Religious-based
persecution constitutes one of several possible reasons why people seek refugee
status. In some cases, this type of persecution arises where an individual or a
group converts to a new faith and adopts a new religious identity. The consequence
of this ‘departure’ from their original faith may include persecution involving
persistent harassment, physical violence and/or imprisonment. Such persons face
many challenges in obtaining refugee status. Included amongst these challenges
is being able to establish that they are genuine followers of the new religious
faith that they have adopted. How do individuals prove their bona fide status as members of the
religious community to which they have joined? What facts and evidence must
claimants advance to convince an appropriate decision-maker of the legitimacy
of their claim?
A
recent article in the Guardian
revealed that British immigration officials have engaged in “Bible trivia” with
respect to claimants arguing that they were persecuted on account of being
converts to Christianity. As set out in a recent report published
by the Asylum Advocacy Group and the All-Party Parliamentary Group For International Freedom of Religion or
Belief, such claimants have had to demonstrate that they are true believers by
answering a number of questions about Christianity. They were posed questions
such as: Can you name the twelve apostles? When is Pentecost? How
many books are in the Bible? Who betrayed Jesus to the Romans?
The
Report articulates the following criticism about this approach to ascertaining
the legitimacy of claimants’ faith: “Whilst they may seem reasonable, this
report reveals that such questions, often referred to as “Bible trivia”, are a
very poor way of assessing a conversion asylum claim and result in wrong
decisions and expensive appeals.” It then begs the following question – what
are more appropriate questions?
This
very issue came into sharp relief on The
West Wing during its second season (Episode 8). The West Wing was a popular television (which still carries a
following) depicting the trials and tribulations of the fictional U.S.
presidency of Josiah “Jed” Bartlet and his administration. The episode entitled
“Shibboleth” is set around Thanksgiving. A boat of roughly 100 Chinese migrants
reaches the United States. Those on board claim asylum on the basis of
religious persecution in connection with their belief in and practice of
Christianity. Due in part to pressure by Christian political activists in the
United States, the administration considers whether to grant refugee status.
However, there are suspicions that the asylum-seekers are merely feigning
belief in Christianity to secure refugee status and remain in the United
States. President Bartlet, a devout and practicing Roman Catholic himself,
makes the decision to interview one of the asylum-seekers to determine the
veracity of the asylum-seekers’ claims to be Christian. As convenience would
have it, Bartlet interviews a college professor who speaks English fluently
enough to carry on a conversation without the assistance of an interpreter.
Leaving aside the rather incredible and extremely unlikely scenario of a United
States president having the time to conduct such an interview instead of an
immigration official, the dialogue that transpires between Bartlet and the
asylum-seeker is instructive and touches upon the above-mentioned report’s
criticisms.
The
following is a clip from the episode which depicts Bartlet’s interview with the
asylum-seeker (the interview begins at roughly the two minute mark):
As
can be seen, Bartlet begins the conversation by legitimately asking the
asylum-seeker how he practices his faith and other basic facts related to such
practice. He then shifts the conversation by asking the names of Jesus’
apostles. After naming them, the claimant then states the following: “Mr.
President, Christianity is not demonstrated through a recitation of facts.
You’re seeking evidence of faith, a wholehearted acceptance of God’s promise of
a better world. ‘For we hold that man is justified by faith alone,’ is what St.
Paul said. ‘Justified by faith alone.’ Faith is the true…shibboleth.”
This
scene illustrates both a combination of what is at least partially crucial to
understanding whether a person is a member of the claimed faith group and what
is less relevant. While it is important to assess the credibility of claimants
and the veracity of their claims (by examining their practices and beliefs in
addition to any inconsistencies in their stories), the recitation of ‘trivial’
facts about the religion is not central to determining whether someone is a
true and genuine believer. As the Report observes, one of the British
government’s Asylum Policy Instructions suggests that “knowledge tests ‘are
liable to establish nothing more than the ability to absorb factual
information’ and be ‘based on the interviewing officer’s subjective perception
of what a convert should know.’” Instead, the Policy suggests that there “should
be a focus on the personal beliefs and behaviour of the claimant and directs
government interviewers to use open-ended questions to facilitate exploration
of the claimant’s personal experiences and their journey to their new faith.”
(Report, p.24)
The
rather brief interview Bartlet conducts provides both an illustration of the
better type of questioning, which explores the personal experiences and modes
of actual religious practice as well as the rather less valuable form, which
delves into trivial information. Even though the asylum-seeker is able to
answer the question regarding the number of Jesus’ apostles, he stresses that
such knowledge is not what is crucial to demonstrating the veracity of his
faith.
Just
as an aside, while this interview ultimately works in the favour of the
asylum-seekers, we might want to reflect on the problematic nature of the
process depicted in the scene. The college professor whom Bartlet interviews
serves as a representative of the entire group. However, it is eminently
possible that on a transoceanic voyage involving scores of migrants, some on
that ship may not be bona fide
refugees. Due to the college professor’s credible performance, they are all
viewed as worthy. Equally problematic would be an instance where the college
professor failed to prove to Barlet that he was a genuine Christian and every
other migrant on the ship is tarred by the same determination even if some are
otherwise genuine Christians being persecuted as they claim to be. This mass
refusal based on the testimony of one person would amount to mass punishment.
But I digress, it’s only television after all.
It
is worth reading the Report’s findings in greater detail to understand some of
the other challenges religious asylum-seekers face in these circumstances. This
includes instances where a government interviewer’s own perceptions of how
adherents of a particular religion or sect might typically practice their faith
in a specific culture lead to erroneous assumptions that such practice might be
universal to all or most other adherents of that faith. The failure of the
claimant to provide facts that support the interviewer’s presumptions may lead
to a negative assessment of the claimant’s credibility.
Other
problems also arise where, unlike the case of the asylum-seeker in The West Wing episode, others need the
assistance of an interpreter. There may be legitimate concerns with some
interpreters who fail to employ the proper terminology or use different
vocabulary in conveying the claimant’s answers. Conflicts may emerge where the
interpreter is not of the same faith community as the claimant and is thus not
familiar with some of the religious terms employed. Furthermore, the
interpreter may even belong to the same faith community as those who have
persecuted or threatened the claimant with persecution. In The West Wing scene, the claimant could speak enough English and
had sufficient knowledge of the proper terminology to demonstrate to Bartlet
his bona fides as a Christian.
Interviews with immigration officials or
examinations before an immigration judge or tribunal adjudicator will tend to
be longer and more extensive than what we see in The West Wing (for obvious reasons). Nevertheless, the show hits
upon a legitimate criticism that the Asylum Advocacy Group and All-Party Parliamentary Group address in their Report. Assessing the veracity of one’s faith must reach beyond
interrogating the limitations of a claimant’s knowledge of trivial information.
Indeed, evaluating a claimant’s grasp of the number of Jesus’ apostles and
questions of a similar ilk undermines the humanitarian goals of the Refugee Convention.
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to JiHyun Youn for providing editorial assistance on this post.
Sources
All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Asylum Advocacy Group, "Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds" (A Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Asylum Advocacy Group, 2016), online: https://freedomdeclared.org/media/asylumreport.pdf
Harriet Sherwood, "Refugees seeking asylum on religious grounds quizzed on 'Bible trivia'" The Guardian (7 June 2016), online: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/refugees-asylum-religious-grounds-quizzed-on-bible-trivia
No comments:
Post a Comment