TORIES OUTFLANKING THE LEFT ON LGBTQ RIGHTS.
On international LGBTQ rights, the two progressive parties, the Liberals and the NDP, are being outflanked by the Conservatives.
Throughout the 2010s, LGBTQ refugees emerged as a serious topic of concern among international rights activists. The 2017 anti-gay purge in Chechnya exacerbated this, as the world learned of Chechen security forces kidnapping gay men, torturing them in secret camps and then killing them. These kinds of gruesome incidents are not rare, and, while many of them don’t make the news, the cruelty is shocking when they do — such as when, earlier this year, media outlets picked up the story of a gay man who was kidnapped and beheaded by his relatives in Iran.
Canada’s current policies on international LGBTQ rights are scattershot — there is currently no dedicated, permanent pathway for LGBTQ refugees to resettle here. The closest approximation we have is a new program, announced by the Liberals in July, which would be dedicated to resettling human rights defenders who are threatened in their home countries.
As a result, refugee assistance has primarily been provided by Canadian LGBTQ nonprofits, such as Rainbow Railroad.
Looking to fill this gap, the NDP has broadly committed to providing a dedicated LGBTQ refugee pathway, while the Conservatives have done the same, but with a more detailed and thoughtful plan that assists international LGBTQ rights defenders in addition to refugees. The Liberals have also promised a dedicated program for LGBTQ refugees, though details are scarce and it would have been nice if they had implemented this years ago, rather than waiting for an election.
What sets the Conservative plan apart is that it uniquely prioritizes private and joint refugee sponsorship over government sponsorship. “Private sponsorship” is when some entity (often organizations or small groups of Canadians) takes responsibility for supporting a new refugee by providing material, social and emotional support. Oftentimes, the government supplies financial aid, resulting in joint sponsorship. Approximately two-thirds of new refugees are settled this way.
Studies show that privately and jointly sponsored refugees are more likely to successfully integrate in Canada owing to their immediate access to an intimate support network. In light of this, the Conservatives want to shift most of the funding used for government sponsorship toward beefing up private and joint sponsorship. The strategy is to empower LGBTQ organizations that have spent years tackling this problem, rather than building new infrastructure from scratch, and to build out private and joint sponsorship programs that specifically target sexual minorities.
For example, consider the Rainbow Refugee Assistance Partnership (RRAP). Through a partnership between the federal government and Rainbow Refugee Society, RRAP facilitates joint sponsorships of LGBTQ refugees by interested Canadians. The Conservatives want to make RRAP a permanent government program, while also providing funding to other LGBTQ organizations that are similarly willing to provide sponsorship support for LGBTQ refugees.
This collaborative approach is beneficial because, rather than putting programming in the hands of federal bureaucrats, it gives power to organizations that have intimate, community-based knowledge of this area — knowledge which allows these organizations to tackle new challenges with a nimbleness not often seen in the public sector.
For example, when Uganda launched another violent crackdown on its LGBTQ citizens this summer, organizations like Rainbow Railroad were among the first to be aware of it.
It also helps that programs benefit when they are managed by staff that have a deep, emotional investment in their success — which should appeal to anyone concerned about government waste.
In tandem with these measures, the Conservatives want to expand the definition of “refugee,” which the United Nations defines as someone who faces persecution and has crossed a national border into another country. The Conservatives argue that this definition is inadequate because it excludes internally displaced people, as well as those who are experiencing ongoing persecution but have not yet fled to another country.
Expanding the legal definition of “refugee” to include these excluded groups would be a boon for international rights activists. Under the status quo, if a foreign LGBTQ activist is threatened with violence, imprisonment or death, they must first flee to another country to make a refugee application, and then stay there while waiting for approval, despite being far away from their regular support systems.
By allowing applications to be made in one’s home country, the Conservative plan would make it easier for rights activists to flee should life become too dangerous for them. This mitigation of risk would lower the “costs” of activism, making it easier for foreign LGBTQ communities to organize and advocate for their rights — which is crucial as change is best spearheaded by local activists, rather than being externally imposed.
These policies shouldn’t be misinterpreted as wantonly flinging Canada’s doors open to asylum seekers without any rules. The Conservatives have, for example, said that they will close the infamous Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) loophole. That loophole allowed thousands of ineligible asylum seekers to force themselves into Canada’s refugee system by illegally crossing into Canada from the United States.
The resulting influx of fraud created a national political scandal in 2017, and, unfortunately, lowered public support for legitimate asylum claims that respect Canadian institutions and laws.
By being stern about fraud, the Conservatives can fix the aura of illegitimacy that hung over asylum seekers under the Trudeau years, shoring up support for a refugee system that is flexible, efficient and responsive to the needs of persecuted groups, including sexual minorities.
THE CONSERVATIVES WANT TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF REFUGEE. — ZIVO