N
O
T
G
AY
EN
O
U
GH
Conflicting expectations and expressions of the sexual identity of
LGBT-refugees in getting access in the Dutch asylum procedure
Dunya Veenhof -
10598510
NOT GAY ENOUGH:
conflicting expectations and expressions of the sexual identity of
LGBT-refugees in getting access in the Dutch asylum procedure
Master Thesis Conflict Resolution and Governance, University of Amsterdam
Dunya Veenhof
10598510
dunyaveenhof@gmail.com
Reader 1: Anja van Heelsum
Reader 2: Saskia Bonjour
Pages: 49
29-06-2018
Cover picture: the model is not an LGBT-refugee, but the diversity of her appearance does align with the people that participated in this research. This is a photograph of a model wearing a limited-edition Pride headscarf of fashion company MOGA. Accessed:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/19/sydney-mardi-gras-muslim-owned-fashion-company-showcases-lgbt-pride-hijab
Abstract:
This research tries to understand the relation between expectations of the IND and
expressions of the sexuality of LGBT-refugees in creating access in the Dutch asylum
procedure. Sexuality is shaped through interaction between the individual and the
institution. The presence of certain norms create power hierarchies that are produced
and reproduced by the IND, LGBT-refugees and people working with LGBT-refugees.
The expectations of what sexuality is do not correspond with the expressions of
LGBT-refugees. However, by reproducing the expectations in trying to get access in the asylum
procedure, these expectations are being upheld by all the subjects involved. This means
that structures that cause exclusion are not contested.
Key words:
Acknowledgement
We become aware of the existence of a right to have rights (and that means to live in a framework where one is judged by one’s actions and opinions) and a right to belong to some kind of organized community, only when millions of people emerge who had lost and could not regain these rights because of the new global political situation. The trouble is that this calamity arose not from any lack of civilization, backwardness, or more tyranny, but, on the contrary, that it could not be repaired, because there was no longer any ‘uncivilized’ spot on earth, because whether we like it or not we have really started to live in One World. Only with a completely organized humanity could the loss of home and political status become identical with expulsion from humanity altogether. (…) This new situation, in which ‘humanity’ has in effect assumed the role formerly ascribed to nature of history, would mean in this context that the right to have rights, or the right of every individual to belong to humanity, should be guaranteed by humanity itself.
- Hannah Arendt (1973: 296-298)
One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.
- Simone de Beauvoir (1949: 267)
If Lacan presumes that female homosexuality issues from a disappointed heterosexuality, as observation is said to show, could it not be equally clear to the observer that heterosexuality issues from a disappointed homosexuality?
- Judith Butler (1990: 66-67)
Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are but to refuse what we are.
- Michel Foucault (1982: 785)
Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort. And, sadder still, there always is a chorus of willing intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires, as if one shouldn't trust the evidence of one's eyes watching the destruction and the misery and death brought by the latest mission civilizatrice.
- Edward Said (2003: xvi)
A word of thanks:
I would like to thank my sister and mother for their endless support, as goes for my father, step-father and grandmother, my fellow master students for all our fruitful study breaks, and my friends for all the thesis-free wine evenings. I would like to thank all the teachers of this master’s degree and their endless passion for teaching. Lastly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the respondents and especially the LGBT-refugees who were willing to share their stories for some in difficult circumstances, despite my perhaps sometimes clumsy and direct questions.
Content
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical framework ... 8
2.1. Sexual identity ... 8
2.2. Expressions of sexual identity: the rise of the sexual identity ... 10
2.3. Expectations of sexual identity: sex, emotions, self-identification ... 14
2.4. Access: the politics of sexual identity ... 18
2.5. Concepts to research ... 21
3. Methodology... 22
3.1. Design ... 22
3.2. Respondents: people working with LGBT-refugees ... 23
3.3. Respondents: LGBT-refugees ... 24
3.4. Ethical reflections ... 25
4. Results ... 26
4.1. Expectations versus expressions of sexual identity ... 26
4.2. Process of consciousness: when was the first time you became aware of your sexuality? ... 28
4.2.1. Stereotypical behavior: all the colors of the rainbow ... 28
4.2.2. Sexual activities: let’s not talk about sex ... 29
4.2.3. Relationships and emotions: love and lust ... 30
4.3. Self-acceptance: can you describe that moment? ... 32
4.3.1. Inner self-identification: born this way ... 33
4.3.2. Overt self-identification: out and proud ... 36
4.4. Inner struggle: did you think this was strange? ... 37
4.4.1. Selling your trauma ... 38
4.4.2. Secret identity ... 40
4.5. Deserving this ... 41
5.1. Access: shaping the institution/individual ... 43
5.2. Changing the procedure: freedom, equality and tolerance ... 43
5.3. Changing the refugee: fact, feelings, struggle ... 46
6. Conclusion ... 48
6.1. The relation between expectations and expressions of sexual identity ... 48
6.2. Theoretical reflection ... 50
6.3. Limitations of the research ... 52
6.4. Suggestions for further research ... 53
Appendix: ... 54
Recommendations for improving policy ... 54
How does the procedure works? ... 55
Bibliography: ... 58
1. Introduction
After Rian fled from Iraq to the Netherlands, he fell in love with Richard. In his country of origin, he feared being killed for his sexual orientation by the police, neighbors and even his family. In Iraq, violence against homosexuals goes with impunity, and there is a law that could even get homosexual acts convicted as a criminal act (UN 2014: 5). In the Netherlands, LGBTsi fleeing
from Iraq can therefor get asylum as a refugee. For Rian however, in the Netherlands a second struggle began. Despite proof as photographs and WhatsApp conversations with his boyfriend, and witnesses as Richard’s family and employees of Rian’s center for asylum seekers, the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Services (IND: Immigratie en Naturalisatiedienst) decided that it is not credible that Rian is gay (Omroep Zeeland 2018). The IND never stated that the he lied, or that the witness was lying. It was not theirs to doubt the sexuality of the Dutch men, nor the fact that the two were living together. But in his interview with the IND, Rian did not credibly express the process of consciousness, inner struggle and self-acceptation of his sexual identity, and his statement was too brief and inconsistent. Rian is not the only LGBT-refugee that is denied asylum based on this reasoning. According to a recent report, 34% of the asylum claims based on sexual identity are denied, of which 85% is rejected because the sexuality is deemed non-credible (Jansen 2018: 12).The existence of similar cases led to the petition Not Gay Enough to convince the Secretary of the State to change the asylum system for LGBT-refugeesii.
For people fleeing to another country to be acknowledge as an actual refugee, they need to have left their country out of genuine fear for persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (UN 2010: 14). Although sexual orientation or gender identity is not part of this official definition, being a refugee that identifies as LGBT is seen as a member of a particular social group (UNHCR 2012: 11). In the Netherlands, similar to any other asylum claimants, LGBT-refugees go through a week-long asylum procedure by the IND during which the IND determines if someone is truly a refugee (see appendix for the procedure)iii. When the claimants are recognized as refugees, they receive a
temporarily residence permit for the Netherlands. Those who do not obtain refugee status need to return to their country of origin and may face forced deportation. This research refers to every LGBT in the asylum procedure as an LGBT-refugeeiv and not as an LGBT-asylum seeker,
even when their cases are declined by the IND, because they left their country of origin for reasons stated in the UN-definition.
To be identified as an LGBT-refugee by the IND, the refugee needs to meet two conditions. The first condition is that there needs to be a substantiated fear for the safety of human lives in the form of conflict or persecution. For LGBT-refugees there needs to be proof of active enforcement of the prosecution of non-heterosexual sexualities or gender identities (Jansen 2013: 1, 7). Most countries that criminalize same-sex sexual orientations only mention
homosexuality in their laws, but it is assumed that being lesbian, bisexual or transgender creates an equal risk of prosecution unless the contrary is established (Ibid. 20). When the IND decides that there is no proof of active enforcement or prosecution, the claimant can show that there are ‘valid reasons to consider the country not safe in his/her particular circumstances’, for example when authorities fail to provide internal protection (Ibid. 10)v. Safety reasons alone are not
sufficient to reward official refugee status to LGBT-refugees. The second condition to be eligible for asylum based on sexual orientation or gender identity the LGBT-refugee needs to meet, is the credibility of their membership of a particular social group. The credibility of their self-identification as LGBT is the general means by which their sexuality is assessed (Ibid. 15). The IND assesses the authenticity, and the consistency of the story and the corresponding contextual factsvi.
This research focusses on the second condition of the asylum procedure, the credibility assessment of sexuality, because it is controversial. To assess someone’s sexuality in a respectful manner, the claimants experiences of their process of consciousness, an internal struggle and self-acceptance are central (IND 2015). It is assumed that this is a universal inner experience of LGBTs, which is less prone to sabotage as for example statements of witnesses, more respectful than medical tests and less stereotypical than looking at behavior. Recently, many LGBT-refugees have complained not to be considered credible even though they are LGBT. It appears that only those LGBT-refugees that can express their sexuality according to the expectations of the IND get access in the asylum procedure. This has led to the research question:
how do the expectations of the IND relate to the expressions of LGBT-refugee’s sexual identity in creating access to the Dutch asylum procedure?
There seemingly is a conflict between the IND and the LGBT-refugees. The IND’s aim is to protect those who are most vulnerable. They try to create a fair system to establish who is truly in need of protection. However, in this system actual LGBT-refugees are being denied asylum, because they do not match with the expectations of the IND. Sexual identity in this research is seen as a social construct which is created in interaction between individuals and institutions. Because sexual identity is a social construct, it is possible to see how norms influence what is seen as certain sexual identities. Norms are not only present in determining who is LGBT and who is not, sexual boundaries also exist because of ethnical boundaries, of which the asylum procedure is an example. Homosexuality seems to contest heteronormative nationalism, but because of homonormativity and homonationalism, local and global hierarchies are reproduced instead of contested. This means the asylum procedure is not only based upon certain norms, subjects involved also reproduce certain norms.
To find out where these expectations and expressions differ, the IND’s Working Instruction 2015/9 (IND 2015) and their questions are compared to the experiences of eight
people working with LGBT-refugees, five court cases and interviews with six LGBT-refugees. The results will analyze what norms are present within the expectations of the IND and how this differs from the expressions of LGBT-refugees. Themes that are used to analyze these expectations and expressions of sexual identity are: sexual behavior and emotions, inner and overt self-identification and the relation between religion and culture. Instead of challenging the norm, LGBT-refugees are shaped according to norms. Furthermore, the LGBT-refugees suffer from exclusion based on both their sexuality and ethnicity. This exemplifies present power relations in the asylum procedure.
This research has both an academic and social relevance. This research is a relevant addition for the field of queer migration studies. Previous research on the asylum procedure for LGBT-refugees has focused on different aspects. It has focused on the effects on LGBT-refugees themselves and how they construct their own story through the lived experiences of the procedure as a social justice strategy (Fobear 2015) and in relation to their religion (Giametta 2014). Kahn and Alessi (2017) looked at the psychological impact of the procedure on LGBT-refugees, while Berg and Millbank (2007) researched how psycho-social issues influence the ability to talk about sexuality and how this influence policy maker’s pre-understanding of sexuality. Research more specifically focused on the procedure have been conducted in Norway and address how norms are present in either the procedure itself (Grønningsæter 2017; Mühleisen et al 2012) and through the officers (Akin 2015). Research on the Dutch asylum procedure was published in the edited volume of Spijkerboer (2013), but this research has lost part of its current relevance, because the procedure changed drastically afterwards. The latest academic research on the Dutch asylum procedure is done by Renkens (2018), who focuses on how both Western norms on sexuality and on self-reflectiveness and chronologies in story-telling are present in the questions of the procedure. Fassin and Salcedo (2015) take an interesting turn in researching power relations in the procedure by looking at homonormativity, but their argument is limited to larger structures instead of a specific procedure. This research fills the gap by focusing both on the lived experiences of LGBT-refugees and the present norms in the Dutch asylum procedure. Another aspect left out by other researches is how people working in the field also shape the expressions of LGBT-refugees into a suffering sexual identity to be credible. This research is therefore an addition, because it adds to how sexuality is constructed and how sexuality is experienced cross-culturally.
This research also has a social relevance. Between October 2015 and April 2016, 267 people applied for asylum based on their sexuality (Jansen 2018: 11). In May 2017 worldwide 72 states had laws in place that criminalize certain sexual orientations, of which in eight death sentence is the severest punishment (ILGA 2017). The Netherlands, once a guiding country for LGBT rights, dropped out of the top 10 of gay friendliest countries (ILGA 2018). Although it is unclear how
many people apply for asylum are unjustly rejected, the social relevance lies not with the scope of the problemvii. The main problem is that a very marginalized group who expects to be safe in
the Netherlands, is again marginalized and put in a life-threatening position by the system that is made to protect them. Therefore, this research has also included a recommendation for changing policy in the appendix.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Sexual identity
People can apply for asylum on different grounds, but except for assessing the credibility of the conversion to a prosecuted religion, none of the motivations is as hard to test as credibility of the sexual identity of claimants. Other claims are assessed by the safety circumstances in the country and proof of citizenship or other documents. For LGBT-refugees the emphasis is on assessing the credibility of the statement of the sexual identity during interviews. In the Dutch asylum system, LGBT-refugees experience that the part of them that was life threatening in their country of origin, can in this situation be life-saving. The part of themselves they needed to hide and keep private, becomes the primary thing they need to make public and express extensively. Difficulties arise when the IND wants to test the credibility of someone’s sexuality. During a court case of a denied LGBT-refugee, the court noted that it is to be assumed that ‘sexuality is determined genetically’ (The Hague District Court 2007). Without making claims on the essence of sexuality, the human rights perspective believes sexuality to be similar to religion as ‘something that one should not be forced to changed’ (Miller 2005: 145). To understand how the expression of a sexual identity can be credible or not, it is necessary to first understand what sexual identity is or, perhaps easier, is not. Science has not agreed upon the extent to which sexuality is biologically determined and to which extent it is a social construct.
