International conflict,sexual violence and asylum policy: Merseyside as a case study

Introduction and context

International recognition of the gendered experiences of conflict, migration and forced migration, as well as life in asylum and as a refugee, have gradually developed since the Second World War, and more substantively since the 1990s. Whilst many social groups and individuals are subjected to physical, emotional, psychological and structural violence, women are disproportionately subjected to the perpetration or threat of sexual violence, in some or all of these forms. During conflict there are, with few exceptions (Wood, 2009), exacerbations in sexual violence beyond the domestic sphere, including rape, multiple perpetrator rape, and coercive and forced sex for survival (Amnesty International, 2004; Bastick et al., 2007; Human Rights Watch, 1996; Kelly, 2000; Leatherman, 2011; Rowley et al., 2012; Stiglmayer, 1994; Wood, 2006). Women fleeing conflict may be subject to sex trafficking, as well as less internationally acknowledged forms of exploitation, such as rape at borders and coercive sex for travel and border access (Kelly, 2003, 2005; Refugee Council, 2009b).

It has been established elsewhere that this area is under reported, under researched and, in terms of support, prevention and protection, under resourced, particularly considering the impacts and consequences on women (Kelly, 2000). Whilst consciousness has increased with regard to violence women can face in relation to conflict (Rowley et al., 2012), there remain ‘deep seated areas of discrimination and none greater than in the field of asylum and immigration’ (Kennedy in Dorling et al., 2012: 2). The wider reaching impacts of violence against women in conflict are arguably overlooked nationally and internationally, particularly in considering women’s rights, well-being and access to sexual violence support when seeking asylum. Specifically, in the United Kingdom, small pockets of research have pointed to severe inequalities, rights violations and an inadequate asylum system for applicants generally (Asylum Aid, 2011; Bohmer and Shuman, 2008; Dorling et al., 2012), women as survivors of conflict related sexual violence more specifically (Freedom from Torture, 2009; Refugee Council, 2009a).

Focussing on Merseyside, a key area for asylum dispersal, as a case study, this article explores the support in the aftermath of sexual violence available for women in the asylum system and the way in which women’s claims for asylum are handled. Whilst the adoption of a case study generally was to allow for in-depth knowledge of the area and sustained relations with community groups, Merseyside itself is a salient area for this research. Liverpool is one of only six cities to have an Asylum Screening Unit; has a high asylum population with a number of prominent asylum support organizations based in Merseyside; and is an area of socio-economic deprivation, issues which often encompass wider problems related to social and economic marginalization.

Reflecting on interviews with support workers, managers and counsellors working within sectors related to asylum, sexual violence or both, this paper examines and highlights sexual violence support for women seeking asylum, and gaps therein. From this, a focus is drawn to the life history of a woman seeking asylum in Merseyside, specifically her experiences of applying for asylum after fleeing state violence in Ethiopia, where she was subjected to rape at the country’s border during her first attempt to flee governmental violence. To conclude, this paper argues that the impacts of rape during and fleeing conflict can be significant for women survivors seeking asylum, and gaps in support or inadequate handlings of women’s asylum claims can compound these issues.

Asylum: Policy and practice

The United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) is a Home Office, and therefore state, run public enforcement agency which is ‘responsible for securing the UK border and controlling migration in the UK’ (Home Office, 2011). Although it is undergoing imminent dissolution due to poor performance and widespread criticism of it regarding asylum handling, ¹ for five years the Agency’s role has included staffing border points across the UK’s main entry points for travellers, immigrants and asylum seekers. Whilst all points of entry, for example all airports, have a Border Agency passport control and a request for asylum can initially be applied for at any port of entry, Croydon is currently the only point in the UK at which official claims for asylum can be processed. In 2009, this was centralized from dual points, Croydon and Liverpool (Refugee Council, 2009b). Applicants are expected to provide a range of documents, including passports, birth certificates, police registration certificates, other supporting documents and evidence of accommodation (UKBA, n.d. a).

Importantly, asylum applicants have more often than not fled conflict and unrest (Asylum Aid, 2008; Bohmer and Shuman, 2008; Collier, 2007; Freedom from Torture, 2009), experienced violence in their country of origin and are forced then to live on the economic and social margins whilst awaiting lengthy application reviews (Asylum Aid, 2011; Burnett, 2009; Burnett and Whyte, 2010; Smith, 2004). As has been widely argued in the field of critical social sciences, a politics of fear and risk toward immigration and asylum is evident in many governmental agencies and departments, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11 (Aas, 2007). This discourse is further referenced in the UKBA’s bi-monthly news updates which have carried headlines including forgery, fraud, people smuggling, ‘stowaways’, and housing raids on migrants working ‘illegally’ (UKBA, 2011). One article even highlighted the establishment of a ‘dedicated marriage interview team’ in Liverpool to challenge ‘sham’ marriages to ‘tackle abuse of immigration’ (UKBA, 2011: 12), with no mention of the potential abuse of the women involved, contrary to the Gender Guidelines discussed above. As will be outlined below, there are clear implications in responding to survivors of violence, sexual or otherwise, as suspects or criminals.

In the aftermath of sexual violence during conflict: Asylum and women

Johnstone (2008) argues that refugee women are more affected by violence against women than any other women’s population in the world due to conflict related violence and violence during migration (cited in Refugee Council, 2009b: 8, see also Burnett and Peel, 2001). Indeed, there are a number of population groups who may be disproportionately affected by certain forms of sexual violence, such as trafficked women or women with disabilities. In the case of refugee women, it is notable that thousands of women in the UK asylum system have fled conflict regions where sexual violence is identified as being at epidemic levels, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Darfur. ² The impacts of sexual violence are significant, variable and encompass social, physical and emotional harms with the potential to span the duration of the survivor’s life. Furthermore, the use of public and systematic sexual violence in conflict can instigate further social harms for women, resulting in social ostracism, shame and stigma, shattering communities and potentially forcing migration, therefore increasing the need for asylum (Leatherman, 2011; Rowley et al., 2012).

The very nature of asylum has changed substantially over the past century, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century in terms of responses from states to post-conflict resolution. The two World Wars exposed voids in international responses to victims and survivors of conflict, making way for policy developments (Canning, 2010; Woodiwiss, 2005). The most significant of these remain the Nuremburg Trials which subsequently influenced later trials after the Rwandan Genocide and Bosnian War and influenced the development of the International Criminal Courts (Woodiwiss, 2005). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and the Geneva Convention in 1949/1951, followed. However, the extent of rape in conflict remained shadowed by other war crimes and crimes against humanity until 2008, when United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820 was finally adopted.

Gendered persecution is not recognized as specific grounds for seeking refugee status in the 1949/1951 Geneva Convention. Women can, however, apply for protection as a member of a Particular Social Group (PSG), which does not specify group status but can encompass women fleeing sexual violence, amongst other social, religious, ethnic and political demographics. This also does not guarantee refugee status, and the rates of non-disclosure of sexual violence, particularly in the initial interview, can affect women’s likelihood of being granted asylum or believed (Asylum Aid, 2011).

As Collier argued, there remains a lack of focus on women’s cases in the UK asylum system which has resulted in a chasm in knowledge and awareness (2007: 4, see also Rowley et al., 2012). Inequality and exclusion can be experienced by women in differing ways from men, and often sit at intersections of inequalities, including race and ethnicity (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; hooks, 1981, 1984; Yuval-Davis, 2006a, 2006b). Feminist studies on intersectionality have facilitated the recognition of further points of marginalization inherent to many women’s lives, which can be diverse in relation to wider social characteristics, such as ethnicity, class, religion, ability and sexuality (Sokoloff, 2008; Yuval-Davis, 2006b). Walby et al. (2012) provide a useful analysis of the intersections of inequalities at different and fluid points, rather than as stagnant identities. Expanding on this, and whilst emphasizing gender inequality as a key contributor to sexual violence, it is worth noting that life in asylum sits as another prominently racialized identity that further compounds oppression and exclusion for women, potentially having serious effects on the working through of conflict related trauma. Dispersal, for example, can be particularly precarious for women who have been able to access support for traumatic experiences including sexual violence, as well as informal support networks (Dumper, 2002; Human Rights Watch, 2010).

In acknowledgement of women’s experiences of persecution as part of a PSG, the UKBA issued the document ‘Gender Issues in the Asylum Claim’ (UKBA, 2010) to introduce a gendered focus when assessing women’s claims, particularly in relation to approaching personally and politically silenced issues such as rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse. The document outlines some key points to consider during interviews, such as offering a female interpreter, and highlights socio-cultural norms that may be common in women’s countries of origin. Whilst this was a positive development, research has consistently shown that women are routinely disbelieved, receive little if any support in the aftermath of sexual violence and are still expected to discuss instances of sexual violence in the first interview in an official environment with a stranger (Asylum Aid, 2011; Bögner et al., 2010; Freedom from Torture, 2009). As will be discussed in more depth, the credibility of the applicant’s account is also questioned if sexual violence is not discussed in the interview which in turn reduces the possibility of being granted asylum, and therefore increases the chances of refoulement (enforced return). Credibility can be undermined if women (or men) are not able to speak about persecution or abuse due to a lack of same gender interviewing, time or appropriate interview space for revealing instances of sexual violence. Likewise, the individual may decide not to discuss instances of sexual violence, as a strategy for self-protection if they are returned to their country of origin where they may fear further persecution based on this disclosure of information during their asylum application.

As reflected in the recent moves to dissolve the UKBA, research by a number of non-governmental organizations in the UK has consistently demonstrated instances of erroneous decision making and adversarial rigour which have been more detrimental to the applicant. Smith (2004) highlighted serious discrepancies in asylum interviewing and reasons for refusal, including overlooking facts about individual cases, unreasonable expectations of knowledge and unfounded assumptions by UKBA staff. More recent reports by Asylum Aid (2011), Rights of Women (2010) and the Refugee Council (2009b) confirm Smith’s findings and highlight that the inadequate implementation of a gendered review can have serious impacts on women. A lack of a gender sensitive approach can lead to denial of necessary support, create barriers to domestic violence refuges and problematize access to the English and Welsh Criminal Justice System, if needed. As such, it can result in an unfair review of claims for women applying for asylum in the UK, perpetuating harm against women socially, politically and emotionally through marginalization and exclusion. As this article will go on to indicate, this harm can go beyond the consequences of crimes of violence to impact on a woman’s mental and even physical well-being, with life threatening potential if she is wrongly returned to her country of origin.

Methodology

The data gathered stems from three forms of investigative methodology: thirteen in-depth interviews, one three-part oral history and reflections from fieldwork in activist research and participation over a five year period.

Interviews were undertaken over a three-month period, from June to August 2010. Participants were purposively sampled in relation to their role and included people from key organizations working with women in a support after rape capacity, women seeking asylum in Merseyside, or both. These individuals were chosen to reflect the most relevant governmental and non-governmental organizations working within these areas. Interviewees were asked to relay examples of experiences of supporting or working with women seeking asylum; to highlight any common forms of abuse women had been subjected to, specifically in relation to conflict or as a result of fleeing conflict; to define what support was available to women who had been subjected to sexual violence; to highlight any gaps they felt existed in the current asylum system, and to suggest ways these can be improved. Respondents were anonymously labelled Respondent One, Two etc. which is shortened to R1, R2 etc. when used with quotes below.

Finally, one oral history was developed in seven meetings overall with a survivor of rape, whose pseudonym, chosen by the participant, is Hawwi. Hawwi fled state violence at the hands of the Ethiopian government and, at the time of the research, was seeking asylum in Merseyside. This history, accumulating around 47,000 words in raw material, was recorded in three parts, beginning with her childhood and concluding with reflections on her life at the time in the asylum system in the UK. Methodologically, this oral history is not intended to be representative or all encompassing for other women’s experiences during conflict or the asylum process. What is provided, however, is the possibility to incorporate structural and macro analyses of the gendered natures of conflict and asylum with the micro level impacts of actions, policy and decision making, nationally and internationally. This is done so by incorporating wider research findings in the field alongside interview findings from this research, whilst considering policy application with regard to gender persecution and the UKBA’s Gender Guidelines.

Interview responses were coded using NVivo 8 and analysed from an interpretive perspective (Mason, 2002), read literally first and then deconstructed in relation to wider literature and the socio-structural and political context from which they responded. For example, more information about sexual violence in conflict could be derived from interviews with individuals working with organizations supporting women, whilst localized politicized readings could be formed with agencies working as part of, or with, the state, particularly from a standpoint feminist epistemology and critical criminological perspective.

Analysis of Hawwi’s oral history was more complex. Considering the number of recordings and depth and volume of data, linear structure first had to be re-constructed to read the history literally, before applying a dual interpretive analysis from myself and Hawwi. Mason (2002) details two relevant points. Firstly, one interest lay in the ‘implicit norms or rules’, particularly in relation to gender, within which Hawwi was living in Ethiopia (Mason, 2002: 149). Secondly, and importantly, this had to be sensitively undertaken. As feminists such as Kelly et al. (1994) have put forward, telling another woman’s story is a politically sensitive area, and this can be even more complex from the perspective of an outside interviewer with limited insight into the participant’s Country of Origin or cultural background. In relation to this, a balance was struck between my interpretation, and Hawwi’s, by completing the structure and interpretation together. This allowed not only for Hawwi’s insight, but for Hawwi to see my interpretation of her story. Points previously unrecognized as key for Hawwi became clearer through her interpretation, whilst structural analyses, such as identifying cultural inequalities including limitations on education and gendered uses and fear of space, allowed for more in-depth interpretation and discussion during the process of analysis.

Women and asylum: Merseyside as a case study

Merseyside was, until 2009, a main entry point for asylum, one of two in the UK until asylum application was centralized to Croydon. Liverpool, and the Merseyside area more generally, remains a key area for asylum dispersal (ICAR, 2009) and continues to have a ‘further submissions unit’ for refused asylum seekers where applicants can make appeals. In 2009 there were 1375 asylum seekers living in Liverpool in supported accommodation, with a further 25 on subsistence only (ICAR, 2009). Whilst this does not include refugees, it is still a substantial number in comparison with other areas, such as Newcastle which held 630 and Cardiff which held 980 during the same period (ICAR, 2009). It is worth stating that Liverpool’s local authority rated highest in the most recent ‘English Indices of Deprivation’ (2010), and held five of the ten most deprived areas in research conducted by the Church Urban Fund (BBC, 2012). In other words, there are vulnerable women coming from areas of extreme deprivation, to one of the poorest cities in the UK, with limited economic or social support.

Despite the issues outlined above, little research (academic or otherwise) has been undertaken on the asylum system in Merseyside, and less so regarding women, with none so far related to the impact of sexual violence and access to support. One project which was undertaken by England and Wales’s leading mental health charity, MIND, to assess health care provision for asylum seekers and refugees across England and Wales (including Liverpool) found ‘a lack of therapeutic and psychosocial services available to refugees and asylum-seekers to address intermediate mental health needs’ and that ‘there is limited availability of specialist services to treat those who have experienced torture’, but did not refer directly to Merseyside or Liverpool in the final report (MIND, 2009: 2). This is an important gap in terms of women’s experiences, particularly where sexual violence is concerned.

It is also worth noting that support is stretched; most organizations are underfunded or do not receive any sustained funding at all, and at the time of the research only one organization received funds from the UKBA, by which it is directed. ³ Agencies that do exist are afforded minimal resources, have little space for women and children and usually operate without women interpreters (Canning, 2011a). The masculinization of asylum space can also affect if and how women engage in services available generally, as some can feel threatened and/or vulnerable (Canning, 2011a), as will be discussed later.

Findings: Transcending conflict and migration

As a number of writers have indicated, sexual violence can have long-term effects which can be compounded by stress triggers and other personal circumstances (Freedom from Torture, 2009). Issues such as detention, dispersal, destitution and anxiety due to fear of forced return have been identified as contributors to stress, isolation and depression amongst asylum seekers (Bloch and Schuster, 2005; Burnett, 2009; Burnett and Peel, 2001), which may exacerbate symptoms linked to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ⁴ (PTSD).

Participants who had supported women in Merseyside after varying experiences of violence, including multiple perpetrator rape and torture beyond sexual violence, relayed experiences of women they had worked with. Not unlike wider accounts evidenced in conflict related sexual violence (Amnesty International, 2004; Human Rights Watch, 2002; Kelly, 2000; Stiglmayer, 1994), participants’ accounts indicated some women living in Merseyside had been subject to abject violence and humiliation:

R4: The woman … with the electric cables, she was whipped with them … that was repeatedly. She was kept for a couple of days. But it wasn’t just one incident, it’s many … when it’s gang rape it’s more the humiliation and torture, the powerlessness. Women experience powerlessness when it’s one on one, but it does bring so much more, it just undermines everything.

R9: They may have been raped in conflict, raped as a method of torture. Many of the women who visit here have come from rape camps in Central Africa. They’ve been raped more times than I can even imagine.

One respondent’s experience echoed the accounts given by many women from the Democratic Republic of Congo in describing degradation, humiliation and torture:

R5: One of the clients that I’m working with, she was sitting down in the living room peeling cassava when the rebel soldiers came in, forced themselves into the living room, went over to her, slapped her, kicked her, pinned her to the floor, stripped her clothes and got the cassava and, you know, they inserted it into her vagina. And the others got their private parts out and you know, getting her to do all sorts basically… and those [are], the sort of stories that I come across a lot.

The woman subjected to this violence and degradation was (at the time of the research) still living in Liverpool and receiving counselling support. This then opens the question of the effects of conflict sexual violence, for the individual and wider society/ies. Being that such violent forms of abuse have been perpetrated against, and experienced by, women living in Merseyside and other areas of the UK, the ongoing impacts of such forms are important considerations.

When asked what effects rape in conflict had on the women or groups they work with, most respondents indicated psychological and emotional consequences, such as psychological trauma, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, dissociation and flashbacks. Social effects included relationship breakdown, detachment from children born as a result of rape and social and familial marginalization. Lastly, physical implications included sexually transmitted infections and reproductive problems. Respondents also emphasized that many physical implications may not be long term, for example a medical doctor who worked with women in conflict as well as with women in Merseyside indicated:

R1: They [UKBA] take medical evidence in the case for asylums. But that point of view is very difficult to prove … They often only focus on the physical consequences of rape in terms of scars, tears … any physical evidence to prove the rape took place … the victim will recover in weeks so there is no consequences of them after six weeks or almost two months, but the psychological trauma will persist.

The implication here is that women who do not necessarily fit a forensic model of having survived sexual violence are less likely to be believed, even if they choose to disclose instances of abuse. This is an important point for the intersections of asylum and gender, and relates to at least three critical concepts. Firstly, the area of disbelief is contentious in relation to asylum; cultures of disbelief amongst immigration officers have been evidenced, and duly noted in Jubany’s work, which points to a ‘meta-message of disbelief and deterrence’ within the system (2011: 88).

Yet there are gendered layers to this. Women applying for asylum who have been subjected to sexual violence can be faced with disbelief, cultures of denial, even, in relation to their subjection to sexual violence (Bögner et al., 2010). Secondly, and stemming from this, even when women do relay instances of rape or sexual abuse, these can be undermined by cultures of silence, shame and stigmatization (Ahrens, 2006; Manion, 2003), all of which can also have been contributors to migration in the first place. Lastly, and developing from this concept of silencing, even if and when individuals disclose sexual violence during an asylum application, there arguably exists a void of policy and/or policy implementation. To draw from Mathiesen (2004), these are not necessarily accidental voids, but are the product of structural silences and denial. As has been pointed out, sexual violence is a socially silenced topic and, as Mathiesen argues, once a problem has ‘received the status of a basic form of silencing in everyday life; [the process of silencing] becomes continually more encompassing and continually stronger in its effect’ (2004: 13). It is perhaps through these arguments that sense can be made about the extent to which women surviving sexual violence and applying for refugee status are disbelieved or overlooked.

Gender Guidelines and the application process

Although the UKBA holds defined Gender Guidelines, as indicated, the extent to which they have been formally applied can be unclear, for example in informing women that they can officially access same sex interpreters or interviewers during their asylum claim if they wish. For example Respondent 6, who manages an organization that works with the UKBA, indicated:

R6: If a woman requested a female case worker, we would always endeavour to meet that request … it’s very rare that that happens, but occasionally it does.

This is in direct contradiction with claims by a manager at the UK Border Agency:

R10: When they [women] claim asylum at the screening interview and at the substantive interview they will be asked whether they would like to be interviewed by a woman or a man, and we will endeavour to provide accordingly.

Individuals applying for asylum often learn the process by trial and error rather than by being made fully aware of what rights they have, including the right to a same sex interviewer, and as such might not request this. Furthermore, ‘endeavouring to provide’ and ‘providing’ could be construed as two separate points. Although the intention may be in line with Gender Guidelines, women are often not made aware of their right to same sex interviewers, possibly a reflection of uncertainty of their rights more generally (see also Asylum Aid, 2003, 2011; Canning, 2011a; Smith, 2004).

Emphasizing the rights of asylum seekers under the Geneva Convention, Respondent 10 defined the framework within which the UK Border Agency has worked, and the reasons people may seek asylum in the UK:

R10: Human rights are always considered as an integral part of an asylum claim … typical reasons to have left their own country would be the likes of conflict, political opinion, religious opinion, membership of a particular social group, perhaps their sexual orientation, religious obviously could be a religious organisation, political is self-evident, could be forced to undertake working in the army or whatever, soldiering against their will, it could be exploitation in their home country if the criminal agencies in their own country are not able to provide them with appropriate protection … there’s a whole range of reasons.

