Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:29:46 +0100 From: Mark Watson Subject: SIG Newsletter STONEWALL IMMIGRATION GROUP NEWSLETTER ISSUE 3 APRIL 1996 PAGE 1 Photo of Immigration group marching against the immigration Bill on Saturday The last three months have been dominated by the Immigration Bill. Although we are opposed to the Bill and have worked closely with other groups campaigning against the Bill, we also decided we should use the opportunity to raise the issues around lesbian and gay immigration. A lot of thought went into our response to the Bill and our proposal was discussed at Decembers meeting. We came up with an amendment which is outlined on page 3. Unfortunately the Immigration Minister used our debate as an excuse to withdraw the common-law policy for heterosexuals (see page 4). The Labour Party front bench were sympathetic but equally very cautious about supporting our amendment. Other events included a demonstration at Heathrow on Valentines day and the march against the Immigration Bill. We also managed to get Ann Widdecombe to concede that lesbians and gay men might count as a social group for asylum purposes. Other good news is that two more cases have been successful. This year we have decided to concentrate on raising awareness of the Group - especially outside of London. We also need to put more pressure on the Labour Party to reaffirm their commitment to equality. We are also planning a European Conference in July in order to begin working with other European Groups around this issue (page 6). Pride is expected to be bigger and better this year and we hope to have a very strong presence on the March. Last year we had over 100 members marching - this year we want over 200. Hope to see you there! Finally we would like to thank Ian McKellen for his very generous donation towards our work. Mark Watson PAGE 2 On Saturday 24 February many members of the immigration Group joined with the Lesbian and Gay Coalition Against Racism and Outrage! to protest at the new Asylum and Immigration Bill. The March was organised by the Campaign against the Immigration Bill and over 10,000 people joined us at the Embankment at 11am for the start. Our new banner and an enormous Rainbow Flag dominated the lesbian and gay contingent which included over 100 lesbians and gay men. We marched past the House of Commons and Downing Street chanting Were here, were Queer and were not going Home! The march finished in Trafalgar Square. Despite the rain a fun day was had by all. The next March is on the 20 April and we again hope for a good turnout. Valentines Day Kiss in Couples who have been refused permission to stay together by the Home Office were joined by the Lesbian Avengers at Heathrow Airport on Saturday 10 February to remind the Immigration Authorities that Valentines Day is for everyone. Loving couples, many who have been together for years, highlighted this injustice by staging a kiss in at Heathrow Airport Terminal 3. All the couples were there to prove that despite the Home Secretarys attempts to separate them they will continue fighting for their right to live together. The Lesbian Avengers have long been supporters of lesbian and gay immigration rights. Couples kissed in the immigration assembly area to the amusement of on looking tourists and police! One group member commented Valentines Day is about loving someone - surely everyone should be entitled to love the person of their choice without discrimination. The Home Office allows both married and unmarried heterosexuals to remain in the UK based on their relationships - why does he think our love is less valid and of less worth? SIGNET Launched Fabio has agreed to set up an email support Group for all those net heads who are on-line. We currently have over 40 members on the email mailing list and Fabio has a number who have joined his support group. To get on the email mailing list please send a message to and to get on-line with SIGNET email Fabio on Page 3 IMMIGRATION AMENDMENT When we heard that there was to be an asylum and immigration bill we thought very carefully about whether we should try to amend it in our favour. We drafted a proposal of what we would like to see which was presented to the Immigration Group at Decembers General meeting. After much discussion a proposal was agreed upon - which was based on the Australian immigration rules. After much discussion a proposal was agreed upon We agreed that before trying to amend the act we should make sure we had support from the Labour Party, Stonewall and other immigration groups. Angela Mason was of the opinion that it would be worth raising the issue at Committee stage but not pushing it to a vote in the House. This seemed to be the most sensible route as it was never our intention that it should be voted upon - our aim was get the issue raised. Neil Gerrard MP was keen to table the amendment and the Immigration Lawyers Practitioners Association were consulted. The first stage of the Bill was at Committee, where the Conservatives have an inbuilt majority of one. We were very pleased to learn that Michael Brown MP was one of the Conservative MPs selected. Michael has been a long supporter of this issue and agreed immediately to table our amendment. Unfortunately the Labour Spokesperson Doug Henderson stated he could not support our amendment in its present form. However he did say he is sympathetic and committed to finding a solution. He will attend and speak at our reception in the House of Commons and has agreed to meet with us to discuss our proposals further. Unfortunately the Committee actually ran out of time before our amendment could be discussed. ...it was fortunate enough to be picked for discussion in the House on the 22 February 1996. Neil Gerrard and Michael Brown had however managed to put it down for debate in the House of Commons and it was fortunate enough to be picked for discussion on the 22 February 1996. OUR PROPOSALS The amendment and our proposed new category for the Immigration Rules were as follows: Asylum and Immigration Bill After Clause 2 of Schedule 1 Insert the following new Clause___ Dependants .