for those men and women in that process and we found that family and social policy isn't fully responsive to some family forms and parenting arrangements. So that's what I will endeavour to show you with with the data I have here today, 20 interviews with 33 parents and [00:19:30] 19 families. So as I said it, it was a small scale initial study. Um, with my PhD work, I've now been I have finished collecting data and I've worked with, uh, around 70 lesbian or gay parents, none of whom were, uh we were part of this study. So I've really managed to find quite a large pool of of, um, new lesbian and gay people to work with. And you can see we were interested in, [00:20:00] um, what daily life looked like, what their their hopes and struggles were what their, uh, supports them, What didn't support them and successes and challenges, and so on. Now, in terms of of legal roles in New Zealand in relation to parent child relationships, we've always had quite progressive, uh, family law in New Zealand. We are very fortunate. But like many other countries, of course, the legal [00:20:30] rules that determine parent child relationships are lagging behind the diversity and family structure. And that's partly because of social change, but partly because of the growth of reproductive technologies. And when we think about lesbians and gay men wanting to, uh have Children from within the context of their relationships. They need a third party. They need a third procreative actor. Um, and when I think or when I'm talking [00:21:00] about reproductive technologies, I'm talking about the full continuum from low tech do it yourself home insemination, for example, right through to things like open retrieval and in vitro fertilisation, which obviously requires the assistance of a clinic and surrogacy and so on. One of the things that parents uh, conveyed to us was that the law could be both a facilitator and a barrier [00:21:30] in the process of establishing boundaries between these women and men and the third reproductive Party. And I'll talk a little bit more about that shortly. I don't know if you're familiar with the Status of Children Amendment Act. Part two is important for lesbians and gay men, and this is the act that determines the legal status of Children in relation to their parents. And Part two deals with, um, those Children [00:22:00] who are conceived through reproductive technologies or specified reproductive procedures. So any woman who conceives with donated gamuts whether that's an egg or sperm and delivers a child regardless of her genetic relationship with that child and her partner, regardless of whether her partner is a woman or a man on the proviso that she or he agreed to the procedure, [00:22:30] the method of conception of the child's legal parents and where, where those two people agree and fill in the appropriate paperwork, UH, they become any resulting child's legal parents, and at the same time the act extinguishes the donors parenthood. And that's irrespective of the wishes of all parties concerned. So the donor has no rights, responsibilities [00:23:00] or liabilities in respect of the child. Now, for lesbian couples who are wanting to have a child with the assistance of either a known or an unknown donor, and they're intending to take up that option by the demon rules of Part two to become the child's legal parents, then this, in effect is putting a helpful barrier in place between them and between the donor. So for those parents [00:23:30] who those lesbian couples who are wanting to share the central parenting relationship from within a single household, this is useful for them. But research is showing that a number of lesbian couples are now choosing known men who, uh, they wish to not only act as a sperm donor, but to have some involvement in some capacity in in future child's life. Um, and in those cases, men [00:24:00] are donating on that basis on the understanding that they will have some, that they'll be known as a dad to the child and that they'll have some role, some fathering role in that child's life. The child might or might not live primarily with the woman, but there's there's some agreement there between all three parties that that the father will be involved. And so in that case, these kinds this, um, act as problematic because the couples are are illegal legal parents. But the [00:24:30] donor who, with the couple's agreement expects to be able to be a dad and and take up some form of parenting responsibilities, um, has is without protection and essence well without the protection of legal parenthood that the couple have. So with that as as the context for you, I'll share some data now both about the benefits of the legal recognition of relationships between lesbian, non birth mothers and [00:25:00] their Children. And there are many benefits, and and the non birth moms were very articulate in conveying those. And then I'll move on and we'll look at, uh, some of the costs to men. This legal recognitions of relationships between lesbian, non birth mothers and their Children have been possible since July 2005, and that's been achieved through the granting of parenthood at birth through the Status of Children Amendment Act. [00:25:30] The moms that we talked to really viewed it as a form of insurance. It offered them some protection. It gave them rights. It secured the rights to involve themselves in all aspects of parenting, daily care, decision making, uh, decisions about development of the child, about health and education. And, of course, it also protects them for the duration of that child's life. It's a permanent, enduring relationship between those parents and Children, [00:26:00] So