CCJ Reserves Judgement In Maurice Tomlinson Immigration Case ....... No restrictions on Caricom gays, TT officials say

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reserved judgement in the application filed by human rights and gay rights advocate, Maurice Tomlinson, who is challenging the immigration laws of Trinidad and Tobago and Belize.

See the latest video of the actual proceedings HERE, HERE and HERE

Tomlinson is contending that the immigration laws of both countries violate his right to freedom of movement and his right not to be discriminated against on the basis of his nationality.

Tomlinson wants the CCJ to grant a declaration that the laws should be amended to remove the barring of homosexuals from entering Trinidad and Belize.

The human rights and gay rights advocate is also seeking damages.

Trinidad and Belize have opposed the application.

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (Trinidad Express) — Despite there being legislation in place under local immigration laws to prevent members of the gay community from entering Trinidad and Tobago, acting Chief Immigration Officer Gerry Downes yesterday said there is policy in place to allow those individuals who are members of Caricom nations free movement in and out of this country.

There are no restrictions on those individuals simply because of their sexual orientation, but restrictions are placed on people who are not members of Caricom states and are seeking to enter Trinidad and Tobago, he said.

Downes made the statement yesterday while testifying during a hearing at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in Port of Spain, in which Jamaican gay rights activist Maurice Tomlinson is challenging local immigration laws, which he contends are homophobic and inconsistent with Caricom policy on free movement between citizens of member states.

Questioned by Tomlinson’s attorney Douglas Mendes SC on how immigration officials may treat with the matter should his client seek to enter this country, Downes said: “If he were to come back to Trinidad we would treat him as any other Caricom national because he is a Caricom national.”

Tomlinson is challenging Section 8 of the Immigration Act, which allows immigration officials to refuse entry to homosexuals, prostitutes and other people who may benefit from the proceeds of either. He also brought action against the Government of Belize whose immigration legislation is similarly worded.

The action was brought under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which established both the CCJ and the Caribbean Single Market Economy (CSME).

As an activist for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) community, Tomlinson, who is also an attorney, had travelled to both countries previously, but after discovering the existence of the prohibitions he refused invitations from both countries to avoid violating their immigration laws “and he claims to have suffered prejudice thereby”.

The case of openly gay singer Elton John, who was allowed into this country to perform at a concert in Tobago in 2007, was also raised during the hearing.

Downes explained that if John was “a skilled Caricom national” he would have been allowed into this country and “that would not have been a problem”, but given he was not, John had to be granted special permission to do so.

Belize’s acting Director of Immigration, Maria Marin, also testified during the hearing. Like Downes, Marin said no members of Caricom nations are prevented from entering the country based on their sexual orientation.

She said, in 1998, a cruise ship with approximately 700 gays came to Belize and all the individuals were allowed into the country.

Presiding over the matter are CCJ president Sir Dennis Byron, Rolston Nelson, Charles Anderson, Adrian Saunders and Jacob Wit.

Attorney Imran Ali appears alongside Mendes for Tomlinson, while senior counsel Seenath Jairam, Wayne Sturge and Gerald Ramdeen are representing the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

also see: 

UK Supreme Court dismisses Secretary of State's appeal on designated state status of Jamaica and risk to homosexuals

Mendes: Ban on gays ‘bad for T&T’

Defend Orashia Campaign Launched to Stop Removal from the UK by Home Office

In a follow up to a case I carried here in January of this year of a bisexual man who is Jamaican but is facing a possibility of being removed from the UK even after some ten years residing in that country is in fear of retribution if he is returned as the case has gotten some major press as of late. At one point he was made out to be a liar in a bid to get his stay in the UK and the authorities seem to also have bought into the line as well as he is not effeminate or "camp" as some other successful applicants are and are judged by.

A Facebook campaign has been launched entitled Defend Orashia led by No Border Leeds who have managed to convince persons as to the veracity of the story (including me) they have been on an aggressive public education drive since the matter broke.

