%20(2).png)
In the face of the refugee ‘crisis’, which Brussels recently declared over, enormous flaws have been exposed within the European asylum systems. In the midst of what the media and politicians depicted as refugee ‘flows, streams, rivers and floods’, Brussels called for solidarity; all while reminding the European general public of the importance of ‘European values’ of democracy, human rights and freedom. While examining the values which potentially constitute a homogenized ‘European identity’, I have found that human rights are being framed as the very core to the European identity project - a project that maintains a problematic discourse of Eurocentrism. Though situated on the periphery of the international human rights regime, LGBTQ+ rights are increasingly being highlighted as a strong political currency to which democratic progression is measured up against. This is a currency that Europe has accumulated in vast proportions over the past decade – or so the narrative goes. Judith Butler argues how actors among European states have claimed Europe as a space for sexual freedom by defining “Europe and the sphere of modernity as the privileged site where sexual radicalism can and does take place”. Imaginaries of this proportion often produce an alternative or negative contrast. For example, on the other side of the LGBTQ+ values spectrum, one finds the non-European, the oppressed or the conservative other – often situated in the Global South. The strategy of imagining Europe, or any other geographical construct for that matter, as a site of sexual freedom while constructing an idea of the sexually unfree other, is a concept Jasbir Puar termed homonationalism.
The same notion also exists outside the sexual paradigm. Spijkerboer notes how “asylum law functions through a dichotomy between an idealized notion of Europe characterized by human rights, and non-European countries as sites of oppression”.
By examining these issues through the lenses presented by Puar and Spijkerboer, the Eurocentric depiction of the refugee ‘crisis’ unveils several moral paradoxes within the very fabric of the European identity project. Brussels seeks to unify the Member States in the European Union over elements such as democracy, freedom and human rights. With additional focus on LGBTQ+ advocacy as strong political currency, the EU could potentially take on the position as a moral hegemon within human rights and thus strengthen the European identity project both legally and politically.
There are several issues with Europe claiming the position of moral hegemon, and I will highlight a few. Firstly, as already mentioned, crystallizing itself as a site of sexual freedom at the expense of the ‘others’, Europe creates a difficult environment for LGBTQ+ advocacy across the world. This is evident in Europe´s portrayal of the Global South as homophobic. Secondly, a European moral hegemony would only serve a narrow set of political interests – predominantly European – which may not be a new notion, but nonetheless damaging in the process of setting the agenda on what is important. This, according to Ammaturo could potentially lead to an increased distance between
“an abstract formulation of human beings as all being born equal and free, and requires a political and social engagement with the roots of inequality in a continent that increasingly and relentlessly builds its reputation on its record of protection and respect for human rights standards”.
The issues noted by Ammaturo are severe but most importantly, real. While Europe is reconfiguring its political identity, real people are silently moving through its asylum systems and their processes vary significantly depending on who they are, and where they are. Although claiming asylum is a difficult process for anyone, people claiming asylum under the “particular social group” umbrella term in the 1951 Geneva Convention are reported to experience additional challenges during their asylum applications. Claiming asylum on these grounds, people are very often experiencing intrusive and extremely personal questioning. Despite it being prohibited, a great amount of LGBTQ+ asylum claimants resort to the production of intimate photographs or videos. This is highly degrading for the claimant, and yet it is accepted as proof by case workers. Additionally, the credibility assessment of LGBTQ+ asylum claimants is heavily informed by European notions of what it means to be genuinely gay, which does not apply to everyone as there are clearly more than one way of ‘being gay’ as there are more than one way of being. While the European general public and the media have more or less exclusively focused on the refugee ‘crisis’ since 2015, several EU institutions have been accumulating large amounts of political currency. This has been done through highlighting LGBTQ+ rights and where they are being practiced well, according to European human rights standards and where they are not. A dichotomy exists between personas of the hospitable queer ally Europe, the human rights advocate Europe, and other non-European imaginaries of oppression. This stands as an enormous obstacle for the LGBTQ+ asylum claimants moving through the European asylum systems in search of protection. While Europe seeks to cement its morally hegemonic position, the moral paradoxes are likely to grow in numbers and severity. This must be addressed by calling Brussels out on their reproduction of a ‘European identity’, and challenge the parameters of whom it truly includes.