parents said that this was very empowering for them. So here's Renee, non birth mum to twin daughters, and she's saying, You know, I'm dealing with other people. It gives me confidence. I do have a standing. They can't just undermine my position and say, Well, who are you to come here and say that? Mom's also talked about the ways that it equalised their parental status, [00:26:30] regardless of who was the biologically connected mother So we had comments like We're equal parents. I feel like mum and I always have. It's just so balanced, really. I'm mum and your mummy And the another benefit was the way in which it enabled the sharing, if you like, of parenting work, despite resistance from others outside [00:27:00] of the home. So some non birth mothers really did find that they weren't considered real mothers legit, legitimate mothers and knowing that they had that legal protection protection made a difference to them. They could sign, um, permission slips at the early childhood centre and and fill in the enrollment forms and and go along to different things at school and be fully involved. Um, if the child was in hospital, they knew that they had all the protections they needed to [00:27:30] make decisions about their child's health care. Chloe is talking about this in terms of the idea of being able to function fully. Now, if you're going to be a parent, you need to be able to take up all those bits of of the job, so legal recognition really enhanced security, [00:28:00] Anica says. I actually demanded that security, so she was thinking ahead to possible need for disaster and recovery planning. Things may be going pear shaped. She was clear. She wanted rights. She was the non birth mom, uh, to she and her partner had, um, two girls, and they were parenting in conjunction with a gay man who had been their donor. Renee again Just talking about the difference. Um, [00:28:30] it had for her knowing that she had that security, that her name was on the birth certificates. One final benefit was that the non birth mother's rights were understood to extend beyond the couple relationship. Uh, with Children's between the non birth mothers and the birth mothers. So should couple relationships end [00:29:00] either through a separation or through the birth mom dying then that the non birth moms knew that their rights couldn't simply be dismissed? Um, talked about friends, lesbian friends who split up, and the non birth mother wasn't on the birth certificate, presumably because they'd had their Children prior to this piece of legislation. So there was obviously some issues there [00:29:30] for those women as they worked out how to manage, um, care of the Children. And Kate had heard about a lesbian couple with the biological mom, had died unexpectedly, and the parents of the biological mother took the child, the grandchild, to Australia, and she and her partner, Heather, were just very frightened that that might happen three minutes. So in terms of the costs of [00:30:00] limited legal recognition of relationships between donor dads and the Children, and I'm using donor dads loosely, many men wouldn't necessarily adopt that terminology themselves. I'm simply meaning they're, uh, men who have donated sperm on the understanding they'd be known as dads and have some role in Children's lives. Their parenting participation is really reliant on the the the continued desire of the Children's mother to support this. And if the mothers change, um, [00:30:30] have a change of heart about the man's involvement, then the relationships with the Children become insecure. Well, they are insecure and vulnerable. And I'll let you read here what happened for Caleb, who has a biological son but has seen him very rarely, [00:31:00] so he'd had a very tough experience. He and his partner, they had he had a biological son. He and his partner, expected to be involved, had donated on that basis. But we very much shut out guardianship and donor agreements do give some rights to donor dads, but they are limited. The first is limited in scope, and the second is non enforceable. So nothing gives the same kind of protection that Legal Parenthood does. Who [00:31:30] stands to gain and who to lose? Well, as I indicated earlier, lesbian couples, obviously who share that parent central parenting relationship, stand to gain donor dads where the central parenting relationship with Children over three or more parents are spread across, Multiple households tend to lose. Here's Kirk just talking about the legal side of things and the advice he'd had from a lawyer. Kirk went ahead and, [00:32:00] uh, is parenting his Children alongside the moms, and that's going well for them at the moment. But he's very conscious of his lack of protection. And, of course, the existing in bi bison law that a child shouldn't have more than two legal parents dismisses the reality of some Children's families. And if you think back to Caleb, um, you know he has a son, and the law dismisses his reality, and he's denied a legally [00:32:30] recognised relationship with his father, who, despite both this and despite opposition from the mothers, wishes to know his son and to parent him in some capacity alongside the mothers. So I think those situations change or highlight the need for a change to the law. So finally, in terms of recommendations, a donor giving gamuts to a couple on the basis that he or she will jointly parenting any ensuring child with the couple with everybody's agreement, be able to become a legal [00:33:00] parent. And sometimes that will mean there'll be three legal parents. This isn't a new recommendation. The New Zealand Law Commission actually made this recommendation a couple of years ago, and the Labour Party at the time felt that while it was possibly valid, further consultation would need to be carried out and so on and so forth. So of course it hasn't happened, and that would help address the gaps in the recognition of some of the realities of of the families in the study and also the families I'm now working with for my PhD research. [00:33:30] But it also meet the needs of heterosexual couples who are using, uh, third parties subject to their wishes in this regard. So it may well have a broader application, and I'd just like to acknowledge the family commission and the other researchers in in this project for their work and the commission for their support. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to give the floor to San from Australia, [00:34:00] and he's going to talk about clearing refugee law. Thank you. Um, so, uh, my talk today comes, uh, as part of a broader project of mine researching the way sexuality and persecution and the narratives associated with that get constructed in administrative and judicial decision making in Australia. Um, you know, basically some of the key questions are what is what counts [00:34:30] as sexuality. What constitutes persecution? Who is the refugee? And these questions assume relevance to the law in very interesting and distinctive ways. Precisely because they're so ambiguous, they invite a lot of theoretical scope. They invite a lot of, you know, different kinds of knowledge, and they they go to the very heart of representation. You know, what does it mean to have a sexual identity? What does it mean to have a very particular form of persecution? And [00:35:00] so the way Australian law has sought to understand some of these challenges has been quite problematic in that they've often attributed very narrow, very western, very gay, male centric, middle class, stereotyped ideas of what constitutes sex in order to construct this universal identity that every applicant who seeks asylum must fit in with in within that rubric. Otherwise, they're not a genuine or they're a experimental [00:35:30] or a confused um, asylum seeker. And of course, for us, you know, discussing the kind of broad spectrums of sexuality, particularly from individuals from diaspora displaced backgrounds. These questions are extremely problematic because what's at issue is not simply, you know, a theoretical debate, but actual material lives which depend on the, you know, the validity of a particular judicial or administrative decision. [00:36:00] And so thinking about the broader context of, uh, refugee law is quite important. So, you know, refugee law comes from the, uh, convention relating to the status of refugees, uh, in 1951 and so that convention to which Australia is a signatory and has ratified, has now been trans was transformed into, uh, migration laws into the migration act. And under that, um, particular provision, um, Article one a of the Refugee Convention, an asylum [00:36:30] seeker may seek, um, protection on the basis of race, nationality, political opinion, social group or religious, Um, or religious conviction. Um, and since 1992 Australia's Common Law has recognised that sexual orientation or rather homosexuality, which is, which is the term used, is valid under the category of social group. And so this has really broadened discussions around. What does it mean for a sexual minority to be understood in a judicial framework [00:37:00] as a social group and basically, um, it the the The judicial reasoning from the case of Morato and the Minister for Immigration, which was the decisive case on this issue, noted that there needs to be a universal characteristic or a shared attribute that, uh, all in individual, that can be held to be common to this particular category of people. And so as a result, the administrative decisions have sought to identify a concept of sexual [00:37:30] identity that is highly narrow. Um, and that privilege is very western, very kind of, you know, um, Oriental consumer based approaches to sexuality that rely on discerning how many sexual partners a particular applicant has had. Or you know how many clubs that they've visited or their knowledge about particular cultural icons like Madonna. And, you know, while this seems quite ludicrous for a lot of us who come from diverse cultural backgrounds. [00:38:00] This is considered to be, you know, apt decision making in the context of Australia. Um, and I just wanna go through a a particular case here where this particular applicant is made under or is understood through this knowledge of intimacy. And this is what the decision maker had to say. The applicant gave evidence that he had not entered into any other long-term relationship with a male or a female. He was not aware of gay networks in Bangladesh and he had not [00:38:30] tried to find any. He did not frequent gay parks. His behaviour points to a capacity to live within the norms of his own society, culture and RG, where he has a home of family and employment. So effectively, the commentary seems to suggest that your lack of visibility in a particular gay scene, um discredits your your status as a as a as a refugee and effectively, the assumption is that as a part as a as a gay [00:39:00] man, you are required to frequent public spaces. Um, this pays no attention to the fact that, uh, you know, participation in a public scene is, you know, determined on one there being a scene in the first place, defining what that scene is, and probably to the decision maker. It's in Australia. It's something akin to Oxford Street, which clearly bang needs to have. And three, assumes the economic mobility of an asylum seeker to engage in those forms of consumption and failing [00:39:30] to acknowledge the fact that you know, not only is visibility uh, a question of, you know, um, punitive, um, a question of, you know, fear, harassment and violence. But it's also a question of Does a person have the means or ability to actually go to a club or go and find a community that they can participate in? And so the the terminology is are not settled. Homosexual orientation also emerges. So the fact that the applicant has not had you know more than one sexual partner or has only ever [00:40:00] had a relationship with the person of the only one person of the same sex, you know, leads to forms of reasoning that suggest that their sexual orientation is not settled so effectively We we begin a kind of a a judicial narrative where the only way to claim valid a sexual identity as a gay man in this particular instance is to be highly promiscuous is to have many sexual partners in order to fulfil that kind of stereotype that, you know, gay [00:40:30] men are highly sexually promiscuous and that have multiple sexual partners. And that is an authentic experience that all men should necessarily have. And these questions of visibility, um, not only highlight, you know, racial or diaspora issues, but they also highlight gendered ones, particularly because for queer women, um, its public issues of public participation are are very much different, largely because it's not only a narrative of, uh, sexuality [00:41:00] based depression that they're dealing with, but also a gendered, one in which much of the persecution they do experience is framed in a domestic sphere. And because asylum law is very much focused on identifying public experiences of persecution, or states have demonstrated a failure to protect um on the basis of people who are sexual and gender minorities, a lot of the the determinations of what is persecution rely on identifying public forms of persecution. And that's how a lot of anti discrimination laws [00:41:30] also work. The problem with that public private division, though, is it Privileges men, uh, and undermines the experience of a lot of women who a lot of their persecution, is often of a domestic character. Whether that's coercive marriages, Uh uh, domestic violence, rape and that kind of thing. And, um, there is an interesting case of an applicant, a female applicant from Mongolia whose experience of domestic violence and the public speculation she endured of her desires as outlined [00:42:00] as follows, um, by the decision maker, I accept that the applicant has a girlfriend and that she has had a close relationship with this friend since a particular year. I have doubts as to whether their relationship is a lesbian relationship as the evidence to how how they first met and their lack of involvement in in the gay scene. Um, sorry in the lesbian community, Rather is of concern. So the applicant gave little little details of the nature of their relationship, and I felt she was [00:42:30] being evasive as to the real basis of their friendship. Despite claiming she was a lesbian, she had no other contacts with lesbian groups or other lesbians. After her initial contact with her partner so effectively, we see the characterization here that the relationship between two women in a domestic context is immediately relegated to platonic, so it's immediately friendship. The absence of any kind of penetrative sexual act renders female intimacy into that space. Um, and so it's not. It's already disbelieved as as a lesbian [00:43:00] relationship. And again we see that underlying assumption that there needs to be that public narrative. You know, where is your participation in a public community? You know? Where are your lesbian friends? You know what communities, what clubs do you go to? And a lot of this reasoning in here is and and effectively, you know, this applicant, um, is granted asylum, but not because of her sexual orientation, but because of the patriarchal violence that she endures through through the fact that she's married [00:43:30] and that her husband abuses her. So through that narrative, which has quite a considerable currency in Australian law, you know, she is granted asylum, Um, but in terms of the actual basis of her application, which is on the fact that she was a queer woman and that her intimacy was, you know, prohibited and and treated as, um, you know, and subject to violence and harassment was disbelieved. And so this is this. This is an ongoing issue for a lot of cases. Um, for both, uh, you know, queer [00:44:00] men and queer women. And I use the term queer. Um, and I use it more broadly in my research because terms like gay and lesbian have a very ethnocentric quality to them and a lot of the vocabulary that we use in terms of gay and lesbian, um is often through kind of a Western context, an Anglo, specifically anglophone context. And a lot of people who come from diaspora communities, whether in India, whether in Bangladesh, whether in China, don't necessarily or or sub Saharan Africa don't necessarily use the language of gay and lesbian, [00:44:30] they may engage in same sex erotic practises. They may have, you know, forms of attachment and intimacy. We would call lesbian or gay, but they don't refer to it as that. And part of my research is really about giving voice to the narratives and experiences of people who are effectively denied a voice. So not only do they escape an experience of persecution or displacement, thank you but they now arrive in a context where their voice are still being colonised. [00:45:00] They're effectively being colonised through a much more insidious way. That