___(1) In subsection (4) of Section 1 of the 1971 Act (general principles) at the end there shall be inserted the words including the spouse or interdependent partner of such persons.. (2) In subsection (1) of Section 33 of the 1971 Act (interpretation), after the definition of immigration rules there shall be inserted the following definition - interdependent partner means a person in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with one other person which involves living together and a mutual commitment to a shared life.) The effect of the amendment will be that the Secretary of State, when drafting the immigration rules, must make provisions in the rules for the admission of spouses and interdependent partners. The current rules only make provisions for spouses. The aim of the amendment was to introduce the concept of interdependent partners in the immigration rules - whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Our proposals for the new category were as follows: NAME OF CATEGORY There should be created within the immigration rules a new category entitled INTERDEPENDENT PARTNER of a British citizen or other person settled in the UK. REQUIREMENTS The requirement for the grant of leave to enter or remain as an INTERDEPENDENT PARTNER are that the applicant must:  Be sponsored by a British citizen or person settled in the UK and;  Establish he or she is in a genuine and continuing relationship of interdependency with the sponsor which involves a mutual commitment to a shared life that involves living together, or not separately apart on a permanent basis.  Show that together with the sponsor he or she is able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds and  Show that there will be adequate accommodation for the applicant and his/her partner and any dependants without recourse to public funds.  Be at least 18 years of age at the time of application. ASSESSING APPLICATION 1) Application form An application form should be completed giving the answers to the following questions: i) Personal details of applicant ii) Personal details of sponsor iii) Relationship details iv) when and where did the applicant and sponsor first meet v) when and where did the applicant decide to begin a continuing interdependent relationship with the sponsor vi) do the sponsor and the applicant intend to maintain a lasting relationship of interdependency vii) do the applicant and the sponsor have shared assets or joint financial commitment (attach evidence e.g. joint bank accounts, property, rent receipts etc.) viii) accommodation and maintenance. Details of both applicants and sponsors current/prospective employment and details of accommodation (attach evidence e.g. wage slips, tenancy agreements, mortgage documentation, bank statements) Additional documents to accompany form The applicant should provide the following with his/her application: i Evidence of the sponsors citizenship or settled status in the United Kingdom. ii A letter of declaration from the sponsor confirming that the relationship is genuine and continuing, involving a mutual commitment to a shared life together that involves living together and that the relationship intends to be permanent. iii Two supporting declarations from relatives and/or friends attesting to the genuine and continuing nature of the relationship. The declaration should indicate: a) How the declarant knows the applicant and the applicants sponsor and the frequency of contact with them b) How long the declarant has known the applicant and his/her sponsor c) Reasons for believing the relationship to be genuine and continuing. iii. Requesting further evidence If on the basis of the information given in the form and the documents accompanying the form the assessor is not satisfied as to the nature of the relationship the assessor should request further documentary evidence including photographs, further statuary declarations etc.. iv. Interview 7 If on the basis of the evidence supplied under a and b above the officer assessing the application is still not satisfied as to whether the applicant qualifies an interview with both the applicant and the sponsor shall be conducted to establish the genuineness and stability of the relationship. CONDITIONS 7 On being satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of the INTERDEPENDENT PARTNER category the applicant shall be granted limited leave to enter or remain for one year. The applicant shall be free to take employment. 7 At the completion of the one year period the applicant can apply for indefinite leave to remain if he or she still satisfies all the requirements of the INTERDEPENDENT PARTNER, and each of the parties to the relationship intend to live permanently with the other as his or her INTERDEPENDENT PARTNER.. [This proposal was discussed at length and voted upon by the groups members at our December meeting and is what we are now campaigning for.] The amendments would tidy up the immigration rules by stipulating that long-term relationships other than maritial ones ought to be recognised. Neil Gerrard MP The debate in the House of Commons was opened by Neil Gerrard MP who gave an excellent summary of the current situation and stated The amendments would provide only equality with heterosexual relationships; that is all that is required. Alan Howarth (the former Tory MP) also supported the amendment and started with I support the powerful plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr Gerrard) because it is plainly right - as a matter of recognising modern realities and of justice - that the immigration rules should not discriminate against unmarried but truly interdependent partners whether heterosexual or homosexual. Doug Henderson (Labours spokesperson on Immigration) also joined the debate stating I have sympathy with amendments No 1 and 2. My hon Friends have identified the difference in treatment of persons who are married and those who live together, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. In todays world we should recognise social realities. Many couples around the world are not formally married but have stable, sound and loving relationships - which the law of this country and others should recognise. Mr Henderson was not sure that our amendments would provide the solution and had reservations about them. However he said he would like further investigation. Foreign nationals who apply to enter or remain on the basis of a common-law relationship can, with immediate effect, expect to have their applications refused. The Immigration Minister Mr Timothy Kirkhope responded by stating that the amendment was vague and ill thought out. He then used the debate to announce that the long standing policy of treating unmarried heterosexual couples the same as married couples for immigration purposes has been withdrawn stating Foreign nationals who apply to enter or remain on the basis of a common-law relationship can, with immediate effect, expect to have their applications refused. He went on to say that the only objective test for the strength of a relationship in an immigration context is marriage, but did say that It does not necessarily have always to be a UK marriage, but a marriage that is legitimate in all respects in the country where it was celebrated. (This of course could include places such as Hawaii or the Netherlands! see page 9) WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR US? Since 1988 the Home Office have allowed foreign common-law spouses to remain in the UK. We believe it is only because lesbians and gay men have demanded that they be treated the same that the Home Office is changing that policy. (Although they say it is because the common-law policy was being abused.). The withdrawal does not affect our applications. Common-law applications will now be treated exactly the same as our applications, they will have to show compelling circumstances. They can, of course, usually get married and apply under the marriage rules, lesbians and gays can not. The Minister states that you have to be married but will not allow lesbians and gay men to marry. What does he expect us to do? We are not going to go away and we will not enter into bogus marriages. The debate was useful as we were able to put Labour on the spot. We now know that we can not take Labours support for granted and still have a lot of lobbying to do. We have written to Doug Henderson asking for a meeting. The Bill has now gone on to the House of Lords and we hope to raise the issue there as well. We also immediately wrote the following letter to the Minister and again asked him to meet with us to discuss his concerns. As yet we have had no response. The battles goes on! 29 February, 1996 Mr Timothy Kirkhope MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Home Office Queen Annes Gate London SW1H 9AT Dear Mr Kirkhope, We were disappointed that the Government opposed the amendment to the Asylum and Immigration Bill proposed by Mr Gerrard and Mr Brown concerning the introduction of the concept of interdependent partners into the Immigration Rules. We are concerned that the reasons given for opposing the amendment show a misunderstanding of its purpose. You said that the acceptance of the amendment would result in common law and homosexual relationships being accorded the same status as those who are married for the purpose of immigration. This is not the case. The amendment would have required the Secretary of State to make provision for interdependent partners in the Immigration Rules but only in such cases and subject to such restrictions as may be provided by the Rules and subject or not to conditions as to length of stay or otherwise (see Section 1(4) of the 1971 Act). If the Secretary of State is concerned not to accord the same status to those who are married he can introduce different conditions and restrictions from those that apply to spouses. You state that the concept of an interdependent partner is vague and ill defined. We disagree. It is a concept that has been adopted in other countries in particular in Australia where it has worked successfully. You expressed a concern that the amendment would allow any person to claim that he or she was involved in a genuine and lasting relationship and consequently qualified for leave to remain in the United Kingdom without making the commitment to the relationship that is implicit in marriage. This is not the case. An individual would have to do more than simply claim they were involved in a genuine and lasting relationship in order to qualify for leave to remain. Strict criteria and a method of assessment would be drawn up by the Secretary of State. We attach a copy of suggested criteria and method of assessment based on the criteria used in both Australia and New Zealand. You state that the introduction of the concept of an interdependent partner would cause difficulties of interpretation in the Immigration Act and Rules, and would result in an increase in contested cases and would make the administration of immigration control more difficult than at present. It would only create difficulties of interpretation if the Rules drafted by the Secretary of State were unclear. This is not a reason for objecting to the purpose of the amendment itself. You