Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs: Colonialism and Power [1st ed.] 9783030453763, 9783030453770

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xvi
Introduction (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 1-11
Conceptual Tools for a Decolonising, Intersectional, Transnational LGBT Activism (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 13-39
Unpacking the Colonial Baggage of British Imperial Sexual Discourses (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 41-62
Contemporary Context of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Politics (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 63-88
Analysing the UK-Based NGO Landscape Engaged in Transnational LGBT Activism (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 89-145
UK Governmental Interventions and Transnational LGBT Activism (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 147-203
Navigating the Intersections of Colonial Legacies and LGBT Lives (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 205-246
Conclusion (Matthew Farmer)....Pages 247-254
Back Matter ....Pages 255-267

Citation preview

GLOBAL QUEER POLITICS

Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs Colonialism and Power Matthew Farmer

Global Queer Politics

Series Editors Jordi Díez University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada Sonia Corrêa Brazilian Interdisciplinary Association for AIDS (ABIA) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil David Paternotte Department of Political Science Université Libre de Bruxelles Brussels, Belgium Matthew Waites School of Social and Political Sciences University of Glasgow Glasgow, UK

The Global Queer Politics book series is a new outlet for research on political and social processes that contest dominant heteronormative orders in both legal and policy frames and cultural formations. It presents studies encompassing all aspects of queer politics, understood in the expansive terms of much activism as addressing the politics of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and intersex status, as well as non-heteronormative sexualities and genders more widely – including emerging identities such as asexual, pansexual, or non-binary. As struggles over violence, human rights and inequalities have become more prominent in world politics, this series provides a forum to challenge retrenchments of inequalities, and new forms of contestation, criminalization and persecution, situated in wider geopolitics. Particularly welcome are works attentive to multiple inequalities, such as related to class and caste, race and ethnicity, nationalism, religion, disability and age, imperialism and colonialism. Global, regional, transnational, comparative and national studies are welcome, but that speak to international processes. Books in the Global Queer Politics series will initially be published in hardback and ebook formats, and are made available in paperback after two years. Ebook package subscriptions for libraries in less developed countries are in accessible scaled rates relative to the size and location of institutions, enabling free access to library patrons. Additionally these package subscriptions make it possible for library patrons to purchase personal paperback editions of each book when it is released, through the MyCopy scheme. The Global Queer Politics book series welcomes: All academic disciplines and approaches that can contribute to the study of politics, including, but not limited to, international relations, political theory, sociology, socio-legal studies, contemporary history, social policy, development, public policy, cultural studies, media studies and gender and sexuality studies. Methodologies which may include comparative works and case studies with relevant transnational dimensions, and analyses of global processes. Research from authors who have activist, governmental and international experience, as well as work that can contribute to the global debate over LGBTIQ rights with perspectives from the Global South. Editors Jordi Díez, University of Guelph, Canada: [email protected] Sonia Corrêa, Brazilian Interdisciplinary Association for AIDS, Brazil: [email protected] David Paternotte, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium: [email protected] Matthew Waites, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom: [email protected] Advisory Board Sa’ed Atshan, Swarthmore College, United States Kelly Kollman, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom Travis Kong, Hong Kong University, China Arvind Narrain, Alternative Law Forum, India Stella Nyanzi, Makerere University, Uganda Hakan Seckinelgin, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom Shanon Shah, Inform, London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom María-Amelia Viteri, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador/Fordham University, United States Cai Wilkinson, Deakin University, Australia More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15246

Matthew Farmer

Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs Colonialism and Power

Matthew Farmer Lancaster, Lancashire, UK

ISSN 2569-1317 ISSN 2569-1309 (electronic) Global Queer Politics ISBN 978-3-030-45376-3 ISBN 978-3-030-45377-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover image: © Bim/E+/Getty Image This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Editors Preface

Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs: Colonialism and Power is a distinctive and valuable book for the analysis of global queer politics. Matthew Farmer’s volume is clearly significant, as the first systematic book length research study to offer a comprehensive analysis of LGBT non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the UK that work transnationally. Yet in a wider international context, Farmer’s book is the first to offer a social study of all the main non-governmental organisations that work transnationally on LGBT issues from any particular state— in contrast to previous studies that have focused on one organisation. Furthermore, more than most previous studies of LGBT NGOs, this research centres relations of colonialism that are increasingly central for critical analyses; and it attends to colonialities—the ongoing contemporary power relations between societies that have persisted from colonial histories. The research demands engagement with decolonising and intersectional politics from LGBT NGOs, movements and activism—and from critical analysts and wider publics. Matthew Farmer’s book works as an accessible introduction to the realm of transnational LGBT activism, for the general reader as well as for research specialists—explaining theoretical and political frameworks of wide relevance from the start, before focusing on UK organisations in relation to international contexts. The study addresses a rapidly emerging and changing field of civil society activity, where many NGOs have been formed in the UK over the past decade to work on sexual orientation v

vi

SERIES EDITORS PREFACE

and gender identity issues. New organisations created in 2011 included the Kaleidoscope Trust, the Human Dignity Trust and the Peter Tatchell Foundation, joining the expanding international work of Stonewall as the sector’s most well-funded LGBT NGO. These four organisations have been discussed and compared in previous published research by Waites, identifying the new London-based transnational politics of LGBT human rights as a distinctive social phenomenon for analysis (as referenced in the present volume). Farmer’s study develops such analysis in significant new ways such as by covering more NGOs, by using more primary data, and through offering in-depth discussion on distinctive themes such as the relations of such organisations to the UK Parliament and government. Considerable data are derived from interviews with key activists, including some of the best known and most influential leading figures in the UK and global scenes—such as Paul Dillane from UKLGIG and later Kaleidoscope Trust, Jonathan Cooper as Chief Executive of the Human Dignity Trust, Bisi Alimi as a ground-breaking Nigerian activist who became significantly involved in NGO work from London, and Peter Tatchell himself. This means the book is closely informed by first-hand insider knowledge, with rich quotations consistently illuminating specific dilemmas and decisions approached from different positions and perspectives. Importantly, Farmer also broadens the focus of research to consider the work of smaller diaspora organisations including Out and Proud African LGBTI, African Rainbow Family, Justice for Gay Africans; and other smaller organisations such as Rainbow International, working on funding. This attention to smaller organisations is important methodologically for decentering the larger organisations and drawing attention to power relations between groups that relate to resources and networks. The book has a clear structure that builds the analysis. The opening chapters systematically set out a range of concepts and theoretical reference points that are required to think about contemporary transnational activism in the context of colonialism and colonialities, postcolonialism and decolonising analyses. Historical context is provided, especially to explain the British Empire’s criminalisation of same-sex sexual acts across its territories, and to review literatures discussing the legal legacies of such criminalisation that persist in much of the Commonwealth. A helpful global overview of the politics of sexual orientation and gender identity is offered, covering developments related to human rights at the United Nations and outlining leading international LGBT NGOs in the

SERIES EDITORS PREFACE

vii

field, whilst also discussing the case of Uganda’s experiences related to the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 as an example of transnational engagements. The main contribution is then delivered in a series of chapters undertaking detailed analysis of LGBT NGO practices in the UK. Chapter 5 provides a systematic overview of the UK-based NGO landscape in relation to transnational LGBT work, with a section introducing each of the organisations studied that will prove a valuable resource for future researchers; notably also offering comparison of funding and strategies, together with analysis of relationships and competition. Chapter 6 focuses on UK governmental interventions, first providing a novel analysis of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights which links to NGO activity; then discussing work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, developing a particularly nuanced and original analysis of the UK’s politics of aid conditionality in relation to LGBT human rights. Chapter 7 turns to further contexts, particularly the Commonwealth as a key new site of contestation; but also considering the politics of LGBT asylum and thus distinctively linking the transnational lives of LGBT asylum seekers, and wider diasporas, to discussion of how LGBT NGOs could develop more connected approaches. A final conclusion draws key themes together, focusing on implications of intersectional and decolonising approaches. Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs: Colonialism and Power addresses central questions and dilemmas facing movements for equality in sexuality and gender politics globally. It continues the focus on transnationalism that has been central to the Global Queer Politics series. The book is a work of detailed scholarship built on meticulous empirical research, allowing many voices of significant LGBT activists to be heard in a way that enables us to reflect on their differences. Yet to develop analysis Matthew Farmer engages broad historical, theoretical and political perspectives. Whilst LGBT NGO activity is often debated in the LGBT media or related community spaces, Farmer’s book shows how rigorous academic research can provide a wider perspective and in-depth analysis that enables the development of strategic thinking and the reorientation of movement activities and resources. As such the book speaks directly to LGBT NGOs and activists in sexuality and gender politics, as well as

viii

SERIES EDITORS PREFACE

to related sections of governmental organisations and wider civil society and activism; but this much-needed book also sets an example for other researchers globally to develop similar studies in different contexts. Spring 2020

Sonia Corrêa Jordi Díez David Paternotte Matthew Waites

Praise for Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs: Colonialism and Power

“Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs: Colonialism and Power is an important book for the analysis of international LGBT politics and the role played by non-governmental organisations in that sphere. The book analyses the role of UK-Based NGOs within transnational LGBT activism by closely examining the UK Government’s interactions with UK-based NGOs. This focus is an original and significant contribution in its dynamic analysis of the relationship between NGOs, LGBT activists and donor governments. This book relies on interviews with influential actors in this area working within the field. Furthermore, the book’s critical analysis of international LGBT politics in the intersection of growing voices of NGOs, governmental interests and the context created by the legacies of British colonialism provides an exceptional focus. This book is a timely and valuable contribution which will be of great interest for researchers and students interested in international politics of LGBT issues, politics of NGOs and policy studies”. —Hakan Seckinelgin, Associate Professor of International Social Policy, Department of Social Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK “Matthew Farmer’s book is the first to offer a comprehensive analysis of LGBT non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working transnationally from the UK – such as the Human Dignity Trust, Kaleidoscope Trust and Stonewall. Interviews with many key LGBT activists such as Jonathan ix

x

PRAISE FOR TRANSNATIONAL LGBT ACTIVISM AND UK-BASED …

Cooper, Paul Dillane, Bisi Alimi and Peter Tatchell reveal priorities and strategies. The research centres colonialism’s legacies for contemporary power relations; it deserves engagement from critical analysts, LGBT movements and wider publics internationally”. —Matthew Waites, Reader in Sociology at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Glasgow, UK

Contents

1

Introduction References

2

Conceptual Tools for a Decolonising, Intersectional, Transnational LGBT Activism NGOs and Transnational Advocacy Networks Colonialism, Postcolonialism and Decoloniality Sexualities, Normativities, and Nationalisms Solidarity and Intersectionality The Transformative Potential of Transnational LGBT Activism References

3

Unpacking the Colonial Baggage of British Imperial Sexual Discourses Problematising and Criminalising Same-Sex Sexuality in Pre-Twentieth-Century Western Europe Reproducing Race and Sexuality in the Orient Implementation and Legacy of Colonial Sodomy Laws Illuminating the Impact of Colonial Legacies on LGBT Issues in Contemporary International Relations References

1 8

13 14 18 22 28 31 32

41 42 48 52 57 58

xi

xii

4

5

6

7

CONTENTS

Contemporary Context of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Politics Contemporary International Landscape LGBT Rights at the United Nations Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act (2014): Illustrating International Interactions and Tensions with LGBT Rights Homophobia, Homonationalism and Pinkwashing Modernity: Highlighting Contemporary Complexities References Analysing the UK-Based NGO Landscape Engaged in Transnational LGBT Activism Introducing UK-Based NGOs Engaged in Transnational LGBT Activism Comparative Funding Issues for NGOs Analysing the Activism Strategies Employed by UK-Based NGOs Assessing Cooperation and Coherency in UK-Based Transnational LGBT Activism Boycotting Brunei References UK Governmental Interventions and Transnational LGBT Activism All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights Foreign and Commonwealth Office Department for International Development Aid Conditionality Challenges and Opportunities for Future UK-Based Engagements References Navigating the Intersections of Colonial Legacies and LGBT Lives Contemporary Complexities of Colonial Sodomy Laws LGBT Rights Within the Commonwealth of Nations

63 64 65 69 75 78

89 90 99 104 125 129 133

147 148 153 161 165 186 189

205 206 212

CONTENTS

8

xiii

LGBT Asylum LGBT Lives, Intersectionality and Coloniality References

218 233 235

Conclusion References

247 253

Appendix: Methodology

255

Index

261

Abbreviations

AHA AHB APPG LGBT ARF CHOGM CSO DFID DSSH FCO GAD HDT HRC IDAHOTB IDS ILGA JfGA LGB LGBT LGBTI LGBTIQ LGSM MRI MSM NGO

Anti-Homosexuality Act (Uganda, 2014) Anti-Homosexuality Bill (Uganda, 2009) All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights African Rainbow Family Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Civil Society Organisation Department for International Development Difference, Stigma, Shame, and Harm Foreign and Commonwealth Office Gender and Development Human Dignity Trust Human Rights Campaign International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia Institute of Development Studies (Sussex University) International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association Justice for Gay Africans Society Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex, and Queer Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners Micro Rainbow International Men Who Have Sex with Men Non-Governmental Organisation xv

xvi

ABBREVIATIONS

ODI OIC OPAL OPDG PTF RMT SDG SMUG SOGI SRI TCEN UKLGIG UNHCR UNHRC

Overseas Development Institute Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Out and Proud African LGBTI Out and Proud Diamond Group Peter Tatchell Foundation Rail, Maritime and Transport Union Sustainable Development Goal Sexual Minorities Uganda Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Sexual Rights Initiative The Commonwealth Equality Network UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Human Rights Council

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Since 2011, the number of UK-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) engaged in transnational lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) activism has notably increased, with new NGOs emerging and existing NGOs increasing their international work. Whilst NGOs engage in different activism strategies, all NGOs adopt a broadly similar ethos of seeking to improve global LGBT rights by working with local LGBT people and groups across the world. This increased international activity from UK non-governmental spaces concerned with global LGBT rights is reflected in broader trends of increased attention to LGBT discrimination worldwide. As greater legal protections for LGBT people are secured in some states, alongside improving social acceptance for LGBT lives, condemnation of worldwide LGBT discrimination and violence is increasing. Thus, the plight of LGBT communities under oppressive state mechanisms, for example in Uganda, Malawi, Brunei and Russia, has become more widely publicised, fuelling mainstream attention and catalysing greater NGO participation in transnational LGBT activism. This incitement to discourse of international LGBT rights has extended to discussions in international forums, including at the UN Human Rights Council, which appointed the first UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in 2016. 70 UN member states criminalise consenting same-sex sexual activity, in addition to a number of smaller jurisdictions, either using legislation © The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_1

