What are the unique challenges that LGBTIQ+ migrants and asylum seekers face, in their home countries, in the course of migration, and in receiving countries? Listen to our panel discussion to find out.
LGBTIQ+ people continue to face persecution and discrimination in virtually every region of the world. Many of them are forced to migrate or seek asylum. Our panellists will discuss the unique challenges that LGBTIQ+ migrants and asylum seekers face, in their home countries, in the course of migration, and in receiving countries.
Dr Sarah Singer is Senior Lecturer in Refugee Law at the Refugee Law Initiative, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Her research interests are refugee law and policy, human rights and migration. She is a recognised expert on criminality and asylum, and has broader research expertise on humanitarian accountability, detention and protection of LGBT+ asylum seekers.
Dr Aydan Greatrick is a Visiting Researcher at the Department of Geography, University of Leeds and an expert in LGBTQ+ asylum support, protection and forced migration. He has over seven years experience researching the intersections between forced migration, humanitarianism, gender and sexuality, with a particular focus on LGBTQ+ asylum and displacement in Europe and the Middle East.
Chair: Prof Phillip Ayoub, Professor of International Relations, UCL
Political Science 26.01.23
Mon, Jan 30, 2023 2:09PM • 1:14:44
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
lgbt, asylum, people, support, asylum seekers, decision makers, research, asylum claims, refugee, countries, question, lgbtq, home, sexual orientation, effectively, uk, case, state, lesbian, system
SPEAKERS
Phillip Ayoub, Alan Renwick
Phillip Ayoub 00:02
All right, everyone, we'd like to go ahead and get started I want to welcome you to this policy and practice seminar which is hosted by the UCL Department of Political Science in the School of Public Policy. My name is Philip Ayoub, I'm a professor in the department and I'm also your chair, or the chair of this event this evening. The title of the seminar tonight is challenges faced by LGBTQ plus migrants and asylum seekers. LGBTQ plus people continue to face persecution and discrimination in virtually every region of the world. Some of them are forced to migrate or seek asylum, which can be an arduous process was still few to few states granting asylum on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and the ones that do often failing to understand other ways of being queer. So other ways compared to their own societies, and sometimes deploying intrusive processes of proving proving one's credibility as well as the other challenges that legal frameworks and everyday life pose for migrants and asylum seekers and receiving countries. Our panelists today will discuss the unique the unique challenges that LGBTQ plus migrants and asylum seekers face in their home countries in the course of migration and in the receiving countries will also find time to talk about the contributions of these actors. These actors are making their own societies, both their past societies and the present ones. So to discuss this topic, we're really delighted to welcome to just fantastic speakers tonight, who I will introduce them the order in which there'll be making their opening remarks. First, on the end, we have Dr. Sarah Singer, who is a senior lecturer in refugee law at the refugee law initiative, which is in the school for advanced study at the University of London. Her research interests are refugee law and policy human rights and migration. She is a recognized expert on criminality and asylum and has a broader research expertise on humanitarian accountability, detention and protection of LGBTI plus asylum seekers. Next to me, we have Dr. Ayden. Greatrick, who is a visiting researcher at the Department of Geography in the University of Leeds, and an expert on LGBTQ plus asylum support, protection and forced migration. He has over seven years of experience researching the intersections between forced migration, humanitarianism, gender and sexuality with a particular focus on LGBTQ plus asylum and displacement in Europe and the Middle East. And I should note, also here at UCL, with Dr. Richard Muller, who we have in the audience today, and who's done a lot of great work also on queer, asylum and migration. So the format for tonight, we have we'll have each speaker offer their opening remarks for about 10 minutes, then we'll have a panel discussion between the three of us for about 2020 minutes, and then we'll open to the floor for the remaining, the remaining time we have and we'll make sure that that's at least 30 minutes. And a final note before I hand over to our first speaker is that the whole session, including the q&a is being recorded and will be posted online on the department's website, on our YouTube channel, and on our on our podcast app to this event. So if you do speak, just please keep in mind that you will be heard in the recording. If you don't speak you will not of course, we would love for you to speak but you should know that it is public format here. We'll also will let you know when the recording is available, and we hope that you might want to share it with others. So now it is my pleasure to turn it over to Dr. Sarah Singer.
Sarah Singer 03:31
Oh, thank you very much for that introduction. Hello, everyone. Welcome to this seminar today. Just to start with an apology, my voice is going slightly. So I hope that you can all hear me clearly and then it lasts for the session. But please do just let me know if you need me to speak up at all. So today I'm going to be speaking about some of the challenges of facing LGBT plus asylum seekers as they navigate the legal landscape in countries in which they seek asylum, and particularly focusing on the UK. And this all has to be set against the backdrop of I think what we can only describe as a really hostile environment for asylum seekers and refugees in Europe, but particularly in the UK at the moment. Many of you will have heard of the Rwanda asylum deal which has recently been negotiated. With plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their claims assessed and to receive protection there. We're seeing increasingly harsh rhetoric from senior political figures describing invasions and swarms of refugees and asylum seekers. We we've seen Prime Minister Rishi Sunak use his New Year's address to announce a new campaign to stop the boats, effectively framing refugees and asylum seekers as criminals. And this is of course devastating for all people who are seeking and asylum in the country. But I think as you'll be shown during this talk that, as with many facets of the asylum system, they can have particular repercussions for LGBT plus asylum seekers. So the Rwanda deal is a case in point here. Okay, so aside from any discussion about whether or Wanda is or is not a safe country to send asylum seekers to, I think everyone agrees that it is not a safe place to send LGBT asylum seekers or people to. So to come back to the issue in hand, I'll be highlighting some of the key challenges that LGBT plus asylum seekers face in their asylum claim, particularly relating to issues surrounding their credibility or believability in establishing their asylum case, and obtaining evidence to support their claim. So looking at the background of asylum claims in the UK, it's been really well documented that within the UK Home Office where asylum claims are considered, there exists a culture of disbelief, and this is a predisposition of home office decision makers and caseworkers to disbelieve asylum seekers to actively seek out inconsistencies in their narratives as ways of refusing an asylum claim, and effectively putting all the onus on the asylum seeker themselves to make out the case for their protection claim. For LGBT plus asylum seekers. This means that applicants are expected to meet what's been described as an impossible burden of proof of their sexuality, or their gender identity. And this affects particularly their assessment of credibility, which is a really important aspects of any asylum claim, but particularly for asylum claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Because we can't so readily point to evidence for those types of claims. And so what the decision maker rests much of their weight on in an asylum determination is the ability of the asylum seeker to articulate their claim. But this can be particularly difficult, especially when people have a history of discretion of hiding of not being open about their sexual orientation or their gender identity. So many asylum seekers that I've spoken to, as part of my research have shared feelings of shame, or sometimes guilt related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. And for many, this resulted in quite a disjointed sense of self or sense of belonging or self identification. Sometimes it's difficult to self identify as being gay for example, or to, to, to ascribe to or to meet these kinds of labels that we have in the West, such as you know, gay, or lesbian, or bisexual or transgender. And a lot of this stemmed also from the negative connotations that might be attached to those labels in their home country. And this often stemmed from perceptions of those groups of people in their home country. And it can be much more pronounced if people are indeed fleeing on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And I've experienced or been at threat of harm or abuse on that basis. This might have included violence from local communities, or in many cases from family members enforce marriage or rape as a cure for homosexuality, or indeed, repression, abuse imprisonment by the States itself. So you can see that in these kinds of situations when people have effectively trained themselves to hide or be discreet about their sexual orientation or gender identity, than having to articulate that, particularly having to articulate that to a state official in a very official kind of setting, can I think at the very least be described as really challenging, and that is, especially so for people when non disclosure is a learned survival strategy that they've adopted. Now, obviously, this isn't true for all asylum seekers. So everyone is going to have their own sense of self their own sense of identification, but these are some of the common challenges that emerge. And what exactly are these asylum seekers being asked to articulate? Well, one of the key criticisms that's been leveled against the UK as asylum system and indeed asylum systems of many countries in the West, is that asylum applicants We're effectively being asked to conform to Western notions of what it means to be gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, etc. And these are labels that many of us use in the West, and they might have different stereotypes attached to them, but they might not have any meaning or relevance to people from different cultures or from other parts of the world. One quite stark example of this was a famous UK Supreme Court decision from 2010, the case of HJ around and HT Cameroon. And this case was, in many ways, a real triumph for the rights of LGBT asylum seekers. For some years previously, asylum courts have held that LGBT plus asylum seekers should or should be expected to effectively live in their countries of origin but being discreet and secretive about their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid persecution, and many people were denied refugee status on on this basis, they were effectively told they could go back to their country of origin and keep a low profile. So the UK Supreme Court in this case, rejected this idea. And they held that that people with sexual orientation gender identity claims shouldn't be asked to stay discreet or secretive in their home country, to protect themselves from persecution, they should be eligible for refugee status in the UK. Great when right. But in making this decision, right, one of the law justices said the made the now infamous quote, he said, Justice may or hatch heterosexual Heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer, and talking about girls with their mates. So male sexual male homosexuals wait for it, you ready for this, but also, they should be free to enjoy themselves, going to Kiley concerts, drinking exotically colored cocktails, and talking about boys with their straight female mates. So this is perhaps like quite an extreme example of the really awful stereotyping that can take place. But I think it shows the disconnects that we can have between these dominant kind of Western stereotypes of what it is to be LGBT. And the limited relevance that might have for someone coming from Bangladesh or Iran or Uganda, parts of the world that don't have a gay scene, or just for people who don't kind of accord with this out and proud kind of Camp stereotype, which can adhere to some of these labels. I mean, it's a bit like assuming that I enjoy sewing because just because I'm a woman.
13:02
And so I'm sure that for many people seeking protection, the ability to have a brightly colored cocktail is really the last thing on their minds. Okay, but so we now do we have home office guidance for caseworkers, which says that these types of stereotypes should not form part of asylum decision making. But too often we're still having reports of problems with asylum interviews, despite this guidance that we have in place. So stereotypes still continue to play a role as evidence in claims and this is because as I mentioned, asylum seekers are quite often not able to provide external evidence to corroborate their claims. And this means that decision makers look at might look to other forms of evidence, so photos of someone attending a pride event or being in an LGBT space. And it also means that there's unnecessary and often quite inappropriate focus on sex as part of asylum interviews. This can include asking unnecessarily intimate questions unfairly criticizing any absence of witness testimony from previous sexual partners. I mean, there's the emphasis on having sexual partners within home office and silence decision making is really quite pronounced. I think quite often, decision makers find it hard to disconnect sexual orientation from sexual activity. And as a result of this approach that's been adopted then research has shown that that some asylum seekers either unconsciously, or sometimes deliberately, following advice might present a version of their narrative or of themselves that accords more readily with what home office decision makers might be expecting to see. But which have caused more readily with these stereotypes, so presenting themselves as being more out and proud. And identifying these kind of fixed typologies that we have like lesbian, gay transsexual, even if that's something that they might not truly believe in themselves as a way of making themselves more readily understood by the people making decisions about their asylum claims. So, I would like to share a quote from one person I spoke to as part of my research, which I think really like adds a human perspective to the demands that are placed on many asylum seekers. And she said before, I didn't feel the need to go outside and shout, yes, I'm a lesbian. Now it's like everything I do, I have to prove something. If I don't put pictures of myself, or my new haircut, on my Facebook, there'll be saying, I'm not opening enough. It's not about who you are. Really. It's never been about who you are. It's how much of a lesbian I do you go to gay clubs. Do you hang around with other lesbians? How many lesbians can write a letter for you to say, Yes, I know her, she's a lesbian. And if those lesbians how many lesbians have been accepted by the home office, or a British.
16:22
Now, unfortunately, it doesn't look like this situation is going to improve anytime soon. Some of you might be aware of the new nationality and borders Act, which came into force last year. This is a really horrendous act with touches has lots of really nasty things in it, like creating a two tiered asylum system, depending on how you arrived in the country, making provision to transfer asylum seekers to third countries, so read Rwanda there. But it also includes provisions, which change the standard of proof and the rules around evidence in asylum claims, which look like they're going to particularly impact LGBT plus asylum claimants. So these include a higher standard of proof to be met, to show that you have a protected characteristic so effectively to show that you are LGBT, so we're likely to see more probing and intimate questions during interviews, more detailed discussions around traumatic experiences. And interviewers feeling a kind of heightened need to test and push against narratives will probably also see decision makers wanting to see more sensitive documentary evidence and witness statements disclosing intimate sexual relationships. The act also includes stricter rules on evidence submission to support asylum claims. And given what we know about the evidential and disclosure difficulties in these types of claims. In any case, it's likely that these changes in the rules are particularly going to impact asylum claims based on sexual orientation, or gender identity. Okay, so I've spoken for far too long already. So I'm gonna hand over to my colleague, but very happy to discuss further and answer any questions that you have during the question and answer part of the session. Thanks very much.
Ayden Greatrick 18:26
Okay, my voice is also going it seems to hold out. Yes. So I'm going to sort of build on what Sarah has talked about focusing a little less on, I guess, sort of the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees and more on the kind of experiences of providing and receiving support. So that was the focus of my PhD. And I think that's quite helpful as well, given the audience and the theme of this seminar C series as well to think about maybe the kind of more practical issues around what it means to provide care and support to LGBT asylum claimants, what it means to be supported one of the challenges there. And I've sort of, quite loosely kind of gathered my thoughts around four themes, but now five themes after what I just said. So it's a little bit ad hoc. But yes, these these themes relate to practical and logistical issues around providing support. The second theme around being a good caregiver, sort of challenges around feeling like you're doing a good job. The third theme is around actually working within the asylum system, the sort of complications and challenges and contradictions even of like engaging with the system. The fourth team has also been incredible, but looking at the sort of credibility of support groups in the eyes of the state as well. It's not just the case, as I'll go on to explain that anyone can write a support letter and that's taken as proof. There's also an element of proving yourself to be credible as a provider of support that, that plays plays a role here and so I think about some of that challenges there. And then finally gonna leave it on a more positive theme around actually the kind of really valuable sort of role that support plays in helping people. So, okay, what, uh, what is LGBT asylum support? I mean, it's such a broad thing, it covers all sorts of areas from medical, sexual health support through to legal support through to housing destitution. And then also sort of broadly more sort of social aspects of support, including going on Pride parades, and sort of building a kind of support network for people that they can engage in and participate in, in the in the cities that they might be living in. But within that there are all of these theme one practical logistical issues around actually the viability or the long term sustainability of that support. It's often the case that the support that's provided specifically to LGBTQ plus people is quite limited. Broadly, the support that is available from NGOs, and the third sector might be more general. And so there's, you know, often a limited capacity to the amount of support that is available to address specifically LGBTQ plus people, people with sexual orientation and gender identity based claims. So that creates a problem in terms of the capacity that people have to address the needs that exist. But also, the sustainability of that is quite limiting when you might have one person whose entire job is to look after 6070 LGBT asylum claimants that might live in one city in the UK. And so the kind of long term effect of that, is it sustainability? Like, what if that person becomes unwell, like what happens to the support mechanism that exists there, there's a sort of dependency on certain individuals within larger organizations to address these needs. And I think that that is a real cause for concern, like their expertise, their knowledge that that that might not be sort of archived in a way that that could support more systematic care and attention to LGBT asylum claimants. So I think that's one one thing we can think about. The other one is around competencies. I think a lot of the work is volunteer led, you know, so you've got people who might come into the support space, out of the goodness of their hearts, and they want to want to help and they might be motivated for all sorts of reasons. But they are dealing with extremely complex needs, and people going through an extremely complicated bureaucracy and asylum process. And so ensuring people are properly trained to be able to support people and that people who are being supported feel that they actually have the support that they need. That's the Another key issue, to think about. And that sort of brings me on to the next point around what it means to sort of be a good caregiver and a sort of provider of support. And I think this is where it gets quite interesting and quite tricky, because people's motivations to sort of step into this space and to provide assistance will potentially stem from a kind of criticism, maybe of the way that the asylum system works, they want to sort of fill a gap, because there's a group of people who are being treated badly by a hostile system. But the kind of reality of working in that space is to encounter and to work, you know, in quite close proximity to that system. And so there's a feeling of disempowerment that might come in from that, you know, it's it's a case of sort of putting a plaster over a gaping wound effectively. And so there's this sort of real sense of disempowerment that many of the people I spoke to, and in my own experiences providing this support, feel. And I think, yeah, I think that's something to consider as well around like trauma, burnout, you know, people who might have PTSD and all of these additional needs. Is it is it enough that people might be motivated to sort of work in support spaces because they are LGBT themselves, but then actually, the experience of caring for someone and providing support for someone who has experienced displacement might might be very, very triggering for people very challenging. So that's another issue that I think, support faces. And then thirdly, in terms of working with the asylum system, I think one of the things that sort of touches on credibility as well is, you know, you effectively feel like you become a sort of bureaucrat adjacent to the state in the way that you know, it's not possible in some support situations to challenge the system. You may feel that actually you just become it sort of, you have to sort of enforce effectively some of the kinds of things have processes that mean that the person you're supporting has become effectively homeless or destitute, you have very limited capacity to actually address some of these more kind of fundamental issues of the system not working. And I think that becomes another challenge around, you know, how how much are those working people working in support roles, how much they feel, they can actually address what they identify as the systematic issues. I think the third thing we'll talk about today is around advocacy and the scope for actually kind of challenging some of this stuff like there's this is great theorist in political geography, who works on detention, for example, called Nick Gill, and he talks about care over justice. And I think that is something that comes through here is that it's possible to support someone someone's acute need, but to provide the help that they need as a whole person, whether that's security rights, dignity, that becomes quite difficult when you're working in such close proximity to a server, you've described quite hostile bureaucracies and systems. So that's, that's another thing to think about. And then fourth, this is the one I'll spend a bit more time talking about is, is this idea of being credible. And I think a lot of academic research and and work on LGBT asylum is rightly focused on the sort of impossible burden of proof that LGBT asylum claimants themselves have to demonstrate that they are LGBT for the purposes of satisfying the Refugee Convention. It's, uh, you know, this sort of very kind of legalistic, prove to me that you're, you're LGBT type thing. But that's also something that support groups have to think about as well. Because, you know, when they're thinking about how they can best support someone, they're aware of the requirement to produce evidence, for example, that they, the person they're supporting is LGBT. So you might consider how you construct your social activities around building that evidence case, in order to sort of demonstrate to the home office that you're LGBT.
27:00
And so you kind of end up in this quite interesting situation where people are like, sort of planning activities around like going to pride and taking photos and documenting what is supposed to be a quite social sort of activity of like caring for one another. But there's also a strategic, a real strategic purpose of like documenting these things for the purpose of satisfying decision makers. So there's a kind of intrinsic newness to the relationships that form you could say, which makes people feel uncomfortable and uneasy, for lots of reasons. But it becomes quite quite quite important, given the sort of requirements to prove to the state that the person you're supporting is LGBT. But more broadly than that, I think the state's suspicion of LGBT asylum claimants also extends to the people who support them. It's it was often commented that people felt that they were treated with hostility support providers were treated with hostility by home office officials, for example, or German bank officials in my research was also in Germany, that they were just these sorts of lefty liberal types who, you know, didn't care who they were supporting, they just wanted to feel good things like this. And so there's, you know, this additional requirement on the support provider to also think about how they can prove to the state as well, that actually, I'm not just writing a letter for anyone, I'm not supporting anyone, I'm being as discerning as you. And you should really value and trust and believe in what it is I'm saying. Which creates an additional challenge. And one example, you know, from the research I did was this church group, actually, it's queer church group who has received so much hostility from the home office because they didn't, you know, believe that it was possible for this church group to be LGBT and have the truth, how confusing like the person I spoke to describe this, like real sense of feeling unwelcome when they were in the courtroom as though you know, there's just how convenient you found these people. But we don't believe that you're LGBT, establishing these policies and processes to say, well, actually, look, we're only going to come and support someone in court once they've been here for a certain amount of time. And we're going to make sure that they've met this criteria and this criteria and this criteria. So effectively, the support that might have been motivated by this desire to sort of help unconditionally becomes suddenly quite conditional in terms of demonstrating to the state the sort of that you've been discerning. And then I've got so many other examples of this. I think one of the one of the most interesting ones was in Germany when a asylum decision maker that spoke to sort of suspected the motivations that people have for helping that it's just about getting cash effectively. You're running a commendation center for LGBT people, you're not interested, actually, in helping them you're just interested in making sure you receive that Funding central funding from the States. So why would I believe anything you have to say to me, like, you know, in so and that's where we get into this really tricky part that actually, the state believes, you could argue some stuff that they believe they're doing the right thing. I think that's the other tricky part is that some decision makers are convinced that by being discerning, they're catching out the people who are lying, and they're actually making sure that the people who are deserving are safe. And so that's where this additional scrutiny of support providers kind of stems from is that you're the ones being taken for a fool. We're actually looking out for the rights and interests of people. I think we can that's sort of something to think about. We go into the advocacy, like how do you interface with decision makers and bureaucracies and the logics of bureaucracies, if you're advocating for the rights of people? Like what are your options? How do you influence there, something to think about. And then finally, a more positive theme, because I feel like I've talked a lot about the kind of negative things that came out. But I think what is just so telling is how the support that is provided, you know, just how important it is to the people who receive and there are problems with it, of course, and there's also as well, you know, we're assuming straightaway, that the people, that every LGBT person, or everyone who's making a claim under sexual orientation, gender identity grounds is being supported by an LGBT group, many aren't because they are reluctant to come forward. But for those that are, you know, comfortable to approach LGBT groups as well, or like, you know, happen to sort of be referred onwards or whatever. It's, it's, like, hugely significant for people. And people describe it as their family, you know, and it might be the first time actually in their life that they've encountered some kindness or some hospitality since bit since leaving a country of origin. And just one example, to finish on, I think, you know, there's all of these assumptions and ideas about who LGBTQ plus people are, where it is, they feel safe, what it is that they want. And the example that always stood out to me from my research was this experience of this Muslim lesbian who had had left Syria and she she, she describes the first time that she ever felt safe and welcome was in a church in in Peckham. Do you know, because it because it was where she was, it was the first time she was hugged. It was the first time she felt embraced as a human. And I think like, you know, beyond these sort of like, quite narrow categories and ideas that we have like about responding to people's needs on a very conditional basis, you have these examples of the kind of unconditional pneus of care and support that is provided to people. And I think that then touches on some of the recommendations I'd have around the training that's needed to sort of stop assuming that for LGBT people, the only care and love and support they need is from people who are going to help them in specific ways. And the only ways they could be recognized is if they demonstrate very narrow ideas of who it is, they should be.
Phillip Ayoub 33:12
Thank you so much. Both of you. These are such fantastic contributions. I think we could just go on listening to you, but without interruption, but let's let us turn to a couple of questions. I mean, a lot of what you what you mentioned, actually reminded me once a story I read on Austrian officials who, in a very short period of time rejected someone for being not gay enough, and someone for being too gay, who they thought was maybe pretending to be gay, because it was too, too much, and how those both could be used as arguments. And, and Sarah, you so so eloquently, you know, talked about how the asylum system works, and also is a great piece on that you have a chapter that I like a lot on how much of a lesbian, are you? That's the title of the piece. And that complements so well with iTunes work on, you know, the sound system, many different countries, and also people are trying to change it. And I think that leads a bit to my question, if you you know, many of these systems have changed to some degree or many of the serious concerns about how the state handles these issues have been also, you know, brought to light in that advocacy groups are talking about them. And and migrants and asylum seekers are talking about their experiences. And I'm wondering, do you have a sense of kind of an update in a comparative way? You know, are there any best practice models where an asylum system has potentially changed in a way that's positive? Any when we look at you know, of the many states you you work at them, for example, are there? Are there kind of model countries that have a better asylum system than others? It might be a difficult question to answer. Maybe it is just still have has a very long way to go everywhere. But I'd be curious kind of in global comparison, what you have to say. And then I also was curious, just as well, you know, short follow up if you could mention some of those groups by name that you have worked with, that provide this kind of support both for people who, you know, watch this video who might need that support, but also for people who might want to help these organizations if there's any that are doing particularly good work in London or, or in our communities that we might want to know about. So thank you.
35:21
Should I actually start? Yeah, so. So best practices, I think best practices are quite challenging, actually, at the moment, just because although there's definitely been progress in the recognition of the rights of LGBT plus people, and LGBT plus asylum seekers, just the general hostility to asylum as a whole, which has permeated not just the UK but I would say countries across the western sphere, at the moment, really put pressure on the asylum system. So we've had some really positive developments, the UK Supreme Court case, which I mentioned, the new guidance for home office decision makers, which has come into play, that's all been fantastic. But it's against the background, whether suggestions that there are quotas that are being set for home office decision makers that are expecting them to refuse X number of cases that come before them. And when you are a decision maker that is working under that kind of pressure, then I think it speaks to, you know, some of the points that Eysan made about, you know, some decision makers might feel like they're actually trying to they're catching people out, in essence, that they're potentially doing the right thing. It might not be for the benevolent so that all the deserving people can get through kinds of reasons. But it's the kind of this culture of disbelief that permeates the system. And because sexual orientation and gender identity claims are those claims that aren't as provable as other ones, which might be related to your ethnicity, or the fact that you're fleeing, you know, really serious con conflict or that your family is being targeted for political reasons. It's generally they're going to come down at the kind of the rough end of the rough end of the pilot. That's a really bad metaphor, but I think you get my, my point. Yeah. 100?
37:13
Sure. Yeah, I think in terms of best practices, I agree, it's very difficult. There's, I mean, it's very easy to find lots of flaws and efforts, even benign efforts to sort of make things better. Germany is an interesting one in the sense of the close, actually working relationship that lots of LGBT asylum support groups have with different state functionaries, and sort of the federal states as well as the sort of the federal government itself. And that has been, that is, I think, been quite effective at I think they would describe it as like sensitizing or mainstreaming and awareness of LGBT specific, queer specific needs within the asylum process and asylum decision making. The manifestation of that is interesting, because it's involved, for example, like, you know, some better sort of more longer term funding for LGBT specific asylum support. But it's also in North Rhine Westphalia, there is a people call it the LGBT camps, sort of effectively accommodation centers for LGBT people who are going through asylum processing, but also broad categories of vulnerable people, women, sort of women with the solwin, and families, people with PTSD, things like this. And, you know, in some ways, that's the best practice because it responds to the fact that LGBTQ plus people and accommodation centres face diverse forms of homophobia and transphobia, and gender based violence. So the idea then is you take people away from that and put them in an LGBTQ specific, sort of accommodation area. And of course, this is a case of like, it's quite difficult to know the way through this, but people's experiences of living in those places are not particularly fantastic. You know, they are presented with other problems, including effectively being forced out their accommodation arrangement, a few people I spoke to, were living in what they described as general accommodation and people like why you go into that camp, that's for the weird people. Are you Is there something you're telling me and he sort of spin this lions because he was involved in HIV activism, blah, blah, blah, but actually, you know, eventually it came out and suddenly a support network that he depended on was not available to him in the same way. It's more complicated than that, because he also found some sort of safety and protection there. But it stems back to this issue of how do you fix a system that is fundamentally hostile. And yeah, I think it's kind of the kinder gentler asylum system. And that's the risk isn't it? Of like some of these sort of best practice reforms you make what is ultimately quite a violent process of someone deciding whether or not you can stay, what's your rights will be kinda, but it's still All still sort of laced with some of these difficulties? No, that's too helpful. But that is Yeah, yeah,
40:05
I think accommodation, like, as you mentioned, is a really important aspect of the whole asylum process. A lot of my research has focused on detention. And the challenges that LGBT asylum seekers face in the detention is that and it's pretty horrendous as you can imagine. I mean, immigration detention by in by itself is is horrendous people, you might have heard some of the the really terrible stories that have been coming out over the past decade about the very high rates of self harm and suicide, the bullying and harassment by staff at detention centers, which are usually privately contracted firms such as Surco, etc. Really poor health provision. I mean, there was awful scandal at Masten reception center with the regular boat arrivals recently as well, which, which resulted in deaths. So immigration detention is an awful thing in itself. But if you're an LGBT asylum seeker, the irony is that you're probably going to be held in an immigration detention system with communities of people that you've actually sort of potentially been fleeing from right or that are disapproving of your sexual orientation and gender identity. And so you are forced, in many cases, to be discreet, secretive, hide who you are. And at the same time, you're concomitantly having to prove to the home office that you are out and proud. And you're super camp, and that you're part of all of these LGBT support groups, right. So you get these these, you end up in this very strange situation. And there have been positive developments. There's meant to be LGBT, you know, support staff in each of these centers is usually not the case. So there have been those positive developments. But the problem is that the intention is to increase the immigration detention estate in the UK at the moment. That is the explicit intention of the government. So if you have increased the tension for everyone, that's going to mean more detention for LGBT asylum seekers as a subset of the everyone. And it's not going to be very nice.
42:16
Yeah. And following on from that, as well, I think it attempts to sort of, say, indefinite detention should not exist, but also if it is existing LGBT people should be removed from that system. I think the no safe haven report account, remember by Stonewall and UK RJG. Now rainbow migration? Yes, of course. Yeah. And then, but the follow on record, like, Did you see the sort of response was that you must, I mean, obviously, but the was, was something about we'll make sure all the residents are aware of our no zero tolerance policy.
42:54
Doesn't help when you're, you know, transgender person who's not recognized as being transgender, because you're self medicating or you haven't hit you know, the home office is quite strict definition or conditions of what it means to be transgender and say you're held in the wrong sex institution, and you haven't been able to use the shower for two weeks, because you're too terrified of going into the communal shower space,
43:17
you know, but there's a zero tolerance. Read. Yeah.
Phillip Ayoub 43:24
Oh, it's so interesting. I want to ask one more question. And then I want to move to the audience. And the question was more geared towards researchers or students we have who might be interested in learning from the experience you have working on these topics. And this is, you know, I think fieldwork in this area is particularly challenging in certain ways, because we're dealing with very vulnerable communities. And I know, You've both written on this aspect in certain ways, as well on doing research in this area. And I was wondering if you could give us just a few, you know, reflections on your work doing research with, with, with migrants and asylum seekers, not just LGBTQ. And just in general, if you have any, any thoughts or words of wisdom in that regard? You
44:13
know, yeah, well, I think as a, as a scholar, that focuses on the refugee and forced migration field, one of the key things I would say is, don't just run out and want to do research with asylum seekers and refugees. You know, be respectful of the fact that these are these are people with their own autonomy in their own their own lives to live. And so just always be mindful of that fact, when you might, for very benevolent reasons want to run around conducting research and speaking to people about these incredibly traumatic experiences. It's not something to be undertaken lightly. So the research that I undertook for example, with detained asylum seekers was in collaboration with an LGBT support group that they were working with the UK lesbian and gay immigration group, and with Stonewall We had lots of big support structure built in around that. For those people that were taking part in the research, it's also really important to be mindful of your own well being as a researcher as well. I mean, I think the researcher that had gone before me on a previous project had to end up going into counseling, right, these are really difficult areas to be working in. So always being mindful of your own well being is very important.
45:27
Yeah, and I think, think, think really quite hard about how you approach this, it's not something that you can sort of just sort of do on a whim, you've got to build those relationships, I think you're dealing with people who may have experienced a lot of trauma and things like that. And so there's this whole kind of Edward Alessi who is a visiting researcher here at UCL at the moments works on LGBT asylum in South Africa, and has developed this really interesting trauma informed research methods sort of guidance, which I recommend anyone interested should read. And I think one of the things that that really emulates it is a good ethical practice in general is being accountable, being honest, being sort of consistent, I think that's also really important. Like if you're engaging with a support group, be consistent, do what it is, you'll say or do, be reliable. Be upfront about issues or mistakes you've made, I think all of this is really helpful. Because you're building trust with people, you don't want to extract things and you want to sort of make sure you've got the sort of the time to develop those trusting relationships. And the other thing I found quite helpful was to sort of make the research politically relevant to the work that is actually being done by support groups, to make it in some way relevant to the experiences of those who are going through the asylum system. So think hard about your research questions and what it is that they might reveal? And how that might be useful in some way. Because I think there is there is an onus on research in this in this area to to be helpful in some way. Like that's obviously quite a broad term. But I think for me, that's quite important. So you want to have those conversations with support providers as well, early on, like, what what are the questions you would like me to ask, you know, like, what are the things would help you in your work? And obviously, you want to maintain a bit of independence, but that should come once you've built those relationships? And yeah, so spend the time and do it right, I guess?
47:29
Yeah, I think I think you know, being really explicit about any benefit that will or will not accrue to the person as a result of taking part in the research. And if there isn't any benefit to that individual or to, you know, trying to make changes in the refugee or asylum system itself, then you might question the ethics of asking that person to take time out from their life and to share you know, those very personal details with you.
47:57
Yeah. Yeah. I skipped your question about support groups, as well as Stonewall and rainbow migration on their website, they've got a great list of like the support that exists in the, in the UK. And it's just so much of it, actually, you know, and I won't name the specific support groups that I worked with in my research, because that's kind of a little bit confidential, but the look on look on that list, and you'll see a great, great group, and then also queer European asylum network, and then queer refugees, Deutschland, I think, have a sort of list, again, of like support groups operating across Europe. So definitely have a look at that if you're interested. So helpful. Thank
Phillip Ayoub 48:39
you very much. And thanks, also, for your remarks, both of you about your research practice, which is very important to think about how to ethically navigate this really important research, which we do need, but also how to protected keep people safe at the process. I'd like to now turn it over to the floor. So if whoever has a question, I will, we're sharing the mic, so I can bring it to you. Oh, Paul is just helping me. Alright. Does anyone have a question? Please raise your hand if you do. All right. See you and then Alan.
49:24
I'm curious about the operation of the NGO like when it comes to that phone, where can we like because we don't know what kind of company they support LGBT and what kind of company they don't.
49:39
So can you bring them like a little bit closer?
49:42
Oh, yeah. I'm curious about the operation of NGO because we need money we need found in with when it comes to that phone. Where can we sick help, because we don't know what company they support. or group in which company? They don't?
50:03
Do you mean like the end of the relate like the politics of the NGOs? What they support or the?
50:09
Yeah, like, for an NGO? Where do their money come from?
50:14
Oh, I see. Yes. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's it, they should be transparent about that most of them are like established his charities. And on their website, that information will be there. But a lot of them are referred to through larger organizations as well. So if you are an LGBT asylum claimant, and you are, for example, speaking with a caseworker at the Red Cross, or the Refugee Council, and a particular need relating to your claim comes up that there'll be a list of trusted organizations. And so that's that's sort of how it works. You've got these referral mechanisms that emerge. And so most people are referred onwards, the people I spoke to anyway, for a lot of the support. But then there's also an interesting thing, like, because some of the people who work in this sector are quite like visible, they might get inquiries from people living in country of origin, so they might get messages on Twitter or messages on that email. And that's another tricky thing, because they can't be seen to say to them, Come here, and I can help you because that is a sort of prosecutable incitement to migrate. And so that's also tricky. Like, again, we can help you when you're here. But like, but you know, it's very tricky. So those those that some it's referral mechanisms, I think, would be the the main way, but they should be transparent about who funds them. It's often charitable donations. And then maybe some grant funding. But yeah, it's all quite limited. This, I hope that answers.
51:46
Thank you. Thank you.
Alan Renwick 51:56
Thank you so much. This has been really, really fascinating. Thank you. Question mainly for Sarah, I guess. So I thought you, you said that the problem was enormous clarity and power. I'm just wondering what you see the solution as being that a government that we might plausibly have have in the future, presumably not the current one, but a government that we can conceive of happening might might adopt, because presumably, any government is going to be concerned about if you reduce the evidential requirements, then you're creating a system that's open to abuse. So you know, i Are you arguing that actually, abuse isn't going to happen, or abuse in scare quotes isn't actually a problem, or or we can actually devise a system that would would be able to address the problems that you've raised, while also being able to deal with a challenge from abuse of the system?
52:52
I think it's a really good question. I think the the caseworker guidance that the home office has in place is actually really good. And it strikes a really good balance, right? The problem is that it's not being followed by decision makers, because there's a lot of problem on decision makers, when they're when they're deciding when they're determining asylum cases. So I think that on the paper, there's quite a good balance that's been struck there. It's just that in practice, there's so much pressure, not only on, you know, LGBT, plus asylum cases, specifically, but if you look at the whole cohort of asylum cases that are decided, such a huge proportion of them end up going to the upper tribunal, and succeeding in their appeals, it's over 50% get overturned on appeal. That's a huge high number, and it shows the really poor quality of first instance, this is decision making that's being made at the home office, across the board. Right. So So I think that in order to make the system better, first of all, removing this pressure that's on decision makers, right to refuse such a high number of cases because it doesn't serve anyone any good, especially when the cases end up getting overturned on appeal. All that's done is it's waste a whole lot of taxpayers money and, and tribunal time in seeing that claim through. The second key thing is open up legal routes for asylum for asylum seekers to stop all these irregular, irregular entries, but then also a regular overstay as a lot of I mean, you know, it does vary case to case. But we find a lot of LGBT plus asylum cases there are people that came into the country regularly, they might be from a country which doesn't have a visa restriction on it. They might have had a short term visa for a certain period of time, and then they've overstayed they ended up getting detained. It's just a big mess. It cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. If you open up regular routes of asylum, then I think it would it would serve to you know, avoid a lot of these very complex and very costly, costly and time consuming processes. That it Quite traumatizing for the people involved, and they don't do the country as a whole any good either. Oh, so if you if you just let everyone work, then it would, it would solve this labor shortage issue that we have at the moment. So, you know, migration is not always a bad thing.
55:23
Gloria, hi, thank you so much for this talk. That was really extremely interesting. I come from migration research. And, you know, like, one of these general findings is that, you know, this first interaction with bureaucracy, of refugees with bureaucracy will inform basically, your integration prospects, right? Because this gives you a signal of how the state and society maybe is likely to treat you in the future. And this seems particularly relevant for what you've been saying today. Especially because the signal that you get is not only about kind of, you know, like, my own ethnicity, but it's much broader than that, right? It seems like you receive a signal of what it means to be a good lesbian in a society, etc, etc. And so I'm just wondering whether you have any thoughts from your experience of how this process actually affects integration afterwards? So for those people who actually managed to navigate the system, and get asylum eventually, does this have an impact on how they integrate in society afterwards?
56:35
Yeah, so yes, it does. The, I mean, a few, like examples from the research, I think, over the time that I was doing it, some people did get granted their refugee status. And I think it's one of these things where it becomes filled with all this hope, that like, so much hope is put on the bureaucracy that that's going to solve all the problems, I guess, and then actually, suddenly, it's not maybe addressed the problems and there's a sort of people often will describe, suddenly feeling actually, that's the moment they do all that processing. And, and a lot of the sort of difficulty of the last period of time, however long it's been really gets dealt with. And so it can be this odd experience of like both finally, feeling that you've got that ticket to liberation, you know, in that very home, oh, normative sort of, finally, I've, you know, I've become I've convinced the British state that I am gay. And now I'm free. But suddenly, actually, it's quite a kind of a, an emotionally ambiguous time. And people describe. And there's lots of research on this as well, like, think of the sort of affective dimensions of queer asylum and migration of like, of actually feeling the refugee status. That's their label now, and suddenly, they continue to be followed around by this sort of legal system that will try and go dating, but I'm afraid people will pity me, because I'm a refugee. And so it remains this sort of like, kind of I don't know, bureaucratic thing that sort of haunts them. And so yeah, it does. It does. It does, I think, in a lot of cases, but then there are also cases where that's not the case. And people, people have more positive experiences, I guess. But does that answer your question? Yeah. Yes.
58:29
Thanks very much. I appreciate that. You both probably work more on the receiving end sort of side of this. But I wonder if you could say, a little bit more about sort of, perhaps trends or patterns in kind of send it in sort of the sending side of the equation, as it were? I sort of don't know anything about this area. But I wonder whether some of the sort of trends in kind of democratic backsliding, more generally and kind of diminutions in sort of protection of minority rights, even in a lot of sort of relatively democratic countries is, is that leading to greater numbers of LGBTQ plus people late, you know, seeking asylum elsewhere? or so is this going to be a sort of a, you know, are we seeing more people seeking asylum? Yeah, just?
59:23
I'm not sure that's a very easy question to answer. Actually, it's quite it's quite difficult one. I mean, we're seeing improvements in LGBT rights in a number of countries across the world, but we're also seeing a backsliding as you mentioned in another in a number of locations. What's happening look at UK asylum statistics the other day, LGBT claimants and I think I think we're pretty much at pre COVID levels. Now. I don't think we've seen a significant increase or decline, except for we had a bit of a hiatus during that COVID period where we had significantly less asylum asylum claims. So But that's what I could say about asylum claims being made in the UK. But I'm not sure I could comment more broadly, I'd have to look into that. I think that'd be an area for further research. Yeah.
1:00:09
Yeah. So I don't have like the sort of, I don't know the stats on it, or like to say what the trends are. But, you know, I think, for example, it I think, I think the sense is that maybe there's more of a kind of growing awareness of it within the policy world of like actually addressing LGBT protection issues, whether that's through the asylum system, but also, you know, in countries of origin, and what are the kind of opportunities there to sort of promote human rights, largely as in in relation to preventing onward migration as well, to some extent, like there's also a little bit of that, but again, I don't know. Beyond that. An example would be though, for example, like the current situation facing LGBTQ plus Russians, in the context of the war in Ukraine, it's very difficult now to actually seek asylum as a Russian national. Because because of the war in a place that might have LGBTQ plus rights. So a lot of people are in Georgia, I think, and there's some support that exists there for queer Russians. But like, that is an example of where, you know, the protection gaps have increased, actually, for a country that is experiencing significant backsliding on all sorts of things. So yes, that's, that's, again, don't have any, anything beyond anecdotes for that. I think we have two questions in the back there. Thank you.
1:01:44
Hi, I'm Andrea Catholic show work as a PhD researcher here at UCL, I had a question about the role of international organizations. And this, of course, you work, both in the UK. But I was curious if you had any thoughts on the role that UNHCR and IOM play in building legal discourse and policy discourse around LGBT migration? And perhaps in particular, sort of going beyond the Refugee Convention? What role can what both organizations play in, you know, reinforcing the legal rights lead, so the human rights framework around this and so moving us beyond the situation where you need to be an asylum seeker in order to migrate as an LGBT person?
1:02:26
Yeah, I think UNHCR, and IOM and other organizations do play quite an active role in what they describe as like sort of LGBT mainstreaming within the within the sort of support, they provide a sort of awareness of this and how it would affect reception and things. I've seen a few kind of guidance notes, for example, that UNHCR has been very good at holding states to account when they've failed, for example, to respect the rights of LGBTQ plus people when they make their claims, and have been quite vocal about some of that. Examples might be, you know, this is less less of an example of openness. But like the sort of role, for example, the Turkish Government played, in terms of in terms of facilitating LGBT resettlement and things was, you know, maybe better than you'd expect. And I think part of that was because of UNHCR has advocacy around that particular issue. You can get into that the time to get into that. But that I think, would be one example. Where they were they they see it as a kind of core part of their mandate. And it's never really been a you know, an issue of like convincing UNHCR to be proactive on it is my sense, but I don't know enough.
1:03:35
Yeah, I would, I would agree, I think maybe not so much for IOM, because I don't think IOM have a human rights mandate. I might be wrong about that, because it's not a core focus of my research. But I was, I would, I would agree. I think for UNHCR, it's quite a core component of their work and their advocacy and their engagement with states but the IOM perhaps not so much, I might be wrong.
Phillip Ayoub 1:03:55
In Europe, the International lesbian, gay, bi trans and intersex Association Europe, that regional organization has worked really hard at lobbying the European Union on its asylum policy. And, you see, to kind of respect asylum on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and they play somewhat of a watchdog role. I was actually reading a little bit about their current report, where they're hassling the European Union on kind of differences in how states are respecting asylum on the basis of gender identity and gender expression and sexual characteristics, for example, as opposed to some improvements on sexual orientation. And, and asking also the EU to rethink about its usage of safe countries at all, whether it applies to LGBT people kind of like as you were both saying, so these kinds of pressures at the international level, I think are quite important, as well.
1:04:47
And related to that, as well, is work around like queering, atrocity prevention as well. So there's a project I'm working on the moment for readers here from organization called protection approaches. And that's quite interesting because it's another example of where you might, for example, engage LGBT communities in what would be described as country of origin, for example, in monitoring and reporting on atrocity related backsliding, things like this. And so sort of building a more comprehensive, I guess, framework for addressing the risks and that sort of thing, the things that contribute to rising vulnerability prior to displacement happening, and being that being sensitive to LGBT specific Soji related violence and vulnerabilities. So there is a clear kind of move towards a growing awareness of these things at earliest stages, I guess. But
Phillip Ayoub 1:05:36
one other question, and then that will, maybe we could take one more after that. Yeah, right, right back there.
1:05:44
So there's been a lot of focus on sexuality issues, and how, how people how the home office interacts with cases of people who have certain sexualities proving that they're gay or lesbian. Considering the government's pretty consistent stances on trans people, how does the home office deal with trans asylum claims? Or is that difficult to research or near impossible research?
1:06:11
One of the challenges that trans people face is that the home office has quite a restrictive definition of what it considers to be transgender. So a number of people, particularly people who are self medicating self transitioning will, would fall outside of the scope of that definition. And it might be difficult for them to establish an asylum claim on that basis. And it can also affect the way that they are accommodated in immigration detention centers, for example, because they might not be recognized as the gender to which they're transitioning to. They recognize that their gender, gender of birth, so I think I mean, Aiden, you can correct me if you have some more recent recent information on that, but that's my understanding is that quite narrow definitions pose a real barrier for trans people.
1:07:03
Yeah, and I think also gendered assumptions playing a big part about like being feminine or masculine enough. So not a not a real understanding of like, what it might mean to be non binary, or what it might mean to sort of be gender fluid, or to experience your gender as sort of not fixed sort of thing. And so that I've heard instances where that has played a role, like, yeah,
1:07:29
yeah, and, you know, there's cases, you know, say if you if you if you self identify as female, but being told that you don't look like a female enough. I think a lot of it is limited understanding on the base on decision made, because it's not just home office decision makers, though, it's tribunal judges as well. They're drawn from a certain sector of society, and they might not be as exposed to different ways that people live.
Phillip Ayoub 1:07:55
Yeah. We would have time for one more question, if anyone is itching to ask something, you know, say speak now or forever hold your peace. Yeah.
1:08:16
So if there's this limit to the strategic use of stereotypes, I mean, sometimes it's not, you're not gay enough with too much gay to be a real gay and thinking about affection and affects how it paints and not would be like in that enough effect, like to mobilize decision makers to grant the words you use deserve to deserve the status of refugee. So thinking about all the affections that we could mobilize, or the that you see on during the research on the court, what could be like a possible way in a strategic way if stereotypes are not enough to get the granting and deserving status? Because it just sometimes it just feels like deserving I connect with charity. Yeah. And somehow, like this white savior, feeling like you're doing something good to the person that is suffering, and particularly pain, this narrative?
1:09:14
Yeah, I think Yeah. If I understood your question correctly, like effect, like how that plays a role in decision making is huge. Like these courts are very intimidating, scary places, people have an emotional relationship to them. people's responses to them will be very different. So it's quite even difficult to think about how you're going to strategically feel or like or create a sense of feeling with the decision maker. But there are there are interesting things like people would say that they'd say things that the straight judge is never going to understand. Like you were you come on to the gay club with us. And then why would I ever do that? Do you know like, you know, it's almost like, you sort of throw the uncomfortableness back at people is an example that that one person said they might like us sometimes which I thought was But interesting because, you know, it's it's almost about like, the feeling of, of, sort of the judges feeling of like trying to make a decision about someone in their life, like you could play into those like, it's been really hard. But now I'm really happy. And that's like a kind of very kind of logical, like, Yes, I understand how you've gone from oppression to liberation. Great. But then there's also the other part of it, like proving that you're gay and like what that means to feel gay and be gay and all of the rest of it. And there's a whole world that's not understood by someone there who's making the decision? And I think you can you can, you can engage with that a little bit. But I don't know, that is a strategy. I think it's, you know, it's the whim of the decision making is kind of like the challenge of a lot of this stuff. Like, I'm not convinced, or I am convinced, I don't know, do you have
1:10:52
I think I agree like the, the decision making process, particularly when you get to a tribunal decision, where you are sort of having to stand there in front of in front of a judge me and a number of the participants that took part in my research, I think described quiet, and amazed, amazing journey of where they became these, really, I hate to use the word empowered, but I'm going to use it the word empowered, because effectively, the legal advice that they had access to was so limited, they ended up representing themselves, and the pride that they took in going into that, like court space, which is effectively what it is representing themselves and trying to give their side of the story to that person. It was, it was quite a meaningful process for them. It didn't always have positive outcomes, right. And, you know, there was frustration that they weren't being listened to effectively. But I think just having that opportunity to have your case heard in many, in many ways was was was quite a big moment for them.
Phillip Ayoub 1:12:03
I'm, I'm we have a couple minutes left. And before we thank our speakers for this really incredible talk, I wanted to end on, you know, one notes and talked a lot about how, you know, how vulnerable communities, migrants and asylum seekers and what what, what advocacy is done to support such communities. But one point that I also want to end on is that these communities have done a whole lot for broader LGBTQ people. And you know, I study a little bit transnational activism and advocacy and looking at how these organizations that work across countries in the world are advocating for rights that have made certain kinds of rights that we become familiar with nowadays appear in many different countries. And it was very often sitting across from people that have very mobile histories, oftentimes, former migrants and refugees and what was quite special about these activists is that they've navigated sexuality and gender identity in many different places. And for them, navigating that is, which is very intricate and different experience from context to context is something they've lived through. So actively, and they're also the ones that are emotionally connected through solidarity to stories of, you know, the state repression of LGBT people and other places, including their home countries, but other countries as well. So they've done a huge service. You know, I think when we look at transnational mobilization, which has been so important, we see such a mark, I think, by by queer migrants. In that process, I just thought it was a important element to end on this very important discussion. I also want to ask you, or remind you about our next event in the series, which happens next Thursday, February 2, it's on the theme of who are the markets or quote unquote, the markets and what determines their reaction to policy and this event will be followed by drinks reception, please feel free to sign up for via our website at the policy and practice, lab or on Eventbrite. And if you don't already, please do follow policy and practice on Twitter, Instagram. Our handle is UCL SPP, and we'll also announce all of our forthcoming events there, as well as keep you in touch with interesting research that our community is doing. Now, most importantly, I really want to thank you both so much, and I'm sure everyone will join me in that for a really stimulating conversation. Give us a lot to think about. And we're just so grateful for the time and insights you've shared to us. This evening. Thank you. Thank you to you