is, through the kind of knowledge practises that I use to understand their experiences so effectively it's you don't fit into my narrative that is my Western gay male centric, you know, consumer based narrative of, you know, multiple sexual partners, participation in a scene, and as a result, your sexual identity is inauthentic and the lack of any cultural or diaspore sensitivity the lack of contextual kind of focus [00:45:30] around, you know, the experiences of sexual minorities, um, in different geographic regions. And the way those experiences are not only intersected by sexuality but by race by class, by religion, by faith, by ability, by age has led to these really problematic decisions effectively paradoxical decisions. So you can read one decision where an applicant is invisible, they don't participate in the community at all, and this effectively leads a lot of [00:46:00] you know, applicants later on to then script their claims to fit the rubric. So they join up new Mardi Gras, and then they go out on Oxford Street a lot and then they, you know, effectively, you know, effectively think they need to take pornographic photos of themselves in sexual acts in order to be considered legitimate asylum seekers, and as a result, they're too visible. So the, uh, the decision makers then deny them asylum. On the basis that you're obviously descript in your stories, [00:46:30] you're just you've just come here joined all these groups to prove your game. We don't believe you're gay, um, or lesbian or or queer or or whatever. And as a result, you know, there's that trap. You're either invisible cos you don't participate in a community or you don't have multiple sexual partners, and you haven't really done anything or you're too visible because you've, you know, joined up all these clubs. And you're just now trying to prove that you're gay. So effectively, the kind of the epistemological challenge to use that word is there's [00:47:00] no space there. There's no space to claim asylum in a culturally historically appropriate way, because effectively, you're caught out. Either way, you're either too gay or lesbian or you're not gay or lesbian enough, and so effectively, I think we need to start. And while my my research focuses specifically on Australia. A lot of the conceptual challenges are transferrable to jurisdictions across the world, like the UK, the US, uh, Canada and so forth where we need to see the category of sexuality [00:47:30] opened up in ways that really pays attention to cultural difference. And we need to open up the kind of processes of decision making, particular methodologies, the reliance on evidence and the way the narratives are interpreted in order to do justice to the voice of asylum seekers and to give them the kind of credibility and the and the time that they deserve. Um, so thank you. Thank you very, very much. We have 10 minutes for questions and answers. [00:48:00] Yes, please. And could you speak up a little so that everybody can hear you? So things, the things that no. Yeah. Susan, maybe you could, uh, repeat a question as well. Um, Barry just asked me if I would include the lesbians murdered in Tel Aviv. And if I knew their names and the numbers who were killed? No, I don't know. I'm sorry. Do you? No. [00:48:30] Um sorry. When was was this the one that the one last year? Yes, um, I know about it, but no, I don't know the details. Um, sorry. I should have gone after that one. Other questions. It's difficult to see from here. Um, if not, then I would like to ask all three of you a question. What do you want in relation, Of course, [00:49:00] to your presentation. What do you want to get out of this conference? What would you like to see To be a final conclusion, for instance? And Susan, you alluded to that because she said I was at another conference, and then I didn't hear anything from my presentation. What would, in your view, would be the best for this conference to conclude, I would like, uh, lesbians to be, you know, part of the discussion. Because it's very [00:49:30] easy sometimes to just, um, get the lesbian, um, history and activism and so forth Sidelined. Uh, it is important to be able to join together and to have, uh, joint conversations. And it is useful to have LGBTI Q et cetera, Um, as a kind of shorthand, but we should not use it as a kind of lazy way of going. Oh, I don't [00:50:00] really want to talk about the the the the G or the I or the T or the L or whatever, you know, like it's It shouldn't be used as a way of excluding and And what I have experienced is that it's often used as a way of excluding lesbians. That's my experience as a lesbian and as an older lesbian. Um, a A. And as I said, it is a kind of double thing there about age. But II I would also like I, I think what, what you [00:50:30] were saying, then said, Uh, I'm really pleased that you said that stuff, um, about the way in which, um, sexuality is framed within the the refugee thing. Because I mean, one of the things about a a lesbian seeking refugee status is that often the most, um, the most. The the best thing she can do to protect herself in her country of origin may be to get married. So, you know, I mean that if that then undermines her application [00:51:00] and makes it impossible, then you know it's a very difficult situation. So there are many ways of different groups being invisible, and I think we inclusion should not become Grey. Uh, you know, we we need to remember that, you know, there's there's a multiplicity to to us. Thank you, Nicola. May I ask you and maybe you can stand behind a microphone. Is it good? [00:51:30] Ok, I'd like to see, uh, three parents able to be able to be