Many people flee their countries because they don’t have the freedom to be who they feel they are. Trans, lesbian, gay, queer, bisexual, asexual or intersex, run away from families and societies that discriminate against them because they are not compliant with the hetero-normative culture. They move to Europe to seek protection and find themselves trapped in an unfair system that doesn’t recognize them or protect them. The SOGICA project speaks up about them and through them, talks about how the asylum system could be improved with a little institutional and political will, and therefore, better assist the lives of those who need protection.
SOGICA (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum) is a research project funded by the European Research Council (ERC) aimed at analyzing, through a socio-legal approach, the reception and asylum system with people seeking international protection and refugees based on sexual orientation, and gender identity (SOGI). The research exposed the reality experienced by people in the asylum system of Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The results will be published by September 2020 and thanks to the contribution of ERC and the IMISCOE (International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe), sarà accessibile gratuitamente a chiunque.
Read also: Coronavirus and Migrants: Italian Associations Make an Appeal
The results are also accessible through videos made with LGBTQIA refugees (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex and asexual); a particularly innovative choice for an academic research project. SOGICA chose Il Grande Colibrì to present the video relating to Italy: telling the story of Mazen Masoud and his request for international protection based on his gender identity. For the making of this video, we are grateful to the protagonist, the University of Sussex (Flavio Ferrari and Jayne Rowlands) film crew, the Trans Identity Movement (MIT), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR ), and to Annalisa Napoli for the translation.
We interviewed Carmelo Danisi, a member of one of the four research teams. Carmelo is the author of numerous publications on human rights, immigration, and anti-discrimination. He currently teaches International Law at the University of Bologna – Forlì campus.
Was there any other similar research before SOGICA?
There has never been research involving so many asylum seekers and LGBTQIA refugees at the European level. SOGICA doesn’t just feature the results in the traditional academic style, it also intends to provide suggestions to the European and National Government to improve the asylum system starting from the ideas of the most important stakeholders of the system itself: the asylum seekers and refugees. Through the publication and the videos, SOGICA is trying to give a voice to anyone who has benefited from the LGBTQIA asylum and reception system while aiming to reach the widest audience possible.
Read also: Asylum? No, insults! Austria turns out homophobic and racist
Overall, how many asylum seekers and LGBTQIA refugees have you interacted with?
In Europe, between individual interviews and people involved in the focus groups we organized, there have been around 160 participants of which over 50 in Italy spanning from north to south. They shared their experiences with us and provided opinions on how to improve it. Their testimonies have been vital for the research resolution and its final recommendations.
What was your role in this project?
I’ve conducted field research by analyzing the situation in Italy. Initially, it was difficult to find people to interview but thanks to the map on Il Grande Colibrì website I was able to reach more people. In the beginning, it was fundamental to understand how the asylum seekers arrive in Italy: by sea, from the Balkan route or through visas and humanitarian channels. I’ve closely examined these approaches by SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity ) asylum seekers, especially considering that not even European human rights obliges countries to grant humanitarian visas so to avoid suffering and abuse of “forced” travelling to Europe.
And then?
The second part of the research focused on asylum procedures: it involved LGBTQIA asylum seekers and refugees, Territorial Commission members, judges, legal representatives, and activists of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through individual interviews and focus groups. We also tried to look beyond the procedures, to understand what happens during the reception period and how work, health, and education progress post-asylum.
In Italy, in recent years, we have witnessed the implementation of a series of anti-immigration policies that have gradually decreased the list of those who have reception and protection rights. Compared to ten years ago, how has the protection system changed on the peninsula?
Let’s start from the good news: the research shows that replacing the Territorial Commission’s representatives with appointed officials was a positive step because many of the previous interviewers were not well trained on SOGI issues. Thanks to UNHCR training, these new Territorial Commission’s officials are acquiring a deeper understanding of the specific thematics.
Leggi anche: Coronavirus in Italy: Videos and Information for Migrants
What about the bad news?
Despite the improvements, some of the changes made to the asylum process, such as the introduction of video recording during the interviews, were perceived negatively. The appeal abolition in case of a rejected application and the freedom given to judges to not grant in-person hearings if they decide to only review video recordings of the Commission’s interviews can have a big negative impact on the SOGI applicants. In fact, among other reasons, one can’t be sure that all the people arriving in Italy can explain to the Commissions what led them to flee their country.
There is also the abolition of humanitarian protection…
The abolition of humanitarian protection should not theoretically have consequences for SOGI applicants, as they are fully within their rights to receive refugee status since the reason for their requests is completely non-humanitarian. I say this because I’ve had the impression that many decision-makers still confuse protection types: the more credible, to their eyes, is the suffering, the abuse, and the drama of the asylum seekers and SOGI refugees, the more certain will be the recognition of refugee status. In other words, it seems that for some it applies the rule: “If you’ve suffered a lot you’ll have refugee status, if you’ve suffered less you’ll have another type of international protection or nothing.”
Therefore, we can say that for SOGI applicants Italy has become a gamble. Is it all upon the interviewer’s sensibility?
The fact that there aren’t policies encouraging legal access to the asylum system is already causing several problems, forcing SOGI applicants to hide their sexual orientation and gender identity as much as possible during both their travel to Italy and after the arrival. So it is already a gamble to try to get to Italy without finding yourself stuck at the gates of Europe.
If they arrive, they are often abandoned in discriminatory situations, without adequate support, which won’t certainly help to reach the necessary awareness to face the hearing with the Commission. Often associations have to make up for it, although they are not always the most suitable to provide such services; nor are all the asylum seekers or the SOGI refugees come into (or want to get in) contact with these groups.
What are the differences between the Italian, German and British asylum systems?
Before the latest reforms in Italy, there were several positive aspects that are still missing in Europe. For example, the position of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation on persecution, the role of the judge or the countries of origin information, as well as the informal mechanisms within the Commissions to identify the most suitable interviewer are all very positive aspects that should be exported throughout Europe. However, the latest reforms will be a step back for the country, creating incorrect dynamics regarding international protection. Think about the list of safe countries: that is an example on how to worsen the reception system!
Read also: Italian LGBT Associations Denounce New Rules Against Refugees
Despite all, does the system in Italy work well?
All in all, Italy is much more welcoming if compared, for example, to the United Kingdom which can also mandate detention for asylum seekers. There have been rejected cases for homosexuals coming from countries that criminalize homosexuality only because there was no evidence such laws were actually been applied and as consequence was determined that the applicant was not persecuted in the country of origin and, therefore, had to be repatriated. Also in Germany, the list of safe countries represents an obstacle to those who intend to effectively access the national asylum system.
In other words, it is an endless challenge…
Yes, but I’d be happy if this project will improve even just one person’s life. In addition to the scientific aspects, human relationships have been fundamental. The SOGICA research is a “human” research project and it could not have ended better for me than with a “backwards” interview. Thank you very much to you and Il Grande Colibrì for this!
Lyas Laamari
translation by Barbara Burgio
©2020 Il Grande Colibrì
video: ©2020 SOGICA
images: Il Grande Colibrì / elaborations from Pedro Sandrini (CC0) / from Philip Boakye (CC0)
Am martino from uganda who has faced discrimination from my community because of my sexual orientation.
so l seek for support