Essentialists see sexuality as an unchangeable essence people are born with, which parallels with debates on ethnicity and gender (Epstein 1987: 12, 13). Constructionism rose as a critique on essentialism and argues that sexuality has no essential ‘nature’, but is socially, politically and historically constructed. To test sexuality, psychological tests or phallometric tests are banned after advice of the UNHCR (UNHCR 2008: para.17). During interviews, it is not allowed to base questions on stereotypes and the IND only evaluates the consistency within cases and not between cases (Berlit, Doerig & Storey 2015: 662-665; LaViolette 2015: 29). The UNHCR also advises against inquiring to sexual activities or asking for (photographical) evidence, because this goes against the right to privacy (UNHCR 2008: para.17). Before the working instruction 2015/9, the IND could ask to describe sexual activities in detail, (Middelkoop 2013). The difficulty of creating a well-functioning procedure to assess someone’s sexuality poses the problem that sexuality cannot only be looked at solemnly from an essentialist perspective. If
sexuality was visible in the body, DNA or brain, the IND could easily define who is gay and who is not. This means that the theory on sexuality as a social construct is needed to understand how something can be seen as a credible expression of a sexual identity.
The credibility assessment is based solemnly upon the claimant’s own testimony of ‘the realization and experiences of sexual identity’ (LaViolette 2015: 22). The only means to decide whether the story of the claimant seems credible, consistent, and authentic. The IND employees ask questions regarding the development and personal expression of their sexual identity. Because of the hegemonic heterosexuality, constructing a sexuality opposed to the norm is assumed to be a common experience (Berg & Millbank 2007: 206). A decision maker claimed that an internal struggle and a conscious process of self-identification is universal because ‘even in a tolerant society as the Netherlands, the discovery of homosexual feelings will cause an inner struggle’ (Middelkoop 2013: 161). In certain parts of the procedure, the claimant is allowed to bring photographs as proof, certificates from (LGBT-)organizations or letters from spouses, but this does not have significant meaning in the procedure if the statement of the claimant is inadequate (Berlit, Doerig & Storey 2015: 662 - 665). In the results section, there will be an extensive analysis of what the IND precisely expects from the claimant. The focus on the development of someone’s sexual identity seems to be the most respectful manner and it is expected to transcends cultural differences.
When asking how the relations between expression and expectations of the sexual identity of LGBT-refugees creates access in the Dutch asylum procedure, three additional themes come up that need to be addressed in the theoretical framework. From these themes, three sub questions and four researchable concepts will arise that are discussed in each part. The first theoretical theme that will be discussed, are the theories on sexual identity. As this part will make clear, sexual identity is constructed between expressions and expectations of what sexuality is. Institutions have a powerful role in shaping sexuality, but what they see as sexuality is also influenced by how others express their sexuality. Because the first theoretical theme explains the power of expectations of institutions, the second theme is on normativity and how social norms naturalize ideas of what sexuality is. At different times in history, specific combinations of behavior, emotions and self-identification are seen as part of a certain identities. Because the asylum procedure does not only evolves around sexuality, but also around constructed ideas of nationality, the third theoretical theme focuses on the interaction between sexuality and nationality. This interaction creates hierarchies of inclusion and exclusion on a local and international level.
2.2. Expressions of sexual identity: the rise of the sexual identity
The focus of the asylum procedure is on how LGBT-refugees express their sexuality in a credible manner. While sexuality is generally something that people do in the form of sexual behavior, in the asylum procedure it becomes a part of an identity. Through claiming their rights based on their sexual identity, people try to acquire the right to fulfill their sexual desires. Seeing sexuality as a sexual identity and being able to claim rights based on that, is not a timeless manifestation. This perspective on sexuality appeared during the sexual liberation movement in the 1970s and 1980s and along with this political movement arose a field of studies called queer theory. This field places sexuality in a historical, economic and political context instead of seeing sexuality as something fixed, natural and universal, (Gamson and Moon 2004: 48). Queer theory goes beyond the binary categories of heterosexual and homosexual and argues that sexual identity is unstable: it is fluid and dynamic and embedded in national and international power relations (Ibid. 49). Homosexual behavior and cross gender behavior have always been present around the world but depending on the societies it is forbidden or punished, rewarded or obligated, a temporarily phase or an identity (Rubin 1984: 285). How it is possible that certain behavior can become an identity and can be both liberated and prohibited, is further explained by queer theory.
Foucault’s The History of Sexuality can be seen as the fundamental text on how queer theory analyzes sex and sexuality. He claims that specific sexual desires do not arise from a preexisting biological entity but are constructed through the influence of historical practices (Rubin 1984: 276). This does not necessarily deny any form of biological essence, but it does mean that sexuality cannot be explained purely into biological terms. How sexuality is repressed and expressed is define by a system of power and knowledge which are called discourses (Foucault 1978: 5). Discourses are defined by the way there is being talked about certain behavior and norms. Especially institutions have power over knowledge, because they define social problems and control who speaks, what is being said, and what can be said about it. Institutions as the law, the church, schools, and medicine have formal power of what is permitted and prohibited, punishable, a sin or a sickness (Ibid. 11). But through these discourses they also have informal power over what is seen as normal. Institutions have a discursive power when they create norms people uphold without even needing to be punished for not following the official and unofficial rules. Norms become an internalized and individualized discipline imbedded into morality and rationality and appear to be natural.
