Ugandan asylum appeal rejected as lesbian "did not own gay magazines"

A lesbian asylum seeker had her appeal to remain in the UK rejected on the grounds that she didn’t own any literature relating to her sexuality. Brenda Namigadde, who  is seeking asylum on the grounds that her life would be put at risk by returning to her native Uganda, won a last-minute injunction against her deportation as her plane waited to take off from Heathrow last night.

In court documents seen by Political Scrapbook, a First-Tier Tribunal immigration judge stated that:

The Appellant appears to have taken no interest in forms of media by magazines, books, or other information relating to her sexual orientation. While there is no requirement to do so it does seem strange … that she has not done so.

This opinion was reached despite Namigadde being singled out by the legislator behind a bill to execute Ugandan homosexuals and the recent murder of the country’s leading gay rights activist. David Bahati MP said that Namigadde must “repent or reform” on return to East Africa.

Lesbians in fear for their lives should presumably have a ready supply of jazz mags and KD Lang CDs for distribution to the judiciary.

FULL TEXT: Paragraph 30 of the appeal determination:

“I find that the Appellant was not and is not, on the evidence before me, a lesbian. l End that her credibility is affected by her conduct. l am not obliged to accept her say so of these issues. l find such peripheral information to describe what went on, either in Uganda or in the United Kingdom, very generalised and quite simply lacking in the kind of detail and information of someone genuinely living that lifestyle. The Appellant claims to have freedom to live a life unconstrained and without prejudice. l find the information as to how she has done so over the lengthy period she has been in the United Kingdom singularly lacking in detail or coherence. The Appellant appears to have taken no interest in forms of media by magazines, books or other information relating to her sexual orientation. Whilst there is no requirement to do so it does seem strange, if she is exercising the real sense of freedom she claims, that she does not do so.”


  1. tris
    Posted January 30, 2011 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    I know a lot of straight people who don’t have jazz mags about the place and who don’t look at porn on the computer…you know, their religion doesn’t much care for that kind of thing… Why should a lesbian be different.

    If the judge has an expectation of that in others, it may be due to personal circumstances.

    I also know homosexuals who have no porn, and do not go to gay bars adn don’t have sex with other homosexuals. It doesn’t stop them being homosexuals though. It just means that they follow the TEACHINGS (rather than the actions) of teh Catholic Church on the matter.

    Too late for this woman now. She has owned up to being homosexual, and no little UK judges say so is going to change Uganda’s view on this.

    She’s for the chop. I hope that judge has taken that into consideration.

    is Uganda still a memeber of the Commonwealth? If so why?

  2. Elis
    Posted January 30, 2011 at 3:34 am | Permalink

    In UK law under the equality act, anyone perceived as being a lesbian is protected under the ‘protected characteristic’ in the same way as someone known to be a lesbian. Regardless of whether she is or is not a lesbian (which is clearly a stupid thing to debate in the first place) in all other aspects of UK law she is protected by laws against homophobia. It seems ridiculous to me then that this should not be applied in the case of immigration. She has said she is a lesbian, she will therefore be perceived as one. Whether she is or not becomes irrelevant. In law we have to protect her as such. It makes no sense as to why this legislation can suddenly go out of the window when it suits.

  3. Posted January 30, 2011 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    British judge’s ruling on Brenda Namigadde: ignorant but typical:

  4. Posted January 30, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    This is lunatic. Would a court rule in a similar vain for, let’s say, a case of homophobically-aggravated assault?; if so, I should stock up on a few magazines to prove to the court that I’m gay(!)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Follow us on Twitter