Their latest post alongside their petition reads as follows(Aug 1):

"It's likely that the Home Office will try once again to issue removal directions shortly so please be ready to contact the airline.

In the meantime, check leedsnoborders.wordpress.com for how you can support & join our bloc at Leeds Pride tomorrow.

Press release-
Orashia's campaign gets support from Leeds Pride
Legal challenge continues as Orashia remains in detention

Leeds Pride Sunday 3rd August 12pm Millennium Square

The ongoing campaign by Orashia Edwards, a Jamaican bisexual fighting for asylum in Leeds, will be mentioned at the keynote speech during Pride tomorrow. Family and friends will march together to highlight the case of Orashia, who's currently in detention for the 3rd time this year. The march will also call for a complete review on how lgbti asylum seekers are processed as it is incredibly intrusive and currently 98% of people are denied asylum.

Orashia is currently in Colnbrook detention centre where his mental health has deteriorated dramatically but he cannot access the care he needs due to conditions there. Due to an intervention by his solicitor, he was able to see a psychiatrist who reported 'acute mental distress'. Obviously this condition cannot improve until he is released and campaigners will continue to focus on this.

His application for bail was denied on Friday 1st August as the Home Office hope to try and issue removal directions shortly. However Orashia's legal team will keep on fighting until he receives the protection he needs. Both a Judicial Review and a new bail application will be applied for on Monday."

ENDS

The Petition can be seen and signed HERE

The Group says:

If he is forcibly removed by the Home Office, his life is in severe danger in Jamaica. All is family are settled in the UK and he would be completely isolated and in hiding. His case has gained mass media attention and support in the past months and he has become well known both here in the UK and in Jamaica. This means that the danger his life is in, because of his sexuality, has increased and he was recently victim to a homophobic attack here in Leeds where he lives. This cannot be tolerated and if the British government and the Home Office say they stand for human rights and equality then they need to release Orashia from detention now.

In 2013 a Home Office spokesman said: ”We have changed our guidance to ensure that we do not remove individuals who have demonstrated a proven risk of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation.'' (PinkNews.co.uk). Why is this then happening to people like Orashia?

Orashia is an amazing person who has the ability to shine so much more than he has been given a chance to here in Britain. He is a faithful friend and does what he can to help and support others going through similar issues to him. He has a close family, many friends and is involved in various groups and organisations around Leeds. His situation has meant that life is a daily unknown battle for himself, his family, especially his mother who works overtime on order to support him, and those closest to him. Please sign this petition and demand Orashia be given a fair chance at a real life now and not be punished for his sexuality.

You can watch a short documentary about Orashia's story called State of Limbo here:http://youtu.be/Wy3R2QtqONM

Another documentary called Judgement Day about Orashia's court hearing on 30th June can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVib2Hh6Oog

UK Border Agency massively hike immigration fees

Source: Free Movement

Substantial rises are set for most immigration fees on 1 October 2010, on the basis of the laughable justification that UKBA ‘want to ensure that we can offer a good level of customer service’.

They also openly state that the increases are to ‘mitigate against a reduction in income to the Agency’.

I’m not sure whether this is a reference to central funding cuts or to the proposed reduction in migrants.

Perhaps UKBA feels it needs to maintain its income from fees and the only way to do so is increase the fees for the smaller numbers of migrants they expect?

Examples include:

• Settlement visas from £644 to £750 (apparently they “offer an extremely generous package of benefits to applicants”, which sounds like Time Share speak to me)

• Tier 1 visa from £690 to 750

• Tier 1 in-country from £840 to £850

• Tier 2 visa from £270 to £350

• Tier 2 in-country from £475 to £500

• Tier 4 visa from £199 to £220

• Tier 4 in-country held at £357

• Tier 5 from £128 to £130

• Short term visit visas from £68 to £70

• 2, 5 and 10 year visit visas to £245, £450 and £650 respectively

• Increase in dependent fees to 20-30% of the principal applicant fee

For the full table follow this link (pdf document)

US Congress returns to equal immigration rights for same-sex couples

A 2007 bill that would offer binational same-sex relationships the same recognition and treatment afforded to binational married couples will come back before the US House of Representatives on Thursday.