Foucault illustrates this power by a paradox. He argues that when sexuality was prohibited in public, this actually created more freedom then when it became a public issue. When sex was a secret of the private sphere of the bedroom, this silence created freedom (Foucault 1978). While in modern times, there has been a growing interest of analyzing sexuality
by professionals, which creates control. Foucault takes homosexuality as an example. At first, sexual acts with someone of the same sex were called sodomy and forbidden by civil law and canonical codes. This created that sexual acts were taboo. Later on, homosexuality became a body of interest by the medical field. It transformed from punishable acts to behavior related to a person’s personality (Foucault 1998: 43). With the invention of the term homosexual by doctors also came the stigmatization of people belonging to this category. To fight this stigmatization, in the Western world, people started to claim same sexual desires to their identity. Foucault rather sees homosexuality as a nonidentity, as an instrument to overthrow the category of sex itself (Butler 1990: 136). However, sexual behavior has transformed into sexual personhood and has created something called the homosexual, or more contemporarily the
LGBT. Sexual identity from this perspective does not mean an unchangeable core, but an
interactive process of self-identification and social labeling (Epstein 1987: 17). This constructionist perspective has shown that sexuality is not universal, as assumed by essentialists, but needs to be placed in its own context.
Inspired by Foucault, Butler also tries to understand the influence of social norms on gender and sexuality. According to her, not biology, but a repetition of a series of acts genders the body (Butler 1988: 523). Biology does not determine behavior and gender has no essence. People make sense of what is biological, give meaning to it and create gender through social interaction. This is what Butler means when she says that people ‘do’ gender, instead of ‘are’ gender (Ibid. 521). How people do gender is shaped by expectations and expectations shape behavior over time (Ibid. 524). In their daily lives, people constantly unconsciously act to the expectations of gender which she calls performativityviii. Not only gender, but also sexual
orientation is a historical product. Because there is not existence prior to the act, performativity can be acting as the status quo but also provides the potential for resisting dominant social and cultural constructed norms around gender and sexuality. Butler deliberately tries not to speak of a sexual identity, as sexual acts as an identity is created by categories of oppression. Claiming a certain identity reproduces these structures. The body is not a passive victim of culture, but gender and sexuality are also not radical choices as public action (Ibid. 526). At the very same time she therefore acknowledges that claiming identity can also be instruments to fight oppressive structures (Butler 1993: 308). Butler and Foucault illustrate how sexuality is socially constructed in interaction with institutions and in interaction with each other.
When the gay rights movement started to claim political rights to freedom of sexuality, a dilemma arose: ‘how do you protest a socially imposed categorization [and overthrow a sexual order], except by organizing around the category?’ (Epstein 1987: 19). The rise of the political movements for gay rights and the simultaneous rise of queer studies, transformed sexual acts into a sexual identity. Identity is a relational concept. It is how the individual relates itself to
others and to their position in society according to social categories as class, race and gender (Ibid. 29). During the liberation movement, emotional and erotic desires became connected to a social meaning. People that were first identified as being defiant, began to claim rights for those desires as part of who they are (Ibid. 31, 32). While theory shows how sexuality is a social construct, political practice made the group essentializing their identities to legitimizes claims to rights. Epstein compares this to claiming rights for ethnic minorities like being black or Jewish (Ibid. 12). The meaning of ethnic identities is a social construct, but unlike sexuality, it is visible to the body and can be inherited. Claiming an essentialist core of the sexuality legitimized not being able to change and having the right to rights (Ibid. 20). While in nineteenth century European thought saw same-sexual desires as prohibited isolated genital acts, currently sexuality has become a stable and functional definition of identity (Sedgewick 1990: 83). The category the homosexual helps to organize people and share experiences of their own sexuality and identity, which makes them able to exist with the absence of genital activity. D’Emilio is even speaking of a desexualized lesbian and gay identity. In the US and other parts of the Western world, gay and lesbian culture has become even more like an identity connected to certain political, religious and cultural activities, which makes them in a way grow closer to heterosexuals (D’Emilio 1983: 248). Epstein takes the theory of Foucault a step further and shows how precisely sexual acts transformed into the sexual identity where current institutionalized rights frames are based upon and why people experience their sexuality as an essence.
A paradoxical situation arises when a group claims rights based on an unchangeable essence, which is at the same time a social construct. In liberation movements, people experience their sexuality as non-voluntarily desires and as a fixed identity they want to claim rights for. This has also led to criticism on constructionism. Constructionism cannot explain why there is a limited range of sexual scripts and how this process is limited (Epstein 1987: 24). It also does not explain why rational people in societies where non-heterosexuality is taboo and even prosecuted engage in what is seen there as perverse sexual behavior (Rubin 1984: 306). To understand the politics of identity it is therefore necessary to take an intermediate position and ‘recognize that these sexual identities are both inescapable and transformable, and are capable to give rise to a variety or political expressions’ (Epstein 1987: 34). Exporting the liberation movement actually substantiated constructionism. The liberation movement started to assume that there is a universality of sexual categories in which the West is most enlightened and from which other repressed LGBTs need to be saved (Massad 2002). The globalization of sexual acts as an identity in the Middle East, drawn from certain Orientalist assumptions about sexuality and oppression, ironically have led to new forms of repression instead of acceptance. Ironically,
instead of acceptance, this created local forms of repression. Just like Foucault described decades ago: what was at first hidden became in the public sphere forbidden.
Sexuality is experienced as an unchangeable sexual identity, because there is no biological essence prior to sexuality and there is also no person prior to being sexualized. That sexuality is a construct and not a biological essence does not mean sexuality is always a deliberate choice or can feel like a choice. What is possible of being experienced is embedded in power. But if sex is power, that means this power can be contested by becoming aware of some norms and acting against it. The rise of the sexual identity is both able to grant rights and improve the situation for LGBTs in society, but through essentializing their identity it did create certain norms of behavior that are reproduced. The social construct of sexual identity is created by an interaction of the personal and the institutional. Institutions shape sexuality, as Foucault illustrated, but institutions are also shaped by the expression of people. Butler explains even more than Foucault how people themselves are responsible for reproducing certain behavior until it is experienced as inherent to their identity. Seeing sexuality as a sexual identity on itself creates certain ideas of what sexuality entails and within which frameworks it can be expressed. In conclusion after the first theme is that seeing sexual acts and desires as a sexual identity is a social construct which creates and is created by certain social norms. Specifically institutions, which the IND is, have the power over how subjects see their sexuality. In Gender
Trouble, Butler asks herself the ‘Foucauldian question: what social practices and conventions
produce sexuality in this form?’ (Butler 1990: 131) With this question come two additional questions: how do subjects reproduce this power? And which powers are reproduced? These three sub questions she asks herself are notably suitable to research the relation between expressions and expectations of sexual identity in creating access. Slightly adjusted to this case the three sub questions to research in the field are the following. To understand how the IND presumes to be able to assess the credibility of someone’s sexuality, this research asks the question: what norms are present in the expectations of the IND on sexual identity? These norms shape the expectations of how sexuality manifests itself in individuals. It is necessary to first theoretically specify which current norms exist surrounding sexual identity. From these norms, certain researchable concepts will be deduced. Since the asylum procedure connects nationality to sexuality, the third theme will focus on inclusion and exclusion beyond sexuality. As social constructionism made clear, norms do not exist on itself, but are shaped in interaction. Therefore the second question researched in the field will be: how do LGBT-refugees and the IND
reproduce these norms in the asylum procedure? Because the asylum procedure is a power
structure that gives access to some and denies access to others, the last question asked is: whose
powers are being reproduced through these present norms?
