Book contents
- The Concealment Controversy
- The Concealment Controversy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- 1 The Concealment Controversy
- 2 Unpacking the Controversy
- Part I Tracing ‘Discretion’ Reasoning
- Part I Conclusions
- Part II Exploring the Limits of Protection
- 7 Drawing Lines
- 8 Mind the Gap
- 9 Human Rights
- Conclusion
- Annex
- Bibliography
- Index
8 - Mind the Gap
Particular Social Group and the Limits of Protection
from Part II - Exploring the Limits of Protection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2021
- The Concealment Controversy
- The Concealment Controversy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- 1 The Concealment Controversy
- 2 Unpacking the Controversy
- Part I Tracing ‘Discretion’ Reasoning
- Part I Conclusions
- Part II Exploring the Limits of Protection
- 7 Drawing Lines
- 8 Mind the Gap
- 9 Human Rights
- Conclusion
- Annex
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Chapter 8 addresses the competing definitions of the Convention ground ‘particular social group’: the ‘protected characteristics’ approach and the ‘social perception' approach. Whereas both are capable of encompassing sexuality-based claims, they each hold the potential for ‘discretion’ reasoning in different ways. The ‘protected characteristics’ approach is designed to exclude ‘trivial’ claims. If claimants fear harm for what is considered a non-fundamental aspect, they can be returned to be ‘discreet’. The ‘social perception’ test in contrast, which would more appropriately be called the ‘persecutor’s perception’ approach, in principle precludes any a priori exclusion of certain particular social groups. In this approach, it is the persecutor who defines what is persecuted. Yet the chapter shows that even this broader approach is prone to ‘discretion’ logics: the limit that is reverted to is the ‘singling out’ requirement, providing protection only to those who are singled out for persecution whereas those deemed able to pass unnoticed can be returned. As such, in both approaches, the protected group is not the same as the persecuted group, such that those who are persecuted but not protected must remain ‘discreet’.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Concealment ControversySexual Orientation, Discretion Reasoning and the Scope of Refugee Protection, pp. 184 - 197Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021