https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmwomeq/93/report.html
27 June 2023
Equality and the UK asylum process
This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government.
Biased or prejudiced interpreters and interviewers
71. We heard allegations that people claiming asylum based on sexual orientation can be disadvantaged by biased or prejudiced interpreters in substantive interviews and appeal hearings. The SOGICA Project cited academic research that found LGBT asylum claimants may be “wary of interpreters from their own ethnic communities as they may fear they share the homophobia or transphobia they have fled or will put them at risk by disclosure.” Rainbow Migration reported instances of interpreters deliberately providing a poor service because of their own prejudice, “for example, by mistranslating, rebuking or judging people, or being dismissive of their fears such as the death penalty.” Some claimants were inhibited from talking openly about their claims in front of an interpreter from their country of origin. Rainbow Migration also emphasised that relevant concepts and behaviours “can be hard to translate across cultures and languages, particularly where they are not usually discussed or are considered taboo.”
72. Humanists UK expressed similar concerns about interpreters’ biases in relation to asylum claims made by non-religious people and apostates in highly religious or theocratic countries. Its 2019 survey of 40 such claimants found around a quarter reported experiencing “difficulties with prejudiced translators”, including problems “finding independent translators willing to translate criticisms of religious beliefs”.
73. Some witnesses noted that Home Office interviewers were not immune to biases and applying harmful stereotypes, which they believed contributed to the culture of disbelief. The SOGICA project reported its research had found the interviewers:
[…] often fail to understand the individual [LGBT] claimant, because of assumptions and prejudices. These include, among others, expectations that claimants have a partner or are sexually active, take part in LGBTIQ+ activism, provide a “coming out” narrative, and have difficulty reconciling their [sexuality or gender identity] with their religious beliefs.
Researchers at University College London found the interview process disadvantages LGBT claimants “based on a set of stereotypes about how those characteristics should present themselves (i.e., in speech, appearance, behaviour).”
74. Biased or prejudiced interpreters can adversely affect a person’s asylum claim, particularly in cases where claims are based on sexual orientation or gender identity and religion or renunciation of religious belief. No interpreter contracted by the Home Office should be able to influence the determination of any claim, particularly where this is motivated by their own beliefs, prejudices or stereotyping.
75. We recommend the Home Office establish a programme of religious impartiality and LGBT sensitivity training for all language interpreters on its approved list. We further recommend the Department review and enhance its training of asylum interviewers on avoiding application of stereotypes to asylum claimants in sexual orientation and gender identity-based claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment