Groundbreaking research reveals UK policies give non-religious asylum seekers the ‘weakest protection’

The first ever study of Home Office asylum policies from a non-religious perspective has found that:

• Policy and guidance do not adequately cover the non-religious – in many places not covering them at all
• For example, asylum application processes mention religion but ignore the non-religious. Country policy and information notes for Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and many more ignore the non-religious entirely
• Similarly, international human rights law, while offering protection to the non-religious, typically fails to make this explicit
• Home Office credibility assessment processes often try to demonstrate provable characteristics in a way that may be suitable for Christians but doesn’t work for the non-religious
• The result is a disproportionate evidential burden – focusing on proving an identity that may not be outwardly visible – giving the non-religious the ‘weakest protection’
• Worse still, some Home Office interpreters have provided inaccurate or misleading translations due to personal bias or fear of blasphemy
• While Humanists UK has in the past trained asylum assessors on freedom of religion or belief, this was some years ago now and needs repeating.

The findings are in a new PhD from Dr Lucy Potter, Blasphemy and Apostasy in the UK Asylum System: Policy and Practice in Asylum Cases Submitted Under Grounds of Non-Religiosity. Dr Potter wants the Home Office to take up her recommendations to create a system that works fairly for all claimants, and doesn’t fail the non-religious who are among the groups most at risk abroad. After all, 12 countries have the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy. In many countries it is impossible to be openly non-religious.

Dr Potter’s in-depth, three-year qualitative study explores the experiences of non-religious individuals seeking asylum in the UK, with particular attention to those who have faced fear of persecution due to apostasy and/or blasphemy. Working with Humanists UK, she interviewed many asylum claimants and practitioners, and extensively examined UK and international law, policies, and guidance.

Policies and guidance

The definition of a refugee and the prohibition of expulsion or return found in the 1951 Refugee Convention both refer to the ‘religion’ but not the non-religious, and – while other international documents make clear that should be read as including the non-religious. That is the start of the problem. The Home Office’s page explaining eligibility for asylum says ‘This persecution must be because of: …your religion’ – again excluding the non-religious. Country policy and information notes (CPINs) typically omit the non-religious entirely, even in places where the non-religious face serious persecution. In 2019 Humanists UK worked with the Home Office to develop compulsory freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) training for all asylum assessors, and then helped deliver it, but has not been involved in it since.

From Dr Potter’s research – overview of where the non-religious are included or excluded in country policy information notes.

In the research, Dr Potter writes, ‘Saudi Arabia and Mauritania entirely lack a CPIN document regarding any human rights issues, even though both countries uphold the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy… Conversely, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen do have CPINs available. However, these documents fail to contain any information on non-religious persecution, even though all mentioned countries implement the death penalty for apostasy.’ The same is true for e.g. Pakistan and Iran.

Personal experiences of apostate asylum seekers

The research covers the complexities of non-religious asylum claims through the lived experiences of individuals as they ‘become’ apostates. It examines how asylum assessment procedures influence preconceived perceptions of credibility, which often interpret being non-religious, and try to assess claims, in the same way as assessing if someone is a Christian. The experience of non-religious claimants is in fact more akin to LGBT people.

Consequently, non-religious individuals seeking asylum encounter specific barriers to securing their right to protection, such as the need to articulate their beliefs in logical and linear ways and to provide objective evidence for their beliefs, all of which can be challenging for the non-religious. They are sometimes expected to be performatively anti-religious, even when simply being non-religious can be enough to put them at severe risk of persecution in their country of origin. The result is Dr Potter found that there is a culture of disbelief that is particularly acute for non-religious claimants.

There are particular issues with interpreters and translators, who have at times provided inaccurate or misleading translations due to their own religious beliefs, or fear of repeating blasphemy. Apostate applicants also report mistrust of interpreters from their own ethnic background.

Recommendations

Dr Potter recommends making sure all Home Office policy and guidance – including asylum seeker-facing guidance and the CPINs – fully cover the non-religious. What constitutes proof that someone is who they say they are needs to be re-examined from a non-religious perspective. FoRB training for all Home Office staff should be re-run with Humanists UK. And there should be strengthened interpreter vetting and training, with applicants provided with full interview transcripts, along with a grace period for corrections without adverse credibility implications.

For several years, Dr Potter has also spent her time as a volunteer with Faith to Faithless, a service run by Humanists UK to support people who have left high-control religions. The collaboration aided participant recruitment.

Faith to Faithless Apostate Services Manager Donna Craine commented on the significance of the research:

‘This groundbreaking work is not just an academic success; it is a powerful tool that will directly benefit those legitimately seeking asylum due to their non-religious beliefs. We are incredibly grateful for her work and will be using her findings to advocate for improved outcomes for non-religious people seeking asylum.’

During the course of her research, Dr Potter has contributed written and oral evidence to the United Nations, helping to advance international understanding of FoRB for the non-religious. Additionally, she has drawn on her research findings in Parliament to advocate for the abolition of blasphemy laws at home and abroad, and spoken at meetings of the third-sector coalition, the UK FoRB Forum. She will now continue this work as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of York, where she will build on her research and share its findings with both academic and public audiences.

Dr Lucy Potter commented:

‘For the past three years, I have explored the lives of people who have left religion, gaining deep insight into their experiences of apostasy. These journeys are marked by a wide range of emotions, both positive and negative. What I found is that in the UK they are afforded the weakest protection of all religious or non-religious asylum claimants.

‘My research shows the urgent need for asylum assessment processes to be inclusive of all. It underscores the importance of ensuring that non-religious perspectives are given equal consideration. I am deeply grateful for the support of Humanists UK, Faith to Faithless, my academic supervisors, and above all, the participants who generously shared their personal stories with me.’