1

2

M. FARMER

that specifically targets LGBT people by prohibiting same-sex relations, or via other oppressive legal mechanisms (Mendos 2019). Although the number of states that criminalise their LGBT populations has gradually decreased over the past few decades, there has also been a recent trend towards introducing new legislation that either directly or indirectly harms LGBT communities. Some states have sought to introduce legislation that increases penalties for same-sex sexual relations, whilst others have introduced ‘propaganda’ laws to limit freedom of expression (Carroll 2016; Mendos 2019). There have also been recent trends to restrict civil society spaces and make it difficult for NGOs to function effectively, particularly when NGOs receive support from foreign donors (Amnesty International 2014; Dupuy et al. 2015; Kingsley 2014). This can present challenges for LGBT activists engaged in transnational activism who may rely on foreign financial support and for whom registering officially as an NGO can be difficult in many states. That many LGBT people continue to suffer discrimination and violence worldwide highlights the need for continued research in this area to document discrimination and contribute to transnational strategies of improving the lives of LGBT people globally. The increased momentum and complexity of international LGBT rights strategies and discourses in the twenty-first century has led to a wealth of research that has examined the opportunities and challenges of international strategies as they have developed. This includes analyses of key developments, such as the Yogyakarta Principles, as well as engagements with general trends in global LGBT politics, such as the increased number of active international and local NGOs pursuing LGBT rights and equality globally (Altman and Symons 2016; Kollman and Waites 2009; Lennox and Waites 2013; Seckinelgin 2012; Tremblay et al. 2011; Weiss and Bosia 2013). There has also been an increase in scholarship on how queer sexualities in global politics can produce new theoretical understandings of the complexity of international relations (Langlois 2016; Picq and Thiel 2015; Rao 2018; Weber 2016). Some research has provided analyses of particular organisations that engage in transnational LGBT activism, particularly US-based and international organisations. For example, Long (2013) provides a critique of the funding sources of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), whilst Thoreson (2014) provides a detailed examination of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, now known as OutRight. Others have critically engaged with broader themes of the problematic strategies and discourses deployed by mainly

1

INTRODUCTION

3

Western actors in their pursuit of LGBT equality worldwide. For example, Rao (2014b) explores and problematises contemporary representations of homophobia that produce simplistic conceptions of the ‘locations of homosexual freedom’ on the one hand and ‘locations of homophobia’ on the other (p. 174). Such representations rely on simplistic understandings of homophobia and the progress of LGBT equality, often with the implication that homophobic states are on a journey to catch up to the progress made by the West, undermining the nuances of effective transnational solidarity by relying on Western concepts of LGBT rights and modernity (Coly 2013; Ekine 2013; Gunkel 2013; Puar 2007; Rahman 2014; Rao 2014a, b). Whilst there is a wealth of research that engages with the complexities of global LGBT politics, there remains scope for greater analysis of the ways in which NGOs operate and engage with global LGBT rights and equality. Little research has been produced that offers a detailed examination of the evolving nature and scope of the contemporary UK-based NGO space engaged in transnational LGBT activism. A notable exception to this is Waites’ analysis of what they identify as ‘the new London-based trans-national politics of LGBT human rights’, concerning the post-2011 growth of London-based NGOs engaged in supporting the human rights of LGBT people globally, particularly via a focus on the Commonwealth (Waites 2015). Waites’ (2015) analysis focuses on four key London-based organisations: Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, Human Dignity Trust and the Peter Tatchell Foundation, followed by a more detailed examination of Kaleidoscope Trust and The Commonwealth Equality Network (Waites 2017). Whilst Waites provides a much-needed interrogation of the emergence and strategies of some key UK-based NGOs, there is scope for a more comprehensive analysis of the broader range of UK-based NGOs engaged in transnational LGBT activism. This book contributes a new analysis of the key NGOs examined by Waites, whilst also considering the broader UK NGO space engaged in transnational LGBT activism, including organisations involved with LGBT asylum, such as UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG), and diaspora-led organisations, such as Out & Proud African LGBTI (OPAL). Drawing on interview data and NGO publications, the book contributes an analysis of the evolution of NGO strategies and engagements in transnational LGBT activism, including efforts to influence UK governmental strategies on LGBT rights internationally,

4

M. FARMER

focusing on the period from 2011 to 2019. The book situates this analysis within a broader recognition of the complexities that British colonial legacies perpetuate in contemporary international relations, noting that greater engagement with a decolonial approach to understanding transnational LGBT activism would help UK-based NGOs to more successfully navigate and challenge the coloniality of power that persists in the international system (Mignolo 2007; Quijano 2000, 2007; Waites 2019). Adopting a decolonial approach would help contribute to a more effective transnational LGBT solidarity by highlighting the intersectionality of LGBT lives globally, going beyond a restrictive understanding of LGBT rights to challenge the ways in which coloniality restricts LGBT people’s lives in ways other than their being LGBT (Anguita 2012; Crenshaw 1989, 1993; Mohanty 2003). The UK space is continually evolving, and as NGO strategies respond to critiques and revise their particular approaches to transnational activism, UK-based NGOs have the potential to contribute significantly to the development of transnational LGBT activist strategies, as well as influencing UK governmental strategies in the international sphere. Central to the long-term effectiveness of these strategies will be the ability of UKbased NGOs to fully engage in intersectional and decolonial approaches that understand and appreciate the complex challenges faced by LGBT people beyond securing LGBT human rights. It will be noted that I use the acronym ‘LGBT’ when referring to ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans’, whether in the context of rights, activism or people who identify by these terms to some degree. It should be noted, however, that ‘queer’ (LGBTQ) and ‘intersex’ (LGBTI) are sometimes added to the acronym and used by different actors in the UK and internationally. LGBT and LGBTI are most commonly used by NGOs in the UK. Whilst ‘LGBTI’ gives recognition to the experiences of intersex people and the ways in which intersex activism is not captured within traditional conceptions of LGBT activism (see Leslie 2016), I feel that it is more appropriate to use ‘LGBT’ as a standard when discussing UKbased NGOs since the space has not consistently engaged in transnational intersex activism. However, any quotations or references to specific NGOs that use ‘LGBTI’ have been retained for accuracy. Although ‘LGBT’ is problematic as an acronym in capturing the complexities of sexual and gender identities, particularly as a Western acronym that fails to capture the nuances of non-Western identities and

1

INTRODUCTION

5

expressions of sexuality and gender, ‘LGBT’ is readily recognised, understood and used internationally (Epprecht 2013, p. 24; e.g. Ekine and Abbas 2013). With recognition of the limits and complexities entailed in the language we use to describe personal experiences and identities related to sexuality and gender across global contexts, ‘LGBT’ is used here as a common reference point for sexual and gender minorities challenging discrimination globally (Altman 1996, 1997; Budhiraja et al. 2010; Epprecht 2013, pp. 23–25; Theron 2013). Similarly, whilst ‘LGBT rights’ is used to refer broadly to mechanisms and principles of human rights protections that should be afforded to LGBT people globally (drawing on agreements such as the Declaration of Montreal and Yogyakarta Principles), I do acknowledge the complexities of articulating a politics of LGBT human rights in international contexts, particularly when concerned with coloniality and the challenges of Western interventions (Bosia 2014; Epprecht 2013, pp. 177–178; Sharma 2006; Waites 2009; see also, Merry 2006; Young 2015, p. 125). The book is structured to provide the reader with the conceptual language, historical understanding and contemporary context with which to allow a thorough examination of the UK-based NGO space engaged in transnational LGBT activism, UK governmental interventions in international LGBT rights issues and the complexity of British colonial legacies on transnational activism and LGBT lives globally. Chapter 2 introduces some key conceptual terms that are used throughout the later analysis of UK-based NGO strategies and contributions to transnational LGBT activism. The chapter opens by examining definitions of NGOs before drawing on literature concerned with transnational advocacy movements to note the ways in which NGOs can engage in transnational activism, for example, through boomerang patterns of influence. Given the focus of the book on legacies of colonialism and the perpetuation of coloniality in international relations, the chapter defines these terms, drawing on postcolonialism and decoloniality to highlight how European modernity/coloniality presents challenges for contemporary transnational LGBT activism. Other key concepts are also introduced, including homonationalism, solidarity and intersectionality, as tools with which to critique the contemporary complexities of global LGBT politics, presenting opportunities for transformative transnational activism. Chapter 3 explores the historical intellectual development of European problematisations and criminalisations of same-sex sexual activity that were then imposed on colonial territories. There is a widespread

6

M. FARMER

recognition that a significant number of contemporary laws that are used to criminalise sexual and gender minorities are legacies of European colonialism, particularly British colonialism. Therefore, it is worth examining the historical influence and implementation of such legislation, not only to provide some context to contemporary transnational LGBT strategies that are concerned with decriminalisation in formerly colonised states, but to also highlight how the continuing perpetuation of coloniality in international relations presents challenges for effective UK (and broader Western) interventions in international LGBT politics. These issues are taken up further in Chapter 4, which explores the contemporary context of sexual orientation and gender identity politics in international relations, within which UK-based NGOs and other actors participate. The chapter notes the ways in which rights related to sexual orientation and gender identity are negotiated and contested between states, including within international fora such as the UN. The development of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act (2014) is used as a case study to explore some of the contemporary challenges for transnational LGBT activism in the ways in which LGBT rights are deployed and restricted by homophobic regimes, as well as how transnational networks are used in opposition to LGBT rights. The chapter concludes with a critical examination of the ways in which simplistic conceptions of global homophobias and Western homonationalist discourses present challenges for effective transnational activism as LGBT rights have been incorporated into the logics of a pinkwashed European modernity/coloniality. Chapter 5 introduces the main UK-based NGOs engaged in transnational LGBT activism that are analysed within the book, including Kaleidoscope Trust, Human Dignity Trust, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, Out & Proud African LGBTI, Stonewall and UKLGIG. The chapter then compares funding issues for UK-based NGOs to contextualise how the material resources available to NGOs contribute to shaping the activism strategies that they engage in. An analysis of the activism strategies pursued by UK-based NGOs is presented, before assessing cooperation and coherency within the UK NGO activism space. The chapter highlights how different UK-based NGOs pursue different strategies, whilst noting common intentions and discourses on solidarity and ‘working with local actors’. Although UK-based NGOs appear to have developed a clearer focus on their individual strategies and demonstrate cooperation on select issues, a supposedly shared commitment to solidarity and ‘working with local actors’ has not always been realised in

1

INTRODUCTION

7

consistent or effective ways. These tensions are examined through the case study of UK-based NGO responses to the introduction of sharia law in Brunei, highlighting that there remains scope for NGOs to frame their engagements in transnational LGBT activism in more nuanced, intersectional and decolonial ways that appreciate the broader challenges that Southern LGBT activists and their civil society allies face. In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the role of UKbased NGOs in transnational LGBT activism, Chapter 6 explores the ways in which UK-based NGOs engage with the UK Government on international LGBT issues. The chapter focuses its analysis on the establishment of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, as well as the international LGBT engagements of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DFID). Using LGBT aid conditionality as a case study, the chapter evaluates some of the key complexities that have emerged in the intersection of UK governmental and non-governmental strategies. Although governmental actors have demonstrated some positive engagements with international LGBT rights, it remains to be seen whether a coordinated, cross-government strategy will emerge to transform supportive sentiment into effective action. Furthermore, NGO engagements with the UK Government’s approach to LGBT aid conditionality reveal a failure to contextualise contemporary LGBT rights within a broader understanding of aid relations and coloniality. Chapter 7 brings together recurrent themes explored throughout the book to examine how UK-based NGOs acknowledge and engage with the impact that coloniality and the legacies of British colonialism have had on contemporary international relations and global LGBT rights. The chapter explores UK-based NGO engagement with the legacies of colonial sodomy laws, the transnational networking potential of the Commonwealth and the experiences of LGBT asylum seekers in the UK. Continuing from this examination of these intersections of colonial legacies and contemporary international LGBT activisms, Chapter 8 brings together the themes raised throughout the book to present an argument for vigilance in ensuring UK-based actors adopt an intersectional and decolonial approach to supporting international LGBT rights that appreciates the complex impact of coloniality on the contemporary realities of LGBT people’s lives globally. The Appendix outlines the research methodology of the book, including the sampling of UK-based NGOs and other UK-based actors,

8

M. FARMER

the methods of data collection, and the thematic approach taken to data analysis. The book draws on interviews conducted with some of the UK’s leading LGBT activists of the past decade, including Paul Dillane, Jonathan Cooper, Peter Tatchell and Bisi Alimi. Interview data was collected between 2014 and 2015, in addition to the collection of data from NGO and government publications, as well as news media, between 2012 and 2020. The Appendix also reflects on the issues of representing interview participants in leadership positions within UK-based NGOs, as well as the challenges of securing interviews with some actors.

References Altman, D. (1996). Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities. Social Text, 48(Autumn), 77–94. Altman, D. (1997). Global Gaze/Global Gays. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 3(4), 337–356. Altman, D., & Symons, J. (2016). Queer Wars: The New Global Polarization over Gay Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press. Amnesty International. (2014, 9 October). Lawfare to Destroy “Enemies Within”—Russian NGOs Tagged as “Foreign Agents.” https://www.amn esty.org/en/latest/news/2014/10/lawfare-destroy-enemies-within-russianngos-tagged-foreign-agents/. Accessed 23 October 2019. Anguita, L. A. (2012). Aid Conditionality and Respect for LGBT People Rights. SPW Working Paper 7: The Global Context: Sexuality and Geopolitics, 9–15. http://www.sxpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spw-wp7the-global-context-sexuality-and-politics.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2019. Bosia, M. J. (2014). Strange Fruit: Homophobia, the State, and the Politics of LGBT Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Rights, 13(3), 256–273. Budhiraja, S., Freid, S. T., & Teixeria, A. (2010). Spelling It Out: From Alphabet Soup to Sexual Rights and Gender Justice. In A. Lind (Ed.), Development, Sexual Rights and Global Governance (pp. 131–144). Abingdon: Routledge. Carroll, A. (2016, May). State-Sponsored Homophobia 2016: A World Survey of Sexual Orientation Laws: Criminalisation, Protection and Recognition. Geneva: ILGA. https://ilga.org/downloads/02_ILGA_State_Spon sored_Homophobia_2016_ENG_WEB_150516.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2019. Coly, A. A. (2013). Introduction. African Studies Review, 56(2), 21–30. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 4, 139–167.

1

INTRODUCTION

9

Crenshaw, K. (1993). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color. In M. A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The Public Nature of Private Violence (pp. 93–118). New York: Routledge. Dupuy, K., Ron, J., & Prakash, A. (2015). Who Survived? Ethiopia’s Regulatory Crackdown on Foreign-Funded NGOs. Review of International Political Economy, 22(2), 419–456. Ekine, S. (2013). Contesting Narratives of Queer Africa. In S. Ekine & H. Abbas (Eds.), Queer African Reader (pp. 78–91). Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Ekine, S., & Abbas, H. (Eds.). (2013). Queer African Reader. Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Epprecht, M. (2013). Sexuality and Social Justice in Africa. London: Zed Books. Gunkel, H. (2013). Some Reflections on Postcolonial Homophobia, Local Interventions, and LGBTI Solidarity Online: The Politics of Global Petitions. African Studies Review, 56(2), 67–81. Kingsley, P. (2014, 24 September). Egypt’s Human Rights Groups “Targeted” by Crackdown on Foreign Funding. The Guardian. https://www.thegua rdian.com/world/2014/sep/24/egypt-human-rights-crackdown-foreign-fun ding. Accessed 23 October 2019. Kollman, K., & Waites, M. (2009). The Global Politics of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Human Rights: An Introduction. Contemporary Politics, 15(1), 1–17. Langlois, A. J. (2016). International Relations Theory and Global Sexuality Politics. Politics, 36(4), 385–399. Lennox, C., & Waites, M. (Eds.). (2013). Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change. London: School of Advanced Study, University of London. Leslie J (2016, March 18). Intersex Activism—Aims and Goals. Organisation Intersex International UK. http://oiiuk.org/1627/intersex-activismaims-and-goals/. Accessed 27 February 2020. Long, S. (2013, November 4). HRC and the Vulture Fund: Making Third World Poverty Pay for LGBT Rights. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/ 2013/11/04/hrc-and-the-vulture-fund-making-third-world-poverty-pay-forlgbt-rights/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Mendos, L. R. (2019, March). State-Sponsored Homophobia 2019. Geneva: ILGA. https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2 019.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2019. Merry, S. E. (2006). Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mignolo, W. D. (2007). Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-Coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 449–514.

10

M. FARMER

Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. London: Duke University Press. Picq, M. L., & Thiel, M. (Eds.). (2015). Sexualities in World Politics: How LGBTQ Claims Shape International Relations. London: Routledge. Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 533–580. Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 168–178. Rahman, M. (2014). Queer Rights and the Triangulation of Western Exceptionalism. Journal of Human Rights, 13, 247–289. Rao, R. (2014a). Queer Questions. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16(2), 199–217. Rao, R. (2014b). The Locations of Homophobia. London Review of International Law, 2(2), 169–199. Rao, R. (2018). The State of “Queer IR”. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 24(1), 139–149. Seckinelgin, H. (2012). Global Civil Society as Shepherd: Global Sexualities and the Limits of Solidarity from a Distance. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 536– 555. Sharma, J. (2006). Reflections on the Language of Rights from a Queer Perspective. IDS Bulletin, 37 (5), 52–57. Theron, L. (2013). Does the Label Fit? In S. Ekine & H. Abbas (Eds.), Queer African Reader (pp. 316–327). Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Thoreson, R. (2014). Transnational LGBT Activism: Working for Sexual Rights Worldwide. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tremblay, M., Paternotte, D., & Johnson, C. (Eds.). (2011). The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship. Farnham: Ashgate. Waites, M. (2009). Critique of ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Gender Identity’ in Human Rights Discourse: Global Queer Politics Beyond the Yogyakarta Principles. Contemporary Politics, 15(1), 137–156. Waites, M. (2015). The New Trans-National Politics of LGBT Human Rights in the Commonwealth. In F. Stella, Y. Taylor, T. Reynolds, & A. Rogers (Eds.), Sexuality, Citizenship and Belonging: Trans-National and Intersectional Perspectives (pp. 73–92). New York: Routledge. Waites, M. (2017). LGBTI Organizations Navigating Imperial Contexts: The Kaleidoscope Trust, the Commonwealth and the Need for a Decolonizing, Intersectional Politics. The Sociological Review, 65(4), 644–662.

1

INTRODUCTION

11

Waites, M. (2019). Decolonizing the Boomerang Effect in Global Queer Politics: A New Critical Framework for Sociological Analysis of Human Rights Contestation. International Sociology, 34(4), 382–401. Weber, C. (2016). Queer International Relations: Sovereignty, sexuality and the Will to Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. Weiss, M. L., & Bosia, M. J. (Eds.). (2013). Global Homophobia: States, Movements, and the Politics of Oppression. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Young, R. J. C. (2015). Empire, Colony, Postcolony. Chichester: Wiley.

CHAPTER 2

Conceptual Tools for a Decolonising, Intersectional, Transnational LGBT Activism

This chapter introduces and defines key concepts that are used throughout the book, contributing to a critical assessment of the complex intersections of contemporary transnational LGBT activism with legacies of colonialism. Following an examination of the politics of NGOs and transnational advocacy networks, the chapter draws on decoloniality theory to highlight how European modernity/coloniality has shaped contemporary international relations, and the potential for decolonising approaches to challenge existing hierarchies of power in the international system. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, the chapter then explores the use of concepts including heteronationalism and homonormativity to challenge the ways in which gender and sexuality are deployed for particular biopolitical objectives, usually in ways which preserve state control over gender and sexuality. A critical engagement with transnational solidarity and intersectionality highlights some of the complexities of enacting effective solidarity across borders, suggesting ways of building solidarity on common contexts of struggle, rather than appealing merely to ‘LGBT’ identity. Bringing together intersectionality and decoloniality reveals the transformative potential of transnational LGBT solidarity to challenge coloniality in international relations that perpetuates the oppression of LGBT people across the Global South regardless of perceived advances in global LGBT rights.

© The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_2

13

14

M. FARMER

NGOs and Transnational Advocacy Networks The term ‘non-governmental organisation’ (NGO) is used and understood globally across many different local and international political contexts (Lang 2013, p. 11). Whether we think of NGOs as the ‘players’ of civil society (Hilton et al. 2013, p. 15), or as ‘wild cards’ in global politics (DeMars 2005, p. 4), definitions of ‘NGO’ can vary slightly depending on the intention of the author to create objective boundaries to a rather broad term, though there are some core defining characteristics of NGOs. An NGO is an organisation that has not been established by a government (NGOs are non-state actors, though not all non-state actors are NGOs); it cannot be profit-making, or advocate the use of violence; it cannot be a school, or a political party and it pursues activities towards a particular public good, such as by providing services or advocacy (Ahmed and Potter 2006, p. 8; Lang 2013, p. 12). In pursuing activities towards a particular public good, DeMars (2005) notes that ‘each NGO asserts a representational claim to serve the needs and rights of a particular population’ (p. 42). NGOs make claims to represent the interests of a particular group or cause, using their activities to speak on behalf of their target constituency, which can include, for example, animal and environmental issues and rights beyond a usual understanding of ‘a particular population’. Many NGOs, or other state and non-state actors, may claim to speak for a particular constituency, making the ways in which NGOs pursue their activities highly politicised as complementary or competing representational claims are made on behalf of a target constituency (DeMars 2005, p. 25). For our interests here in examining UK-based NGOs engaged in transnational LGBT activism, these NGOs make representational claims on behalf of people living across the world who broadly fall under the umbrella of ‘LGBT’. It is worth noting the inherent tension within the name of ‘nongovernmental organisation’ in that whilst NGOs are strictly not established by governments and cannot, by their definition, represent governments or political parties, their very nature and existence are often entwined with mechanisms of the state. As Hilton et al. (2013) suggest: ‘Despite their title, NGOs cannot be placed one side of a line which clearly demarcates them from government. They are embedded in the detailed work of government’ (pp. 15–16). At a basic level, the legal parameters that define the limits of NGO activities are established by governments, meaning that the freedom and legitimacy of NGOs to act

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

15

as they please can be curtailed by the state (Lang 2013, pp. 98–99). Writing about NGOs in the UK, Hilton et al. (2013) note that the NGO sector ‘attracts staff from the same cohort of the population as the civil service’ and that these individuals often move between the NGO and public sectors throughout their careers, highlighting an intertwining of personnel and expertise between NGOs and the government (p. 189). In addition, questions can be raised concerning public funding for NGOs, particularly when government-allocated funds for projects can influence or restrict the activities of NGOs based on the interests of the government, calling into question NGO autonomy (Hilton et al. 2013, p. 189; Petras 1999, p. 433; see also, Hearn 2007). We might also consider to what extent certain NGOs have adopted governmental roles for themselves in the ways in which they instruct citizens to be ideal participants in their activities, such as how to be a good environmentalist, or human rights activist. As Hilton et al. (2013) ask, ‘just who is engaged in the governance of contemporary citizenship?’ (pp. 189–190). NGOs do not act alone and require the support of other actors, including other NGOs, to further their activities and interests. DeMars (2005) notes the importance for NGOs of building relationships with other actors, such that NGOs can be understood to be ‘constituted by their partners’ (p. 44). The connections that NGOs make shape the nature of the organisation as well as its capabilities to act effectively in pursuit of its goals. As NGOs make connections and come to share common partners, they form transnational networks that help maintain and direct the flow of information and resources between actors (DeMars 2005, pp. 50–53). Considering the broader scope of these transnational networks to include actors other than only NGOs, Keck and Sikkink (1998) examine what they call ‘transnational advocacy networks’ and the role they play in international politics. Whilst NGOs are often the central actors in transnational advocacy networks, such networks may also include local social movements, foundations, the media, other non-governmental actors, such as churches or trade unions, and parts of state governance institutions (Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 9). The exchange of information and services between network actors in pursuit of common goals is a core benefit of the network, particularly the ways in which transnational advocacy networks open access to international resources for local actors engaged in domestic struggles. In cases where local actors seek to advocate for change in their state’s policies or behaviour but face domestic resistance

16

M. FARMER

or barriers to safely do so, these local actors can attempt to seek support from transnational networks instead. Keck and Sikkink (1998) call this the ‘boomerang pattern of influence’ whereby ‘domestic NGOs bypass their state and directly search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside’ (p. 12). Members of the transnational advocacy network use the exchange of information to pressure their own states or other intergovernmental organisations to in turn leverage pressure against the original offending state, thereby potentially providing some redress to the local actors. The connections utilised in this boomerang pattern are thereby beneficial to the local actors as well as to other members of the network, as Keck and Sikkink (1998) note: ‘international contacts amplify voices to which domestic governments are deaf, while the local work of target country activists legitimizes efforts of activists abroad’ (p. 200). Whilst the boomerang pattern is a useful model with which to examine the role of transnational advocacy networks in international relations, it is important to be mindful of the political nuances that alter and distort the simplicity and applicability of the model (Waites 2019). For example, Tarrow (2005) highlights that the nature of the ‘blockage’ that local actors face in petitioning their own governments, such as might vary between unresponsiveness to repression, would likely produce different kinds of responses from transnational network actors (p. 147). DeMars (2005) also notes that despite the potential of a boomerang pattern, governments can manipulate the competing claims and interests of local NGOs to create a ‘bungie cord effect’, effectively negating the boomerang pattern and forcing ‘NGOs to hold their positions rather than launching bold new criticisms of other human rights violations’ (p. 31). Keck and Sikkink (1998) do note that the effectiveness of the boomerang pattern is dependent on the vulnerability of the target state to different kinds of leverage and international pressures (pp. 201–209). Although the exchange of information through transnational advocacy networks has the potential to positively contribute to the common interests of the network, as seen in the potential of the boomerang pattern, it is worth considering the power dynamics at play within transnational networks. Keck and Sikkink (1998) argue that transnational advocacy networks should be ‘understood as political spaces in which differently situated actors negotiate – formerly or informally – the social, cultural, and political meanings of their joint enterprise’ (p. 3). Although network actors share information and services, not all actors are equal in terms of the resources that they can command or the power they have to

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

17

shape advocacy politics within the network. This is particularly true if we examine network dynamics in light of the North–South orientation of network actors. Developing a ‘common frame of meaning’ is a core challenge for the network in order to organise a central campaign to affect change (Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 7; see also, Ahmed and Potter 2006, p. 48). How issues are framed is dependent on cultural and political negotiation between actors in the network, though the ways in which local struggles are mediated and presented to international audiences can result in local actors losing control of the way their testimonies are deployed by other network actors (Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 19). Whilst recognising the unequal power dynamics inherent in transnational networks, Keck and Sikkink (1998) are optimistic that as even powerful actors are reliant on their connections to other network actors, the network as a structure can have a transformative effect on the ways in which actors moderate their behaviour (p. 207; see also, DeMars 2005, p. 44). Paternotte et al. (2011) identify a boomerang pattern in the ways in which global lesbian and gay movements make use of ‘favourable international environments’ to bring pressure against states to adopt domestic rights for sexual minorities (p. 216; Waites 2019). Somewhat contrary to the assumed hierarchical, vertical dynamics of the boomerang model, Paternotte et al. (2011) argue a ‘horizontal account of the dynamics between the state and the lesbian and gay movement, in which they influence each other’ (p. 225). Whilst Paternotte et al. present an interesting contribution to understanding dynamics between global lesbian and gay movements and some select states, expanding on the boomerang pattern’s applicability and Keck and Sikkink’s recognition of the transformative potential of transnational networks, the horizontal account fails to highlight the unequal power dynamics within global LGBT movements. Waites (2019) argues that applying this boomerang pattern as a general model for understanding LGBT movements outside of Europe ‘without accounting for colonialisms and global power relations’ is problematic (p. 388). To more accurately understand the politics and dynamics of global LGBT movements, we must examine the power imbalances and struggles that Southern actors face, whether interacting with states or within transnational LGBT networks. When assessing the effectiveness of the boomerang model to account for global LGBT movement interactions, drawing on decolonial perspectives helps provide a more nuanced analysis by highlighting the coloniality that shapes the international system and Southern actors’ experiences of operating within such a system (Waites 2019).