This is an extensive outline, and although it is inclusive of most reasons for application, there remains a lack of recognition of the gendered nature of conflict, forced migration and asylum, specifically in respect to the lack of focus on sexual violence. This lack of recognition also persists in international humanitarian law that guides these responses (Canning, 2011b). This is also evident in the following statement:

R6: it doesn’t mean that people are coming from nice places to come and try and better their lives, they’re coming because things are pretty terrible where they’re living, but they don’t necessarily meet the condition of having a well-founded fear of persecution for them individually.

To focus on this statement with a gendered lens, women can experience horrific levels of violence, indeed things can be ‘pretty terrible’, to the extent that Major General Patrick Cammeart declared that ‘it is now more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in modern conflict’ (cited in Canning, 2010). However, it does not justify protection under the Geneva Convention since ‘rape and sexual violence’, or a fear of persecution thereof, cannot meet the conditions of a well-founded fear of persecution under the specific groups outlined. This may be challenged in some ways, for example many women are targeted for being part of a specific ethnic or religious group. The problems here lie in the fact that this is not always the case; many women will not directly speak about instances of sexual violence in an interview or formal situation (Ahrens, 2006; Asylum Aid, 2011; Lee and Renzetti, 1993).

Support in Merseyside: Effective strategies and barriers

Organizations working with women in Merseyside emphasized the necessity of the opportunity for long-term engagement for women who felt they benefited from formal or informal support sessions. A multiplicity of strategies was identified as a necessity in responding to cultural diversity, and recognizing individual needs regarding women’s responses to sexual violence, rather than a standardization of the process. A key point of access in the provision or uptake of support in Merseyside is the recognition of variations in experience amongst diverse groups. As Larasi (2011) argued, for any kind of support to be made available there must first be a level of consciousness with regard to the needs of diverse groups. That is not the case for all support and response sectors in Merseyside, as it was mainly those working specifically with asylum groups that were aware of problems for asylum-seeking women. Furthermore, some organizations were structurally limited in terms of funding aims and outcomes, in providing support for women beyond specific regions or with varying needs. The impact of service commissioning has been documented in a number of areas within the voluntary sector, particularly in its impeding work and creating layers of bureaucracy (Carey, 2008). However, such layers and limitations can have further effects where women’s services are concerned, particularly in relation to violence against women and girls (Hirst and Rinne, 2012), which have been reduced and either generalized or made to be overly specific in whom they can support. For example, an organization could only work with women who had been raped but were also HIV positive, one worked with pregnant survivors and new mothers, whilst another was restricted to certain areas of Merseyside. Seeing that there is no set consequence, impact or response with regard to sexual violence of any form, these specificities, although no doubt beneficial to women who access the services, can be problematic if survivors do not sit at these intersections of identity.

Not all respondents were familiar with issues pertaining to conflict violence with regard to women’s experiences. Although some were aware of the use of sexual violence against women and girls as a strategy of war, Respondent 10 from the UKBA, as an example, continuously conflated sexual violence and sex trafficking, despite important differences in experiences in the country of origin and beyond. Likewise, respondents working within state and non-governmental organizations and agencies which supported survivors of sexual violence did not often consider women seeking asylum.

In terms of asylum and migration, more men reach the UK than women (Asylum Aid, 2011) as more men may have the capacity or economic and political freedom to flee conflict or unrest while women may have family and children to care for, as well as the possibility of fewer independent rights in some areas. The fact that men may also be more politically active in their country of origin can also impact on the active desire to flee, particularly as a political target. However, women do still make up one third of asylum applicants, yet support space is often dominated by men. For organizations in Merseyside that worked with asylum seekers generally, there was a lack of recognition of the gender specific impacts of conflict. Although sexual violence was acknowledged as a violation that many women in the asylum system have been subjected to, only woman-centred agencies were forthcoming in identifying the need for offering upfront access to women support workers, caseworkers or interpreters. Even when women do access general support it is often male dominated, which may impede access to some or all of the opportunities offered to asylum seekers in general asylum support agencies:

R13: There is more men claiming asylum than there is women. Mostly here we have, we don’t have many women come in. We used to but now it’s become more male dominated, and women feel vulnerable here.

R7: You know, if they’re going to use the computer space they have their children, and who looks after their children? They get there and it’s, you know, there’s just a lot of men that use that space.

This was directly acknowledged by one manager, although their challenging of sexist behaviour seemed inconclusive:

R11: We’ve had people who won’t come back to the English classes because young men have said things to them. And I suppose once every couple of months we stand up in the kitchen and say ‘listen, this is going on and it has to stop’.

Issues regarding sexism in asylum support spaces have been directly challenged by some of the volunteers involved. For example, as a response to women’s experiences, two organizations have been set up to work exclusively with women.

Hawwi: Life in asylum

As outlined, this research moved from socio-structural and support perspectives, to incorporate an analysis of the intersections of the effects of sexual violence and asylum on the life history of one woman, Hawwi. Hawwi is an Ethiopian woman of Oromo ethnicity who fled her country of origin due to political victimization by the state, and was raped at the border whilst trying to flee to a neighbouring country. As a result of her subjection, she was unable to cross the border and has since experienced physical, emotional and psychological consequences.

Specifically, Hawwi contracted a venereal disease (which was not treated until she arrived in Merseyside) and HIV as well as becoming pregnant and undergoing an abortion. From this, Hawwi suffered 12 days of continuous bleeding and hospitalization. Inadequate anti-retroviral medication she received in Ethiopia after contracting HIV resulted in enlarging her heart and other organs, which was again only treated when she arrived in Liverpool. It is worth noting that, four days after having her asylum application rejected, Hawwi underwent a half day interview by the UK Border Agency in regard to her appeal.

In terms of her emotional and psychological welfare, Hawwi experienced long-term depression in the aftermath of being raped and contracting HIV. This led to forced medicalization and institutionalization in Ethiopia after she attempted suicide, which she has done on a number of occasions. At the time of the research, Hawwi determined that the counselling support she was receiving for coping with her HIV positive status and experience of sexual violence was alleviating some elements of depression and suicidal feelings. For example, after long-term support and toward the end of the oral history process, Hawwi had gradually decided to lower her intake of anti-depressants. However, on her experience of asylum generally, Hawwi indicated adverse effects on her mental health at different stages of her application and oral history:

I am floating, my mind is floating and restless, after I received that decision [refusal of application], and I don’t have sleep.

Every time I try to think about the situation and all the passes that I came through, it is really very, very devastating and very big headache – I prefer not to remind it [rape, migration and then asylum application] at all. Whenever I try to remind it I will be very sick. It is very bad, by any means …

Now what remains? And I don’t know what will happen really, it is very, very hard. [pause] Asylum is not really, it’s not, not, not at all an acceptable thing for anyone for anyone, it will not give for anyone pleasure.

There is no way we are coping with life, and it is very, very hard really. It’s very hard.

In all, Hawwi’s experiences within the UK asylum system do not appear unique, but reflect wider findings from research undertaken in the fields of asylum support, health and human rights (Asylum Aid, 2011; Freedom from Torture, 2009; Refugee Council, 2009a; Smith, 2004). The impacts of sexual violence, and the forms in which these effects are manifested, also reflect the issues put forward by interview participants, in particular those who support women seeking asylum.

This indicates that Hawwi’s experiences, and the experiences of other asylum applicants, should also be linked to the broader structural questions. At the same time, the interpersonal effects of an adversarial system and inadequate decision making have evidently taken a social and emotional toll on Hawwi herself. This links to arguments made by Canning (2011b) (see also Bloch and Schuster, 2005; Burnett, 2009; Burnett and Peel, 2001) that UK state responses have direct effects on the well-being of the individuals within the larger system. As such, women can be subjected to forms of double victimization (Temkin, 1997) through ongoing emotional harms perpetuated through disbelief, inaccurate decision making under the Geneva Convention, and inadequate protection from further state crimes if women are wrongly returned to their country of origin. Hawwi’s experiences within this system also raise further questions regarding the viability and cost-effectiveness of the UK asylum system as it stands:

I interviewed and I waited for a long time, for more than a year for response. And my response become negative. This is very, very, something which very disappointed me.

Arguably, the asylum system in the UK is not financially cost-effective, particularly in relation to legal proceedings, forced returns and destitution, exacerbated by applicants’ forced dependency on state welfare. Hawwi, a woman trained in two professions, was kept state dependent without the opportunity to work for almost two years whilst being provided with state funded accommodation, few resources and five pounds (sterling) per day. Whilst some applicants may not be able to work as a result of mental health problems in the aftermath of sexual violence and other forms of torture, there are also applicants such as Hawwi who would wish to access, and might benefit from, work and independence whilst awaiting asylum decisions.