used the opportunity of the amendment to announce that with immediate effect applications to remain or enter on the basis of a common law relationship would be refused. Only marriages will be recognised. You justified this on grounds that there has been an increase in such applications and some of those applications have been ill founded. Common law spouse applications will now only be granted if there are compassionate circumstances. This puts them on the same footing as lesbian and gay relationships. However, there is a clear difference, namely that heterosexuals can be married whereas English law does not allow lesbians and gay men to get married. Unless the government changes the law to allow lesbians and gay men to marry it is extremely unfair to make no provision for their relationship in the Immigration Rules We fully understand your concern that those people who are not in genuine relationships do not circumvent immigration control by claiming to be in such relationships. However, by failing to provide for lesbian and gay relationships in the Rules, you are simply encouraging lesbians and gay men to enter marriages of convenience in order to stay with the partner whom they love. We have previously requested meetings with yourself to discuss our concerns about the failure to make provision for lesbian and gay relationships in the Immigration Rules. You have repeatedly refused our requests. Given the misgivings that you have concerning the interdependent partner amendment, could we now meet with you to have further discussions? We look forward to hearing from you and we hope that we can meet. Yours sincerely, Mark Watson EUROPEAN CAMPAIGN The countries of Europe have formed themselves into an economic union. They have signed treaties giving the citizens of the member states the right to move freely between each state in order to work, seek employment, study etc. This right to free movement without barriers is a fundamental principle of the European Union. A person who exercises the freedom of movement right is also given the right to be accompanied by his or her family members regardless of their nationality. For example, a Dutch man married to a South African woman is entitled to be accompanied by his wife if he goes to work in the United Kingdom. European lesbians and gay men are discriminated against because they cannot be accompanied by their partners if their partners are not themselves European unless the country to which they are going recognises homosexual relationships under their domestic law. For example, under Dutch law a Dutch homosexual can apply for their non European partner to be granted residency. However, if the Dutch citizen goes to the United Kingdom to work, he or she does not have the right under European law to be accompanied by the non European partner. The Dutch worker either works in the UK without his or her partner or decides to remain in Holland. Obviously this is discrimination; homosexual citizens of the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden with foreign partners are being denied the right to free movement despite the government in their own country recognising such relationships. THE CURRENT LAW Article 3 of the EEC Treaty states that;  The activities of the Community shall include.......) the abolition, as between member states, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons who wish to work in another member state. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty implements Article 3 and is directly effective. It requires member states to grant the nationals of other member states the right to accept an offer of employment in another member state and they must grant the national of a member state entry in order to seek employment. These rights can only be limited if it is justified on grounds of public security or health. If the right to enter a member state in order to seek or take employment is to be given practical effect then the individual must be allowed to be joined by what we can broadly call their family members. To give effect to this Regulation 1612/68 was made. Article 10 of Reg 1612/68 states as follows; 1. The following shall, irrespective of their nationality, have the right to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one member state and who is employed in the territory of another member state; a) His spouse and their descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependants; b) Dependent relatives in the ascending line of the worker and his spouse; 2. Member states shall facilitate the admission of any member of the family not coming within the provisions of paragraph 1 if dependent on the worker referred to above or living under his roof in the country whence he comes. Where some European countries recognise homosexual relationships in the law and allow homosexuals to marry or register their partnership it could be argued that the homosexual partner is covered by 1(a). It could also be argued that homosexual partners come under 2 above but this requires acceptance of a homosexual partner within the definition of member of the family. To date member states have not been willing to interpret Regulation 1612/68 in this way. CAMPAIGN & CONFERENCE We believe we should campaign to ensure that European law gives homosexual citizens the same freedom of movement rights that it gives to its heterosexual citizens. We are working closely with ILGAs EU working party who have just written to Mme Simone Veil, the Chair of the European Commissions group on Free Movement, explaining that lesbians and gay men are denied free movement when they try to take their partners with them. The purpose of any campaign should be to persuade the governments of the various member states to accept that homosexual partners should be treated as if they were family members even if they are not willing to accept that a homosexual couple come under the traditional definition of what constitutes a family. To deny homosexual couples this recognition and to fail to include them within the terms of Regulation 1612/68 interferes with the freedom of movement rights of the European partner. There remains an obstacle to the freedom of movement for homosexual persons and the European Union is failing to comply fully with Article 3 and Article 48 of the EEC Treaty. NATURE OF THE CAMPAIGN There needs to be a Europe wide co-ordination of mutual independent lobbying campaigns in each of the member states. Appropriate lesbian and gay organisations in each of the member states should be identified and approached with a view to them organising and carrying out appropriate lobbying of their government. For the lobbying to have maximum effect the individual campaigns should ensure they are demanding the same change to the same European laws. They should have regular contact with the other campaigns in each member state through a newsletter and an annual conference which should comprise of at least one delegate from each of the members state campaigns. To begin the campaign and agree on the common demand that should be made a founding conference should take place made up of organisations and individuals from the member states identified as having an interest in campaigning around this issue. The Stonewall Immigration Group will be holding such a conference in London on July 5. All individuals or organisations are welcome. (Further information from Mark Watson on 0171 336 8860.) NEW IMMIGRATION FORMS >From 3 June 1996 you MUST use a form to make an application. The new Rule states; ...all applications for variation of leave to enter or remain must be made using the form prescribed for the purpose by the Secretary of State... An application for such a variation made in any other way is not valid If you do not use the correct form the application will be invalid and you will lose the right of appeal. There is some confusion over which is the appropriate form for our relationships but we suggest it is form SET(0) which allows for applications outside the Rules on compelling compassionate grounds (section 4.8). Forms available from the Home Office on 0181 760 2233. CASE UPDATES Since the last legal Bulletin there have been two successes. Coincidentally both cases used arguments which we have just put forward in the European Campaign document. Both are long relationships, but more importantly both had their relationships recognised in the Netherlands when the British partner was working there and the foreign partner was given residence, based on the relationship. In both cases it was argued that the free movement rights of the British partner would be interfered with if on their return to the UK the foreign partner was not allowed to continue living with the British partner. The adjudicator at the appeal in case 13 did not accept these arguments although accepted the relationship was genuine and subsisting. He refused the appeal. He stated that I take into account the 11 years of cohabitation - including residence in Holland.... ...There is no evidence that [the appellant] would, if he were returned to Australia, be without relatives or friends... In these circumstances, and despite the hardship which separation will necessarily involve, I am not satisfied that this is a case where the most exceptional circumstances exist.... The appeal is therefore dismissed. The couple applied to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal pointing out that the adjudicator had erred in law on a number of points - including the interpretation of the EEC Treaty obligations and Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to private life). The Immigration Appeal Tribunal granted leave but the Home Office conceded the case before the case was heard. Although good news for the couple it would have been interesting to have aired these arguments at the Tribunal. CASE 12 Applicants nationality: American Length of relationship: 12 years Special circumstances: Length of relationship. The couple had lived in Holland for three years where their relationship was recognised. Stage granted: Initial application refused. Home Office conceded just before appeal hearing. Solicitor: Peter Wyatt (Gulberkian, Harris Andonian) CASE 13 Applicants nationality: Australian Length of relationship: 11 years Special circumstances: Length of relationship. The couple had lived in Holland for three years where their relationship was recognised. Stage granted: Initial application refused. Appeal lost. Home Office conceded just before Immigration Appeal Tribunal hearing. Solicitor: Elspeth Guild (Baily Shaw &Gillet) PLEASE SEND US ANY DETERMINATIONS OR DECISIONS THAT YOU THINK MAY BE USEFUL. CONFIDENTIALITY RESPECTED. HOMOSEXUALS - A SOCIAL GROUP OR NOT? RECENT CASE LAW There have been several developments in the law in recent months. The question of whether homosexuals can be considered members of a particular social group for the purposes of the Refugee Convention has become even more confused in English law. Last month the Immigration Appeals Tribunal (HX/75394/94 13124) decided by a majority to follow a series of older decisions in order to find that gay men in Iran were not members of a social group because homosexuality was entirely voluntary and that, anyway, having sex with another man was a matter of prosecution in Iran and not persecution. This decision is based upon former findings by the Tribunal that as homosexuals are not like minority groups capable of affiliating succeeding generations (i.e. reproducing) they cannot be considered a social group. ...several finding that homosexuals are members of a particular social group and others comparing gay men to child molesters The latest decision will be appealed to the Court of Appeal, especially as the Chairman of the Tribunal disagreed with the majority decision. The confusion at the Tribunal is matched by decisions of Special Adjudicators at the lower level with several finding that homosexuals are members of a particular social group and others comparing gay men to child molesters. The Home Office, of course, are taking a hard line, as they did in the case of Vraciu. However in response to a question asked by Stonewall the Home Office Minister Ann Widdecombe wrote to David Alton MP to say that, in certain circumstances, homosexuals could fit into the Refugee Convention definition. In her letter dated 31 January she stated: We interpret this provision in the convention as follows: i) the group is defined by some innate or unchangeable characteristics of its members analogous to race, religion, nationality or political opinion, for example their sex, linguistic background, tribe, family or class which the individual cannot change or should not be required to change; and ii) there must be a real risk of persecution by reason of the persons membership of the group. Whilst claims based on homosexuality might satisfy i) within this definition, the requirements set out in ii) would also have to be met in the individual case. The Refugee Legal Centre will shortly be fighting appeals of gay men from Romania and the former Soviet Union, and a leading professor of refugee law has agreed to provide an opinion. It may be possible that by the end of the year the question is answered. FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS: A New Zealand Tribunal has recently decided that gay men do form a social group, a decision in line with US case law, where Attorney-General Janet Reno declared a precedent case, finding that a Latin American man faced persecution because of his sexuality. The New Zealand Tribunal noted that English case law is in disarray. In Canada, the social group question is well established in favour of homosexuals as well as throughout Europe. In Germany it has been found, looking at the persecution of homosexuals by the Nazis, that sexuality can place one in political opposition to the government where, as in Iran, the regime has a particularly rigid view of society. Countries granting asylum based on sexual orientation include: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland. Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the USA. In 1995 the IGLHRC reported 35 cases granted including 3 lesbians and one transgendered person from the following countries: Albania, Brazil, Chile, Croatia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Honduras, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Simon Russell Refugee Legal Centre INFORMATION: PRIDE Lisa Power is looking to include asylum seekers in the Pride Programme. She can be contacted on 0171 383 0880. RLC The Refugee Legal Centre can be contacted on 0171 827 9090 or email ROMANIA Ziad Dajani is setting up a group to campaign on behalf of Romanian homosexuals and to seek a change in the anti-gay law there. He can be contacted on 0171 652 0633 or email: . IGLHRC International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, 1360 Mission St. Ste 200, San Francisco, CA 94103, Tel: +1-415-255-8680, Fax: +1- 415- 255-8662 email AROUND THE WORLD DUTCH PARLIAMENT VOTES FOR GAY MARRIAGE Dutch MPs voted in favour of extending marriage to lesbians and gay men on 16 April 1996. Voting 81-60 in favour they have asked the Government to draft legislation for marriage to be extended to same-sex couples. Although the Cabinet are not bound to follow Parliaments decision if they do the Netherlands will be the first country in the world to allow full gay marriage. The effects on the UK and other European Union countries could be quite dramatic. British law only recognises a marriage between a man and a women so would be unwilling to recognise the marriage. However under European law the UK may have to recognise the marriage, particularly between a Dutch national and his/her foreign partner. This would have particular effects on lesbian and gay immigration rights - currently lesbian and gay relationships are not recognised in the Immigration Rules because only married couples are accepted. The Minister for Immigration, Timothy Kirkhope, made this clear on the 22 February 1996 when he stated in the House of Commons in a debate on unmarried relationships under the immigration rules that The hon. Gentleman must realise that we use as the basis for our immigration rules in these cases the institution of marriage - in other words, the fact there is a marriage. It does not necessarily have to always to be a United Kingdom marriage, but a marriage that is legitimate in all respects in the country where it was celebrated. We see no reason to change that position (Hansard 22 February 1996 538) The Dutch Embassy confirmed that if passed, marriage would be identical for straights and gays. They confirmed that marriage would be open to foreign nationals resident in the Netherlands. A Commission has now been set up by the Under-Secretary of State, ms. Schmitz to look at the international implications particularly regarding foreign recognition of a Dutch gay marriage. We have a conference on 5 July to discuss these matters (see page 7) BRAZIL David Harrad, an English gay man, has a six year relationship with a Brazilian citizen, Tony Reis. They both live in Cutiriba, in southern Brazil. David has been in the country with a tourist visa which expired in February 1994. He has made many attempts at the Brazilian Home Office (Policia Federal) to legalise his status on the grounds of his relationship with Tony, a gay activist and leader