18

M. FARMER

Colonialism, Postcolonialism and Decoloniality The terms ‘colonialism,’ ‘imperialism’ and ‘postcolonialism’ are used throughout this book, particularly with reference to the ways in which the legacies of colonialism and imperialism affect contemporary transnational LGBT activism. This section clarifies my use of the terms, as well as examining what postcolonialism and decoloniality offer to critique such legacies of colonialism in international relations. Whilst the terms may have specific application in different disciplinary contexts, here I draw on Young (2015) to provide general definitions: ‘colonialism’ describes the operation of a colonial system of control over an occupied territory, whilst ‘imperialism’ describes the orchestrated domination and ‘maintenance of power of one country over another’, the logics of imperialism justifying the exploitation of people in separate colonies (p. 53). Whilst colonialism implies direct occupation of a country or territory, imperialism does not require direct occupation to exercise power against other actors in the international system. For example, Young (2015) notes that, particularly from the end of the nineteenth century onwards, imperialism has often been exercised without colonies or direct control by powerful countries exerting domination over others by military, economic, diplomatic or cultural means (p. 63). Relatedly, it is worth highlighting that it is not only (former) imperial states that benefit from the ways in which imperialism has shaped the structural dynamics of power in the international system. For example, a legacy of British imperialism is that UK-based non-state actors can enjoy comparatively greater access to political, diplomatic and economic resources than their counterparts in many former British colonies. As Young (2015) notes, beyond the definitions outlined above, the use of either ‘imperialism’ or ‘colonialism’ can also depend on the subjectivity of an author or the approach of an analysis. For example, colonised or formerly colonised people are more likely to be concerned with the experiences of colonialism or a particular colony, rather than the empire as a whole; whereas those writing from the metropole tend to be more concerned with the broader arrangement of empire and exercise of imperialism than any specific colony (Young 2015, p. 57). Throughout this book, I tend to use the term ‘legacies of colonialism’ rather than ‘legacies of imperialism’ because the analysis is concerned principally with the legacies of colonial interventions, highlighting the experiences of the colonised and those living in formerly colonised states, rather than the

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

19

general machinery of imperialism. For example, the analysis is concerned with the apparatus of colonialism, artefacts of British colonial rule, such as the criminalisation of same-sex acts, that continue to have a significant impact on the lives of LGBT people around the globe. However, the term is also deployed more liberally to refer to broader legacies and colonial power relations, highlighting the lingering consequences of colonial rule, beyond colonial time, be they structural, political, economic, cultural, social or psychological. To be clear, my own subjectivity as an author is one of certain privileges (white, educated, based in the UK), and the justification of my approach makes no claim to write with the subjectivity of a colonised experience. Instead, with respect to colonised and postcolonial experiences, this approach examines the complex intersections of colonial legacies with contemporary transnational LGBT activism. Relatedly, we can draw on postcolonial approaches to examine legacies of colonialism and imperialism and their continuing impact on the Global South and international relations more broadly. Postcolonialism, in its broadest sense, is concerned with drawing upon Southern knowledge, perspectives and experiences to critique the historic and continuing exploitation of the Global South by the Global North (Young 2015, pp. 149–151). In contrast to the domination of Northern knowledge production about the world, postcolonialism offers an alternative perspective, as Young (2015) describes, ‘of how the world looks from below not from above’ (p. 150). Although it is worth noting that there are many different approaches that fall under the umbrella of ‘postcolonialism’, each with their own nuanced critique or emphasis, for the purposes of this book the term usefully describes Southern resistance to Northern practices of exploitation or continued manipulation of (neo)colonial power relations. However, some have critiqued the use of the term ‘postcolonial’ as both spatially and temporally misleading. ‘Post-colonialism’ implies a time after colonialism and colonial oppression, despite the realities of a continuation of colonial power relations and legacies that persist internationally (McClintock 1992, p. 88; Shohat 1992, p. 105). The broad application of the term also implies shared characteristics of a postcolonial experience, of a transition from colony to postcolony, though not all formerly colonised countries are equally postcolonial (Young 2015, pp. 135–148). For example, India, Jamaica and Kenya are postcolonial in a different way than Australia, Canada and the United States are, and each has individual postcolonial experiences. Indeed, whether countries such as the United

20

M. FARMER

States can be considered postcolonial at all is contentious given the historical and continued oppression of indigenous Native American populations (McClintock 1992, p. 87; Young 2015, p. 137). Nevertheless, whilst recognising the limitations of the term, ‘postcolonialism’ remains a generally useful way of describing challenges to and critiques of colonialism and legacies of (continuing) colonial exploitation, giving voice to colonised experiences (Hall 1996; Young 2015). Decoloniality shares a similar approach with postcolonialism, concerned as it is with identifying the impact of legacies of colonialism on the international system. Mignolo (2007b) suggests that one difference between decoloniality and postcolonialism (and other critical theories) ‘lies in the genealogy of thought in which each project found its energy and its vision’ (p. 163). Postcolonialism follows a European intellectual genealogy (Derrida, Foucault, Gramsci, Lacan), evolved with key contributors from European (post)colonies (Bhabha, Said, Spivak), whereas decoloniality follows a Latin American intellectual genealogy (Mariátegui, Quijano, Mignolo) (Mignolo 2007b, pp. 163–165). Whilst decoloniality may be considered part of, or at least associated with, the broader field of postcolonial thinking, decoloniality offers a particular approach to critiquing the enduring legacies of colonialism; it is not simply ‘de-colonisation’. Decoloniality critiques the ‘coloniality of power’ in global politics, that is, critiquing the Eurocentric control over the epistemic categorisation of the world into racial difference (intimately tied to conceptions of aspirational European modernity), its justification for colonial oppression, and the continuing legacies this has had on shaping the international system (Quijano 2000, 2007). Quijano (2007) argues that the persistence of this legacy ensures that coloniality remains ‘the most general form of domination in the world today, once colonialism as an explicit political order was destroyed’ (p. 170). Decoloniality notes that the impetus for European colonialism and European Enlightenment ideas of modernity and rationality were conceived at the same time; they are intrinsically linked (Quijano 2007, pp. 171–172; see also, Mignolo 2007a; Quijano 2000). European thinkers devised modernity from assumptions (motivated by rationality) that Europe was a ‘mirror of the future’ that all other societies and cultures should aspire to, an idea that was then imposed throughout the rest of the world via colonisation (Quijano 2007, p. 176). Mignolo (2007b) notes that although modernity and coloniality are intimately linked in their formation, ‘while modernity is presented as a

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

21

rhetoric of salvation, it hides coloniality, which is the logic of oppression and exploitation’ (p. 162). Though the European model of modernity suggests an aspirational goal, its simultaneous characterisation of racial and cultural difference globally, of the ‘others’ that are inferior to the European model, justified the oppression and violence of colonialism, which is sustained by the coloniality of power in contemporary global politics. The way in which modernity/rationality informed the production of knowledge and coloniality informed the Eurocentric control over the production of knowledge, accounts for what Quijano (2000) identifies as ‘the character of the global model of power: colonial/modern, capitalist, and Eurocentered’ (p. 549; see also, Mignolo 2016). Given the intimate dynamics of Eurocentred modernity and coloniality, I favour Mignolo’s use of the term ‘modernity/coloniality’ throughout the book to account for these intimate dynamics within the ‘same package of control’ (Mignolo 2007b, p. 162). Decoloniality argues for ‘epistemological decolonization’, that is decolonisation of the above model of a colonised production of knowledge, of the universalisation of Eurocentric modernity/coloniality, such that alternative approaches to understanding the world and methods of doing politics, economics and culture can be freely communicated and experienced (Quijano 2007, pp. 177–178). European modernity/coloniality has constructed specific, universalised ideas about the international system (modernity, race, nation-state system, etc.) in such a way as to make them appear natural, without actors and the control of knowledge production that created and sustain them (Mignolo 2016, p. xvii). ‘De-linking’ from these ‘fictional ontologies epistemically invented’ is a key goal of decoloniality (Mignolo 2016, p. xvii). ‘De-linking’ requires recognising modernity and coloniality for what they are, identifying how they are enacted and where they are most felt, separating ourselves from the epistemological constraints of their universalising categorisation of the world, thereby allowing for the possibility of alternatives that have hitherto been silenced by European modernity/coloniality (Mignolo 2007a). Thus, decoloniality offers a critical approach that might be applied to understanding how coloniality of power complicates transnational LGBT activism, such as by examining whether transnational relations challenge or are complicit with modernity/coloniality, or other abstract universalisations which mask complex hierarchies of power and oppression. For example, Waites (2019) offers a new critical model for decolonising

22

M. FARMER

the boomerang pattern in understanding global LGBT human rights activism, highlighting that application of Keck and Sikkink’s original pattern fails to adequately account for coloniality and risks generalised understandings of global LGBT politics, instead of engaging with the nuance of socio-cultural contexts (pp. 388–391). Giving critical consideration for how Southern activists experience the coloniality of power in transnational LGBT activism opens possibilities for transformative ways of achieving liberation for sexual and gender minorities that do not rely on perpetuating modernity/coloniality in international relations.

Sexualities, Normativities, and Nationalisms This section draws upon gender and sexuality studies and queer theory literatures to explore the application of some key theoretical approaches to understanding tensions in contemporary transnational LGBT politics, with recognition of key texts that have influenced conceptual frameworks in contemporary literature (Butler 1990; Foucault 1976/1998; Rubin 1975, 1993; Sedgwick 1985). A queer approach may also be thought more broadly as constituting a critique and rejection of hegemonic norms concerning sexuality, particularly heteronormativity. Embracing the deployment of queer as challenging norms in a variety of forms, whilst drawing on influences from interdisciplinary postcolonial studies, this section addresses key normativities and related operations of nationalist discourses that are both challenged and contested by and within queer politics and discourses concerning sexuality, including heteronormativity, heteronationalism, homonormativity and homonationalism. A starting point of interest is Foucault’s treatment of discourse and its relation to power in the production of ‘sexuality’. Whilst acknowledging a reticence and regulated silence in discussing issues of sex, Foucault (1976/1998) argues that beyond this ‘restrictive economy’ of language was ‘a steady proliferation of discourses concerned with sex’ (p. 18). This was an incitement to talk about sex, though in carefully regulated and articulated ways towards a particular purpose (p. 24). This ‘incitement to discourse’ developed from institutions throughout society employing multiple mechanisms to talk about sex; a network of multiple discourses concerned with recording, ordering and managing sex (Foucault 1976/1998, pp. 33–34). This proliferation of discourses demonstrates an increasing concern and articulation of sex from the eighteenth century onward. Within such initial discourses remained a tone

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

23

of reticence, yet one that sought to articulate the necessity to carefully manage sex, rather than simply pass judgement, that qualified and gave reason to the discourse (Foucault 1976/1998, pp. 23–24). This produced what Bristow (1997) notes as ‘contradictory transfers of power’, whereby discourses concerned with sex invariably betray their reticence in that attempted censorship from a position of authority necessarily requires the articulation of the subject under scrutiny (p. 174). Massad (2008) adopts Foucault’s concept of the ‘incitement to discourse’ in their criticism of the ways in which the ‘Gay International’ (the projects and discourses of a Western universalisation of ‘gay rights’) has incited a discourse about (Western) sexuality in the Arab and Muslim Worlds: ‘By inciting discourse about homosexuals where none existed before, the Gay International is in fact heterosexualizing a world that is being forced to be fixed by a Western binary’ (p. 188; Massad 2002; cf. Rao 2010, pp. 176–177). Foucault (1976/1998) also examines, however, the ‘tactical polyvalence of discourses’, in that the complex elements that contribute to shaping discourses can undermine as much as reinforce the production of power (pp. 100–102). Power does not only operate uniformly or statically between or within discourses of opposed or similar strategic interests. It operates as ‘a multiple and mobile field of force relations, wherein farreaching, but never completely stable, effects of domination are produced’ (p. 102). Foucault (1976/1998) gives the example of the way in which multiple discourses that problematised and categorised the ‘homosexual’ allowed for the emergence of a ‘reverse’ discourse that provided some power for ‘homosexuality’ to speak for itself (p. 101). This idea can be applied to understanding the complex ways in which contemporary discourses concerning sexuality are produced and contested internationally, by state governments, intergovernmental organisations, NGOs, and local, grassroots activists. Whilst it is not the intention of this chapter to produce an inquiry into the constructivism of queer identities internationally, it is worth recognising the concept of sexuality as being socially and historically (re)constructed via discursive knowledge-power relations (Foucault 1976/1998, pp. 105–106; cf. Stoler 1995). As Weeks (1986) argues, ‘sexuality’ is a ‘historical construction’ (p. 15), such that we can understand sexual identities as ‘fictions’, ‘imagined in contingent circumstances’ their production is rooted to a historical moment (1995, pp. 43–44). If we concede that ‘homosexuality’ is a distinctly Western historical construct then we should carefully consider its ability to account for desire

