Where is the line between 'persecution' and 'discrimination'?

The Home Secretary is attacking human rights in lieu of an actual policy

There were many disturbing lines in Suella Braverman’s speech on migration policy yesterday but one that particularly caught my attention was where she argued that the discrimination of an individual was no longer enough to justify awarding someone the status of a refugee.

Speaking to the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank based in Washington D.C., she was ostensibly seeking to get more international support for her approach to diminish Britain’s commitment to global human rights as well as positioning herself for a post election leadership campaign.

And the Home Secretary bemoaned how case law, in her opinion, had twisted the definition of a refugee, as set out in Article 1 of the UN refugee convention, from someone who has a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’ into something ‘more akin to a definition of “discrimination”’.

She said:

‘The practical consequence of which has been to expand the number of those who may qualify for asylum, and to lower the threshold for doing so.

‘Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.

‘Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.

‘But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.’

There are about 62 countries where homosexuality is still illegal, including much of Africa and Asia. In Africa, sentences vary from one year’s imprisonment - in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Liberia - to the death penalty, in Somalia, Mauritania and Nigeria. Death by stoning is a possible sentence in the last two.

In another five countries the sentence for homosexuality can be life imprisonment.

Meanwhile, in Asia the death penalty and life imprisonment remain widespread; in Malaysia offenders can get up to twenty years and face whipping.

Where then does the line between ‘persecution’ and ‘discrimination’ lie?

Is a lynch mob sufficient to justify refugee status? How much discrimination, violence or humiliation is allowed?

Is jailing for one year just a bit too soft for the UK government to be unduly concerned?

Of course, the actual words used by Ms Braverman are so open to interpretation it is impossible to get a clear idea from her as to where such a delineation exists. It’s also offers nothing on who could make such an arbitration or how, indeed, it could be done.

And since when was a government was elected on the basis that discrimination across the world was something we as a country were happy to tolerate?

It goes without saying that discrimination against marginalised groups exists in every country, regardless of illegality. In Britain, there has been a worrying rise in hate crimes against LGBTQ people. According to the Home Office, there were 30,000 hate crimes ‘motivated by sexual orientation or transgender identity in the year ending March 2022’.

This is double the number of comparable crimes recorded in 2017/18. Some of this increase might be down to greater reporting and awareness of such crimes but the scale of abuse is clearly worrying.

The government’s complete and consistent failure to introduce an effective immigration policy, especially since Brexit, has taken the country to this point. We are way beyond the thin end of the wedge; the home secretary is attacking core tenets of global human rights, rights that we helped established.

And by this very act, by arguing that discrimination no longer justifies refugee status, the home secretary is attacking all marginalised groups across our own country not just around the world.