Experiences of LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers

(1)

Experiences of LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers

By Ruud Coumans

Master’s thesis in Sociology Track: Migration & Ethnic Studies

June 30, 2016

Thesis supervisor: Yannis Tzaninis Second reader: Sébastien Chauvin

Student number: 11080698

In this photo, ten LGBT asylum seekers in a former prison turned emergency shelter are shown. In December 2015, the group went on a hunger strike because they claimed to face structural discrimination and demanded better living conditions. The photo was posted on the Facebook page of Secret Garden, an advocacy group for non-Dutch LGBT people (Secret Garden, 2015; Secret Garden, 2016; Algemeen Dagblad, 2015).

Ruud.coumans@student.uva.nl +31611824133

(2)

2

Summary

Since the influx of refugees in the spring of 2015, there is an increasing amount of alarming news items on the vulnerable position of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers. According to several LGBT advocacy groups, LGBT people face discrimination, harassment and violence in the centers, and are failed to be adequately protected by the responsible state authorities. This thesis aims to bring insight how LGBT

asylum seekers experience their position in the Dutch asylum centers and tries to give a voice to a group which is mostly only talked about. Theoretically, this thesis also aims to incorporate and problematize the identity formation of a Western homosexual identity within Dutch asylum centers. Both goals share the purpose of understanding antigay discrimination and violence within the Dutch asylum centers.

This is done through interviewing 14 LGBT asylum seekers who are currently registered in a Dutch asylum center. Almost all respondents are homosexual men originating from the Middle East, with the exceptions of a lesbian woman and a transgender woman. Furthermore, all respondents are relatively young and most of them fled to the Netherlands primarily or

exclusively on the basis of persecution or prosecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI). The respondents were found through multiple ways, in which the assistance of LGBT Asylum Support proved to be most helpful.

The respondents unanimously agree that the Dutch asylum centers are not places where you can be open or free about your SOGI to other asylum seekers. Some respondents mention that they feel the centers are not Dutch but rather Middle Eastern spaces. A majority of the respondents encountered one of the following incidents based on their SOGI: name-calling, insults in public, robbery, being punched and kicked in body parts, sexual assault, attempted rape, death threats and attempted murder. It thus seems that many LGBT people are informally but structurally persecuted on the basis of their SOGI in the asylum centers.

Many respondents express that they didn’t feel supported by COA (the state agency responsible for the reception of asylum seekers) and security personnel when they would report incidents and complain about a lack of oversight. This emphasizes that the behavior and presence of the asylum center staff has an important effect on the wellbeing of an asylum seeker. A large majority of respondents tried or were trying to transfer to another asylum center after encountering discrimination or violence, and are often assisted by activist organizations. Most of the respondents also support the idea of the creation of a special LGBT center.

(3)

3

According to previous findings, the asylum assessment of SOGI-claimants expects asylum seekers to express and perform a notion of a homosexual identity. This identification process is often triggered or stimulated by asylum policies and activists interventions and are often

beneficial for a successful asylum claim and for the future integration in Dutch society. In the interviews, many respondents expressed to dislike the culture and dominant religion of their countries of origin. They often firstly self-identified as a LGBT migrant and identified with other gay migrants, and identified to a much lesser degree as someone with the cultural identity of their country of origin.

However, this research finds that incorporating and performing a queer identity increases vulnerabilities in the asylum centers. The rather radical changes in personal identities seem to produce a significant social distance from asylum seekers who do not (partially) denounce their cultural background. This swift change in cultural identity and the rejection of owns cultural background can consequently form a reason for some asylum seekers to discriminate or attack LGBT asylum seekers. To put it bluntly, LGBT asylum seekers are continuously inexplicitly expected and stimulated to incorporate a Western construction of a homosexual identity, but are at the same time insufficiently protected in the asylum centers when doing so. This highlights that we have to move beyond the ‘victim-perpetrator narrative’ and incorporate these produced vulnerabilities into the implementation of special reception needs for LGBT asylum seekers.

Acknowledgements

During my research, I visited many interesting places and met such special and strong people. Before I continue, I wish to thank some of them. First, I want to express my great admiration and gratitude to all the LGBT asylum seekers who took the courage to speak to me and share their intriguing stories. Furthermore, I wish to thank Sandro Kortekaas, Johan Grit and Carla Pieters for providing me with respondents and insights. I also thank Laurens Buijs and Sarah French Brennan for offering me different ways to look at my research. Finally, I cannot fail to mention my thesis supervisor Yannis Tzaninis for his dedicated and unremitting support.

(4)

4

Chapter 1: LGBT asylum seekers in peril

In the last ten years, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) asylum seekers are increasingly successful in applying for asylum in the Netherlands and other European countries, based on prosecution on their sexual orientation or gender identity in their countries of origin (e.g. Jansen & Spijkerboer, 2011). However, since the influx of refugees in the spring of 2015, alarming news items on the vulnerable position of LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers popped up in a vast array of media sources. According to several LGBT advocacy groups, LGBT people face discrimination, harassment and violence in the asylum centers, and are failed to be adequately protected by the responsible state authorities. COC Netherlands, the largest Dutch LGBT advocacy group, received reports from LGBT asylum seekers throughout the country, and sounded the alarm bell in a press release on October 22, 2015 (COC Netherlands, 2015). The allegations of advocacy groups resulted in severe public and political uproar, and spiraled debates on topics relating to the clashing of religious or cultural identities. Surrounding these debates, media and political attention seemed to be focused around particular incidents, which would be used to endorse very different problem indications and political solutions. However, a clear insight into the extent and mechanisms behind these incidents was doomed to be guesswork, as there were no recent public figures and research on this topic.

This thesis is first and foremost an attempt to provide an academic voice to this societal debate. While it is not my goal to give a quantitative overview or explain homophobic attitudes, I wish to bring insight in what way LGBT asylum seekers experience their position in the Dutch asylum centers. By doing this, I wish to give attention and a voice to some people that normally only people talk about. In the essay ‘Can the subaltern speak?’, Gayatri Spivak (1994) makes us aware that when talking about oppressed groups without talking with them, post-colonial discourses are only reinforced. Spivak’s critical notes are thus incorporated to avoid a paternalistic approach when researching oppressed groups. Through interviewing 14 LGBT asylum seekers who are currently registered in a Dutch asylum center, I want to better understand how and why some LGBT people experience discrimination and violence in the Dutch asylum centers. This leads to my research question: How do LGBT asylum seekers experience the Dutch asylum centers in an allegedly LGBT-inclusive asylum system?

In the following paragraphs, relevant theoretical insights are analyzed and combined, particularly to better understand the construction of sexuality through citizenship claims. The chapter that follows is an overview on the ‘Dutchness’ of the studied phenomenon, with a chronological summary of LGBT refugees in public policy, media, parliamentary debates and advocacy groups.

