Iranian Lesbian denied Asylum in Norway
On 3rd December 2002, a Norwegian police transport was driving southwards from Oslo, towards the border to Sweden, headed to the International Airport in Göteborg. The car had only one passenger in addition to the officers,; a 37 years old Lesbian woman from Iran. She had escaped from discrimination, homophobia and years of intimidation in the Iranian theocracy, and came as a refuge to Norway expecting to find a civilized society in which human rights are respected, and where she finally could be herself and live a full life. Her application for a residence permit in Norway as a refuge was rejected, however, and now she was on her way be forcefully returned to Iran…
Then at 13:49, the police transport received a message from the Immigration Appeal Board ordering them to return to Oslo… The severe criticism this case had received throughout the Norwegian society in the preceding weeks, lead the president of the Appeal Board, Kjell Larsen in the very last minute, to decide to reopen the case again and to establish whether formal or technical errors had occurred during the evaluation of her application. Finally the Iranian woman good breath freely again and wipe of the tears from her cheek. She could return to Oslo. Saved in the last moment…
When first evaluating the case, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration had been perfectly aware of the difficult conditions under which openly lesbian women live in Iran and normally refugee status is automatically given to homosexual Iranians applying to stay in Norway on humanitarian grounds. It has been the directory’s policy for years. In this case, however, the application was rejected because the woman had been married in her home country and was the mother of two children.
In an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet published on 4th December 2002, the Iranian woman said:
“How can I document having feelings for women and not for men, and the consequences of this in my home country”. She further stated that she had been forced to marry as a 17 years old girl. “If I should lie to be granted asylum, I would have thought out something less stigmatising. For a believer in Islam, homosexuality is the lowest of the low”
After the Directorate of Immigration had rejected her application, she appealed to the Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) and she was in fact capable of convincing them that she really was Lesbian. However, they were still not prepared to let her stay in Norway. It was emphasized that it is possible to live as a Lesbian in Iran, as long as one stays in the privacy of the home, although they also noted in their evaluation, that homosexuality indeed is forbidden by law in Iran and subject to hard punishments. Live here was probably defined as “maintaining biological life”, “absence of death”…
The Iranian woman was confronted with two conflicting decisions, and each equally devastating to her: The directorate did not believe she was Lesbian since she had been married and wanted to send her back because she had lied to them. The appeals board believed that she was Lesbian, but argued that she could live closeted as a Lesbian in Iran, if she was discrete…
The woman received a tremendous support and sympathy throughout the Norwegian society and the contradictory practises of the two government bodies have been heavily criticized. Two closely related government bodies should not under any circumstances operate with such conflicting and divergent criteria. She was therefore, in the last minute, granted permission to stay in Norway until her case had been revaluated. Her lawyers Anne Kristine Bohinen and Gunnar Stølsvik took action to proceed against the ministry of the interior…
Also Amnesty International supports the woman, arguing that she should be allowed to stay since it is impossible to live openly as a Lesbian in Iran. The organisation has been her most outspoken advocate in Norway and has expressed surprise, outrage and shock that it is possible, that the two institutions can evaluate a case that differently. John Peder Egenæs, representative of the Norwegian branch of Amnesty international underlines that in Iran, homosexuality is forbidden by law and sanctioned severely when discovered:
“Yet, the police does not break in peoples’ doors, so one can live a gay life as long as it is not publicly shown. We find, however, that one must have the right to be gay in public”
In February 2003 her case was tried anew in the Oslo Court of Assize. It was expected that she would indeed be granted asylum this time. Her case was given much less attention in the media, since now, it was generally assumed that finally justice would be done… Few doubted that she would not be granted permission to live in Norway. When interviewed in the media, even her own lawyer Bohinen emphasized several times that the decision to try her case again, indicated that the judicial system functions as I should, despite the scandalous treatment the woman had received during the first process. The surprise was therefore overwhelming when the court in the second week of March 2002 pronounced its sentence after the end of the hearings: The woman, who now was referred to in the media with the pseudonym Sima lost again.
The court confirmed the appeal board’s interpretation and agreed that Sima will not be prosecuted if she hides her sexual identity in Iran. Thus, if she is sent back, she might be able to maintain life if she is careful and does not reveal publicly her Lesbian identity and sexual orientation…
Amnesty International responded immediately and issued in the following weeks several press releases on the case. They continue arguing that Sima will be in danger if she is returned, also because her family knows about her sexual orientation and has threatened to denounce her to the authorities at several occasions.
The conservative newspaper Aftenposten in Oslo inquired about the case during the proceedings, on 19th February 2003 and again on 11th March. The directorate of Immigration, the institution that had rejected Sima’s first application for asylum because they did not believe that she was Lesbian at all, had in the meantime convinced themselves that she had not lied about her orientation after all and was now arguing that if they had known then, what they know now about her, the application would most likely have been approved…
Aftenposten wrote, quoting an interview with Amnesty lawyer Birgit Vinnes, that one reason for the initial rejection may have been that Sima did not sufficiently emphasize her sexual orientation during her hearing in the directory. She might have had difficulties talking about it, even verbalizing it. Sima seems to have been little convincing about her sexual orientation and hesitated often when discussing it with the commission in the directory. In reality she lacked the cultural competence, the very vocabulary to be able to act as a self-conscious and open Lesbian before the commission that heard her case. The commission, lacking the cultural competence to interpret “closeted behaviour”, therefore assumed that she was making it all up… Birgit Vinnes says to Aftenposten:
“She is not used to talk about her sexual orientation. ”Lesbian” is an almost non-existing word in her language and she was not aware of the importance of clarifying this”
Leader of Amnesty’s information department in Oslo emphasized that this is a matter of principles for the human rights’ organisation.
“We demand an answer to the question whether homosexuals should be sent back to a country where they must hide their sexual orientation”
further:
“If that is the case, it can be said for instance, that communists are prosecuted in Iraq. Yet, if you are a communist privately and hide it, there is no danger. Sima’s case is completely parallel to this.”
On 29th April it was announced that also the last court decision will be appealed to a higher court in Oslo. Two Norwegian GBLT organisations, LLH and Homocirkus have offered Sima to guarantee the costs of her process so that money should not be an obstacle to pursue the case as long as necessary. In a press release, LLH states that the real matter at stake here, is the individual’s right to be oneself and show it, without risking prosecution. Enkidu will keep you updated on further developments in the case.
The Appeal Board, however, continues to argue that she should be sent back to Iran, arguing that it is not sufficient reason to be granted residence on humanitarian grounds because an individual cannot live in their home country exactly the way he or she can live in Norway… After all, at least 95% or more of the world population live in societies where the human rights situation tends to be worse than in Norway, which is a small peripheral country with less than 5 million inhabitants. It would be impossible to integrate or support each and every individual who would like to enjoy the individual liberties and democratic rights granted to Norwegian citizens. Immigration policies have therefore become increasingly restrictive in recent years, to the point that it is now almost impossible for non-Europeans to be granted residency in Norway for any reason, although it has not had any real effect on the pressure on the borders. It is expected that soon, further restrictions on immigration will be issued, regrettably making tragic cases like this one even more likely to occur in the future.