2.3. Expectations of sexual identity: sex, emotions, self-identification
Above was explained how sexuality is seen as a sexual identity, but it is not yet clear when someone is seen as belonging to that certain sexual identity. The performativity of people claiming to be LGBT as a sexual identity has produced and reproduced certain aspects that are seen as inherent to that sexual identity. This internalization of norms makes it seem as if these aspects are universal to this sexual identity. This seemingly universality of sexuality is the basis of why the IND deems it possible to assess the credibility of someone’s sexuality in a universal manner. The fact that people have claimed rights for certain aspects of that identity, have institutionalized these norms and are further institutionalized by creating a bureaucratic system in which someone’s sexuality is assessed. The forms of expression that are commonly used to define someone’s sexual identity can be divided into three aspects: behavior, emotions and through self-identification (Middelkoop 2013: 155). These three aspects will be discussed to see if they are later on present in the expectations and expressions of sexual identity in the asylum procedure. As this part will show, the expressions that are seen inherent to LGBT within these aspects are based upon specific norms.
First of all, particular behavior is seen as inherent to a certain identity. Sexuality is linked to a certain combination of acts. Sexual acts with someone of the same sex is in the Netherlands seen as inherent behavior to lesbians homosexuality (Spijkerboer 2013: 225). Feminine behavior by men are connected to homosexuality, while masculine behavior by women is seen as stereotypically lesbian. Women holding hands is not necessarily seen as lesbian while men holding hands is often interpreted as a sign of homosexuality. Dressing up as the other gender is not seen as inherent to trans genders, but the surgery that changes sexual reproductive organs is seen as inherent to their identity. Behavior is not a steady factor to determine sexuality. Some acts might happen, but are not related to sexual desires and a sexual identity at all (Middelkoop 2013: 155). This is possible, because of cultural differences. In Pakistan it is normal for some subcultures that men have casual sex with men, while homosexuality as an identity is reacted to with extreme hostility (Verkaaik 2010). It is also possible that claimants experienced limited opportunities to find partners of preference which causes that they do not have experiences that would generally indicate a certain sexuality (Fobear 2015: 106). It is also possible that not circumstantial limitations, but an inner conflict of values and desires has caused certain acts to be absent. The focus on actions is problematic, because they are not static identity markers, but an ongoing process of representing and creating identity. The first aspect that needs to be researched in the field, is what expectations exists on behavior as inherent to a sexual identity and how this corresponds with the expressions LGBT-refugees.
Secondly, actions can be connected to feeling certain emotions for someone. Someone is not only seen as homosexual after the first time having sex with a men, having the first feelings of
love towards the same sex is also seen as an indicator of homosexuality. Sexuality through emotions can be present in sexual attraction and feelings or love towards someone of the same sex. However, many LGBT-refugees have been victims of sexual assault, which makes it difficult to talk in a positive way about sexuality. Furthermore, LGBT-refugees might suffer from internalized homophobia which comes from the daily fear of being discovered. The LGBT-refugee might have internalized negative social attitudes, which in extreme forms can lead to the rejection or denying of someone’s own sexual orientation or the feeling of needing to be heterosexual while having same-sex sexual encounters (Frost and Meyer 2009: 97). It is difficult for them to ever overcome this negative attitude and construct a positive self-image. This makes it difficult to talk about sex and sexual preferences during interviews with the IND (Fobear 2015: 106). The second aspect that needs to be researched is how emotions play a role in the expectations and expressions.
The last factor to define someone’s sexuality is self-identification and how people connect themselves to a certain identity. This is similar to what in daily life people call coming out of the
closet. In our society, heterosexuality is the norm. Coming out as LGBT seems to contest the
norm, because it requires openly claiming to be different. Coming out claims a certain agency in preventing to being ascribed a certain sexual identity. However, authority of the self-identification is limited, since unlike a skin color, sexuality is not necessarily visible and can therefore be doubted by the person coming out to (Ibid. 79). Self-identification can be internally and overtly (Middelkoop 2013: 155). Coming out requires both an inner and overt self-identification, as it presumes that someone connects themselves to a certain identity and possibly wants to make it public. Internally the person can feel they belong to a certain identity without necessarily showing it to the outside world. Overtly, the person can identify with a certain group, its cultural aspects and symbols (Spijkerboer 2013: 225). Wearing a rainbow flag, or dancing on a boat during the Amsterdam Pride are examples of those aspects.
Focusing on self-identification gives agency to the LGBT-refugee to claim their own identity instead of getting a label after expressing certain behavior or emotions. However, self-identification again has its limits. LGBT-refugees might interpreted a different meaning to homosexuality, because the concept has different cultural meanings (Middelkoop 2013: 168). Men that feel sexually or emotionally attracted to men could still not identify as homosexual, because they relate the word to certain behavior they do not identify themselves with. Possibly, they do not see sexual behavior as a sexual identity at all and do not experience the need to self-identify as LGBT. In different cultures, for example for the lower class Afro-Surinam women Wekker researched, sex is an activity and something someone does, instead of something someone is (2009: 14). These women do not reflect upon their sexual activities as a sexual identity that needs to be accepted and do not discuss their sexuality with their parents as a
coming out. The last aspect to be researched in the expectations and expressions of sexual identity, is the presence of inner and overt self-identification.
The expectations on how sexuality manifests itself through the individual, exist because of certain norms. Heteronormativity is the expected norm on what the family and male and female roles should be like. Heteronormativity normalizes the privileges of the heterosexual population by making it seem timeless and natural (Luibhéid 2008B: 296). Homosexuality is a binary opposition of that norm and in the asylum procedure causes homosexuality to be measures against heterosexuality. Striking is that homosexuality in the heteronormative asylum procedure does not contest heteronormativity, it reinforces it. This is possible because of homonormativity:
a politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them, while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption (Duggan 2003: 50).
This means that homosexuality in the Netherlands is accepted, but only if it takes shape of hetero norm, for example through a monogamous relationship (Mepschen et al. 2010: 971). Coming out of the closet has been an overarching consistency in the gay culture and identity and is in fact a product of the Western society (Sedgwick 1990). The gay movement has historically been dominated by white males who have created the hegemonic role of ethnic self-characterization for sexuality as a sexual identity (Epstein 1987: 22). The dominant picture of a person who is LGBT, is a white, middle class homosexual man (Wekker 2009: 9). Along came the expectation that all homosexuals go through stages of self-identification to show how they are different from the hetero norm but are also the same. Making a sexual orientation public and claiming a sexual identity is homonormative in the sense that an identity is claimed along the lines of being heterosexual to normalize specific behavior. Sedgwick even calls coming out of the closet ‘the defining structure for gay oppression in this century’ (Sedgwick 1990: 71). Those who decide not to come out of the closet, are seen as lying, secretly in the closet or still developing their sexuality (Wekker 2009: 11). Paradoxically, coming out and claiming this difference does not contest, but substantiates the system as it emphasizes that there is a normal and a defiant sexuality.
Even after receiving a temporarily residence permit in the Netherlands, LGBT-refugees might be treated as second class citizens in society with less rights than heterosexual citizens (Luibhéid 2008A: 175). Even though homosexuality and LGBT as an identity are increasingly gaining respect and rights, homosexual practices remain with an inferior status (Epstein 1987: 47). While through homonormativity homosexuality as an identity is becoming more and more accepted, by legalizing same-sex marriage and creating a gay-consumption culture, there is still a control over homosexual acts. Coming out is not only about identity, it is also about sexual acts.
Rubin claims that ‘sex is always political’ and sex creates hierarchal power relations (Rubin 1984: 267). The norms and values created in the past by institutions still produce a hierarchical system of sexual values that is reproduced in the sexual behavior of people (Ibid. 279). The government does not control the bedroom directly, internalized norms that make what people see as good and bad sex. Her charmed circle, in which she analyzes what kind of sexual acts are accepted (e.g. monogamous, heterosexual, married, couples) and what kind of sexual acts are seen as abnormal and unnatural (e.g. promiscuous, homosexual, casual, alone or in groups) (Ibid. 281). The hierarchy of sexuality where heterosexuality is the norm ‘grants virtue to the dominant groups, and relegates vice to the underprivileged’ (Ibid. 283). Sexual acts and sexual identity are interrelated, but norms and values can be different over sexual acts than over sexual identity. Additionally to the first aspect of behavior, the presence of norms about sex will be researched in the expectations as well.
Protecting a nation and establishing an asylum procedure is heteronormative. Heteronormativity is the protection and promotion of a state in a militarist, masculinist, race and class specific nation, based on notions of what the family should be like (Puar 2006: 69)
Genders and sexualities reflect the time and place in which they exist and the individuals who enact them. The expression of gender and sexuality is unstable, changing as the individual affects society and as society affects the individual (Abes & Kasch 2007: 621).
Because genders and sexualities reflect the time and space of a society and are unstable, deciding who receives asylum and who does not becomes a control of sexuality. According to Miller (2005) the asylum procedure only gives compassion to those who are worthy, opposed to those who are unworthy. Those who are worthy are the ones who have a clear distinctive sexual identity, while those who are unworthy are the queer asylum seekers who seek asylum on the grounds of their homosexual behavior. Fassin and Salcedo discuss that when experts try to determine the authenticity of some one’s sexual orientation or gender identity, they expose the LGBT-refugees to the ‘police of identity’ and a control of truth (Fassin & Salcedo 2015: 1121). Where they at first may never have considered themselves a certain identity, they become LGBT in the process.
‘And suddenly I became a lesbian!’ A young Jamaican woman ironically marvels at the brave new identity imposed upon her by the legal logic in Britain when she applied for asylum (…) Migrants interpret a role as they try to embody a part for those who interpret and categorize them—not only in public, but also in their private lives. Performing is part and parcel of intimacy (Fassin & Salcedo 2015: 1121 - 1122).
The expectations of the IND are shaped by the expressions of LGBTs but also shape the expressions of LGBT-refugees.
From the theory of aspects are connected on how sexuality is visible, it becomes clear that repetitions of certain expressions of sexuality have normalized and naturalized what is seen as inherent to certain sexual identity. These can be divided into three aspects. First, there are certain expectations on stereotypical behavior and sex. on. Second, there are certain expectations on emotions and feelings. Lastly, there are expectations on inner and overt self-identification that correspond with coming out of the closet. In the field work, there will be researched how these three aspects are visible in expectations and expressions of the sexual identity of LGBT-refugees. These norms are not only based upon repetition of expressions, they are produced by and reproduce hierarchies such as heteronormativity and homonormativity. LGBT-refugees might not necessarily meet these expectations, because their sexuality is constructed in completely different circumstances, which excludes them in the procedure. One of these forms of exclusions might be that people who apply based on their sexual acts are excluded while people apply for their identity are included. The IND has the power to construct what they see as a credible expression of sexuality, and these power relations will be researched in the second part of the research.
2.4. Access: the politics of sexual identity
The IND does not only bases its procedure on expressions of sexuality, in determining what they see as credible, they reproduce power relations. This is similar how Fassin describes how in getting access to asylum procedures, the body becomes a site of truth (Fassin 2011). In
Compassion and Repression Didier Fassin explains how in the asylum procedure, only the parts of
someone are emphasized that make them worthy of asylum. For some illegal migrants in France, the only way to get access to asylum is when they have a life-threatening illness. If an illness is not sufficiently treatable in their country of origin, they are in need of humanitarian aid and therefore receive a temporarily residence permit. This means that a group of undesired people is only allowed access when they are suffering. According to Fassin, this creates a politics of pity and control, a system that decides who is worthy of asylum and help and who is not (Fassin 2005: 366). In this process sick people are reduced to their suffering body and they have to go through a humiliating experience to win the right to exist (Ibid. 372). Instead of sickness, in this case, it is the sexual identity that is able to give compassion. In the procedure, the way to get access into the asylum procedure, is to express their sexuality in such a way that it is credible.
The fluidity of sexuality causes problems for determinations not only because of its mutable character but also because of the need to distinguish the worthy identity from the unworthy sexual practice, a recognition made more difficulty by being cross-boundary and cross-cultural’ (Miller 2005: 165).
The description of heteronormativity already illustrated that normative ideas on sexuality are interconnected with national borders. As Miller illustrates in the abovementioned quote, not only a credible sexuality plays a significant role in the asylum procedure, national and cultural boundaries determine the asylum procedure in the first place. The role of suffering determines who is worthy or not in the restricted asylum procedure. In contemporary refugee politics there is a constant suspicion which means that
all candidates for refugee status are now considered, until there is evidence to the contrary, to be undocumented immigrants seeking to take advantage of the generosity of the European nations’ (Fassin 2005: 370).
Sexuality is now not policed to pick out the fake heterosexual. In the asylum procedure, the sexuality is policed to pick out the fake homosexual and it is seen as likely that people would lie to take advantage of the system (Fassin & Salcedo 2015: 1121). Determining the credibility of sexuality and the need of asylum leads to a moral economy. The asylum-procedure is in fact a system to determine who is an economic migrant, a false refugee or even gelukszoeker (fortune seeker). The legitimacy of the suffering body is opposed to the illegitimacy of the racialized body or Other (Fassin 2001: 4). Not only economic security is influences asylum politics, cultural security is also a factor that influences the legitimacy of who is eligible for asylum and who is not. An important rhetoric of cultural security is that the civilized West needs to be protected from backwards Islamic traditions, as for example torture and death row, but also less threatening as inequality and veiling (Fassin 2005: 381). If the LGBT-refugees are not truly LGBT, they are not suffering and they turn into the undesired Other that needs to leave the Netherlands.
National heteronormativity is a regime of power all migrants experience, making them different, vulnerable and excluded (Luibhéid 2008A: 174). Heteronormativity and homonormativity are structures that reinforce this hierarchical structure. Homonormativity has on the hand depoliticized sexuality into a consumerist middle-class sub culture, on the other hand it reinforces certain hierarchies in queer communities (Puar 2006). These hierarchies are cultural and influence local, national and transnational levels. Crenshaw (1991) uses the concept intersectionality to explain how both gender and race influence the structural, political and representational aspects of violence against women of color.
The term intersectionality references the critical insight that race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as reciprocally constructing phenomena that in turn shape complex social inequalities’ (Collins 2015: 2).
Rubin adds that sex is also a category of oppression that cuts across other forms of social inequality and influences social stratification (Rubin 1984: 293). The field of intersectionality goes beyond acknowledging that identity categories are interlinked and tries to specify how
sexuality interacts with other systems of oppression (Gamson and Moon 2014: 52). Intersectionality provides frames to analyze social groups and their internal differences (Crenshaw 1991: 1242). Although all LGBTs experience social exclusion based on their sexuality, non-white LGBTs experience different forms of oppression. For example Beam (1986) explains how homophobia in black communities combined with racism of white gay men reinforce marginalization of black homosexuals. To understand the sexual politics of LGBT-refugees, it is necessary to not only look at the meaning of their sexuality but also of their nationality, ethnicity and religion.
The boundaries of a nation are not only physical, they are also non-physical cultural boundaries. The division of us versus us is an interplay between ethnic, racial, national and sexual boundaries. An example is the rhetoric that our women should be protected from sex with
their men and the fear of migrants as rapists (Nagel 2000: 109). These boundaries are protected
by laws, such as through restrictive marriage policies, but are also internalized social norms (Ibid. 113). Nagel uses this analysis to explain traditional heteronormative ethnosexual stereotypes of our pure women versus their slutty women, and our strong men versus their weak men. Paradoxically, accepting the homosexual ethnic Other reinforces these boundaries instead of challenging them because of homonormativity on a national level. This homonationalism became visible especially after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, when a dominant white, upper class homosexual group saw themselves as victims of terrorism and of an Islam that condemns homosexuality (Puar 2006: 70). This narrative that reinforced a geopolitical hierarchy that is similar to the legitimation of American imperialism in Afghanistan to safe the supposedly subordinate position of women in burkas (Abu-Lughod 2002). Homonormativity does not only exclude non-white LGBTs on a local level, it also reinforced ideas of a victimhood of LGBTs in non-Western countries.
More than in other countries in the world, the Netherlands claims to have shared tradition of
tolerance. This is based upon the idea that the Netherlands are liberal, while other countries are
more backwards (Mepschen et al. 2010: 964, 970). Especially when focusing on women’s issues and gay rights, the Netherlands sees itself as the modern self, opposed to fundamentalist countries that do not protect human rights. This tolerance is used to condemn foreign countries for not being tolerant, which creates a hierarchy (Luibhéid 2008A: 178). This idea is reproduced in the asylum procedure. The receiving country accepts the worthy victims, while the country of origin was repressing behavior (Miller 2005: 147). In the asylum procedure, the undesirables in one country become, once accepted here, the heroes or symbols of resistance (Fassin 2005: 374). The Netherlands appears to be humane in accepting those who truly need our help and it gives the illusion of an inclusivity. This in itself is reinforcing the legitimacy of an asylum procedure: ‘
The queer asylum seeker’s contradictory positioning is further exacerbated by the fact that ‘asylum . . . keeps migration exclusion morally defensible’ in the global north. In other words, the granting of asylum to select individuals — who must be few enough in number not to threaten dominant systems, but sufficient to lend credence to claims of first-world humanitarianism and democratic freedom — legitimizes exclusionary, repressive immigration control systems. (Luibhéid 2008A: 179-180).
With the asylum procedure, the Netherlands is creating a hierarchy by condemning other countries and keeping the policy restricted by only letting those in who do not contest the heteronormative boundaries. LGBT-people can only become ours, as long as they fit in the category of our LGBTs. In the asylum procedure, LGBT-refugees are not being saved to freely practice their sexual activities, they are saved to be liberated (Fassin & Salcedo 2015: 1121). In the asylum procedure, it will therefore also be researched what expectations are present on the suffering of the sexual identity because of religion, culture or nationality.
Because of homonationalism and the shared feeling of tolerance, it goes unnoticed that homosexuals with an immigration background within the borders might have different experiences of tolerance and are suffering from the asylum procedure itself. The creation of a site of truth in the asylum procedure emphasizes how important it is for LGBT-refugees to express their sexuality according to the expectations of the IND. If they fail to express their sexuality in a credible manner, they have to return to their country of origin where they face even severer oppression. It shows the how they suffer from a double burden. On the one hand, their sexuality is oppressed, but can create freedom in another country. On the other hand, if they do not express themselves properly, they are repressed everywhere. Acting accordingly to their oppression becomes their ticket to freedom. The interlocking system of sexuality and nationality will be researched in the field in different ways. First, there will be a part on how norms might be present in the expectations of how sexuality is related to religion, nationality or culture. This is an addition to finding out what norms are present in the expectations on sexual identity. Secondly, these norms are also additionally researched in looking at how LGBT-refugees reproduce norms. Lastly, this body of theory is fruitful to research what powers are being reproduced, since it demonstrates that norms on sexuality and nationality create a hierarchy of worthy identities in the asylum procedure.