(7)

7

Although a short historical overview is provided for, the focus in the chapter lies on events occurred between the summers of 2015 and 2016. In chapter three, my methodology is discussed, such as the ways in which the respondents were acquired, a description of the respondents and limitations and ethical concerns. Chapter four forms the core of the thesis, as the quotes and situations conveyed in the interviews are analyzed. This analytical chapter is divided into five different sections: Concealing yourself as identity, experiences surrounding antigay discrimination and violence, narratives on incident intervention by state authorities, transfers and activists, and lastly a more subjective section on identities and outlooks. In the final, concluding chapter, links between theory and the analysis are made and new theoretical and practical insights are discussed.

Constructed sexualities and citizenship claims

For quite some time now, queer theorists have analyzed and criticized the constructed nature of our ideas on sexual orientation and gender identity. They argue that our Western paradigm of sexual orientation and gender identity are actually a social construct, which is constructed differently in many other parts in the world. However, many gay advocacy groups are

incorporating a Western construct of homosexuality into universal human rights discourses in many other parts of the world. Carl Stychin (2004) calls this “the export of the Anglo-American, “Stonewall” model of sexuality1_{, identity, and liberation.” (2004: 954). Key in this model is the} focus around ‘coming out’ as a cornerstone of identity formation, and the idea that sexual relations are of vital importance in identities. Immigration officials do not shy away from using this Western model on LGBT asylum applicants (Millbank, 2009; Jansen & Spijkerboer, 2011). This is problematic, since law scholars like LaViolette (1996) stress that “[t]here is no uniform way in which lesbians and gay men recognize and act on their sexual orientation” (1996: 15). The self-evident of sexual categorization has been criticized by David Valentine, as he makes his readers aware that the category of transgender is institutionalized as a way to create a collective identity and a means for political activism that consciously separates a gender identity from sexuality, which was and still is problematic for many people who do not separate these issues in their identity. However, the interpretation of transgender as a category is now paradigmatic in the minds of Western LGBT activists. This line of thought will also be applied in this thesis, which means that sexual orientations and gender identities are viewed as culturally constructed

categories in which asylum seekers position themselves.

(8)

8

In the chapter Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World in his acclaimed book Desiring Arabs, Joseph Massad (2002) offers a radical viewpoint on the construction of an international homosexual identity. The universalization of gay rights, mainly pushed for by gay movements dominated by white male Western advocacy groups such as ILGA, are what Massad calls the Gay International. These human rights groups and academic scholars try to “describe and explain ‘homosexuality’ in the past and present of the Arab and Muslim worlds”. (2002: 362). However, Massad argues that this ‘missionary’ and ‘orientalist’ mentality of the Gay International “produces homosexuals […] where they do not exist, and represses same-sex desires and

practices that refuse to be assimilated into its sexual epistemology” (2002: 363).

Massad’s radical critique on the contemporary paradigm of international homosexuality can be applied as a sociological attempt to better understand the formation of homosexual identities in Western asylum systems. In order to successfully apply for asylum in most Western countries, the reproduction of the Western notion of homosexuality is vital (i.e. Johannesson, 2012; Lewis, 2014). The asylum provision on sexual grounds is reinforcing this internationalized image of homosexuality and forces LGBT asylum seekers to internalize this notion of a homosexual identity as well. The asylum centers are generally places consisting of people with many different nationalities and cultural views, and can thus be viewed as internationalized spaces. Drawing on Massad, it may be the case that this Western view on homosexuality is produced in these international spaces while there might be a larger array of culturally constructed sexualities. So, how can these different cultural constructions of homosexual identities help us to better understand antigay discrimination and violence that appears to occur in some Dutch asylum centers? Specifically on antigay violence, Buijs et. Al. (2011) found that traditional gender and sexuality norms form the breeding ground for this specific type of violence. The researchers combined a survey of Amsterdam youth with in-depth interviews with smaller groups and individual attackers. Norms on gender and sexuality affect attitudes towards homosexuality, but

even perpetrators of antigay violence claim to have nothing against homosexuality. However, they “do not refrain from all sorts of violence as soon as they are confronted with aspects of it that collide with what they see as ‘normal’ gendered and sexual practices” (2011: 647). These practices relate to the often found rejection of four aspects that many consider to be inherently homosexual: anal sex, feminine behavior, public displays, and attempts to seduce.

Applying these insights into the lives of LGBT asylum seekers, it seems that conflicting gender and sexuality norms can thus cause or aggravate antigay violence. However, following the critique of Massad (2002), it may actually be the case that the ‘production’ of same-sex desires as

(9)

9

heterosexual- and a LGBT asylum seekers. It thus may very well be the case that this identity formation plays a role in the antigay discrimination and violence LGBT asylum seekers can experience. Thus, this thesis is a first attempt to incorporate and problematize the identity formation of LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers.

Furthermore, this thesis focuses on LGBT asylum seekers who are seeking to have their sexual citizenship claim legitimized by the state. The concept of sexual citizenship is often used to describe the claim on sexual rights by citizens, which are not always recognized by the state (e.g. Weeks 1998). In an attempt to theoretically combine this concept of legal and sexual citizenship, the concept immigrant sexual citizenship of Epstein and Carrillo (2014) is used. It aims to bridge the gap between sexuality studies and immigration studies and applies an intersectional approach into the concept of sexual citizenship (2014: 260). Epstein and Carrillo were able to describe three ways that Mexican gay and bisexual male immigrants to San Diego legitimized their stay in the USA. The first was the eligibility for asylum protection, but only for those “whose sexual otherness was, or could be made to appear, demonstrably legible as ‘feminine’ (and hence vulnerable) through embodied performance.” (2014: 265). The second way was to narrate the rights the immigrants claimed to have, both as an immigrant and as a gay person living in the USA. Lastly there was the focus on local attachments which could be deployed, in which immigrants would navigate through San Diego gay life and ‘learned their rights’ through this life.

While scholars such as Lewis (2014) have studied the impact of sexual citizenship narratives on the asylum process, the impact of these narratives on the daily lives of LGBT asylum seekers in the asylum centers has not yet been an object of study. This is surprising, since this may very well provide a theoretical explanation into experiences or choices of LGBT immigrants. In this thesis, the experiences of LGBT asylum seekers in the Netherlands will be linked to this concept of immigrant sexual citizenship, and strategies to have their citizenship legalized will be incorporated.

(10)

10

Chapter 2: The Netherlands: Asylum, LGBTs and politics

In this chapter, the ‘Dutchness’ of the situation of the studied phenomenon will be discussed. First, a general overview of the Dutch asylum centers and organizations will be discussed. Second, a short historical account will be studied of the turbulent history of LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers. Thirdly, a detailed overview is provided into recent events and debates surrounding LGBT asylum seekers, after which the role of activists organizations will shortly be discussed.

