Human Rights and Wrongs

Case Study: Applying for Asylum in Poland

I am always shocked at examples of intolerance and discrimination, but the thing that shocks me the most is when this comes from a government body, and especially those government bodies that should be sensitive to the rights of those they are discriminating against.

I have been in Poland for five months and have been made aware of many unfortunate incidents involving racism, intolerance, lack of sensitivity, overt discrimination and prejudicial attitudes. This week however, I heard a story which left me at a loss for words.

I have now had time to collect my thoughts and find the words to express my outrage, so I will share them with you.

An asylum seeker from Burundi has been waiting for a decision on her application for a year. She had her interview some time ago and was supposed to receive her decision last week. Instead she received a letter. In the letter it stated that since she revealed during her interview that she was the victim of female genital mutilation, or circumcision, she had been booked an appointment at a gynaecologist to verify the statement.

Now, I don’t know if she was circumcised or not. All I know is that she left her entire family behind in Burundi, young children included. I know she misses her children and her country, and wants more than anything to start a new life which would enable her to provide for her family back home. Her year-long wait in a refugee centre has been far from a holiday.

I know that she is a person who should be treated with respect and not as a piece of evidence that has to be verified or discarded.

Let’s consider the various scenarios that could follow.

Let’s assume she was not circumcised and lied about it to try and make her story all the more powerful. This is clearly what the authorities suspect. If this is the case then does this give the authorities the right to dismiss her case and reject her application on the basis that one lie discounts her entire case? Or does it suggest that she is clutching at anything she can to stop her being returned to the country from which she is seeking refuge?

Let’s assume she was circumcised but refuses to go to the appointment. Does this entitle the authorities to conclude that she lied and wishes to conceal her lie? Or might she simply feel her right to privacy protects her from having to strip off during an appointment she didn’t make, in front of a person who does not necessarily speak her language, to verify a fact that is a result of something very painful and potentially psychologically damaging? Personally, I am not a victim of genital mutilation, but if I were, I imagine it would be a very sensitive issue for me to deal with and revealing the proof on demand would humiliate and deeply offend me.

In the third scenario, the circumcised woman feels pressured enough to go through with the appointment to back up her story, may be forced to relive the trauma that comes with such genital mutilation, and as a result has several of her rights trampled underfoot.

I would like to take a closer look at those rights. Rights that Poland has agreed to, rights that the Office of Repatriation and Aliens (despite its name) should be more than aware of when sending such letters to asylum seekers who have been forced to put their lives on hold.

I would like to highlight three rights in particular. I’ll go by the order that is in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Yes, Poland is now part of the European Union.

Article 1: Human dignity. Human dignity (which, according to the charter is inviolable and must be respected and protected) surely applies to a woman not being forced to remove her clothing and have her genital area inspected against her will.

Article 4: Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I would not go as far as saying the gynaecologist appointment amounts to torture, but I certainly would argue that the person subjected to the appointment could consider it a degrading punishment for daring to ask for asylum in this country.

Article 18: The right to asylum. This article states that the right to asylum shall be granted with respect to the Geneva Convention on refugees. This is what the office dealing with the application should be focusing on. The individual in question has presented her case for staying in Poland and being granted refugee status. The office knows the rules according to which they should assess the application and they have been reviewing the case for long enough. What is the justification for this demand?

Burundi is a country in which vast human rights abuses are carried out on a daily basis. In Amnesty International’s report of this year it is stated that the reported abuses included unlawful killings, torture including rape and other sexual violence, abductions and unlawful detentions.

The bottom line is that the question of whether this individual in question has been the victim of genital mutilation or not is irrelevant. A year should be long enough to consider the case of an asylum seeker, and it should not include subjecting that person to potentially humiliating and inhumane treatment.

posted by Becca @ 8:16 pm