New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler is to reintroduce his Uniting American Families Act (UAFA).

It was co-sponsored by 118 of the 435 members of the House in its first introduction in May 2007.

The proposed law would allow gay, lesbian and bisexual US citizens or permanent residents to sponsor their permanent partner for immigration to the country, just as they can now sponsor such family members as siblings, children or husbands and wives.

At present US citizens with foreign lesbian or gay partners find that their relationship is considered non-existent under federal law.

The Defence of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, declared that for all purposes of the federal government, marriage would mean "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Since lesbian and gay couples are excluded from the definition of "spouse," US citizens receive no legal recognition of their same-sex partners for purposes of immigration.

The 2000 US Census estimated that in the United States there were almost 40,000 lesbian and gay couples in which one partner is a US citizen (or permanent resident), and the other a foreign national.

This figure does not include the thousands of binational couples who hide the fact they are partners, are forced to live apart, or who have been forced to leave the United States.

Advocacy group Immigration Equality told Metro Weekly:

"The Obama administration has been supportive.

"He did not co-sponsor the bill in the Senate, but he was very clear in the campaign that he supports the goals of this legislation."

US accused of not overturning ban on HIV+ visitors

A New York-based LGBT immigration pressure group has accused the US government of failing to follow a new policy on HIV+ people visiting the country.
In July President Bush signed the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Act, which lifts the ban on HIV positive people from entering the United States. The bulk of the legislation aims to fight AIDS in the developing world.
At present any foreign national who tests positive for HIV is "inadmissible," meaning he or she is barred from permanent residence and even short-term travel in the United States.
Yesterday the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will issue regulations which purport to “streamline” the waiver application process for HIV-positive short-term visitors.
"The timing of these regulations is deeply troubling," said Victoria Neilson, Legal Director of Immigration Equality.
"In July, Congress issued a bipartisan message to this Administration – remove HIV as a barrier to travel and immigration.
"Instead of simply ending the HIV travel ban, the administration is again treating HIV differently from any other medical condition."
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who led the repeal effort in the House of Representatives, said:
"I am disappointed that the Administration has decided to move ahead and finalise this rule to clarify the visa waiver process for HIV positive short term visitors to the United States.
"The rule itself remains fundamentally flawed because it is grounded on an unjust and discriminatory policy that has no basis in public health."
Immigration Equality said that under the new rules a short-term traveller must meet twelve stringent criteria "that impose unnecessary burdens on HIV+ travellers and continue to stigmatise those living with HIV. Some criteria are inconsistent with current medical knowledge of HIV transmission and treatment."
Visitors who take up the waiver do not have the right to apply for a green card from within the United States – even if he or she marries a U.S. citizen.
Department of State consular officers will make decisions on waivers without sending them to DHS for approval.
"We are on the eve of lifting this ban once and for all. Why is the Administration setting new waiver requirements in stone now?" said Ms Neilson.
"The time has come for this Administration to finish the job that Congress started this summer. It’s time to lift the HIV ban."
The ban originates from 1987, when fear about the spread of the disease led US officials to require anyone with HIV to declare their status and apply for a special visa.

Gay civil rights group urges President Bush to overturn HIV+ ban

An American group that defends the civil rights of LGBT people and those living with HIV has urged President George W Bush to end the ban on visitors and immigrants who are HIV+.
Earlier this month the United States Senate approved a new bill that includes clauses that will end the ban.
Senators authorised $50 billon (£25bn) for PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, by 80 votes to 16.
Republican Senator Gordon Smith and Democratic Senator Kerry attached an amendment to a bill repealing current US immigration law.
At present any foreign national who tests positive for HIV is "inadmissible," meaning he or she is barred from permanent residence and even short-term travel in the United States.
There are waivers available, but obtaining them has always been difficult.
The ban originates from 1987, when fear about the spread of the disease led US officials to require anyone with HIV to declare their status and apply for a special visa.
At present the law requires the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to include infection with HIV (the only disease or condition specified in the statute) on the list of diseases that serve as a basis for inadmissibility.
Lambda Legal use impact litigation, education and public policy work to push for gay equality for LGBT people and those living with HIV.
Executive director Kevin Cathcart said in a letter to President Bush:
"By including this provision in the bill, Congress has finally recognised that the entry bar against individuals living with HIV is an unjustifiable infringement of basic human rights, not in keeping with the traditions of this country, the principles on which it was founded or the role we want to play in the global fight against HIV and AIDS.
"The power now rests with you and your administration to complete the process of dismantling this ill-advised, unfair and anachronistic policy.
"Lambda Legal urges you to sign this bill into law.
"Moreover, we urge you to immediately direct the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to begin the process of removing HIV from the list of diseases that serve as grounds for inadmissibility.
"Not only is this the medically and scientifically correct thing to do, it is the right thing to do."
It is unclear if President Bush’s administration will take action or allow the new President’s team to make the changes when they take office in January.
Section 305 of the PEPFAR reauthorisation bill repeals the statutory language requiring HHS to include HIV on the list of diseases that make a person inadmissible to the US, thus returning to HHS the authority to make a determination based on medical knowledge and public health principles.
"The ban makes absolutely no sense given what we know about HIV," said Scott Schoettes, HIV staff attorney at Lambda Legal.
"The dismantling of this blatantly discriminatory policy is long overdue."

US Senate votes to remove ban on HIV+ travellers

By Tony Grew • July 18, 2008

The United States Senate has approved a new bill that includes clauses that will end the effective ban on HIV+ people visiting the country.
Senators authorised $50 billon (£25bn) for PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, by 80 votes to 16.
The bulk of the money is for HIV prevention and AIDS treatment, but there are substantial sums to fight TB and malaria. Countries in Africa and the Carribean will benefit.
Republican Senator Gordon Smith and Democratic Senator Kerry attached an amendment to a bill repealing current US immigration law.
At present any foreign national who tests positive for HIV is "inadmissible," meaning he is barred from permanent residence and even short-term travel in the United States.
There are waivers available to this rule, but obtaining them has always been difficult.
The ban originates from 1987, when fear about the spread of the disease led US officials to require anyone with HIV to declare their status and apply for a special visa. It became law in 1993.
As a result of the Senate vote the US Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services can now lift the HIV ban.
It is unclear if President Bush’s administration will take action or allow the new President’s team to make the changes when they take office in January.
Changes to for PEPFAR will need to be discussed with the House of Representatives as they approved the legislation earlier this year.
The current PEPFAR programme has disbursed $15bn (£7.68bn) over five years and is to end in September.
"We applaud the Senate for rejecting this unjust and sweeping policy that deems HIV+ individuals inadmissible to the United States," said Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign.
"Congress has finally moved to end the HIV ban, a ban based on myth and misinformation," said Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality.
"For 20 years, the United States has barred HIV-positive travellers from entering the country even for one day."
The United States is one of 13 countries in the world, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, that bans entry to individuals who are HIV-positive.
Last month the European Commissioner for Justice raised the ban with Michael Chertoff, US Secretary of Homeland Security.
Jacques Barrot asked for "information on the reasons why individuals carrying HIV are excluded from using the US Visa Waiver Programme."
MEPs have kept pressure on the Commission over the issue as the EU is in negotiations with the US authorities to secure visa-free travel (a visa waiver) for EU citizens from all 27 member states.
In May the European Parliament passed a resolution demanding the ongoing negotiations include the exclusion of Europeans with HIV from the visa waiver programme, and ensure equal treatment of all EU citizens.
The Commission says there are no objective reasons for a travel ban for HIV infected persons.
Earlier this year the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS) stated:
"There is no need to single out HIV for specific consideration as an exclusion criterion."
UN chief Ban Ki Moon has called for an end to discrimination against people with AIDS, including travel restrictions imposed on them by some countries.
"I call for a change in laws that uphold stigma and discrimination, including restrictions on travel for people living with HIV," he said last month at the opening of a two-day, high-level meeting in the General Assembly on UN targets, set in 2001 to roll back the disease worldwide.
"Halting and reversing the spread of AIDS is not only a goal in itself, it is a prerequisite for reaching almost all the others (poverty-reduction Millenium Development Goals by 2015)," he added.
He said that 60 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, "it is shocking that there should still be discrimination against those at high risk, such as men who have sex with men, or stigma attached to individuals living with HIV."
According to UNAIDS, the global standard-bearer in the fight against HIV, 74 countries are subjecting HIV carriers to restrictive measures, including a mention of the disease on their passports.

AIDS conference to demand action not words over human rights

AIDS conference to demand action not words over human rights
By T'Kisha George

July 16, 2008 - 13:28

The host country of an AIDS conference has been criticised for falling short on commitments made to address HIV-related human rights abuses.
17th International AIDS Conference will be held in Mexico in early August.
The Mexican government has been accused of failing to implement promises to address HIV-related human rights abuses.
"Mexico has good laws on HIV/AIDS," said Anuar Luna Cadena of the Mexican Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS.
"But government institutions don't adequately monitor abuses faced by people living with HIV or make sure they get the treatment and the protection they're legally entitled to.”
The conference is appropriately titled ‘Universal Action Now’ as 400 AIDS and human rights organisations called on governments across the globe to end the human rights abuses fuelling the spread of HIV and AIDS, stating little progress can be done without taking action.
"Ahead of the 17th International AIDS Conference, governments are still violating the rights of people living with or at high risk of HIV infection," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas Director at Human Rights Watch.
"Governments have done little to fulfil their frequent promises to end HIV-related rights abuses.
“But until they act to end such abuses, even the best-planned policies to treat HIV and stop the spread of AIDS will fail."
In Africa, nearly one-third of all new HIV infections occur among injecting drug users but prevention measures, such as needle-exchange programmes and medication-assisted treatment with methadone, are banned by law in many countries.
"It is a tragic irony that those at highest risk of HIV often receive the least attention," said Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.
"In many countries, drug users are the majority of people living with HIV, but the smallest group receiving antiretroviral treatment. When they're arrested, they're even less likely to receive the HIV prevention and treatment services they need."
HIV and AIDS services for sex workers and gay men are also targeted by abusive police forces.
They confiscate condoms from outreach workers and extort bribes, confessions, testimony, and sexual "favours" from sex workers.
Meanwhile, in Africa, laws that deny women equal access to divorce, property, and inheritance increase vulnerability to infection and hinder access to treatment.
Domestic violence or rape by a partner is not seen as a crime thus women are more at risk from infection.
"African governments rush to ratify international conventions, but drag their feet when it comes to ensuring human rights protections for women," said Michaela Clayton, director of AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa.
"Legislation protecting women's rights has languished in African parliaments for years. Protecting women from violence and securing equal rights to property are critical steps to stemming the AIDS epidemic."
The 2008 AIDS fact sheet states that Universal Action Now is “an important reminder that the HIV/AIDS epidemic does not exist in a vacuum.
“Strengthening health systems in developing countries and addressing underlying social injustices that contribute to HIV risk and vulnerability - such as poverty, gender inequality and homophobia - are essential strategies in the global response to HIV.
“For those not yet engaged in the struggle, Universal Action Now is an invitation to get involved and make a difference.”
"There is no shortage of rhetoric about the importance of human rights in responding to HIV," said Vivanco.
"This conference is the time to turn words into action."