An overview of Dutch asylum centers

COA is “responsible for the reception, supervision and departure (from the reception location) of asylum seekers coming to the Netherlands.” (COA, 2016a) COA is an abbreviation for ‘Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers’ [Centraal Orgaan opvang asielzoekers]. There are currently over a hundred reception locations in about one third of Dutch municipalities (COA, 2016b). The central reception location is in Ter Apel, a small village in the northeast of the Netherlands, where COA houses asylum seekers after their arrival in the Netherlands. Here, the asylum seeker normally has an initial conversation with the IND, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, which reviews and decides in asylum applications. From there, the asylum seeker is usually placed in an asylum seekers center (AZC, asielzoekerscentrum). Currently, there are two different kinds of reception centers, the regular shelters and the emergency shelters. These temporary emergency shelters were created due to the high influx of asylum seekers, and are more ‘austere’. This usually includes less privacy than at a regular asylum center, and no means to cook for yourself (COA, 2016c).

The asylum centers vary greatly from each other. There are centers in former cloisters or

barracks, in caravans or semi-permanent living units (COA, 2016d). The location can also differ a lot, such as in a village, in a city or in the middle of the forest. Asylum seekers get a weekly allowance to pay for groceries, but in some centers food is distributed instead of letting the asylum seekers buy it for themselves. The asylum seekers are free to move but are bound to a weekly reporting requirement (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2016). In most asylum centers there are several organizations located. Private security company Trigion is hired to maintain (additional) safety and keep track of who’s visiting the center. The Asylum Seekers Health Centre (GCA, Gezondheidscentrum asielzoekers) is offering health care on site, which is free in most regular cases (Regeling zorg asielzoekers, 2016). Furthermore, the Dutch Council for Refugees

(11)

11

(VluchtelingenWerk Nederland) is primarily providing legal support on a mostly voluntary basis. Finally, in most cases there are local volunteers and (religious) support groups visiting the centers. Everyone living in an asylum center is informed and has to sign the house rules in the so-called ‘rights and duties’ conversation. On the COA webpage about safety within the asylum centers, the organization stresses the importance of an equal treatment: “In all reception centers, different cultures live besides each other, without exception. In accordance with article 1 of our

constitution, the fundamental thought is that everyone respects each other’s culture, belief and sexual orientation. In the house rules that every inhabitant signs, it is unambiguous that

discrimination, intimidation and violence will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, it is not always self-evident that all inhabitants respect each other. COA personnel will specify this and will take action against this2_{.”(COA, 2016e).}

In a letter of State Secretary Dijkhoff to the chairman of the House of Representatives, he elaborates on punitive measures by COA personnel (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2016). In 2015, COA held in weekly allowances in 7,225 instances, for a period of one to eight weeks. In 243 instances the access to the shelters was denied for a period of a week to three months. In cases of intimidation, discrimination and threats, access to the shelters will always be denied for at least a week. The letter mentions that COA staff will stimulate victims of violence and threats to step to the police. A COA employee is furthermore bound to report to the police when he or she witnessed an incident. However, the letter states that it is often not clear who the perpetrator is, due to fear of the victims and because COA staff cannot always present.

The most recent directive of the European Parliament and Council (Directive 2013/33/EU) on the reception of asylum applicants stems from 2013, and amended explicit protection for vulnerable persons in refugee reception centers. The specific situation of vulnerable persons3 should be taken into account and has to be implemented into national law. However, Member States themselves assess if an applicant has special reception needs. Appropriate monitoring of

2_{Original Dutch text: “Op alle opvanglocaties leven, zonder uitzondering, verschillende culturen naast}

elkaar. In overeenstemming met artikel 1 van onze Grondwet is het uitgangspunt dat iedereen elkaars cultuur, geloof en seksuele geaardheid respecteert. In de huisregels die elke bewoner ondertekent, staat dan ook eenduidig dat discriminatie, intimidatie en geweld niet getolereerd worden. Toch is het helaas niet altijd vanzelfsprekend dat alle bewoners elkaar in hun waarde laten. De COA-medewerkers zullen dit benoemen en hier ook tegen optreden.” (COA, 2016e).

3_{The Directive explicitly names the following vulnerable persons: “minors, unaccompanied minors,}

disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation” (OJ L180/106). LGBT people are not mentioned in this directive.

(12)

12

their situation is called for, especially if the vulnerable person is detained. The directive also obligates Member States to take gender and age-specific concerns into consideration within accommodation centers. Furthermore, Member States have to “take appropriate measures to prevent assault and gender-based violence, including sexual assault and harassment, within the premises and accommodation centers” (Directive 2013/33/EU, p. 105).

On the topic of LGBT refugees, the UNHCR’s 2008 Guidance Note states that “a person cannot be expected or required by the state to change or conceal his or her [sexual] identity in order to avoid persecution”. (Gray & McDowall, 2013). Although this guidance note applies in reviewing asylum claims, harassment by fellow asylum seekers based on sexual identity could also be seen as persecution. If indeed LGBT asylum seekers feel the need to conceal their sexual identity in asylum shelters, this may be seen as contradictory to the UNHCR Guidance Note and thus directly against international refugee protection standards.

LGBTs in Dutch asylum centers: a troubling history

The first policy note regarding LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch reception centers stems from 2001 and was called Paars over Roze (Purple about Pink, after the purple ruling coalition comprised of ‘blue’ liberals and the ‘red’ social-democrats) (Kampman, 2014). In a small paragraph, the note mentions that no special attention was paid to the placement of homosexual asylum seekers. According to Kampman: “[t]he fact that such a paragraph was included tells that problems might have been expected in such centers.” (2014: 91).

Twelve years later, the largest Dutch LGBT organization COC assessed the situation of LGBT asylum seekers (COC, 2013). The organization interviewed 29 asylum seekers and former asylum seekers, who were mainly from Uganda, Jamaica and Ukraine and were mostly gay men and women. They found that COA was generally not viewed as an organization where LGBTs could go to for problems regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity. The LGBT asylum seekers viewed the organization more for practicalities, not for personal contact. Several LGBT asylum seekers reported homo- or transphobic COA employees, for example COA employees who jeered at them, didn’t help them or ridiculed them. The vast majority of respondents was not open about their sexual orientation in the shelters, mainly because they experienced a homo- or transphobic climate. There were many instances of anti LGBT violence: five respondents were spit at, four shouted at, two thrown rocks at, two were pushed, one was severally assaulted at and one was victim of an attempted murder by assault with a bicycle. Many LGBT asylum seekers reported feeling unsafe and did not leave their rooms unless strictly necessary. Sometimes COA

(13)

13

employees offered transfers after the LGBT asylum seekers reported incidents, but solutions were not always offered.

In an international report on the position of LGBT asylum seekers, Sabine Jansen and Thomas Spijkerboer (2011) found vast differences in the way European member states examine LGBT asylum applications. One of their general conclusions was that on a number of points, the

practice of some European states was below international and European human rights standards. The report mainly focused on protection policies and the asylum procedure, but also shortly looked at the issues concerning LGBTs in asylum centers. Homophobic and transphobic harassment and violence against LGBT asylum seekers was a widespread and serious issue in most European countries. The report speaks of social exclusion, verbal and physical harassment, and sometimes even sexual abuse, mostly by other asylum seekers. The report also speaks about consequences on the asylum procedure: “Sometimes LGBTI asylum seekers are so afraid of other asylum seekers that they do not dare to mention their sexual orientation or gender identity to the asylum authorities; as a consequence they cannot be granted refugee or subsidiary

protection on that ground” (Jansen & Spijkerboer, 2011: 78).

Alarmed by these and other reports and news articles on the strenuous conditions of LGBT asylum seekers in the asylum centers administered by COA, the agency came up with an

agreement with COC Netherlands (COC Netherlands and COA, 2014). In this agreement, COA listed LGBT shelter inhabitants as a specific target group, because they are more prone to discrimination and aggression based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. COA and COC agreed on cooperating to improve the position for LGBT shelter inhabitants and to create a living environment in which LGBT shelter inhabitants are safe and feel safe. Both parties agreed on several action points. One of them was the task of COA to inform shelter inhabitants and COA-employees about the specific vulnerabilities of LGBT inhabitants. Another action point was that COA employees had to be aware and respectful of the need for support for LGBT shelter inhabitants. Also was agreed upon ways to ‘early signal’ problems regarding sexual

orientation and gender identity and upon the ways to punish perpetrators of discrimination or aggression towards LGBT shelter inhabitants. Two other action points were to increase safety through specific education and to incorporate sexual orientation and gender identity in housing practices. The last action point both parties agreed upon was that LGBT shelter inhabitants can go to COA confidant to talk about their situation and fear. This agreement was signed on May 14th_{, 2014 and is still active.}

Master student Tim Sandys (2015) researched the sexual orientation experiences of (former) gay asylum seekers in the countries of origin and in the Netherlands. He found that eight of the

(14)

14

twelve respondents hid their sexual orientation in the asylum centres because they didn’t feel safe enough to be open about it. Furthermore, he found that the gay men did not ‘return to the closet’, but “rather continue to deal with their sexuality how they dealt with it in their home countries.” (2015: 47). However, most respondents did disclose their sexuality to COA personnel at some point. One of them was victim of an attempted rape, and immediately was transferred to another place by COA after he told them. The respondents had quite different experiences with COA, and someone said you have to be lucky with the COA people you meet.

The influx of asylum seekers

Despite this agreement between COC and COC, things seem to have changed since the influx of asylum seekers in the spring of 2015. Confronted with an uncommonly large number of asylum applications in a short period of time, the Dutch government saw the need to create emergency shelters. For a short period of time, temporary ‘crisis emergency shelters’ with more limited provisions were set up in large complexes such as sport halls. About 6000 people have stayed in these crisis emergency shelters, but they were abolished in February 2016 due to the subsided asylum inflow (COA, 2016f).

The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (2015) wrote about the living situation in asylum centers, but LGBTs were not included in this report. The institute visited seven different crisis emergency shelters, emergency shelters and regular asylum centers. In its findings, it concluded that human rights standards were guaranteed and was impressed by the role of COA staff. However, the institute also concluded that there was a lack of privacy, a lack of allowances and a lack of structural ways to spend the day. There also were uncertainties about the length of asylum procedures and uncertainties about the moment that family members can come.

However, these uncertainties might have been created intentionally. Quoting professor emeritus of Sociology of Law Kees Groenendijk: “The level and duration of the sober shelter also serve the purpose to reflect the message that the Netherlands is not an attractive country to apply for asylum in.4_{” (Stoffelen, 2016). According to Groenendijk, the bad treatment of people in a} former emergency shelter in Nijmegen also served the purpose to achieve the goal of receiving fewer asylum seekers. It can have an effect that information about the living conditions in the asylum centers is actively shared with relatives who are living in the countries of origin. The

4_{Original Dutch text: “Het niveau en de duur van de sobere opvang dienen ook om de boodschap uit te}

(15)

15

Dutch government has always denied these allegations. However, State Secretary of Immigration Klaas Dijkhoff sent multiple letters to all asylum seekers summarizing their situation: The maximum time period for IND-decisions on asylum requests and family reunions is increased again, wealthy people may have to pay for their procedure and it can take ‘very long’ before people get their own house (Stoffelen, 2016). Furthermore, the scientific bureau of the ministry of Safety & Justice is currently researching ‘discouragement policies’, such as a research on the ‘strategies to discourage migrants to travel to a certain destination’ (WODC, 2016). These policies might be viewed as supportive to the argument of Groenendijk.

Debates and politics

On October 22nd_{, 2015, advocacy group COC Netherlands issued a press release based on} complaints of LGBT asylum seekers in which they sounded the alarm bell (COC Netherlands, 2015a). Accompanied with this press release, they sent a letter of emergency to State Secretary of Immigration Klaas Dijkhoff and urged him to take action. The COC recommended to take several action steps, the first one (and arguably the most controversial one) being the creation of separate shelters for LGBT asylum seekers who want this (COC Netherlands, 2015b).

However, the call of COC for the creation of separate LGBT shelters was not without controversy. In a letter to the House of Representatives, the State Secretary of Immigration worried that a separate shelter could be a target for new threats and called this solution ‘too stigmatizing’ (Klaassen, 2016). In line with the State Secretary, COA stressed that they wanted to focus on punishing perpetrators instead of isolating victims. According to their spokesperson, there are possibilities if an asylum seeker expresses to feel unsafe and desires to leave, but that this will only happen on an individual basis (Klaassen, 2016). The two governing political parties, the labor party (PvdA) and the right-wing liberal (VVD) party also expressed their support for Mr Dijkhoff.

In the months that followed, messages of maltreatment of LGBT asylum seekers in shelters kept popping up in the media. While the asylum seekers themselves did mostly abstain from speaking out in the media, advocacy groups like the COC and LGBT Asylum Support kept the discussion going (e.g. EenVandaag, 2016). In February 2016, the COC sounded the alarm bell again, this time because a gay asylum seeker received a small letter with a death threat. A spokesperson from the COC noted: ‘If something doesn’t happen fast for gays in asylum centers, people will die’ (Omroep Gelderland, 2016).

(16)

16

These stories by advocacy groups led to the creation of a motion in the House of

Representatives, which provided for the ability to create a special shelter for ‘LGBT people, Christians and other vulnerable individuals’. (Tweedekamer.nl, 2016). On March 1st_{, 2016 the} motion was passed 72 to 67 with the support of two small Christian parties because of the explicit reference to Christians that was added in a new version of the motion. While the

governing labor party (PvdA) eventually supported the motion, the other liberal governing party (VVD) remained opposed together with their State Secretary of Immigration Klaas Dijkhoff (Mebius, 2016).

Four weeks later, State Secretary Dijkhoff replied to the motion for special shelters in a ten page letter to the chairman of the House of Representatives (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2016). In the letter, the State Secretary acknowledged that there have been several incidents surrounding asylum seekers but opposed the motion of the House of Representatives:

“The government attaches value to the stand point that it is of no added value to

standardly provide a separate shelter for entire groups of vulnerable asylum seekers. This is not fitting to the way we live together in the Netherlands and does not do justice to the position of these groups. Isolation of vulnerable groups of victims from these groups is a wrong signal and can have a stigmatizing effect.” (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2016, p.5). 5

Since the letter stressed that everybody should feel safe in the asylum centers, the State Secretary introduced new measures. COA has set up a training trajectory to inform staff about increased efforts and what ‘behavior modification’ is expected of them. However, a more surprising measure was the creation of separate shelters for asylum seekers who are causing problems. In these shelters there will be a more severe regime, with possible measures like a daily reporting requirement, mandatory courses on behavior modification and no weekly allowances. This plan was immediately coined as ‘aso(cial) asylum centers’ (Aso AZCs) in many media (e.g. Geels, 2016), and is not yet implemented. The letter explains that in some cases, custom-fit solutions apply, like some LGBT people who are placed in a separate wing in some asylum centers. The State Secretary thinks that COA is now better equipped to guarantee safety as much as possible,

5_{Original Dutch text: “Het kabinet hecht daarbij aan het standpunt dat het geen meerwaarde heeft om}

standaard te voorzien in een aparte categoriale opvang voor hele groepen kwetsbare asielzoekers. Dit past niet bij de wijze waarop wij in Nederland samenleven en doet ook geen recht aan de positie van deze groepen. Isolatie van kwetsbare groepen of slachtoffers uit die groepen is een verkeerd signaal en kan een stigmatiserend effect hebben.” (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2016, p.5).

(17)

17

but also stresses: “[A]n environment without incidents cannot be offered, just like it’s the case in Dutch society.” (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2016, p.6).

LGBT advocacy in the Netherlands

Being the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, the Netherlands have been known for their favorable attitudes and policies towards different sexual orientations and gender identities (Hekma & Duyvendak, 2011). LGBT emancipation historically has been a project of progressive, mainly left wing politicians and activists (Davidson, 2015). However, several scholars notice a recent trend in which LGBT politics is used by right-wing populist politicians (El-Tayeb, 2012; Puar, 2013; Mepschen et al, 2010). Muslims are framed as non-modern subjects by these politicians, which can be understood in relation to the ‘culturalization of citizenship’ and the rise of Islamophobia in Europe (Mepschen et al, 2010). In this case, the often Islamic Syrian young male refugee is portrayed not only as homophobic and non-Western, but also as violent and dangerous. Media and politicians who use and reinforce this image seem to exert a form of homonationalism, where “‘acceptance’ and ‘tolerance’ for gay and lesbian subjects have become a barometer by which the right to and capacity for national sovereignty is evaluated” (Puar, 2013: 336). Hence, homonationalism can be seen as a right-wing strategy to preserve existing social boundaries through portraying gays and lesbians as being victimized by homophobic outsiders. Bearing homonationalism in mind, it might be the case that media and politicians consciously or unconsciously framing asylum seekers as threatening for LGBT people for different motives. Besides COC Netherlands, two other activists’ organizations play their own role in the lives of many LGBT asylum seekers. A relatively new, all-voluntary NGO is LGBT Asylum Support, which mainly operates in the northern part of the Netherlands and of which chairman Sandro Kortekaas is actively present in current debates. Kortekaas appeared in several newspapers, television- and radio interviews, continuously advocating the vulnerable position of LGBT asylum seekers in the asylum centers. The organization supports LGBT asylum seekers who just arrived in the Netherlands. As their website states:

“We defend the rights of the LGBT asylum seekers, get them out of their isolation and guide them in the asylum process; we train them to be open just for this procedure about their sexual orientation. Something that’s contrary to their instincts to survive (LGBT Asylum Support, 2016).

Typical for the approach of this NGO are their activist ways of operating, an approach which was continuously reflected upon by several informants I spoke with. Their activist approach

(18)

18

became recognizable when the organization relocated a group of ten LGBT Asylum Seekers from the asylum center in Alphen aan den Rijn to privately-funded rooms in an elderly home in

Rotterdam (Andriessen, 2016). This place is currently the only existing shelter which is not funded by government funds and was visited by two members of parliament (Rijksoverheid, 2016).

The other voluntary organization who made a difference in the lives of many LGBT asylum seekers in ‘Secret Garden’. This “is a foundation of and for LGBTs with an ethnic-cultural background, and sympathizers based in Amsterdam” (Secret Garden, 2016). The organization is headed by Emir Belatoui, and is mainly operating in and around Amsterdam. While the

organization is not as visible in current media debates as LGBT Asylum Support, according to several informants the organization has a long and successful history of placing LGBT asylum seekers outside the asylum centers, in the homes of volunteers.

(19)

19

Chapter 3: Methodology

This research concentrates on LGBT asylum seekers in the Netherlands who are currently in their asylum procedure, or who just finished their procedure and are waiting for social housing. It was an explicit choice to only interview people who were still involved in the asylum system on the date of their interview, as I wanted to link their stories to the current influx and debates around new asylum seekers. This choice allowed me to speak to people whose familiarization to the Netherlands and Dutch language is still in early stages. The main method that was used was interviewing, although one interview was combined with four respondents and can thus be regarded as a focus group.