of the lobby group Dignidade, Consientizacao e Emancipacao Homossexual. The response he was given was the one that all of us are already very familiar with - that according to Brazilian laws such a relationship is not recognised, but if he was straight and got married, no problem, he would be instantly legalised and could remain in the country. David was offered marriage by six women, but he refused the offers. He was threatened with deportation (on the 13th of March David was given 15 days to leave the country) and fined #500 for his over-stay. David appealed against the decision of deportation to the Federal Police official Regina Russ, arguing of the authenticity of their relationship and their intention to remain together. David also provided letters of support, as well as a document in which Tony, his Brazilian partner had been declared heir of his assets in England. The lobby group mobilised the population in Curitiba and they gathered more than 1,500 signatures of support to their case. The lobby group has received several faxs in support from the Labour Party Deputies Paulo Bernardi and Jose Genoino and also from the TV comedian Jo Soares. David and Tony sent a fax to the Brazilian President, Fernando Henrique explaining their situation. This is the first case ever in Brazil of a foreign national claiming the right to stay in the country based on a same-sex relationship. They have had the support of many politicians from the Labour Party, including the Deputy Marta Suplicy, who is author of a project that recognises the union of gay couples. However, all these efforts seemed to have failed as the Brazilian authorities refused to recognise David and Tonys relationship. The latest news is that David had to pay the #500 fine and leave the country. Davids name was amongst the passengers on the Varig flight 145, that left Curitiba on the 16 of March. His final destination was unknown. The incident of Davids deportation has had press coverage in the whole country and the gay community in Rio have already started acting by setting up a movement towards the protection of gay and lesbian relationships. They gathered in a gay venue in front of the Copacabana Palace hotel and organised a petition to lobby the Government to recognise David and Tonys relationship. It seems that the struggle is just beginning. ( Jornal do Brasil; Folha de Sao Paulo). Philip Gill looks forward. Are we looking forward? Glimpsing the future in a state of eager anticipation? Each of us in the gay and lesbian community should be as we consider our position in the run up to the General Election next spring. In looking forward it may be useful to look back, as a result of assurances by Labour front bench spokesmen we had been expecting total commitment from the Party to the question of equality. The recent actions by New Labour in the committee stage of the gays in the Military debate, their reluctance to give wholehearted support to the Immigration Group campaign and continuing delay in agreeing to meet with Stonewall to discuss these concerns suggests they are undergoing a change of heart. Have they changed their tune, or is their support for our fight to be spoken in hushed tones for fear of backlash in the Tory press and the return of the loony left epithet? Are they afraid of coming out? It is up to all of us to ensure that those wishing to gain our support on the hustings next spring are left in no doubt what we expect from them. Tony Blair and his colleagues must not be allowed to forget the assurances given, the Liberal Democrats, having adopted a Gay Guarantee should be applauded and encouraged. Those in the Tory Party should be reminded how powerful we are. No Party should take our votes for granted. We must use this time to extract undertakings that after the next election things are going to change for us. It was reported recently that the Pink Pound in London is worth at least #5bn annually and across the nation its value is believed to touch #25bn. No small beer in economic or political terms. Our community represents significant power and we should take heart and use this position of strength to be more demanding. Lobbying activity is particularly difficult at the moment as the Government lurches from crisis to crisis. Over the next twelve months they, along with New Labour, are terrified of anything they see as remotely controversial. Both parties want to tiptoe through to the next year without rocking any boats. We must use this time to extract undertakings that after the next election things are going to change for us. It is imperative that we all take the initiative to write to our current and prospective MPs and elicit commitments to support our fight for equality. Those of you living in Labour constituencies should make sure your MP knows that you have been disappointed with the Labour front bench. You should ask your MP to put pressure on Jack Straw (Shadow Home Secretary) to ensure that Doug Henderson (the Immigration Spokesperson) meets with Stonewall to form proposals for next year. Whilst equality in immigration may be at the top of our particular shopping list it is in fact part of the communitys ongoing fight for recognition and equality in all aspects of our lives including pensions, housing, employment and parenting. Please get writing - we can not rely on others to fight our battles for us. [Please send us copies of any correspondence] Reception 7 May To mark the Anniversary of the launch of Compelling Circumstances Neil Gerrard MP and the Immigration Group will host a reception for MPs at the House of Commons. Last year we launched our lobby document Compelling Circumstances in the Jubilee Room at the House of Commons. Michael Brown MP (Con), Lynne Jones MP (Lab) and Robert Maclennan MP (LD) spoke in support of our campaign. This