What Kylie Minogue and Iran Have in Common When It Comes to Gay Asylum

As the U.S. took a giant leap backwards late last night, with the veto of same-sex civil unions legislation in Hawaii by Gov. Linda Lingle, across the pond an historic court ruling paved the way for a potential change in British asylum policy when it comes to LGBT people.

For years, we've heard horror stories of people deported (or scheduled to be deported) back to their home countries, despite the fact that those home countries have egregious reputations when it comes to homosexuality. We've watched gay people in the United Kingdom get told that they can go back to Iran and live a "discreet" lifestyle, even though that means facing execution if one's sexual orientation is ever discovered. Same goes for Senegal, Iraq, Sudan, and more, where LGBT people regularly face persecution.

But now UK asylum policy has been slapped upside the head, to use a figure of speech, by Britain's Supreme Court, in a case that surrounded the UK's decision to deport two gay men back to Cameroon and Iran, respectively. Up until the decision, the UK had argued that these two men could go back to their homelands and live in the closet. But the Supreme Court said that using that line of defense as one's barometer is akin to saying that Jews should have been asked to stay in Nazi Germany and hide in attics.

"To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is," the Court said, in a statement that in many respects gives me chills for its immigration and asylum implications. Oh, and the decision was unanimous, meaning that there was no dissent among Britain's most senior judges.

Paul Canning, a friend of ours here and a tireless champion for LGBT asylum rights in the United Kingdom, welcomed the decision as historic, and said that it will most definitely have broad implications.

"This is a clear victory. It is one in the eye for the last government," Canning said. He's right, and that's a point not lost on Theresa May, who is the UK's new Home Secretary. She seemed to echo Canning's statement by saying that the Supreme Court decision fits in line with the position of the new coalition government, and that she was proud that the UK would no longer be a place where LGBT people seeking asylum are told to go back to dangerous places.

"I do not believe it is acceptable to send people home and expect them to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution," May said. "From today, asylum decisions will be considered under the new rules and the judgment gives an immediate legal basis for us to reframe our guidance for assessing claims based on sexuality, taking into account relevant country guidance and the merits of each individual case."

In a nutshell, here are the new rules (or, rather, questions) that govern when someone is being considered for asylum based on their sexual orientation:

• Is the person seeking asylum gay, or could s/he be perceived as gay in their home country?
• Is there evidence that within the asylum seeker's home country, someone has been persecuted for their sexual orientation?
• Would the asylum seeker live openly as gay back in their home country, or would they have to live "discreetly"? If the answer is "discreetly, then one last question gets asked.
• In living "discreetly," is the person seeking to avoid harm or persecution by society and the government?

If the answer to that last question is a "yes," then that person should be granted asylum. Or, as the Court put it, "[To] reject his application on the ground that he could avoid the persecution by living discreetly would be to defeat the very right which the [Refugee] Convention exists to protect — his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution."

Which brings us to Kylie Minogue. It's unusual that a major international pop star plays any sort of part in geopolitical affairs. It's even more unusual for a pop star to be cited in a legal opinion by a high court. But Britain's Supreme Court used Kylie Minogue as a cheeky example of why people should be afforded the right to live as openly as they can.

"Just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves, going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates," the Court said.

Yes, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference, not meant to pigeonhole, but meant to give a very stark example of why LGBT people should have the same rights as heterosexuals. And I love it.

Here's looking to the United Kingdom this morning with a tip of the hat. One can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court has such a progressive vision when it finally argues some major LGBT cases coming down the pike, including arguments over the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons