Dr Alex Powell

This paper explores the distinctive experience of women as legislators in a small democracy, drawing on a multimethod study of the Isle of Man.  Experiences of gender in a small democracy’s politics are not merely quantitatively different, for instance in terms of constituents per representative; but qualitatively different as a result of the interconnected ramifications of quantitative differences. We find pervasive effects from the absence of strong party institutionalisation, the intersection of intimacy and vulnerability, and the constraints of strictly limited capacity. Understanding gender and politics in a small democracy is an important contribution to island feminism, and acts as a corrective to an understanding of the interrelations of gender and politics within democratic constitutions based only on the experience of women in large democracies. The study also shows the pervasive importance of smallness even for a European democracy with close cultural ties to a large democracy. 

Refugee Law in the United Kingdom is undergoing a moment of fundamental change. This change is clearly visible with both the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 enacted within the last two years. As such, it is argued that we are currently witnessing a fundamental shift in the underlying conception of international protection in the UK. Through an engagement with contemporary legislative enactments, political statements, and judicial decisions, this paper critically considers an emerging new logic of refugee status determination in the UK. Specifically, I chart the UK’s shift from the highly individualist conception of the refugee deployed within the Refugee Convention to a series of bespoke arrangements targeting particular forms of crisis as the proper recipients of international protection.  In examining this shift, the paper identifies particular minority groups, such as sexual and gender minorities, who are increasingly left outside the scope of international protection recognised by the United Kingdom.

In this short piece we focus on two of the main changes brought in by the recent Nationality and Borders Act 2022 with a focus on sexually diverse claimants: inadmissibility and the increased standard of proof. The recent changes have a negative impact on all asylum seekers but we highlight that they have a particularly adverse impact on sexually diverse claimants because their diverse backgrounds have not been appropriately considered. The problematic provisions on inadmissibility on the basis of mode of entry and removal to a ‘third safe country’ pose particular risks for sexual minorities. Additionally, the increased standard of proof exaggerates issues already faced by sexually diverse claimants in relation to objective evidence gathering and decision-makers using guidance riddled with stereotypical understandings about sexual minorities.

Purpose. 

The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of how gay and lesbian spaces are constructed and deployed within the context of asylum claims by sexually diverse people. Through doing this, the author details the ways in which the present deployment of place, as a form of evidence for a relatively fixed conception of sexual difference, does not correspond to the self-conceptions of sexually diverse asylum seekers.

Design/methodology/approach. 

This article draws on the experiences of eight sexually diverse refugees who agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews. Deploying a queer narrative analysis approach, these experiences are explored to develop a detailed understanding of how sexually diverse spaces are constructed within refugee status determinations. This interview-led approach is combined with a critical epistemology informed by the queer theory to understand the role of place in the construction of sexual identity.

Findings. 

The central finding of this article is that engagement/attendance with/in particular places and spaces is overdetermined as a form of evidence of LGBTIQA+ identity within refugee status determination. Further findings relate to the relationship between places and sexual identities more generally. The paper helps to shed light on how sexually diverse identities are conceived in essentially ontological and fixed terms, with the result that places are often flattened, with the diversity and tensions within them being ignored and occluded.

Originality/value. 

The originality of this study emerges from the analysis of new qualitative data. This originality is strengthened by the successful combination of empirical research, queer theoretical insights and the application of this combination to policy. This remaining a relatively rare combination. In addition, in contrast to the existing literature, the paper looks specifically at how LGBTIQA+ or queer spaces are conceptualised within refugee status determination processes.

The asylum system is a key site in which disputes over “sexuality” are contested. In refugee status determinations, administrative bodies are required to determine the actual or perceived sexuality of a claimant. This article draws on eight semi-structured interviews with refugees who claimed asylum in the United Kingdom based on their sexual diversity to deconstruct the distinct conceptions of sexual orientation, identity, and behaviour prevalent within the asylum system. It argues that the UK system overly privileges identity, falsely construing this as determinative of other aspects of sexuality. In doing so, it proposes a new framework of sexual diversity as a more relativist and inclusive way of making sense of sexual difference.

The experiences of People living with HIV have been transformed over recent years. Advances in medical science have made the virus a manageable chronic condition, while eliminating the risk of onward transmission for those with access to treatment, something referred to as TasP (treatment as prevention) or U=U (undetectable equals untransmissible). More recently, the availability of PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), alongside PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis), through the NHS has created the conditions for condomless sexual encounters to take place without the fear of HIV transmission associated with previous decades. Despite this, the criminal law has continued to frame HIV in terms of personal responsibility and bodily autonomy within the dominant narratives of danger, disease, and out-dated science.  Doctrinal law has failed to keep pace with social and scientific change. Therefore, in this article, we provide a re-examination of the criminal issues relating to HIV transmission within this new landscape, arguing that it necessitates a shift in attitude, policy and doctrine. We specifically argue that HIV transmission does not meet the appropriate harm threshold to constitute GBH and that if criminal law is ultimately about preventing or regulating harm, the ongoing criminalisation of HIV transmission is counter to that aim.