years reception will be on Tuesday 7 May at 6:30pm, again in the Jubilee Room. Members of the Immigration Group should go to St. Stephens Gate at the House of Commons and show their invite to get in. Everyone welcome. We will be guests of Neil Gerrard MP and Harry Cohen MP. Michael Cashman will chair the meeting and Doug Henderson MP (Lab), Michael Brown MP (Con), and Simon Hughes MP (LD) will speak in support of the campaign and hope many more MPs will join us. See you there! Write to Your MP Now is the time to write to your MP again. MPs take notice of letters even if they dont agree with you. If you dont know who your MP is call Stonewall. You can write to your MP at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Point out to your MP that the Immigration Minister has stated that only married couples can now apply - but we cant get married! What are we expected to do? If your MP is Labour then ask them to write to Jack Straw and get a commitment from the Labour Party. HOUSE OF COMMONS ... 7 May 6:30pm Jubilee Room - House of Commons (see page 10) Join us for a drink with MPs from all major parties. Chaired by Michael Cashman. Next Meeting ... Saturday 18 May...The Clockhouse ... 2pm. We decided that two months is too long for new members to wait for a meeting and have now decided to have general meetings once a month. Meetings will now be on the third Saturday of every month. The Wigmore Hall was very nice but expensive so we are looking for a new venue in the centre of town. Until then we will use the Clockhouse Pub, 156 Clapham Park Road, SW4, 0171 498 4651 (5mins from Clapham Common Tube or Clapham North Tube). Executive meetings will be on the first Thursday of each month. Future Meetings .. Saturday 15 June, Saturday 20 July, Saturday 17 August, Saturday 21 September, AGM Saturday 26 October. European Conference ... Friday 5 July... (See page 7) All organisations and interested individuals welcome. Pride ... Saturday 6 July... The Group will have a strong presence on the march and its own stall within the Stonewall Tent. A TALE OF TWO COUPLES MIKE & DAZ The morning of April 4, 1996, will forever be ingrained on our memories. The day the Home Office, after what seems like an eternity, overturned its earlier decision of not permitting Daz, an Australian citizen, the right to live in the UK with me, his partner of 12 years. The application was made approximately about two and a half years ago and we were about to go to the Tribunal having had an unfavourable appeal hearing last October. Needless to say there has been no explanation as to why the change of heart or why the decision was so long in coming. As a British citizen and tax payer I dont seem to have any right to an explanation as to why the Home Office incorrectly classified Dazs application to remain in the UK and subsequently rejected it on the basis that he is not a blood relative! Our case was based on our long-standing relationship and the fact that under European community law Daz has already established residency rights as we lived in the Netherlands for 3 years prior to moving to the UK where the Dutch authorities granted him residency on the basis of our relationship. In theory, European law requires the UK government to extend the same rights given to us in the Netherlands otherwise it becomes an impediment to my freedom of movement within the EU. Needless to say the Home Office has not addressed this issue in their treatment of our case. As the elation of winning the case subsides we start to live a life without the fear of being forced to leave our home, friends, and family, the taste of the callous and inhumane treatment doled out by the Home Office lingers on. The fact remains that same-sex couples are at the mercy of the Minister in his execution of discretion and that this situation only reinforces the second class label that is firmly attached to our relationships. VICTOR & OSWALDO Oswaldo and I met on 28 July 1991 whilst I was holidaying in Brazil and we fell in love immediately. In September 1991 I returned again to see him and again had to return home alone with intentions of making plans to return to live in Brazil with Oswaldo. Oswaldo then visited me for Christmas of that year and as we could not face another separation, he remained living with me in Tamworth in the West Midlands. We became aware of the Stonewall Immigration Group in January 1995 and immediately joined. After advice we saw a solicitor and submitted an application to the Home Office in August 1995. We told the Home Office we would submit further evidence a bit later and was therefore shocked when the refusal came a few weeks later. The Home Office said they had considered all the compelling circumstances but had not yet received anything more than our names and address! We intend to fight with the group and against flagrant in equality and prejudice of the current immigration rules and because of the love Oswaldo and I have for each other. UPLES UPDATE COUPLES UPDATE Daren & David were featured in the last issue when they had their application refused. Since then they have decided to go to Australia where their relationship is recognised. They will continue their appeal here and hope to return when the law no longer discriminates. Trevor has also left the UK to join his partner Richard in Australia. Daren, David and Trevor were active members of the Executive and will be missed. We thank them for all their hard work. The Group however now has a sub group in Australia - any one interested in getting more involved with the SIG in Australia should contact: Trevor Elwell 115 Stephens Street Yarraville Victoria 3013 AUSTRALIA Mark Watson Stonewall 16 Clerkenwell Close London EC1R 0AA Tel. 0171 336 8860 Fax. 0171 336 8864 mark@stonewall.org.uk http://www.tyger.co.uk/sig/