The respondents were approached through various ways. After initial contact with COC and Secret Garden did not yield results, chairman Sandro Kortekaas and secretary Johan Grit from LGBT Asylum Support expressed their interest in my research. The initial meeting I had with secretary Johan Grit was joined by several people, among them Sandro Kortekaas and some other volunteers. A week after this meeting, I went with Sandro Kortekaas to the LGBT shelter in an elderly home Rotterdam, where I stayed overnight and interviewed my first respondent. In an attempt to reach out to other activists, I called Carla Pieters, an Amsterdam-based lady who is doing voluntary work for LGBT asylum seekers for over twenty years and cooperates with Secret Garden. She also expressed her interest in my research and invited me to come to her home. A week after our initial meeting, she called to let me know that I could interview a friend who was visiting her. After this interview, eight respondents were provided to me by Sandro Kortekaas and Johan Grit. Both men asked several LGBT asylum seekers in their database if they were open to talk to me. If the asylum seeker agreed, they would send me their telephone number or email address, which allowed me to make individual appointments. Another three respondents were found through snowballing methods, which was done by searching for new respondents through the networks of previous respondents (Hennink et al., 2011; 100- 102). The last respondent was acquired through attending a Queer Talk on LGBT asylum seekers, hosted by university lecturer Laurens Buijs in the public library of Amsterdam.

Description of respondents

All 14 respondents were currently registered in a Dutch asylum center, but a large minority of them stayed at a place outside the center for a majority of the time. Almost all respondents were male, with the exception of one respondent who identified as a straight transgender woman and the last respondent who identified as a lesbian woman. Two respondents were questioning their

(20)

20

sexuality, neither fully identifying as bisexual or homosexual. The rest of the respondents all self-identified as either gay or homosexual. Furthermore, all respondents fled to the Netherlands primarily or exclusively on the basis of persecution or prosecution based on their sexual orientation, with the exception of the four Syrian respondents, who (also) identified as war refugees. The respondents were relatively young, with ages ranging from 20 to 32 with an average age of 27.7. Furthermore, all respondents originated from the Middle East, with the exception of Laura who is from Uganda. A detailed list of the background of the respondents is provided in Appendix A on page 67.

Of the 14 respondents, five successfully finished their asylum procedure and got a permit to stay for five years, after which their asylum case will be reviewed again. Six respondents were waiting to start the review of their asylum case. These people had had their initial conversation about their identity and travel history with the IND soon after arrival in the Netherlands, but they were waiting for an appointment to discuss their actual asylum claim. Two of my respondents already had their conversations with the IND about the content of their asylum case, but they were still waiting for a decision. One respondent had his asylum claim rejected twice, and is now pursuing a new asylum claim based on his HIV-condition.

A majority of the respondents were university students in their countries of origin, almost exclusively majoring in either engineering or computer sciences. The other respondents finished their university studies and were working as an accountant, manager in a large corporation, engineer, employee at a foreign embassy, and university teacher. Many respondents expressed that they had a good life in their country of origin in terms of employment and income. This indicates that my respondents were of relatively high class, which also explains that many had a strong English language proficiency and possessed the resources needed to make the trip to the Netherlands. With the exception of Karam and Laura who came by plane, twelve respondents made the trip by land by crossing the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Greece by (often improvised) boats, and then crossed the Balkans and Alps region either by foot or train. Almost all respondents then registered as an asylum seeker in Ter Apel, the only place to register when entering the Netherlands by land.

Interviews

The respondents I contacted through Whatsapp all expressed sincere interest in participating in my research, which made making appointments fairly easy. After explaining the aim of my research, I would let them pick the preferred location, but I would also mention that meeting at

(21)

21

their asylum center was a possibility. This allowed me to held nine interviews inside four different asylum centers, which made it possible to also get a glimpse of the living conditions of my

respondents. Two other interviews were held at coffee bars, one in an elderly home and one in the apartment of Carla Pieters. In one asylum center I anticipated to interview a same-sex couple, but another same-sex couple appeared to also live in the same housing unit. Since all four men showed great interest in participating in the research, I ended up treating this interview as a focus group. Whenever I would visit an asylum center, I would dress inconspicuously, as initial research highlighted that outfits of guests that could be perceived as queer could potentially compromise the respondent’s safety.

Every interview was structured the same way. After I introduced my research topic and aim in some short sentences and guaranteed anonymity, I would ask permission to record the interview with my mobile phone for transcription purposes. The respondents were fine with this with the exception of one respondent, who was not feeling comfortable with the idea, which made me resort to writing his story and some quotes on paper. The stories of some respondents who were acquired through LGBT Asylum Support were previously covered in news media, which made me have more information about their situation at the start of the interview. However, I tried not to fall back on this knowledge, since I wanted the story of my respondent to speak for itself. This media coverage does allow for a comparison between the stories in the media and by the

respondent in the analysis.

In order to apply a clear but open structure in the interview for both me and the respondent, I applied a semi-structured interview style with a chronological approach (Hennink et al.,

2011:112). This means that I started out with questions about where and when they arrived in the Netherlands. Then I would walk the respondents through the different asylum centers they visited. If the respondent stayed somewhere longer than just a few hours, I would ask how the situation was in this place. In the answers I would check if the respondent touched on the following key topics: Daily life, friends, people at the center which they had problems with, whether they shared their sexual orientation with COA and/or other people, the feeling of being safe, if possible incidents were encountered and how COA responded to these incidents. I tried to touch on all these themes for every asylum center the respondents lived in, which often lead me to revisit previous answers with some probing questions.

After addressing and evaluating the previous and current asylum centers the respondent lived in, I would ask contextual questions. Without a strong particular order, the following topics were discussed: Homophobic attitudes, contact with activists and the way they operated, image of the Netherlands, outlook on their future life, possible advice for other LGBT asylum seekers,

(22)

22

possible things that should change in the asylum center and in what way their experiences in the Netherlands changed them. In a number of these topics, the focus was more on why the respondent thought things are happening the way they do instead of how they happened.

Interestingly, by applying this different way of questioning, some respondents would revisit their shared experiences and disclosed some profound insights in these situations.

In my initial meeting with the people from LGBT Asylum Support, I met an Iranian activist who stressed the importance of building trust with my respondents, and explained that many asylum seekers did not see clear distinctions between governmental organizations, activists groups and researchers. To circumvent this, I applied several rapport building strategies (Hennink et al., 2011:124 - 125). The first one was letting the respondents pick the interview location, which was a way to meet in an atmosphere where they felt they could speak freely. Furthermore I would try to keep the atmosphere not too heavy by making innocent jokes and by gradually shifting between heavier and lighter topics. I casually dropped personal information, such as my relationship with my boyfriend or knowledge I have about gay dating apps or clubs. The respondents often showed interest in my own life, which made for interesting conversations about the differences in cultural views on homosexuality. My own sexual identity and knowledge about the Middle East I gained through a previous internship6_{certainly helped that the}

respondents and I were able to relate to each other.

The interviews lasted one hour in average, with the big exception of the focus group which lasted for over two hours. However, the time I spent with the respondents before and after the

interview varied greatly. At some places, I would stay the whole afternoon, especially when the respondents suggested that they liked my company. This can also be explained because many respondents felt isolated and simply had nothing else to do. The setting after the interviews was always very informal, and in many cases stories about the lives in their home countries and struggles with their families was shared. In several cases it felt that the longer I was with the asylum seeker, the more they would open up to me. This was especially the case with an Egyptian gay asylum seeker I met in the elderly home in Rotterdam where I stayed overnight. I sat with him for hours in his room, hearing his stories about his imprisonment and the psychological damage he endured while I helped him do the laundry. But after he shared his hard stories and

5 _{From October 2014 to July 2015, I followed an internship at the Dutch Council for Refugees}

[VluchtelingenWerk Nederland]. Here I provided asylum lawyers with country information for their asylum cases, with a specialization in Middle Eastern cases. My knowledge about the regions geography, ethnic and religious structure and treatment regarding LGBT-people proved to be quite beneficial for

(23)

23

we build up quite some rapport, he still was not open to be interviewed by me about his experiences he had in the Dutch asylum centers, as this topic was too sensitive for him and he wanted to move past that.

All the interviews were conducted in English, which is neither the respondent’s nor my first language. However, the fact that Dutch is my personal native language proved to be beneficial, since I was able to understand Dutch words the respondents used when they talked about their asylum procedure. If I would have to assess the English language proficiency of the respondents, six respondents were able to understand most of my questions and could express themselves reasonably easy, while the English language proficiency of another five respondents was not significantly different from mine. Two of the respondents spoke English in a quite basic way, asking me to rephrase many of my questions. In the interview with Samal, English proved to be a big obstacle, as he was not able to understand or answer almost any of my questions. This

problem was partially resolved by using a translating app (English to Arabic), where I would type in my question and the respondent would answer through this app. However, this method proved to be very time consuming and leaving very little ways to go into depth. The automatic translations of the app also did not prove to be foolproof, as there often was confusion about translation complications. However, due to some highly sensitive and remarkable information that was conveyed, I still decided to include this interview in the research.

Before I started interviewing, I estimated the total amount of interviews to be somewhere around ten to fifteen. However, in determining when to stop interviewing I applied the theoretical principle of ‘saturation’, a moment during gathering data where the collected data starts repeating itself (Hennink et al., 2011:88 - 90). After recording the very first interview I started transcribing the interviews. Whenever a transcript was finished, the interview was coded using the quantitative research program Atlas.ti. I mainly resorted to the use of inductive coding, in an attempt to let the data speak for itself (Hennink et al., 2011:218). Besides interviewing, I had multiple

theoretical based conversations with university lecturer Laurens Buijs and PhD-student Sarah French Brennan, who are also researching this topic and were able to let me make theoretical links in my data I did not see before. I also had numerous informal conversations with field activists and COA-employees at the asylum centers I visited, which I was able to use during writing both in the theory and analysis section. I also attended an open interview by Laurens Buijs with Ugandan refugee Laura in the public library of Amsterdam, who was meeting my criteria for selecting respondents and gave me permission to use her story in my research. Lastly, an observatory visit was made to an asylum center which has a special LGBT-division.

(24)

24

Limitations and ethical concerns

The methods used for acquiring respondents proved to be successful in their outcome, despite the initial limitation of heavy topic of my research, especially for people who experienced harsh or traumatizing events. Two asylum seekers I approached showed interest in talking to me, but retracted when they learned the topic of my research. This means that there is a slight bias in the research since I only spoke to people who were open to talk about this topic. Halfway during my period of interviewing, I expressed my concern of only talking to respondents who did not have traumatizing experiences in the asylum centers to Sandro Kortekaas. He understood my concern, and sent me the contact information of seven new respondents that same day. The stories of the six respondents I interviewed from this new contact information indeed seemed heavier and more extreme. This resulted in a diverse group of respondents in terms of the hardship the respondents experienced in the asylum centers.

The activists I cooperated with all made a dedicated and trustworthy impression on me. However, they were also stake holders in the outcome of the research, as research outcomes critical of governmental policies would potentially be beneficial for their cause. Although the activists were able to select a substantial part of my respondents, there was little to no influence by the activists on the actual content of individual interviews. This especially was highlighted when respondents were critical of particular activist organizations: In almost every interview both praise and disapproval was expressed to individual activists or their affiliated organizations. Furthermore, I would have probably been able to gather all my respondents through LGBT Asylum Support, but due to abovementioned concerns I made a particular effort to find a substantial amount of respondents outside from this organization. Consequently, while I do acknowledge the potential conflict of interest of those who provided me with respondents, it is my goal to give a detailed impression of the experiences of my respondents rather than to provide a random cross section of my population.

As was mentioned before, at the start of each interview anonymity was promised. Initially I figured that the use of pseudonyms would be sufficient for this. However, through the process of interviewing and writing, I learned that I had to scale up my efforts to be able to deliver on this promise. Some respondents shared very sensitive information, in a few cases even information that could have a potential impact on their asylum case. Furthermore, I learned that many respondents were not open about their sexual orientation to their families or the people around them, and that a revelation of their sexual orientation could pose severe dangers such as an honor killing. This led me to revisit choices about the openness of geographical details in my research (such as the location of asylum centers) and details about the work and personal lives of the

(25)

25

respondents. Furthermore, the recordings and transcripts of the interviews were not shared with anybody.

Due to the sensitive nature of my topic, the respondents had to be open to address and revisit certain events that could have very well been traumatic experiences for them. Indeed, some respondents used the terms ‘trauma’ and ‘nervous breakdown’ to describe their feelings at particular moments in the asylum centers. However, most respondents talked about these

situations with relative ease, and were seemingly used to sharing these experiences. A respondent named Samal was an exception to this, as his posture and the way he talked about his problems showed clear signs that it was painful for him to answer my questions. I interpreted his

participation to my research as an attempt to change his situation, which alarmed me and made me contact our intermediary Sandro Kortekaas with Samal’s approval. In another interview, I brought respondent Habib in contact with Carla Pieters from Secret Garden, as worries of his failed asylum requests together with his HIV-condition were repeatedly brought up in the interview. This decision proved to be successful, as the respondent visited Carla’s place multiple times and was thankful for me to have found him a new friend.

However, the abovementioned cases were an exception to my approach as an independent researcher. Other respondents expressed discomfort with their current situations in interviews as well, but I made the personal assessment that they were sufficiently embedded in support

networks. Also I concluded that the difference I could make for them would have been much smaller than the activists could who were already in contact with them. I nonetheless stayed in contact with many respondents over Whatsapp after their interview, which sometimes would result in important new data. Some respondents even expressed their desire to stay in contact with me after the interviews, which I embraced to an extent that I’m still talking to them sometimes.

Many respondents were skeptical whether this research would contribute to improve their lives, which sometimes led me to use activist narratives to persuade them in participating. Looking back however, I should have opened a more realistic dialogue about my position and temper their expectations about the potential effects a master thesis in general can have. However, I think that participating in my research may very well have been a positive experience for many of my respondents. Many of them expressed anger and frustration by the way they were treated, and were happy to be offered a platform on which they felt heard and useful. Therefore I think that this research succeeded in its aim to give a voice to those unheard.

(26)

26

Chapter 4: Analysis

In this chapter, several key themes that often play a role in the lives of LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers will be analyzed. First I will focus on issues around concealing and coming out with a gay or lesbian orientation in Dutch asylum centers. After this, several experiences with being (forcefully) open about your sexual orientation or gender identity will be discussed. This section will be followed by narratives on the reactions and actions of COA and police personnel. In the fourth section I will share several stories on transfers and intervention practices of

activists. Lastly there is a section with statements regarding being LGBT in the Netherlands and on what should change in the asylum centers. In their quotes, the respondents often use the Dutch abbreviation AZC, which stands for asielzoekerscentrum [asylum seeker center].

4.1 Concealing yourself as identity

In this section, several stories on concealing one’s sexual orientation will be highlighted. I will sum up some specific stories about how the sexuality of the respondents was made public. Afterwards, the experiences with a (forced) coming out will be discussed. Somebody who did not have negative experiences in the asylum centers was Nasir (24, Syrian). When I ask him if

something bad happened in his asylum center, he tells me:

“Actually no, because I was good at pretending. And I don't look feminine or I don't speak in an effeminate way. So that was easier. You know? But for a lot of guys it's not. I know a lot of guys who really faced a lot of problems and troubles and they got a lot of comments and threats. Because they are like this, they cannot help it. […] I didn't come here to put make up and walk in the street. Which is not bad, not wrong at all, I accept it, but it's stupid sometimes to be in the AZC and put make up. Ok? […] As long as you hide it, it's fine, you are one of them, and no, when you're like the faggot, you will be threatened and beaten. Yeah absolutely, when your shape or appearance tells that you're gay, of course the possibility is to be in a bad situation or be threatened or whatever.” In this quote, Nasir makes it clear that the way you look has an impact on your safety in the asylum center. Since he was passing as straight, people didn’t suspect that he is gay. He also notes that this is not possible for many other people, especially for many transgender people. There seems to be a culture inside many asylum centers where being openly LGBT is problematic. Tariq (27, Iraqi) eloquently puts it this way when he tells about his first asylum center:

(27)

27

“It was a very nice place for normal refugees. […] But for us, as a gay refugees, we fled from the bad culture, from our countries, and people from Middle East who have closed mind. So, when we came to the AZC, we saw it is nothing different. The same people, the same minds. So it was, how do you say it, dangerous, and we must be careful, the same in Iraq. Nothing changed. So even until now I talk with [Rafi] and I told him: "Until now, we didn't see the Netherlands". When we go inside the community and being integration of the community that will be we are in the Netherlands. Until now we are in the Middle East. Because all people here is Middle East and have the same minds and must we act, must we have two faces. […] We must face who we are, the real face, and the other face, you must act to be straight, when other people talk with you about woman bodies.” Tariq and his partner Rafi (24, Iraqi) both fled from Iraq due to their sexual orientation, and Tariq explains in this quote that he feels that they are still embedded in a Middle Eastern

mentality considering the way homosexuality is viewed. That’s why he feels that he has to use two different personalities. He feels he has to pretend to be straight, which also means that he cannot be open about his relationship with Rafi. Rafi put it this way:

“Yes, when we arrived here, we wear the same clothes, we are in the Netherlands ok? But after that, we got a lot of problem: ‘Why you wear the same clothes?’ Even when we was in [asylum center, rural] we share with straight people: ‘Why you eat together, why you cooking for [Tariq]?’ […] ‘Why are you doing things for [Tariq]?’ Therefore it was very strange. I was in winter, we wear the same clothes, but now with summer we didn't do the same.”

Besides not showing public displays of affection, Rafi explains that they also felt they had to change the way they dressed, as they initially were wearing the same outfits. This highlights that ‘straight acting’ both includes the things you say, but also the way that you dress. In the following quote, Tariq and Amin discuss how this hiding and ‘straight acting’ impacted them:

Tariq: “We always lock the door and feel we're on the same things that we fled from. The same bad things. And we think from the first time, from the first moment, I enter

Netherlands, I think my life will begin, will start.”

Amin: “So you open yourself. Because you get the rest, because you are safe. But after you get open…”

Tariq: “Until now, after eight months, I still in the same things, in the same situation, in the same afraid, the same fear inside of me. Because now I'm afraid if anyone know about my sexuality here. It will be very dangerous on me. […]

(28)

28

Amin: “There's no personality. We can't speak. We are shy. And we lock our door. That's how it affected our personality. We become weaker.”

In this quote, Tariq shows to be deeply disappointed that he feels he is in the same, unsafe situation for the last eight months now. In Iraq he had to live in fear that people found out about his sexuality, and he still lives with this fear. Amin explains how the fear that people found out about their sexual orientation made them shy and weaker. Furthermore, Amin locks his door, and tells me in the interview that he wants to get out of his room as little as possible.

Coming out against your will

The strategy of staying in your room as much as possible and acting straight is used by more respondents. For example, Habib (32, Jordanian) told me the same:

“I have to live in this way, I look very straight. I do nothing in the center, I stay in my room, it’s very hard to go out. It changed me, I’m more closed now. […] I have to act straight, I don’t want to be hurt.”

Habib tells me that he always had to be careful how to behave, even with small things like ordering coffee. He feels that this created two personalities, the straight version and the gay one, which is why he feels he needs the help of a psychologist. Because Habib is from Jordan, the people he shares a house with suspected him of being gay because there is no war in Jordan. And although Habib putted much effort in acting straight, one day his roommate opened his laptop and made screenshots of a Facebook conversation. This way the roommate learned that Habib is gay, which he shared with his seven Arabian friends who were living in the same house in the asylum center. Since then they were calling him names, mainly using the Arabic word ‘luti’ (lūṭiyy), which is a derogatory word for sodomite.

Often the revelation of a sexual identity is forced, as the screenshots of a Facebook conversation by Habib’s roommate tell us. They can also be accidental, for example when someone walks in on a sexual encounter. This actually happened to partners Ferran and Amin (28 and 30, Iraqi). They were living in a fairly large asylum center in a city, which used to be a former prison. The couple shared a cell together, but the cell did not have a lock, as Amin explains:

“[I]it's about cells, cause it's a prison. And the cell, it's not allowed to lock your door. Can you imagine, living with your boyfriend, in a cell, without locking your door. And the people are just opened the door to borrow sugar or tea. Can you imagine this situation?

Experiences of LGBT asylum seekers in Dutch asylum centers