24

M. FARMER

beyond its own parameters, as Halperin (1990) notes, ‘It may well be that homosexuality has no history of its own outside the West or much before the beginning of our century’ (p. 18). If we are to approach an analysis of sexualities outside of our own locus of sexuality and suggest an understanding of how the two may intersect and operate together, then we should be self-reflective about the roots of such discourses of sexuality. For example, the discursive intersections of a dominant, Western ‘LGBT’ construction of sexuality and gender identity with local, non-Western conceptions and identities is an area of potential tension for transnational solidarity, given the diversity of non-Western identities and approaches to sexual politics globally (Adam et al. 1999; Arnfred 2004; Bleys 1996; Ekine and Abbas 2013; Tamale 2011). Heteronormativity may be broadly understood as the assumption that heterosexuality is the normal sexuality of a society, institutionally reinforced, predicated on the understanding that sex and gender operate as clearly definable, fixed, categorical binaries: male and female. Heteronormativity functions to privilege particular heterosexual relations, often in accordance with patriarchal hierarchies and male dominance, to the effect that non-normative sexualities and gender identities are treated as abnormal, silenced or invisibilised. Forces of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ operate to coerce individuals to orient their desires and sexual relations within heterosexual boundaries (Connell 1995, p. 104; Rich 1992). Heterosexuality, however, should be understood as constituting ‘a diversity of meanings and social arrangements’, whereby experiences of, for example, gender, class and race, also impact on the ways in which heterosexuality is experienced as a privileging sexual orientation (Richardson 1996, p. 2). Nevertheless, the institutionalisation of heteronormativity in legal and social structures, such as legally recognised gender identities or sanctioned relationships, legitimises only particular heterosexual relationships (Ingram 2002; Jackson 2006; Kimmel 1994; Seidman 1996). Queer perspectives have been used to challenge heteronormativity in various contexts. For example, Sharma (2006) argues for the need of a queer approach to address heteronormativity in the language of rights discourses by critiquing how norms ‘serve the interests of existing power structures’ (54–55). An awareness of heteronormativity has also increasingly penetrated development work and literature concerned with the ways in which heteronormative structures limit some people’s access to development and sexual rights (e.g. Cornwall and Jolly 2009; Jolly 2011;

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

25

Lind and Share 2003; Wood 2013). For example, those individuals whose sexualities are considered non-normative have traditionally been invisibilised in development frameworks, unless they are viewed as threats, such as ‘men who have sex with men’ (MSM) in HIV/AIDS programmes, whereby they are problematised (Lind 2009; see also, Gosine 2009a). Sharma (2009) notes, however, that we must also examine the ways in which people experience norms in their everyday lives, noting that we can simultaneously subscribe to and challenge norms, as well as perform norms for strategic purposes. Heteronormativity also functions significantly at a national level, allowing for the construction of nationalist identities and discourses via gendered and sexual meanings applied to race and the nation. Gosine (2009b) terms this process as ‘heteronationalism’, whereby ‘citizenship is premised on racialised and gendered heterosexuality’, as determined by heteronormative forces within the state (p. 97; see also, Alexander 1994; Peterson 1999; Puar 2001). In their exploration of heteronationalism, Gosine draws upon the work of Alexander in identifying how heteropatriarchy problematises women’s ‘sexual agency and erotic autonomy’ in the formation of the nation (Alexander 2005, pp. 22–23). Whilst the primary focus for both is neo-colonial nationalisms in the Caribbean, Gosine (2009b) extends Alexander’s analysis regarding the erotic autonomy of women to explicitly concern sexual minorities and their positioning within nationalist discourses. Gosine (2009b) identifies how heteronationalist discourses function to justify homophobic violence as a means of ‘cleansing’ the nation of those who would infect the national body (pp. 101–102). In the production of heteronationalist discourses, heterosexuality is essential for narratives of reproduction, requiring the simultaneous rejection of non-heterosexual and non-heteronormative identities and behaviours (Alexander 2005, pp. 45–46). In neo-colonial contexts, race and imperialism form important dynamics in the functions of heteronationalist discourse, usually inciting popular concepts of the Westernised homosexual penetrating the nation and instigating moral decay (Alexander 2005, pp. 48–49; Gosine 2009b, pp. 101–103). Thus, sexual minority identities and behaviours become framed as Western phenomena, an external force that can simultaneously function as a racial, colonial threat and a moral, sexual threat, necessary for heteronationalist productions of the nation. For example, Frantz Fanon’s postcolonial writing contains influential heteronationalist assumptions that suggest homosexuality is a White male psychosis, reasserting Black male sexual

26

M. FARMER

identity as part of the process of nationalist struggles (Fanon 1952/1967, p. 180 n. 44; see, Epprecht 2008, pp. 86–87; Fuss 1994; Hoad 2007, pp. 37–39). Contemporary examples include the deployment of heteronationalist, anti-colonial discourses by Southern governments that suggest homosexuality is a Western disease and moral danger to the health of the nation. ‘Homonormativity’ is an example of normative forces that may (inadvertently) subject and marginalise some sexual identities, even where these forces have developed to challenge previous heteronormative structures. This concept stems from Duggan’s (2002) observation that a ‘new neoliberal sexual politics’ sustains heteronormative structures, rather than challenging them, ‘while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption’ (p. 179; see also, Nast 2002; Richardson 2005). Particular forms of acceptable expressions of homosexuality have become co-opted into neoliberal heteronormativity, reinforcing rather than necessarily undermining privileging norms, such that, Puar (2007) argues, ‘Homonormativity can be read as a function complicit with and invited into the biopolitical valorization of life in its inhabitation and reproduction of heteronormative norms’ (p. 9). Thus, particular homosexual identities and relationships are granted an accepted and privileged status via heteronormativity, without challenging the core functions or components of heteronormativity, legitimising such identities, for example monogamous, White, male homosexualities (Nast 2002; Puar 2007; Rubin 1993; cf. Brown 2009; Elder 2002; Oswin 2005; Sothern 2003). Critical attention given to understanding and challenging homonormativity has developed into a critique of the ways in which homonormativity functions and intersects with nationalist discourses to produce ‘homonationalism’. Puar (2007) uses the term ‘homonationalism’ to describe the emergence of a US ‘sexual exceptionalism’ as ‘homonormative nationalism’, which ‘operates as a regulatory script not only of normative gayness, queerness, or homosexuality, but also of the racial and national norms that reinforce these sexual subjects’ (pp. 2, 38–39). It features similarly to homonormativity in that its sanctioning function is possible only through the rejection of other ‘sexual-racial subjects’, though at a nationalist level ‘through the simultaneous engendering and disavowal of populations of sexual-racial others’ (Puar 2007, p. 2; see also, Puar 2013;

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

27

Puar and Rai 2002). Thus, homonationalism operates to provide intersecting imperialist and nationalist discourses concerning Western progress via civility and citizenship, which render domestic homophobias invisible whilst emphasising the comparatively uncivil and antagonistic other (Kulick 2009, p. 28; Puar 2007). Such homonormative discourses have been identified in some Western LGBT rights discourses; homosexual acceptance oriented around progress, civility and sexual citizenship whilst symbolically contrasted with groups that are positionally othered culturally and nationally, leading to accusations of Islamophobia in some cases (Lalor 2011, pp. 688, 697 n. 22; see also, Kuntsman and Miyake 2008; Mepschen et al. 2010; Petzen 2012; Schotten 2016). For example, some activist-academic proponents of the concept of homonationalism have accused UK-based actors of Islamophobia in their pursuit of LGBT rights (Haritaworn et al. 2008; Grassroots Feminism 2009; cf. Tatchell 2009). Whilst homonationalism as a concept offers a useful critique of contemporary LGBT politics, bringing attention to discourses of othering race and nationality, the quality of some scholarship has been critiqued (Zanghellini 2012; e.g. Haritaworn et al. 2008). Also, the apparent reluctance to engage with and critique culturally or religiously informed homophobia with the same conviction as it does racism within LGBT politics is a weakness of these approaches (Zanghellini 2012). Utilising conceptions of homonationalism alongside an engagement that challenges reductive or exceptional conceptions of homophobia internationally helps to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of contemporary LGBT politics as it intersects with broader international phenomenon. For example, we should acknowledge, critique and seek to understand the complexity of the deployment of sexual politics and homonationalism in Europe in constructing the homophobic ‘other’, whilst recognising LGBT peoples’ homophobic experiences globally, as well as within European asylum systems, from both state actors and fellow asylum seekers (Bachman 2016; Butler 2008; Coly 2013; de Jong 2003; Fassin 2010; Jansen and Spijkerboer 2011; Mepschen et al. 2010; Miles 2010; Rao 2014). We can also analyse the function of homonationalism in the framing of sexual minority rights in the Global South, particularly stemming from the dominance of Western queer discourses in approaching conceptions of non-Western sexualities. For example, Western approaches to thinking about sexuality have oftentimes presented homonormative and essentialist understandings of LGBT sexuality and gender identity that

28

M. FARMER

fail to accurately account for indigenous expressions and conceptions of gender and sexuality (Epprecht 2008, p. 171). For example, Epprecht (2013) notes how Western gay rights activism has engaged in homonationalist tendencies to show ‘chauvinistic regard for the Western model of outness’, which creates tensions in Western activist understandings of sexuality and homophobia in Africa via a homonationalist ‘narrative of Western superiority over African backwardness’ (pp. 13, 67). Coly (2013) equally expresses concern with the way in which African LGBT activists accept and adopt Western sexual conceptions and categorisations as ‘lifelines’ to access the ‘pink money’ of international LGBT communities, particularly with regards to how these processes reinforce dominant (and misleading) ideas of ‘African homophobia’ (p. 24). It is evident that homonationalist discourses and practices must be challenged, or in the least critiqued, as part of a wider understanding of how race, nationalism and citizenship intersect when thinking about sexuality and sexual rights internationally. Such homonormative discourses contribute to, rather than effectively challenge, essentialist and binary constructions of ‘homosexuality’ or ‘homophobia’ as being symptomatic or intrinsic to a particular race, nationality, or civility.

Solidarity and Intersectionality In analysing how UK-based NGOs negotiate and participate in transnational LGBT activism, it is relevant to consider conceptualisations of solidarity and how they might be applied to understanding transnational activist relationships across borders. Being reflective to how our participation in solidaristic relationships may produce exclusionary assumptions of others’ experiences, particularly in transnational contexts, as well as looking towards intersectionality beyond identity politics, is necessary in enacting a solidarity based on responsibility and accountability for each other as participants. Featherstone’s (2012) contribution to conceptualising solidarity explores the nature of effective solidaristic relationships as negotiated, ongoing processes, oriented around a challenge to particular forms of oppression. Featherstone (2012) deemphasises the idea that solidarities are formed merely through likeness and ‘pre-existing communities’, as appeals to likeness risk entrenching identity politics and excluding others from participation, ultimately devaluing solidarity as effective action (pp. 6–7; see also, Dean 1996). This is important for understanding

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

29

LGBT solidarities, given the complexity of LGBT identity politics at both local and transnational levels, and encourages conceptualisations of solidaristic relationships beyond the LGBT identity spectrum. For example, one can look to the forging of diverse expressions of solidarity throughout the 1984–1985 miners’ strike in Britain, with the formation of groups such as Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) demonstrating opportunities for solidaristic relationships not bound only by likeness. LGSM’s solidarity with striking miners was forged around common experiences of oppression from the state and media, including police harassment and threats to jobs and social spaces (Kelliher 2014). This appeal to conceptualising solidarity beyond identity politics is relevant to contemporary transnational LGBT activism that can sometimes fail to enact solidarity beyond LGBT-likeness, particularly when understood and enacted through a homonormative, Western lens of sexuality. For example, Long (2009) has noted Western activists’ misjudged attempts at enacting solidaristic activism in Iran through the deployment of Western framings of sexuality, whilst both Seckinelgin (2012) and Gunkel (2013) have also critiqued contemporary approaches to enacting transnational LGBT solidarity. Mohanty’s (2003) engagement with feminist transnational solidarity is relevant here, particularly Mohanty’s critique of some Western feminist conceptions of a universal ‘sisterhood’ of women whose experiences are generalised under a category of ‘woman’. Mohanty is critical of the way in which rather than understanding feminism as a ‘highly contested political terrain’, feminism, as envisioned by some Western feminist discourse, is predicated on the ‘experience’ of being ‘female’ (pp. 108–109). Mohanty defines this as the ‘feminist osmosis thesis’, whereby ‘females are feminists by association and identification with the experiences that constitute us as female’ (p. 109). What is problematic is the way in which assumptions about the primacy of shared ‘experience’, oriented by difference, constitute a supposed political solidarity without contesting the generalised, conceptual basis of such ‘experience’ and ‘difference’. Mohanty suggests that rather than pursuing the idea of a ‘universal sisterhood’ that is predicated on homogenising notions of the experience of being female, ‘experience must be historically interpreted and theorized if it is to become the basis of feminist solidarity and struggle’ (p. 122). We need to be attentive to how experience is formulated via different relational connections and intersections in various contexts to understand how potential commonalities of experience can connect us across

30

M. FARMER

borders, rather than assuming that others identically share our particular experiences globally. This is not to deny that commonalities exist and can constitute the basis of solidaristic relations between different communities. Rather, being attentive to the complexities of our relational differences is more productive for engaging in solidarity based on responsibility and accountability for our histories and positionality than appealing to generalised notions of fixed experience that obscure the nuances and fluidity of our differences (Mohanty 2003, p. 193; see also, Bakshi et al. 2016; Durham 2015; Kendall 2013). Acknowledging the complexities of negotiating discourses of sexual orientation and gender identity internationally, cautious of the ways in which Western conceptions can risk invisibilising local identities, is important for transnational organising (Altman 1996, 2002; Puri 2002). Budhiraja et al. (2010) turn to Mohanty’s concept of a ‘common context of struggle’ to note that despite, but in recognition of, the differences between sexual minorities globally, all ‘challenge traditional norms of gender and sexuality’, identifying common experiences between different groups (p. 132; see also, Corrêa and Parker 2004; Mohanty 1997). Puri (2002) also notes the tendency for transnational alliances to be ‘sought on the basis of common histories of marginality of lesbian and gay sexualities’ (p. 438). Identifying common contexts of struggle and histories of marginality allows for the forging of transnational solidarities based on shared experiences, rather than only on appeals to fixed categories of LGBT identity. It is important, however, not to make assumptions about shared experience, and to note that LGBT lives are shaped by intersecting experiences in different contexts. For example, we must recognise the inherent power imbalances in transnational North–South relations that are shaped by geopolitics, resources and history (Olebile 2016). Adopting an intersectional approach to solidarity in transnational LGBT activism requires appreciating the ways in which race, gender, sexuality, class, disability and other defining factors of our lived experiences, intersect with LGBT people’s contexts of struggle in different ways (Crenshaw 1989, 1993). An engagement with and appreciation of the importance of intersectionality highlights the need for UK-based NGOs to be attentive to the ways in which LGBT lives are shaped by intersecting experiences beyond sexual orientation and gender identity.

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

31

The Transformative Potential of Transnational LGBT Activism This chapter has presented the conceptual foundations of the book, which inform its examination of UK-based NGOs engaged in transnational LGBT activism. Bringing together the concepts explored above encourages critical reflection on our participation in transnational LGBT activism, highlighting whether our engagements contribute to effective transnational solidarity. Whilst the boomerang pattern can be a useful model for examining how NGOs engage with transnational advocacy networks to circumvent the constraining power of an oppressive state, further tools are needed to critically engage with the ways in which the coloniality of power impacts on Southern activists’ engagements in transnational networks. European modernity/coloniality has profoundly shaped the international system and the coloniality of power that persists within international relations ensures that power continues to be concentrated in the Global North, with Northern actors overwhelmingly acting to maintain this coloniality. Thus, coloniality influences the power dynamics of transnational activist engagements, either in the unequal distribution of resources, constraining Southern activists’ capacity for participation, or in the cultural and political negotiations of how Southern struggles are framed, mediated and reproduced internationally, beyond local actors’ power to control their own narratives at an international level. Drawing on decoloniality offers opportunities to challenge and break from the limitations of Eurocentric modernity/coloniality, recognising how coloniality is felt by Southern actors and how it impacts their participation in transnational networks, as well as encouraging alternative approaches to understanding and enacting a more liberating politics. This leads to an emphasis that whilst actors’ capacity for action is shaped and limited by the coloniality of power in the international system, power is not static and can be contested or deployed in subversive ways. Considering global LGBT politics, this transformative potential of transnational relations requires a critical engagement with contemporary challenges, such as hetero- and homo-normative conceptions of gender and sexuality, that perpetuate existing hierarchies of power. The ways in which the biopolitical control of gender and sexuality intimately intersects race, neoliberalism, and nationalism, requires a critical analysis of heteroand homo-nationalism to ensure that our pursuit of effective solidarity

32

M. FARMER

and activism does not simply reinforce state manipulation of acceptable queerness. Failing to engage with these complexities of contemporary global LGBT politics is ultimately harmful to effective liberation through transnational LGBT solidarity. Similarly, transnational LGBT solidarity must be continually evaluated and negotiated to ensure that our will to solidaristic relations are enacted faithfully and effectively. For transnational LGBT activism, solidarity must be understood as more than simply working together by virtue of a shared LGBT identity. Western conceptions of LGBT identities do not always translate successfully in various international contexts, limiting appeals to solidarity based on identifying terms. A more successful approach to conceiving solidarity is to appeal to the common contexts of struggle living as sexual and gender minorities, searching for commonality of experience that acknowledges our differences, rather than obscuring them by appealing only to Western categorisations of identity. Recognising difference requires understanding and appreciating the intersectionalities of our lived experiences; how our experiences and identities are informed by multiple dynamic factors, including race, gender, sexuality, class and disability, which are further complicated by coloniality. Acknowledging how coloniality and intersectionality complicate our practice of effective transnational solidarity challenges us to engage in more effective, potentially transformative, transnational LGBT activism.

References Adam, B. D., Duyvendak, J. W., & Krouwel, A. (Eds.). (1999). The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics: National Imprints of a Worldwide Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ahmed, S., & Potter, D. M. (2006). NGOs in International Politics. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Alexander, M. J. (1994). Not Just (Any)Body Can Be a Citizen: The Politics of Law, Sexuality and Postcoloniality in Trinidad and Tobago and the Bahamas. Feminist Review, 48(Autumn), 5–23. Alexander, M. J. (2005). Pedagogies of Crossing: Meditations on Feminism, Sexual Politics, Memory, and the Sacred. Durham: Duke University Press. Altman, D. (1996). Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities. Social Text, 48(Autumn), 77–94. Altman, D. (2002). Globalization and the International Gay/Lesbian Movement. In D. Richardson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies (pp. 415–425). London: Sage.

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

33

Arnfred, S. (2004). Re-Thinking Sexualities in Africa: Introduction. In S. Arnfred (Ed.), Re-Thinking Sexualities in Africa (pp. 7–29). Uppsala: Nordiska Akrikainstitutet. Bachman, C. L. (2016). No Safe Refuge: Experiences of LGBT Asylum Seekers in Detention. Stonewall and UKLGIG. https://uklgig.org.uk/wp-content/upl oads/2017/03/no_safe_refuge.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2019. Bakshi, S., Jivraj, S., & Posocco, S. (2016). Introduction. In S. Bakshi, S. Jivraj, & S. Posocco (Eds.), Decolonizing Sexualities: Transnational Perspectives, Critical Interventions (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Counterpress. Bleys, R. C. (1996). The Geography of Perversion. London: Cassel. Bristow, J. (1997). Sexuality. London: Routledge. Brown, G. (2009). Thinking Beyond Homonormativity: Performative Explorations of Diverse Gay Economies. Environment and Planning, 41(6), 1496–1510. Budhiraja, S., Freid, S. T., & Teixeria, A. (2010). Spelling It Out: From Alphabet Soup to Sexual Rights and Gender Justice. In A. Lind (Ed.), Development, Sexual Rights and Global Governance (pp. 131–144). Abingdon: Routledge. Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge. Butler, J. (2008). Sexual Politics, Torture, and Secular Time. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(1), 1–23. Coly, A. A. (2013). Introduction. African Studies Review, 56(2), 21–30. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cornwall, A., & Jolly, S. (2009). Sexuality and the Development Industry. Development, 52(1), 5–12. Corrêa, S., & Parker, R. (2004). Sexuality, Human Rights, and Demographic Thinking: Connections and Disjunctions in a Changing World. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(1), 15–38. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 4, 139–167. Crenshaw, K. (1993). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Color. In M. A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The Public Nature of Private Violence (pp. 93–118). New York: Routledge. Dean, J. (1996). Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism After Identity Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. de Jong, A. (2003). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees (ICAR) Archive. http://icar.livingrefugeearchive.org/navgdlgbt. pdf. Accessed 13 September 2016.

34

M. FARMER

DeMars, W. E. (2005). NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics. London: Pluto Press. Duggan, L. (2002). The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism. In R. Castronovo & D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics (pp. 175–194). Durham: Duke University Press. Durham, M. G. (2015, April 10). India’s Daughter and the Limits of Transnational Feminist Solidarity. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/ 2015/04/10/indias-daughter-and-the-limits-of-transnational-feminist-solida rity/. Accessed 5 October 2019. Ekine, S., & Abbas, H. (Eds.). (2013). Queer African Reader. Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Elder, G. (2002). Response to “Queer Patriarchies, Queer Racisms, International”. Antipode, 34(5), 987–991. Epprecht, M. (2008). Heterosexual Africa? The History of an Idea from the Age of Exploration to the Age of AIDS. Athens: Ohio University Press. Epprecht, M. (2013). Sexuality and Social Justice in Africa. London: Zed Books. Fanon, F. (1967). Black Skin, White Masks (C. Farrington, Trans.). New York: Grove Press (Original work published 1952). Fassin, É. (2010). National Identities and Transnational Intimacies: Sexual Democracy and the Politics of Immigration in Europe. Public Culture, 22(3), 507–529. Featherstone, D. (2012). Solidarity: Hidden Histories and Geographies of Internationalism. London: Zed Books. Foucault, M. (1998). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge (R. Hurley, Trans.). London: Penguin Books (Original work published 1976). Fuss, D. (1994). Interior Colonies: Frantz Fanon and the Politics of Identification. Diacritics, 24(2/3), Critical Crossings (Summer–Autumn), 19–42. Gosine, A. (2009a). Monster, Womb, MSM: The Work of Sex in International Development. Development, 52(1), 25–33. Gosine, A. (2009b). Speaking Sexuality: The Heteronationalism of MSM. In C. Barrow, M. De Bruin, & R. Carr (Eds.), Sexuality, Social Exclusion & Human Rights: Vulnerability in the Caribbean Context of HIV (pp. 95–115). Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Grassroots Feminism. (2009, November 4). Out of Place, Out of Print—First British Collection on Queerness/Raciality Censored. http://www.grassrootsfe minism.net/cms/node/382. Accessed 5 October 2019. Gunkel, H. (2013). Some Reflections on Postcolonial Homophobia, Local Interventions, and LGBTI Solidarity Online: The Politics of Global Petitions. African Studies Review, 56(2), 67–81.

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

35

Hall, S. (1996). When Was ‘the Post-Colonial’? Thinking at the Limit. In I. Chambers & L. Curti (Eds.), The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons (pp. 242–260). London: Routledge. Halperin, D. (1990). One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love. New York: Routledge. Haritaworn, J., Tauqir, T., & Erdem, E. (2008). Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the “War on Terror”. In A. Kuntsman & E. Miyake (Eds.), Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality (pp. 71– 95). York: Raw Nerve Books. Hearn, J. (2007). African NGOs: The New Compradors? Development and Change, 38(6), 1095–1110. Hilton, M., McKay, J., Crowson, N., & Mouhot, J. (2013). The Politics of Expertise: How NGOs Shaped Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoad, N. (2007). African Intimacies: Race, Homosexuality and Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ingram, C. (2002). Heterosexuality: It’s Just Not Natural! In D. Richardson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Lesbian & Gay Studies (pp. 73–82). London: Sage. Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, Sexuality and Heterosexuality: The Complexity (and Limits) of Heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7 (1), 105–121. Jansen, S., & Spijkerboer, T. (2011). Fleeing Homophobia: Asylum Claims Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Europe. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ebba7852.html. Accessed 17 August 2019. Jolly, S. (2011). Why Is Development Work So Straight? Heteronormativity in the International Development Industry. Development in Practice, 21(1), 18– 28. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kelliher, D. (2014). Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners, 1984–5. History Workshop Journal, 77 (1), 240–262. Kendall, M. (2013, August 14). #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen: Women of Color’s Issue with Digital Feminism. The Guardian. https://www.thegua rdian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/14/solidarityisforwhitewomen-has htag-feminism. Accessed 5 October 2019. Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing Masculinities (pp. 119–141). London: Sage. Kulick, D. (2009). Can There Be an Anthropology of Homophobia? In D. Murray (Ed.), Homophobias: Lust and Loathing Across Time and Space (pp. 19–33). Durham: Duke University Press.

36

M. FARMER

Kuntsman, A., & Miyake, E. (Eds.). (2008). Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality. York: Raw Nerve Books. Lalor, K. (2011). Constituting Sexuality: Rights, Politics and Power in the Gay Rights Movement. The International Journal of Human Rights, 15(5), 683– 699. Lang, S. (2013). NGOs, Civil Society, and the Public Sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lind, A. (2009). Governing Intimacy, Struggling for Sexual Rights: Challenging Heteronormativity in the Global Development Industry. Development, 52(1), 34–42. Lind, A., & Share, J. (2003). Queering Development: Institutionalised Heterosexuality in Development Theory, Practice and Politics in Latin America. In K. Bhavani, J. Foran, & P. Kurian (Eds.), Feminist Futures: Re-imagining Women, Culture and Development (pp. 55–73). London: Zed Books. Long, S. (2009). Unbearable Witness: How Western Activists (Mis)Recognize Sexuality in Iran. Contemporary Politics, 15(1), 119–136. Massad, J. (2002). Re-orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World. Public Culture, 14(2), 361–385. Massad, J. (2008). Desiring Arabs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McClintock, A. (1992). The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term “Postcolonialism.” Social Text, 31(32), 84–98. Mepschen, P., Duyvendak, J. W., & Tonkens, E. H. (2010). Sexual Politics, Orientalism and Multicultural Citizenship in the Netherlands. Sociology, 44, 962–979. Mignolo, W. D. (2007a). Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-Coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 449–514. Mignolo, W. D. (2007b). Introduction: Coloniality of Power and De-colonial Thinking. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 155–167. Mignolo, W. D. (2016). Foreward: Decolonial Body-Geo-Politics at Large. In S. Bakshi, S. Jivraj, & S. Posocco (Eds.), Decolonizing Sexualities: Transnational Perspectives, Critical Interventions (pp. vii–xviii). Oxford: Counterpress. Miles, N. (2010). No Going Back: Lesbian and Gay People and the Asylum System. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/no-going-back2010. Accessed 12 August 2019. Mohanty, C. T. (1997). Women Workers and Capitalist Scripts: Ideologies of Domination, Common Interests, and the Politics of Solidarity. In M. J. Alexander & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge. Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. London: Duke University Press.

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

37

Nast, H. J. (2002). Queer Patriarchies, Queer Racisms, International. Antipode, 34(5), 874–909. Olebile, L. (2016). International Solidarity: A Question of Leadership. In K. Lalor, E. Mills, A. S. García, & P. Haste (Eds.), Gender, Sexuality and Social Justice: What’s Law Got to Do with It? (pp. 141–142). Brighton: IDS. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/ 8878. Accessed 11 October 2019. Oswin, N. (2005). Towards Radical Geographies of Complicit Queer Futures. ACME: An International e-Journal for Critical Geographies, 3(2), 79–86. Paternotte, D., Tremblay, M., & Johnson, C. (2011). Conclusion. In M. Tremblay, D. Paternotte, & C. Johnson (Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship (pp. 213–228). Farnham: Ashgate. Peterson, V. S. (1999). Sexing Political Identities: Nationalism and Heterosexism. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1(1), 34–65. Petras, J. (1999). NGOs: In Service of Imperialism. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29(4), 429–440. Petzen, J. (2012). Queer Trouble: Centring Race in Queer and Feminist Politics. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(3), 289–302. Puar, J. (2001). Transnational Configurations of Desire: The Nation and Its White Closets. In B. B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I. J. Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness (pp. 167–183). Durham: Duke University Press. Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press. Puar, J. (2013). Rethinking Homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 45(2), 336–339. Puar, J., & Rai, A. (2002). Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the Production of Docile Patriots. Social Text, 72(Fall), 117–148. Puri, J. (2002). Nationalism Has a Lot to Do with It! Unraveling Questions of Nationalism and Transnationalism in Lesbian/Gay Studies. In D. Richardson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies (pp. 427–442). London: Sage. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 533–580. Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 168–178. Rao, R. (2010). Third World Protest: Between Home and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rao, R. (2014). Queer Questions. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16(2), 199–217.

38

M. FARMER

Rich, A. (1992). Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Signs, 5(4), 631–660. Richardson, D. (1996). Heterosexuality and Social theory. In D. Richardson (Ed.), Theorising Heterosexuality (pp. 1–20). Buckingham: Open University Press. Richardson, D. (2005). Desiring Sameness? The Rise of a Neoliberal Politics of Normalization. Antipode, 37, 515–535. Rubin, G. (1975). The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “Political Economy” of Sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women (pp. 157–210). London: Monthly Review Press. Rubin, G. (1993). Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (pp. 3–44). London: Routledge. Schotten, C. H. (2016). Homonationalism. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 18(3), 351–370. Seckinelgin, H. (2012). Global Civil Society as Shepherd: Global Sexualities and the Limits of Solidarity from a Distance. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 536– 555. Sedgwick, E. K. (1985). Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia University Press. Seidman, S. (1996). Queer Theory/Sociology. Cambridge: Blackwell. Sharma, J. (2006). Reflections on the Language of Rights from a Queer Perspective. IDS Bulletin, 37 (5), 52–57. Sharma, J. (2009). Reflections on the Construction of Heteronormativity. Development, 52(1), 52–55. Shohat, E. (1992). Notes on the “Post-Colonial.” Social Text, 31(32), 99–113. Sothern, M. (2003). (Un)Queer Patriarchies: Or, “What We Think When We Fuck”. Antipode, 36, 183–191. Stoler, A. L. (1995). Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham: Duke University Press. Tamale, S. (Ed.). (2011). African Sexualities: A Reader. Oxford: Pambazuka. Tarrow, S. (2005). The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tatchell, P. (2009, September 10). Peter Tatchell—Apology and Correction. By Raw Nerve Books. http://www.petertatchell.net/about/raw-nerve-apo logy-2/. Accessed 5 October 2019. Waites, M. (2019). Decolonizing the Boomerang Effect in Global Queer Politics: A New Critical Framework for Sociological Analysis of Human Rights Contestation. International Sociology, 34(4), 382–401. Weeks, J. (1986). Sexuality. London: Tavistock.

2

CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR A DECOLONISING, INTERSECTIONAL …

39

Weeks, J. (1995). History, Desire, and Identities. In R. G. Parker & J. H. Gagnon (Eds.), Conceiving Sexuality: Approaches to Sex Research in a Postmodern World (pp. 33–50). London: Routledge. Wood, S. (2013, 6 November). Heteronormativity: Why Demystifying Development’s Unspoken Assumptions Benefits Us All. IDS: Participation, Power and Social Change. https://participationpower.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/het eronormativity-why-demystifying-developments-unspoken-assumptions-ben efits-us-all/. Accessed 4 October 2019. Young, R. J. C. (2015). Empire, Colony, Postcolony. Chichester: Wiley. Zanghellini, A. (2012). Are Gay Rights Islamophobic? A Critique of Some Uses of the Concept of Homonationalism in Activism and Academia. Social & Legal Studies, 21, 357–374.

CHAPTER 3

Unpacking the Colonial Baggage of British Imperial Sexual Discourses

Legacies of colonialism have a permeating influence on contemporary debates concerning the rights and freedoms of sexual and gender minorities in the Global South. Historical concepts about sexuality and gender influence the language of such debates, whilst they simultaneously carry the colonial baggage of Western imperial intervention and oppression. As this coloniality persists within contemporary international relations it is met with post-independence resistance and self-determination, the heteronationalist politics of which can prove challenging for Southern activists in their pursuit of sexual and gender minority rights and freedoms. This chapter explores the historical intellectual development of European problematisations and criminalisations of same-sex sexual behaviour that were imposed on colonial territories in the form of ‘sodomy laws’ that have persisted in many decolonised states. From medieval-era theological discourse to nineteenth-century legal and medico-psychiatric approaches, the problematisation of same-sex sexuality must be viewed as having a long and complex history, each intellectual discourse adapting, changing and reiterating previous conceptualisations. It is worth examining nineteenth-century European discursive conceptualisations of sexuality considering the influence such discourses had on the imperial project and continue to have in contemporary international relations. The dominant conceptions of sexuality and the desire to problematise and control © The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_3

41

42

M. FARMER

sexual orientation and behaviour in the nineteenth century marked a point of divergence between conceptualising sexuality in the colonies and the metropole. Whilst imperialism diffused conceptions and problematisations of (same-sex) sexuality globally, the progress of LGBT liberation in the West during the latter half of the twentieth century was not matched in equal terms in most decolonised states. This has resulted in a contemporary situation whereby many LGBT groups in the Global South are faced with homophobic legacies of empire, whilst the West demands the world catch up to its level of modernity. This chapter, therefore, provides a historical contextualisation of the contemporary international context within which transnational LGBT activism operates, shaped by the legacies of colonialism and the nineteenth-century deployment of sexuality.

Problematising and Criminalising Same-Sex Sexuality in Pre-Twentieth-Century Western Europe It is possible to trace the evolution of nineteenth-century European attitudes towards sexuality within a ubiquitous Judeo-Christian tradition that consistently shaped moralistic attitudes towards sex and remained largely unchanged from medieval theology. Judeo-Christian approaches to sex problematised any sexual activity contrary to procreation within sanctified marriage, highlighted in the ordering of sodomy as a sin far more serious than acts of rape or incest that at least had the potential for procreative consequences (Weeks 1990, p. 4). An additional element of this theological thought, reproduced in societal attitudes towards sex, concerned the primacy of the male role in procreation. This principally related to a focus on male semen as necessary for procreation, which ensured moral authorities paid particular attention to male sexual acts that transgressed the procreative purposes of sex; women were understood to merely be vessels for reproduction, therefore diminishing their potential capacity to transgress (Weeks 1990, pp. 4–5). There is evidence, however, that women who engaged in same-sex sexual activity did receive criminal punishment equivalent to male offenders, particularly in continental Europe (Blasius and Phelan 1997, p. 7; Crompton 1981, p. 11). Such

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

43

attitudes persisted well beyond the medieval-era and whilst this moralistic problematising approach to sexuality had a distinctly gendered lens, restrictive definitions of appropriate sexual activity lay within a clearly procreative theological remit. Whilst Enlightenment philosophical commentary on sexuality was broadly more liberal than traditional medieval thought, it mostly still maintained that some sexual behaviours, namely sodomy and masturbation, were against the natural order of sexuality, yet could be prevented in society without the need for criminalisation (Blasius and Phelan 1997, pp. 7–33; Hekma 1989, p. 174; see also, Trumbach 1985). In addressing this conceptual change towards an emphasis on societal prevention, it is worth noting how masturbation encapsulated Enlightenment anxieties of the pursuit of solitary and deviant individualism that undermined the strong social ties that underpinned rational society (Laquer 2003; Weeks 2011, pp. 113–115). Masturbation was deemed to cause insanity, resulting from poor social development and upbringing in an individual (Hekma 1989, p. 174). Thus, identifying and preventing particular problematic social and cultural factors linked to societal degeneracy became an important means of preventing masturbation, thereby preventing an associated plethora of other sexual and social vices, including sodomy. Hekma (1989) notes, with the continued popularity of degeneracy theorising into the nineteenth century and the strong associations between sexual perversity and poor mental health, ‘In the mid-nineteenth century, the theory of degeneration was such a comprehensive system that almost anything could be imagined as a cause or a consequence of insanity’ (p. 175; see also, Bleys 1996, pp. 152–160). Weeks (1990) further suggests that the motivations for degeneracy theories were closely linked to changing attitudes towards childhood and the need to protect and preserve the innocence of children (p. 24). Thus, supported by emerging medical models, prevention continued to be a primary moral concern throughout the nineteenth century, in order to avert degeneracy into abnormal sexual behaviours, such as masturbation and sodomy. Despite the suggestion of decriminalisation in several Enlightenment philosophies, the continued conception of same-sex sexual activity as a ‘crime against nature’ ensured key elements of medieval problematisations of (homo)sexuality persisted into nineteenth-century medical, legal and social discourses.

44

M. FARMER

Historical Development of Legal Discourses on Same-Sex Sexual Activity in Britain In the case of English legal tradition, the criminalisation of same-sex sexual activity, particularly against men, can be traced to Henry VIII’s introduction of the criminalisation of sodomy into secular law in 1533, which adopted the same spirit as ecclesiastical law concerning sex (Moran 1996, p. 33; Weeks 1990, p. 12). Re-enacted in the reign of Elizabeth I in 1563, the penalty for sodomy was death, though in this era acts of ‘sodomy’ were understood as penetrative sexual activity and behaviour contrary to ‘nature’, beyond only same-sex sexual activity (Weeks 1990, p. 12). This attitude towards the perversity of ‘unnatural’ sexual activities codified in secular law the general Judeo-Christian medieval approach towards problematising sex outside of specific moral boundaries. By the seventeenth century, however, there is evidence of a more specific focus on particularities of same-sex sexual activity understood as ‘buggery’ or ‘sodomy’. This can be seen in the legal scholarship of Sir Edward Coke, an early seventeenth-century judge and scholar, who introduced the suggestion that the crime of buggery is so severe that it should only be referred to as the crime ‘not to be named amongst Christians’ (Moran 1996, p. 33). Moran (1996) identifies this as the first instance of an ‘economy of silence’ that simultaneously silenced and produced legal representations of ‘buggery’ in English law from the seventeenth century onwards (p. 33). Weeks (1990) identifies the continuation of this trend of silencing well into the nineteenth century, particularly alongside the revision of the law concerning sodomy by Sir Robert Peel in 1826, which removed the need to provide forensic evidence, such as proof of penetration, and reiterated the necessity of euphemistic silencing in proceedings (pp. 13–14). The latter half of the nineteenth century witnessed a greater effort at refining the problematisation and criminalisation of same-sex sexual activity in the law as an issue concerning the morality of society. The Criminal Law Amendments Act (1885) was largely supported by feminist and social-morality campaigners who sought amendments against the ‘double standards’ of the Contagious Diseases Acts of the 1860s, arguing in favour of gender equality in the law regarding prostitution and an increase in the age of consent for girls to sixteen (Weeks 1990, pp. 16, 20; see also, Jackson 2000; Weeks 1989). The politician Henry Labouchère introduced an amendment to the 1885 bill, commonly referred to as ‘Labouchère’s amendment’, that would amend previous laws regarding

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

45

sodomy and make more explicit the criminalisation of sexual activity specifically between men: Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor [sic]. (quoted in Smith 1976, p. 165)

Thus, the amendment codified in law the criminalisation of sexual activity specifically between men, regardless of the private or public nature of the behaviour, whilst maintaining the traditional euphemistic and ambiguous language of early modern legal discourse regarding sodomy: ‘acts of gross indecency’ were the new ‘crimes against nature’ (see also, Brady 2006; Cocks 2003; Smith 1976; Upchurch 2009; Weeks 1989, 1990). Whilst scandals, documented and dramatised by the press, ensured increased public awareness of same-sex sexual activity, such as the Boulton and Park (1870), Dublin Castle (1884) and Cleveland Street (1889– 1890) scandals, the most famous scandal of the period was the Oscar Wilde trials in 1885 (Blasius and Phelan 1997, pp. 111–113; Weeks 1990, p. 21; see also, Cocks 2003; Cook 2003; Kaplan 2005). The Wilde trials crystallised the popular conception of the deviant sodomite and provided a potent moral warning that set the boundaries of acceptable sexual behaviour in late Victorian society (Weeks 1990, p. 21). Some histories of nineteenth-century homosexuality note the increased oppression that ‘homosexuals’ faced from the popularity of the scandals and legal developments throughout the century, demonstrated in cases of blackmail and suicide into the twentieth century (Blasius and Phelan 1997, p. 111; Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, p. 53; Weeks 1990, p. 22). Such histories, however, also note how such oppression potentially helped forge common identity politics and gave energy to emerging movements centred on decriminalisation and early rights discourses for sexual minorities (Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, p. 57; Weeks 1990, p. 21). Sexology and the Evolving Theories of (Homo)Sexuality in Europe Two theories of homosexuality emerged in the 1860s that categorised same-sex sexual attraction within a person as natural, and therefore, they argued, beyond the legislative power of the state to criminalise and

46

M. FARMER

oppress. Both Karl Heinrich Ulrichs’ conception of the ‘Urning ’ (or ‘Uranian’) and Karl Maria Kertbeny’s conception of the ‘Homosexual ’ are worth noting for their respective impacts on late-nineteenthcentury thought on sexuality, although their influences varied between the different groups and disciplines that adopted them (Benkert 1869/1997; Carpenter 1908/2010; Féray and Herzer 1990; Hekma 1989, p. 178; Herzer 1985; Katz 1996, pp. 51–54; Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, pp. 6–9; Ulrichs 1870/1997a, 1879/1997b; Upchurch 2009, p. 196; Weeks 1989, p. 104; 1990, p. 27). Through medical and psychiatric categorisations of sexual behaviour, in conjunction with aforementioned legal changes, the ‘homosexual’ emerged as a recognisable subject in professional discourses, whilst cultural and social networks between homosexuals allowed for the collective expression of alternative sexual identities, albeit usually only privately. In 1868, Karl Maria Kertbeny wrote a letter to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, in which he devised several new terms for various sexual behaviours, amongst which the terms ‘Heterosexual’ and ‘Homosexual’ were used for the first time in private correspondence (Katz 1996, p. 52). Kertbeny first published the term ‘Homosexual’, anonymously, in a leaflet opposing the introduction of what would become Paragraph 175, codifying the criminalisation of ‘unnatural acts’ in the German Penal Code (Benkert 1869/1997; Katz 1996, p. 53; Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, pp. 6–8). Although Kertbeny’s terms convey the same basic meaning today as he first imagined them, his use of the terms carried greater pathological implications, common in approaches to labelling and understanding sexuality in the nineteenth century (Benkert 1869/1997; Katz 1996, 53–54; see also, Féray and Herzer 1990; Herzer 1985). Kertbeny’s terms gained a much wider audience when Richard von Krafft-Ebing included them in the fourth edition of his Psychopathia Sexualis (1889), which was later translated into English (Katz 1996, pp. 54–55; see also, Upchurch 2009, pp. 195–200). Thus, the terms ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ entered popular medical and psychiatric discourses by the end of the nineteenth century, emerging as key terms describing sexual behaviour from a plethora of competing conceptions and theories. Alongside terms such as ‘sexual inversion’, ‘heterosexuality’ and ‘homosexuality’ emerged from, what Katz (1996) describes as, the ‘fin de siècle aberration-labeling [sic] sweepstakes’ (p. 55).

