Brenda Namiggade was due to be deported from the UK because, according to the radio news this morning, she could not provide 'credible evidence' of her sexual orientation.  I am left bewildered at what this actually means - what kind of evidence is 'credible' in demonstrating anyone's sexual orientation?

Ms Namiggade says that she is a lesbian, so how is she meant to demosntrate that?  Lust after female security guards?  Dive into bed with every woman she meets?  Dress like a stereotypical lesbian?

Would we expect a heterosexual person to provide credible evidence of their orientation?  Granted, this would not be cause of an asylum request, but even so?  Where does that leave the single, celibate heterosexual?  Not sure I could provide 'credible evidence' in similar circumstances... not sure 'I think so-and-so is really hunky' would count!!

I am at a loss to make sense of this.  I appreciate that superficially it might be an easy claim to make but it is one that is costly if not true (extradition) and if true (long term suspicion and widepsread homophobia).

It kind of reminds me of the old poster that used to be on the walls of many churches - 'if you were arrested for being a Christian would there be enough evidence to convict you?'  The idea being going to church does not a Christian make, nor does saying the right things, it is something about lifestyle.  But what precisely?  It's a sobering thought that if it was us having to seek asylum on religious grounds our lack of 'credible evidence' might be equally compelling.