Also concerning was that, during her appeal for leave to remain, Hawwi’s male representative was not fully aware of her history when presenting her case in court:

The man from the Home Office he said, ‘to be honest I didn’t know the whole story of this file and I didn’t get decision, but the Home Office sent me to represent and I don’t know most of what she is claiming about, I don’t know, I didn’t see it’.

Considering that the decision to be made at this point of the legal process would determine the future life direction of an individual, this response seriously undermines the UKBA’s claim to assess all applications individually and on their own merits (UKBA, n.d. a, n.d. b, n.d. c). The fact that her representative was male is also questionable under the current Gender Guidelines (UKBA, 2010), and creates further potential for barriers to sexual violence disclosure throughout the case.

As indicated by the UKBA interview respondent, letters of support, evidence and documentation can strengthen an asylum applicant’s claim and yet Hawwi’s application was still initially rejected, further undermining the legitimacy of the official asylum process in terms of ‘merit’. Regarding this, Asylum Aid (2011) found that cases were viewed unfavourably if applicants did not have written materials, which exposes the unpredictability of the outcomes of a case either way:

I have support letters and I have my IDs and everything I have I submitted for the Home Office, I positively waited for the result issue which was I will get Refugee Status. But when the result comes, really, I was disappointed really.

Exposed here is a long established conundrum for asylum seekers and refugees. If, as the Home Office request, the applicant has all the identification required to legally apply for asylum, they can appear unworthy of political victimization in their country of origin, as they have been able to flee without being reprimanded by state officials. If no identification is given, problems arise in processing claims, or they may initially be rejected. If false identification has been acquired to leave the country of origin and claim asylum, the applicant may be open to prosecution as an ‘illegal’ immigrant. In this case, the reasons given to Hawwi for her refusal were not unique, indicating that Hawwi’s claim may not have been assessed on individual merits according to the UKBA’s guidelines. Similarly, previous to this research, Smith (2004) also suggests that refusal letters appear to be recycled in some instances, sometimes even across countries of origin.

A lack of outreach services and funding in the Merseyside region prevents the opportunity of support for many rape survivors. It is likely that the current financial climate will further reduce this access for women seeking asylum, as well as vulnerable groups more generally, particularly in light of the direction of the Coalition government’s public cuts, including the third sector and refugee community organizations (Bowcott, 2011; Refugee Council, 2010; Singh and Webber, 2010). Considering the evidence of the positive outcomes of support on Hawwi’s emotional, physical and psychological well-being, this is an area for further serious concern for the well-being of women in the UK asylum system.

Conclusion

A number of issues arise from this article. Firstly, the experiences of sexual violence relayed by support workers, and the physical, emotional and psychological effects of these experiences, highlight the urgent need for more support for women seeking asylum who had been subjected to sexual violence. It is clear from respondents working with women that the impacts of conflict and conflict related sexual violence do not easily come to an end when women flee violence or imminent threat, but that effects transcend the situation in which individual women are abused. As one respondent highlighted, these can be eclipsed by the range of immediate necessities when seeking asylum, such as accommodation, clothing and food, and are further overshadowed by the legal process in applying for asylum in the UK.

Secondly, this research points toward there being significant gaps in policy and policy implementation in support for women, specifically women survivors of sexual violence, as well as there being a set of needs that cannot separate practical, social and emotional support, particularly for women seeking asylum. However, the seriousness of this is perhaps most resonant in consideration of the long-term emotional and social effects of sexual violence that practitioners identified women to have experienced. Finally, the recognition that availability of long-term support is a crucial area for women is met with a lack of acknowledgement in some organizations, due largely to funding but also as part of a wider lack in recognition of the benefits and importance this can have for some survivors. As is evidenced here, this can have particularly serious implications for women involved in criminal justice proceedings or the asylum system, as well as organizations that do not adhere to a gendered lens with regard to support. It is also clear that how well an organization responds to personally and politically sensitive information or vulnerable groups and individuals appears to depend on the role and perspective, including the ethos and institutional attitudes, of that organization. This can leave a number of gaps; those who work with or support one marginalized group may not apply focus with another. Whilst funding is a key director of this and adds internal and external pressure to the running of organizations, particularly frontline voluntary organizations which have been even further affected by the Coalition government’s cuts, attitudes, knowledge and priorities within some organizations should also be encouraged to ensure full recognition is given to the rights and experiences of asylum seekers, specifically survivors of sexual violence. Likewise, future agencies working in the remit of ‘border control’, the now dominant approach to asylum support, should take seriously the implications of responding to vulnerable groups with incredulity, and respond to issues related to violence against women from a critically applied gendered lens.