named and law where all parties agreed. So I'd like to see that back on the government's agenda for progression. Um, as I said previously, it was on the last Labour governments agenda Practically have to imagine National putting it on there. But, uh, I think that would be something Well, with lobbying for that would really benefit Children of families [00:52:00] and would benefit parents in those families. And I think, as I said, potential application beyond where People using technology through. So that that that's what I like. So so we will need to buy. Do you think it's politically very difficult to get that result [00:52:30] to recognise that it was an issue at the end that that there was a worthy and valid concern that had been taken to them and express to their I'm not sure that national work See, But if you look at that issue from the best interest of the child, then it might be easier to [00:53:00] judges who make those decisions to see it in the child's best interests. I don't know, but yes, that that that is one way of arguing that because it's not just the parents on us. The Children of a smart Children that makes us to all of those parents [00:53:30] doesn't take them. Thank you. And what would you like to get out of this conference? Just Yeah, just following from, Uh um what my colleagues have just, uh, uh, mentioned, I think part of the the way forward is opening up spaces for discussing narratives around, kinship around, sexuality around, family around intimacy. Um, and I think what's really useful about the law is it provides, you know, a regulatory framework. But [00:54:00] often that regulatory framework is too, you know, too narrowly defined. Or it involves a very specific, normative idea of what things ought to look like. And as a result, all spaces for discussion are foreclosed. And so I think, moving forward, we really need to highlight that. You know, there is a multiplicity out there and that you know, when we are talking about sexuality. We're not talking about one thing. And yes, that might, you know, fuck up the very heart of the law in terms of its its demand [00:54:30] for fixed city and representation. But you know what? We are talking about people's lives and experiences which the law should reflect, not determine. And so as a result, that's That's the way I would like to see it move forward. Thank you. Somebody a question. Now we still have a few minutes. Yes. Um, hi. My name is Yen. Um, I work for Shakti, um, women's refuge, which is, um, a women's refuge service that specifically targets or, [00:55:00] um, serves, um, refugee and migrant women from Asian, Middle Eastern and African backgrounds. Um, and what we see a lot of the time is those cultural values and those cultural persecutions, um, happening in our country in in New Zealand as well. And I'm just wondering, um, if if the recommendations of of your research will actually inform government [00:55:30] on how to protect these women from the persecution that happens in our own country when we don't recognise or at least Australian law doesn't recognise those persecutions, um, as means for asylum seeking. See the way I understood your question? Um, were you saying that how, um, they get persecuted within their the country they seek asylum in, So is that they seek asylum in [00:56:00] Australia, and they're being victimised in Australia or yeah, when when their migrant communities come. Oh, yeah, OK, by a broader. Yeah. Um, so, uh, my research specifically looks at the kind of judicial and administrative process. Um, so a lot of the kind of support structures and networks is a beyond the scope. However, um, you're absolutely right. I think, um, you know, there are issues of say, um, queer asylum seekers in detention who [00:56:30] have faced a lot of, uh, harassment from fellow detainees. Um, within that within that context, um, and, you know, they're then put in solitary as if that's the solution. Um Well, firstly, you just get rid of mandatory tension and then community, but anyway, um uh I think, yeah, um, part of the the first step is first acknowledging the kind of that the very issue going to that problem as going to the administrative process is acknowledging the M, the kind of inter multi dimensionality [00:57:00] of a person and the intersectionality of experience, that is, you're not only simply gay or lesbian, but you're also a person of colour or you're of a particular age or a particular faith. And then I think what then can happen is that's brought into dialogue. And I think that's the critical issue that's really missing here at both the legislative and policy making area, but also at the service provision, where service provision, as a result of policy setting, is so concerned with just discrete identities [00:57:30] that people often obscure the fact that actually people have multiple layers to them and that policy and service provision needs to be responsive to that. And frankly, that's not happening in Australia. Um, and hopefully that will happen and will change. And um, you know, And like I said, that's why you know, in my research, I'm really much more concerned with that kind of interdisciplinary and kind of multilayered approach to thinking about the law in a broader social and political environment and hopefully that will progress the issues that you that you have highlighted as well [00:58:00] thank you all very much for attending this session and hopefully tomorrow, in our end conclusions, we will see something back from your presentations. Thank you very much. And I wish you a very pleasant evening and hopefully see you again tomorrow. Thanks.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags