Tag Archives: condoms

Letter to Scott Morrison about Treatment of LGBTI Asylum Seekers and Refugees Sent to Manus Island, PNG

Posted on by

UPDATE: Sunday 20 July 2014

On Friday 18 July, I received the following response from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, to my correspondence about the treatment of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees:

Dear Mr Lawrie

Treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender and intersex asylum seekers

Thank you for your letter of 2 February 2014 to the Hon Scott Morrison MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, concerning the treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender and intersex asylum seekers. The Minister appreciates the time you have taken to bring these matters to his attention and has asked that I reply on his behalf. I regret the delay in responding.

As a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the Refugees Convention), Australia takes its international obligations seriously. Australia is committed to treating asylum seekers fairly and humanely, and providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugees Convention, and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party.

The Australian Government has taken a number of measures to deter people smuggling and to ensure that people do not take the dangerous journey to Australia in boats organised by people smugglers. Under Australian domestic law, all illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) entering Australia by sea without a visa will be liable for transfer to Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) where any asylum claims they may have will be assessed, and if found to be a refugee, they will be resettled in Nauru and PNG or in another country.

Any claims made against Nauru and PNG by an IMA, including claims concerning the treatment of homosexuals, bisexual, transgender and intersex asylum seekers in either country, are considered prior to transfer. Where an IMA makes such a claim, consideration is given to whether the IMA can be transferred to the proposed country, or an alternative country, or whether the IMA’s case should be referred to the Minister for consideration or exemption from transfer.

Nauru and PNG are also both parties to the Refugee Convention. The Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) they have signed with Australia on the offshore processing arrangements reaffirm their commitment to the Refugees Convention and to treating people transferred with dignity and respect in accordance with human rights standards.

The enforcement of PNG domestic law is a matter for the Government of PNG. The government is aware of laws relating to homosexual activity in PNG and understands that there have been no recent reports of prosecution under those laws.

If homosexual activity should occur in the OPC, there is no mandatory obligation under PNG domestic law for Australian officers or contracted services providers to report such activity to the PNG Government or police.

The department notes the release of the reports by both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Amnesty International on the Manus OPC. Any reports received by the department will be reviewed, and observations or comments verified. Where reports make practical observations that can be implemented and would improve the operations of the centres, the government will address these in partnership with Nauru and PNG to address any deficiencies in good faith.

Any claims of mistreatment at the Manus OPC would be primarily a matter for the Administrator of the OPC. The Manus OPC is administered by PNG under PNG law, with support from Australia. The PNG Minister for Foreign Affairs and Immigration appoints the Administrator of the Centre (a PNG national) under section 15D of the Papua New Guinea Migration Act 1978 (the Act). The Administrator, who, under the Act has control and management of the Centre (currently the Chief Migration Officer, Head of the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Service Authority) has an Operations Manager at the OPC reporting to him, who has oversight of the day-to-day operations of the OPC.

To assist PNG in the implementation of the MOU, the government has contracted appropriately trained and experienced service providers to ensure that transferees’ needs are adequately met, including through the provision of health and welfare services. Transferees can report any concerns to OPC staff.

Regarding the distribution of condoms, I can assure you that condoms are available at the Manus OPC, and the department’s contracted health service provider, International Health and Medical Service, conduct regular health information sessions on safe sex practices.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Minister’s attention.

Yours sincerely

[Name withheld]

Acting Assistant Secretary

Community Programmes Services Branch

9 / 7 / 2014

Some quick thoughts on the above:

  • Even though we are more than a decade into our post-Tampa nightmare of refugee policy in Australia, it is still shocking to see people simply seeking asylum in Australia described, by government officials, as Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs). And it is probably almost as shocking realising that the same government official doesn’t even need to spell out what an OPC is anymore, instead it is taken as a given.
  • While the letter acknowledges there is no mandatory reporting of homosexual activity under PNG law, it explicitly does not state that there is no reporting of homosexual activity to PNG Police, or refute the claim that asylum seekers have been told they will be reported if found to engage in such activity.
  • It is difficult to accept the statement that “[t]o assist PNG in the implementation of the MOU, the government has contracted appropriately trained and experienced service providers to ensure that transferees’ needs are adequately met” from the same Government that is responsible for the death, in custody, of Reza Berati just over two weeks after I wrote my initial letter.
  • It is obviously welcome that, at least on paper, the Government claims it makes condoms available to asylum seekers on Manus Island – although whether they are made available in reality would be difficult to verify (given the shroud of secrecy surrounding, and lack of journalist access to, the detention facilities in PNG and Nauru).
  • The main problem remains however, and that is there is no firm commitment not to send LGBTI asylum seekers for ‘processing’ to countries which criminalise homosexuality, and no commitment that LGBTI refugees will not be permanently resettled in countries where they are liable to punishment merely for sexual intercourse.
  • The process outlined in the letter – that an asylum seeker must make a claim against the laws of PNG or Nauru prior to their transfer, is farcical given what we know about the current way asylum seekers are being assessed: while they are detained on navy or customs vessels, on the open sea, through a short interview (with as few as four questions by some reports) via teleconference to officials in mainland Australia. It is outrageous to suggest that the only way a gay asylum seeker can avoid being sent to another country which criminalises their sexual orientation is to declare their sexual orientation at short notice, whilst intimidated by naval or customs personnel (and potentially while intimidated by other asylum seekers, including possible family members), and to specifically claim protection against countries which they may not even be aware they are being taken to, and may not know criminalise homosexuality.

While I certainly wasn’t expecting to take much comfort from this response from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, it is still depressing to realise that, yet again, so little solace is to be found.

ORIGINAL LETTER

The Hon Scott Morrison MP

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

PO Box 6022

House of Representatives

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Sunday 2 February 2014

Dear Minister

TREATMENT OF LGBTI ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES SENT TO MANUS ISLAND, PAPUA NEW GUINEA

I am writing regarding the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) asylum seekers and refugees sent to Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, both for offshore processing and permanent resettlement.

In particular, I am writing about concerning allegations raised in the Amnesty International Report This is Breaking People: Human rights violations at Australia’s asylum seeker processing centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, which was released on 11 December 2013.

Chapter 8 of that report, titled ‘Asylum claims on the basis of sexual orientation’ (pages 73-75), details a range of serious allegations about the mistreatment of LGBTI asylum seekers sent to Manus Island for processing.

Specifically, Amnesty International found that:

  • Section 210 of the PNG Penal Code, which makes male-male penetrative sexual intercourse a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment, applies to asylum seekers detained on Manus Island
  • Section 212 of the PNG Penal Code, which makes other sexual activity between men, termed ‘gross indecency’, a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment, also applies to asylum seekers detained there
  • Asylum seekers held on Manus Island have been informed that if they are found to have engaged in male-male sexual intercourse, they will be reported to PNG Police (despite no requirement for mandatory reporting)
  • Gay asylum seekers have reported being subject to bullying and harassment from other detainees and staff, including physical and verbal abuse and attempted molestation, but are not reporting this abuse because of fear of prosecution for their homosexuality
  • Interviewees have indicated that some gay asylum seekers have changed or are considering changing their asylum claim, from persecution on the basis of sexual orientation to persecution on another ground, in order to avoid prosecution (thereby jeopardising the chances of their claim ultimately being accepted)
  • Interviewees have indicated that some gay asylum seekers have chosen to return home, despite the risks involved to the personal safety/liberty, rather than be subjected to ongoing mistreatment because of their sexual orientation on Manus Island and
  • Condom distribution has been banned within the Manus Island detention facility, despite the risk of HIV transmission.

In these circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that Ms Renate Croker, the senior official from the Department of Immigration & Border Protection located at the Manus Island detention facility, told Amnesty International that “she was unaware of any asylum claims being made on the basis of LGBTI identity.”

Not only is this contradicted by the Amnesty Report – which interviewed a man who reported that his claim was based on persecution due to his sexual orientation, and who expressed concern about being transferred to Manus Island for this reason – it also ignores the fact that some gay asylum seekers may have changed their claims to other grounds (for the reasons outlined above), or that some asylum seekers may happen to be LGBTI but their claim is in fact based on persecution on other grounds (for example, race or religion).

Irrespective of how their claim is being dealt with, the Australian Government has a responsibility to protect the human rights of any and all LGBTI asylum seekers who have sought protection in Australia. This includes the right to freedom from prosecution on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, the right to claim asylum and the right to health.

From the information contained in the This is Breaking People report, it seems the Australian Government is falling well short of its obligations in this area.

I should note at this point that I am strongly opposed to the offshore processing and permanent resettlement of any asylum seekers by the Australian Government. This policy does not constitute a humane response, nor does it live up to our international humanitarian and legal responsibilities.

However, the mistreatment of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees raises particular problems, problems that do not appear to be recognized by the Australian Government. Nor does there appear to be any evidence the Government is taking action to remedy them.

Even if the offshore processing and permanent resettlement of refugees continues, this must not include the processing and resettlement of LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees in countries which criminalise homosexuality (which both PNG and Nauru currently do).

If you, as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and therefore Minister responsible for the welfare of asylum seekers and refugees, cannot guarantee that sections 210 and 212 of the PNG Penal Code do not apply to detainees on Manus Island, then you cannot send LGBTI people there in good conscience.

If you, as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, cannot guarantee that LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees will not be subject to homophobic bullying and harassment, and will be free to lodge claims for protection on the basis of persecution due to their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, then you must not detain them in such facilities.

If you, as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, cannot guarantee that all asylum seekers and refugees, including but not limited to LGBTI people, have access to condoms, then you are potentially endangering their lives and you should be held accountable for any health problems which occur as a result (noting that HIV continues to be life-threatening in the absence of treatment).

It has been clear since the reintroduction of offshore processing of asylum seekers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, passed by the previous Labor Government and supported by the Liberal-National Opposition in mid-2012, that the criminalisation of homosexuality in these countries constituted a significant threat to the human rights of LGBTI asylum seekers sent there.

Indeed, I wrote to you as Shadow Minister for Immigration expressing my concerns about this exact issue in September 2012. I did not receive a response addressing the subject of LGBTI asylum seekers prior to your assumption of the role of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in September 2013.

I sincerely hope, now that you are the person directly responsible for the health and wellbeing of asylum seekers and refugees, and especially after the Amnesty International Report This is Breaking People has confirmed that these human rights abuses are real, that you take this issue, and your responsibilities, seriously.

I look forward to your response on this important issue.

Yours sincerely,

Alastair Lawrie

A copy of the Amnesty International Report This is Breaking People, can be found here: <http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/about/Amnesty_International_Manus_Island_report.pdf

Submission on National Health & Physical Education Curriculum

Posted on by

Below is the text of my submission to ACARA about the draft national Health & Physcial Education curriculum (due tomorrow 12 April). I think that my concern with the consultation draft, as released, shows through. I find it particularly worrying that the curriculum does not use the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

But it is even more worrying that it omits the terms or phrases condoms, safe sex and HIV/AIDS – that, to me, is negligently putting the lives of young people, and young gay and bisexual men in particular, at risk. Here’s hoping that ACARA listens to this submission, and to others from people writing about this issue.

Curriculum Photo

Submission on Draft National Health and Physical Education Curriculum: Foundation to Year 10

Thursday 11 April 2013

I am writing this submission as an ordinary member of the community. But I am also writing this submission as a gay man, and someone who was profoundly let down by my school education with respect to both inclusivity, and sexual health education.

In my opinion, both of these things – being genuinely inclusive of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and of intersex people, and providing comprehensive and detailed sexual health education, including HIV prevention – are absolutely essential in any Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum.

Inclusivity is necessary because all students, whether they be heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI), or a combination of these, have the right to an inclusive education, to learn about who they are, to develop their identity in a safe place, and to be provided with all of the information which they need as they grow up.

These rights are particularly important for LGBTI students because they will be entering a world in which homophobia, bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex prejudice remain a sad and unarguable fact. The consequences of not providing an inclusive education can be severe – LGBTI students can be the victims of harassment and bullying on account of their sexual orientations, gender identity or intersex status. LGBTI students, and later adults, also have higher rates of mental health issues, including rates of suicide, as a result of the discrimination which they experience. Any HPE curriculum which is adopted should be furthering the health of LGBTI people – and should not instead perpetuate their exclusion.

Sexual health education is necessary for all students, again, irrespective of whether they are gay or straight and no matter their gender identity or intersex status. However, unless they are specifically mentioned, the needs of LGBTI people can easily be overlooked with teachers and schools sometimes providing for the needs of the majority of their students, while ignoring the fact that every student should receive all the information they need to stay safe.

This is especially important for same-sex attracted boys, given that men who have sex with men remain a high-priority population in terms of HIV prevention. This means that sexual health education cannot be limited to ‘reproductive health’ or simply outline the risks of heterosexual intercourse, but must be comprehensive and teach all students about the risks involved in different types of intercourse, and above all the measures, such as condoms, which reduce those risks.

Of course, there is an additional reason why a HPE curriculum must be inclusive of LGBTI students, and must provide inclusive sexual health education – and that is because in many cases teachers and schools will be unaware which of their students are LGBT or I. Some students do ‘come out’ while at school, and obviously I believe that all schools should provide encouraging and nurturing environments to allow those students to do so. But many students do not come out while at school.

And I do not believe that they should be compelled to do so in order to receive an education which teaches them what they need to know about their identity, and the sexual health education which they need to stay safe.

As I mentioned before, my school education failed, and failed miserably, on both of these grounds. My school did not mention homosexuality, unless it was from a negative perspective. And throughout my education, at both primary and secondary schools, I not once was taught about safe sex in a same-sex attracted (or ‘non-reproductive’) context. Sadly, while many schools have become better at both inclusivity and sexual health education since that time (the early to mid-1990s), many have not.

The development of a national Health and Physical Education curriculum presents an ideal opportunity to address these issues. It is a chance to ensure that HPE, taught in any class room in any school across the country, is inclusive of LGBTI students, and provides sexual health education that is appropriate for all students, not just those who are heterosexual.

Unfortunately, the draft national HPE curriculum released by ACARA in December 2012 does not seize this historic opportunity. In my opinion, it falls far short in terms of its inclusivity (or, more accurately, lack thereof) of LGBTI students. For example, it does not even mention the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI), and therefore contributes to what can feel like an all-pervasive silence about these issues. I do not understand how any document can aspire to being inclusive of the full diversity of students when it deliberately omits the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex.

The draft national HPE curriculum also falls short in terms of the sexual health education which it provides. As well as beginning too late (in year 7 rather than year 5), the sexual health education which is included appears to focus on ‘reproductive health’ rather than genuinely inclusive sexual health. It should, but does not, cover everything necessary for same-sex attracted students and for HIV prevention.

The remainder of this submission will focus on some of the specific parts of the draft HPE curriculum which I believe should be amended, focusing on the many opportunities for improvement. I hope that these recommendations or suggestions are taken up, so that all students, including LGBTI students, get the education which they deserve.

1. On pages 3 and 4 of the draft HPE curriculum, the ‘key idea’ of being ‘healthy, safe and active’ could be amended to read: ‘confident, healthy, safe and active’. This would reflect the need for students to be confident in their personal identity (which is discussed briefly on page 4, but should be elevated in importance). Personal identity is fundamental to a student’s sense of wellbeing, and just as important as being ‘healthy’ or ‘safe’. It should also be noted that personal identity is not limited to LGBTI students, but would include a wide range of diverse backgrounds and therefore benefit students from across the spectrum.

2. On page 6, under the heading ‘relationships and sexuality’, the dot point which currently reads ‘exploring sexual and gender identities’ could be amended to be more explicit. A possible replacement could read ‘exploring different sexual orientations, gender identities and sex and intersex status’.

3. On page 15, I disagree with the choice to delay relationships and sexuality education until years 5-6 onwards. Instead, I believe it should commence in years 3-4, in the same way that alcohol and other drugs education does. This would ensure that students are aware of the full range of identities as they enter puberty, and do not need to ‘suffer in silence’ because they might be attracted to someone of the same sex. This outcome could be achieved by introducing the ‘themes’ or general concepts of relationships and sexuality in years 3-4 (including the identities of lesbian, gay and bisexual), and then providing more detailed sexual health education in years 5 and 6. As it currently stands, students would not receive detailed sexual health education until year 7 at the earliest, when students are generally turning 13. Given what we know about the sexual activity of young people, and the fact that puberty is starting earlier and earlier, this is too late for effective sexual health education to begin.

4. Onto a more specific issue – I think that more consideration could be given to introducing the particular topics relating to transgender and intersex from Foundation onwards, rather than waiting for 3-4 when lesbian, gay and bisexual issues are introduced. This is because gender identity and intersex are not related to sexual attraction, but instead may well be known before or at the commencement of schooling. Obviously I am not an expert on these issues, and would defer to the input of transgender organisations and groups like OII Australia. I am merely raising this issue because it would not appear logical to delay teaching these particular matters until closer to puberty (unlike arguably the same-sex attracted issues referred to above).

5. I welcome the inclusion of a statement about same-sex attracted (SSA) and gender diverse students on page 18 of the draft HPE curriculum – at the very least the curriculum acknowledges that these students exist and have specific needs. However, I reject the idea that the curriculum should provide schools with the ‘flexibility’ to include these students, with a vague and non-committal ‘expectation’ that schools will take opportunities to be inclusive. This seems fundamentally inconsistent with a sentence in the same paragraph which correctly notes that ‘students facing these issues exist in all school communities’.

If that statement is correct, then ALL schools across the country MUST be inclusive. The best way to achieve this is to provide specific and detailed requirements for the inclusion of LGBTI-related content throughout the text of the curriculum, rather than through a non-binding ‘aspirational’ statement at the beginning of the document which will likely only be referred to and applied by those schools and teachers which are already supportive of LGBTI students.

6. As a broader point, while I understand that the terms same-sex attracted (SSA) and gender diverse are included on page 18 because they are considered more inclusive of the diverse range of possible identities, I disagree that these should be the only terms used in the document to describe these groups. The vast majority of students who grow up who are SSA or gender diverse, will over time identify with one or more of the following identities: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

For this reason, I believe that these specific identities/descriptors should be included in the curriculum as well. These students deserve to have their identities spoken about in the classroom – and other students should also learn about the diversity of sexual orientations, gender identities and intersex people, rather than just the catch-all phrases SSA and gender diverse. After all, these are the terms which all students are likely to be exposed to after they depart the school environment. If any students leave school without understanding these terms then I think we are doing them a great disservice.

7. On page 49, at heading 4.2, I welcome the introduction of discrimination on the basis of sexuality as one of the particular examples of negative forms of discrimination which may be discussed in the classroom. However, I would like to see this broadened to look at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status (rather than the more generic term ‘sexuality’), and I would also like teachers to be required to use all of these examples (including race, gender, disability etc), rather than simply choosing one or two from the list and potentially ignoring or omitting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex.

8. In the discussion of years 7-8, from page 58 onwards, the curriculum finally looks at sexual health education in detail. As discussed above, I believe this is far too late (and should instead be taught from year 5 onwards). However, turning to the substance of what is proposed, I also believe that it is too narrowly defined and limited in content.

For example, on page 59 the draft curriculum only refers to ‘reproductive health and wellbeing’. This is a very exclusionary term, traditionally focusing on sexual practices which are related to reproduction. This does NOT include other forms of sexual intercourse, including the behaviours of people who are same-sex attracted (as well as a range of other behaviours of heterosexual students which are also unrelated to reproduction). It is for this reason that the term sexual health should be used instead (or at least sexual and reproductive health), as it captures all of the behaviours which should be discussed.

9. The discussion of sexual health also needs to be made significantly longer, with more detail provided about what exactly has to be taught. This should include explicit reference to condoms, safe sex and the need for the prevention of HIV and other STIs. As a gay man who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, I believe that it is negligent to draft a curriculum for primary and secondary students that does not include the words condom, safe sex or even HIV. Any comprehensive guide for the ‘health and physical education’ of young people must include these terms, especially when considering the health and wellbeing of young gay men, bisexual men and men who have sex with men generally. I would hope that organisations from the HIV/AIDS sector will be making similar points on this particular issue.

10. Finally, in years 9-10, on page 70, in addition to the reference to homophobia, there should also be references to bi-phobia, trans-phobia and anti-intersex discrimination. Students should be aware of the existence of, and unacceptability of, each of these types of prejudice. Of course, logically these types of discrimination cannot be discussed without an understanding of the identities lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex, further underscoring the need for these issues to be taught from earlier in the curriculum.

As discussed earlier, I believe that significant amendments and improvements should be made to the draft national HPE curriculum to ensure that it is genuinely inclusive of, and provides appropriate sexual health education for, LGBTI students. I hope that ACARA takes these suggestions or recommendations for improvement into consideration as it revises the HPE curriculum before it is submitted to the Commonwealth and State and Territory education ministers for approval later this year.