2.5. Concepts to research
In summary, this research aims to explore the relation between the expectations of the IND and the expressions of LGBT-refugee’s sexual identity to get access in the Dutch asylum procedure. The theoretical framework consisted out of three themes: sexual identity, norms that influence sexual identity and how sexual identity and nationality are interconnected. The theory on sexual
identity enables to ask three additional questions. What norms are present in the expectations of the IND on sexual identity? How do LGBT-refugees and the IND reproduce these norms in the asylum procedure? And whose powers are being reproduced through these present norms? The research will be two folded. First, there will be an analysis of how norms are present in the expectations of the IND, through comparing the expectations with the expressions and where they differ. Three researchable aspects arose from the second theoretical theme to answer what norms are present: how behavior, emotions and self-identification are present in expectations and expressions. Additionally, the third theme added how religion and culture connected to a suffering identity as norms are present. The second part will focus how these norms are reproduced and whose powers are being reproduced. The last theme enabled to answer questions on the power relations of the asylum procedure as institution and who has access. This body of theory will help to understand how expressions of the individual shape the expectations of the institution and how expectations of the institution shape the expressions of the individual, and whose power is being reproduced in this shaping.
3. Methodology
3.1. Design
To research the abovementioned themes, qualitative research is most fitting. It creates space for discussing unpredicted topics and it enables to go in-depth and understand the complexity of what sexuality entails. There are three methods used for this research. First, there was conducted a limited range of participant observation at demonstrations, during a court case. in an AZC (asylum seeker center) and at meetings of interest groups. Although participant observation was useful to execute this research by finding participants and to get a better understanding of the case through experiencing it in its own context, this data is of less importance than the data of the other two methods. Second, official documents of the IND were analyzed to research the IND’s expectations in their own terms. Their public official Working Instruction 2015/9 (IND 2015) is analyzed and the sources on which the document is based upon. The additional interview questions of the Working Instruction 2015/9 are private. However, by looking into LGBT-refugees’ documents, transcripts of court cases, an academic research on their questions (Renkens 2018), and what the respondents could remember, questions that are frequently asked by the IND were obtained. There are no references to which question is taken from which source, because often the questions overlapped or were asked differently. Additionally, the transcripts of five public court cases on www.rechtspraak.nl in which refugees fight their negative decision contained the motivation of the IND for a decision. These documents helped to see what the IND says to expects from LGBT-refugees in order to decide about their credibility. Lastly, semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen
respondents that took between 30 minutes and two hours. The qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted by using similar adjusted lists of questions and themes, but using them as underlying guidelines to structure an interview, rather than chronologically going over themes. The respondents can be divided into two groups: people working with LGBT-refugees in their asylum procedure, and LGBT-refugees in the asylum procedure. The interviews with people involved in the asylum procedure for LGBT-refugees were about cases they have worked on and were used to collect data on both the expectations of the IND in practice and an overview of expressions of LGBT-refugees. There interviews with LGBT-refugees were used to collect their perspectives on the expressions of their sexuality.
3.2. Respondents: people working with LGBT-refugees
The eight respondents of people working with LGBT-refugees can be roughly divided into two groups: people working in the legal profession and people working or volunteering for interest organizations. All of the respondents agreed to recording, gave permission to use their real names in the research, and did not request to see the transcribed interviews before publishing. There were interviews with three lawyers that mainly focus on LGBT-asylum claims: Erik Hagenaars, Brian Lit and Marcel van der Linde. Fadoua Amouri also works in the legal profession, but is a legal assistant that does multiple migration cases but had worked on some LGBT-asylum cases. Four people working for interest organizations were interviewed, who all had to a certain extent worked with LGBT-refugees before. Lara Brant is a legal assistant of the Dutch Council for Refugees (Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland) who works at an asylum seeking center in Rotterdam and gives legal advice in the asylum procedure. Petra Schultz is an employee of ASKV Refugee Support Amsterdam, an organization that supports (rejected) asylum cases with legal aid and housing. Bo van Ladesteijn is an employee of Het Wereldhuis, a diaconic organization that supports and organizes activities refugees, specifically those who received a negative and have limited access to governmental support. And lastly, Sandro Kortekaas is the president of LGBT Asylum Support, an organization that helps LGBT-refugees in all possible forms and organizes demonstrations and petitions to change the asylum policy for LGBT-refugees.
There were different recurring themes discussed with the abovementioned participants, not necessarily in the same order. First, they were all asked about the practical aspects of the procedure, how it works and what their roles are. Secondly, expectations on behavior, emotions, relationships, self-identification, LGBT-groups, and cultural and religious aspects in the procedure were discussed. Thirdly, they were asked why not all LGBT-refugees meet these expectations and if they could give examples of cases. Lastly, it was discussed how they prepare LGBT-refugees for the asylum procedure. Other themes discussed were the scope of the problem
and if there are people who lie about their sexuality. Practical issues with the asylum procedure for LGBT-refugees often came up, such as homophobia or ignorance amongst IND officers and translators, the psychological and medical condition of LGBT-refugees, unsafety in AZCs and issues with the asylum procedure in general. They also tried to come up with suggestions for improving the procedure.
3.3. Respondents: LGBT-refugees
The six LGBT-refugees that were interviewed all applied for asylum based on their sexuality. Because all are from dangerous countries of origin, the emphasis of their procedure is on the credibility assessment. All respondents needed to have done at least one interview after the procedure changed in 2015 to be able to compare their experiences to the Working Instruction 2015/9. The LGBT-respondents all have been anonymized, some after specific request and others out of initiative of the author. This was done in consideration of their asylum procedure and their safety in relation to their country of origin. All the interviews were conducted in English. Ahmad is a homosexual man from Iran and had just received asylum after a prolonged procedure with an additional interview. Mostafa is a homosexual man from Egypt. His recently received the decision of his first procedure, which was a negative because the IND believed his sexuality not to be credible. At the moment, he was preparing to go to court. There were two female trans genders from Lebanon. Lucy received a positive decision. Although she is not religious, she has an Islamic background. Nicole had received an intention for negative, but her lawyer was fighting this with additional documents. She had a Christian background. Lastly there were Moses, a homosexual man, and Jessica, a lesbian woman, both from Uganda. Moses was denied asylum in two procedures. The last procedure was because of his sexuality. He remains in the Netherlands and wants to apply again. Jessica has already been in the Netherlands for eight years and applied for asylum based on her sexuality multiple times. The day before our interview she received another negative decision.
The reason to do in depth unstructured interviews with the LGBT-reasons is two folded. Firstly, although the informants are placed under the label LGBT, it is unclear how they identify with this concept. In the interviews, LGBT-refugees hopefully get the space to tell their own stories instead of being measured along presumed identity aspects. While the IND tests if they belong to a certain identity and has the power in the conversation, I want to discover how they construct their own identity and give them the agency over their stories. Secondly, story-telling is a powerful tool to bring attention to LGBT-issues and creates a counter-narrative to anti-refugee and homophobic sentiments, because it humanizes experiences (Fobear 2015: 103). Finally opening up about a part of themselves they were supposed to hide, can give a sense of pride and accomplishment. The themes discussed with the LGBT-refugees were slightly