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

47

Such competing conceptions arose from a mid-nineteenth-century desire to more clearly categorise degenerative sexual behaviours, particularly in regard to criminality, forming part of a conceptual shift away from a reliance on criminal forensics towards attempting to understand the mental state of the criminal as a type of person. Leading European medico-legal experts, such as Tardieu and Casper, argued for the need to categorise and physically verify sexual perverts (including sodomites) in court (Karlen 1971, p. 185; Weeks 1990, pp. 25–26; see also, Brooks 2008). The Italian criminologist, Lombroso, a key theorist in the emerging science of criminology, advanced the view of innate qualities of the criminal that induced degenerate behaviour, suggesting that homosexual behaviour was caused by innate characteristics that induced insanity (and thereby sexual perversions) (Hekma 1989, p. 177; Weeks 1990, p. 27). It is thus possible to identify changing approaches to sexuality and competing theorisations between the traditionally moralistic ‘acquired’ approach and the newer ‘innate’ distinction in Krafft-Ebing’s constantly revised Psychopathia Sexualis. Whilst Krafft-Ebing initially supported the view of homosexual behaviour as a symptom of degeneracy, he later modified his approach to include the possibility that homosexuality could be caused by either an acquired or innate neurological condition, understood through a prism of masculinity and respectability (McIntosh 1968; Upchurch 2009, pp. 195–200; Weeks 1990, p. 26). The increasing interest in sexuality in the late nineteenth century, concurrently with the ‘paradigmatic shift’ towards a ‘psychiatry of perversions’ as the main method of pathologising sexual vice, resulted in the emergence of ‘sexology’ (‘Sexualwissenshaft ’) as a discipline (Hekma 1989, pp. 180–182). Foucault (1976/1998) argues that these sexological discourses, marking homosexuality as a subject for inquiry, transformed the sodomite from a juridical subject to a personage; a classified species understood entirely through their sexuality (p. 43). Although sexological work, such as Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis, was influential in producing new conceptions of sexuality, it is worth noting that such conceptions were still contested amongst the European medical community, particularly in Britain where sexology had a limited impact in influencing a change in attitudes towards sex between men (Upchurch 2009, pp. 187–188, 195; see also Brady 2006; Cocks 2003; Cook 2003; Kaplan 2005). The first major English sexology work, Havelock Ellis and John Addington Symond’s Sexual Inversion (1897), challenged both the influential conceptions detailed in Psychopathia Sexualis as well as

48

M. FARMER

dominant British attitudes towards sex between men, by arguing that congenital rather than acquired ‘inversion’ was the norm (Upchurch 2009, pp. 201–202). They also challenged dominant conceptions of respectability and class with regard to sexuality, producing more egalitarian understandings of working class same-sex behaviour (Upchurch 2009, p. 202). Whilst Sexual Inversion did not provoke a major shift in British attitudes, given the difficulties of publishing it in Britain and denigration from the medical community, it does mark part of what Upchurch (2009) identifies as a ‘larger cultural challenge to Victorian values’ that emerged as a consequence of greater medical and sexological interest in understanding sexuality (pp. 203–204). Whilst this incitement to discourse concerning sex and same-sex behaviours contributed to challenging certain traditional conceptions of same-sex sexuality (Foucault 1976/1998), it is worth noting that this was a very gradual change that would continue to evolve throughout the twentieth century. Nevertheless, it is worth contrasting this gradual change in European professional and cultural discourses on same-sex sexuality during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the concurrent production of colonial discourses that aimed to control the sexualities of colonised peoples.

Reproducing Race and Sexuality in the Orient It is interesting to observe how the contemporaries of those who contributed to the emergence of the homosexual as a scientific category and cultural identity in the nineteenth century also contributed to the reproduction of imperial conceptions of colonial sexualities. Understanding the way ‘Oriental’ sexualities were conceptualised requires a recognition of the production of knowledge about sexuality in the Occident; Oriental and Occidental sexualities did not operate in vacuums separate to each other. A key figure in developing a sexual narrative of the Orient was the writer and explorer Richard Francis Burton, whose translation of Arabian Nights, or The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, included more directly translated erotica than had been allowed for previously, whilst his many footnotes revealed extensive anthropological knowledge. A significant contribution of Burton’s edition was its inclusion of translated passages dealing with pederasty and homosexuality (Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, p. 76). Of interest in Burton’s text is his description

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

49

of a ‘Sotadic Zone’ that roughly included Oriental geographies, from the Mediterranean, Asia Minor, through to China and Japan, in which sexual vice was endemic, including pederasty and homosexuality (Bleys 1996, p. 217; Burton 1886/1997, p. 85; Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, p. 78; Weeks 1990, p. 47). Although the geographical boundaries of the ‘Sotadic Zone’ are vague, and Burton himself denied its direct association with race, it more clearly marks a sexual geography beyond the boundaries of traditionally repressive Judeo-Christian influence, highlighting Burton’s suggestion of the Orient as a place of comparative sexual liberty (Bleys 1996, p. 217; Burton 1886/1997, pp. 85–86; Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, p. 78; Weeks 1990, p. 47). Burton’s writings on the ‘Sotadic Zone’, however, were often inconsistent with other claims he made, particularly regarding the extent of the zone and the racial nature of his sexual analysis (Bleys 1996, p. 218). Hoad (2007) notes Burton’s exclusion of Sub-Saharan Africa from the ‘Sotadic Zone’, suggesting an absence of homosexuality in the region, and reemphasising the homosexual proclivities of the Orient as it relates more to sexual stereotypes of Asia Minor and India (pp. 10–11). Hoad (2007) highlights the case of Uganda’s Kabaka Mwanga II, whose homosexual behaviour was attributed to Arab traders at his court, reinforcing both the association between ‘the Arab’ and homosexuality and the idea that homosexuality was foreign to Sub-Saharan Africa (p. 11, 1–20; see also, Bleys 1996, p. 172; Hamilton 2010; Hyam 1990, pp. 186–189). As Epprecht (2008) notes, however, colonial discourses equally suggested the susceptibility of Africans to sodomitical influences from the Orient, reflecting colonial notions of the uncivilised African’s inability to resist such vice (p. 43). Burton’s contribution to reproducing the sexuality of the Orient in the British imagination highlights the intricate relationships between sexuality and race in the colonial imagination (Bleys 1996, pp. 216–219; Colligan 2003; Kennedy 2000; Lauristen and Thorstad 1974, pp. 76–79). The associations between race and sexuality sit in the very foundations of the colonial project (McClintock 1995; Stoler 1995). Colonialism offered the British a chance for change and exploration, alongside economic opportunities of imperialism. Hyam (1976) has described the ‘driving force’ of British imperialism as ‘the export of surplus emotional, or sexual energy’ (p. 135). Whether in pursuit of black flesh or tempted by prostitution whilst in service to the Empire, colonialism offered greater emotional and sexual opportunities than were to be found at home in

50

M. FARMER

Britain (Hyam 1976, pp. 135–136). The gendered dynamics of imperialism reflect the Orientalist emphasis on male exploration and exploitation of female Oriental sexualities: the White European male can always find sexual gratification (and demand it) from the sexually exotic and experienced Oriental female (Hyam 2010, pp. 371–372). Such gendered reproductions of empire constructed the sexual experience and availability of indigenous women against a reinforced conception of the morally pure, White European women of home (Grewal 1996, p. 57). As a consequence of the sexual opportunities of empire, however, rates of venereal disease were comparatively high in the colonies, particularly amongst the armed forces (Hyam 2010, p. 372; see also, Levine 2003). Nevertheless, as Hyam (2010) is keen to point out, sexual opportunity and exploration must be viewed with consideration of ‘the misery of empire’ that accompanied many individuals, so far removed from the comforts of home, that to turn to sex acted as emotional salvation as much as sexual gratification (p. 373). For British homosexuals, the British Empire opened up sexual opportunities that might be more difficult to pursue at home, a conception particularly reinforced by notions, such as offered by Burton, of the endemic and freely available homosexual activity of the Orient (Weeks 1990, p. 41; see also, Bakshi 1990). Hyam (1990) provides two case studies of army officers posted in India, whose surviving accounts provide details of sexual activity far removed from supposedly prudish Victorian standards (pp. 127–133). This conception of the sexuality of the Orient, however, also acted as part of a wider justifying motivation for colonial conquest. The supposedly natural depravity of certain indigenous populations enabled the justification of a more moral and civilised European power to subjugate them (Matar 1999, pp. 109–127). Thus, civilising discourses, intricately related to comparative reproductions of race, sexuality and morality, reflected in European conceptions of modernity, produced justifications for colonial conquest of the indigenous ‘other’ (see also, Quijano 2007). This ‘othering’ of indigenous sexualities functioned to justify colonial practices of rule and subjugation, for the moral development and improvement of the subjugated population. Literary, religious and cultural reproductions of empire helped to reinforce and justify such colonial practices. Orientalist literature grew in parallel to increasing political and economic interest in the Orient, blurring observations and common (mis)conceptions in literary and artistic reproductions of the ‘realities’

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

51

of the Orient and colonial practices (De Groot 2000, pp. 46–47). Such cultural reproductions of empire contributed to the wider imperial discourses that viewed the Orient as in need of intervention, whether as part of a civilising mission to help the savage, or as a source of capitalist opportunity to be guided by European expertise (De Groot 2000, p. 44). Museum exhibitions of foreign artefacts contributed to imperial discourses of the civilised Englishman and the uncivilised Other, as Grewal (1996) describes, ‘Within the British Museum, the public was “civilised” by means of an aesthetic education that involved showing the nonWestern world as uncivilised’ (pp. 90–91, 129–130). Missionary activities, as symptomatic of wider imperial discourses, misunderstood African sexuality as broadly uncivilised, thereby justifying religious interventions, whilst ignoring pre-existing, community-specific, social sex-gender hierarchies (Hyam 1990, pp. 182–197). Scientific approaches to understanding the differences between coloniser and colonised also contributed to the production of imperial discourses, offering supposedly empirical evidence to justify colonial practices that relied on an emphasis of ‘difference’. The development of the ‘sciences’ of biology, ethnology and anthropology, in collusion with the principles of natural sciences and modes of classification, all contributed to the categorisation of the ‘character’ of non-Western societies and people (De Groot 2000, p. 41). This included, for example, comparisons of brain size to denote intellect and capacity (or lack thereof) for civilised progress, utilising similar ‘scientific’ methods and conceptual approaches that identified essential differences in nature between men and women (De Groot 2000, pp. 41–43). As with the patriarchal dominance of men over women in European society, justified by the inherent differences in nature which demonstrated, ‘scientifically’, that men were superior, so non-Western peoples were subjected by the civility of their White (male) European superiors (De Groot 2000, p. 44). Empirical approaches to identifying difference were similarly used in the realm of the sexual, measuring the differing sexual characteristics of non-Western peoples, such as penis size or libido, to demonstrate their supposed savage or licentious natures (Gill 1995, pp. 38–39). Thus, the discourses of scientific racism, emerging from general developments in nineteenth-century scientific trends, provided empirical evidence in support of an already strong cultural and moralistic imperial discourse that justified colonial interventions. Sexuality formed an inescapably significant dynamic of colonial relations that was both complex and contradictory. Whilst colonialism

52

M. FARMER

offered opportunities of desire, particularly for White European men, it simultaneously sought to problematise and regulate indigenous sexualities that did not fit European social norms, implementing legal mechanisms that would outlast the colonial state and continue to confine sexual liberties in the twenty-first century.

Implementation and Legacy of Colonial Sodomy Laws The first implementation of sodomy law in the British Empire came with the introduction of the Indian Penal Code in 1860. The development of the Indian Penal Code began with the establishment of the Law Commission of India in 1825, which sought to establish a comprehensive criminal code for colonial India (Gupta 2008, p. 15; see also, Friedland 1992). Concerning sexuality, the draft of the Penal Code was imbued with traditional British fears of the polluting effects of homosexual activity and behaviour, prohibiting ‘unnatural lusts’ whilst imploring the use of euphemism and silencing terms as previously common in British law (Gupta 2008, pp. 16–17). The Indian Penal Code was finally implemented in 1860, of which Section 377, ‘unnatural offences’, criminalised same-sex sexual activity, euphemised in a language of ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ (Gupta 2008, p. 18; Kirby 2013, pp. 66–67). Thus, the language used in the Indian Penal Code reflected historical attempts to codify the prohibition of same-sex sexual activity in British law. Thereafter, the Indian Penal Code became the legal model for other British colonial territories, easily replicated and adapted by colonial administrators and jurors to bring legal order and control to the uncivilised regions of the Empire (Gupta 2008, p. 21; see also, Han and O’Mahoney 2014, 2018; Morris 1974). From India, to South Asia, to Africa, the British standards of correct sexual practices and behaviour were codified into law, largely irrespective of the pre-existing customs regarding sex and sexuality. The second most influential Penal Code in the colonial roll-out of legislation was the Penal Code of the Australian colony of Queensland, implemented in 1901. It adopted very similar language to the Indian Penal Code regarding ‘carnal knowledge against the order of nature’, though made explicit the criminality of all parties involved, eliminating any criminal ambiguities of passive or active partners in the sexual act: both were criminally complicit (Gupta 2008, pp. 22–23; Kirby 2013,

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

53

p. 67). The Penal Code of Queensland appears to have been particularly influential in determining the content and intent of sodomy laws in Africa, as in Nigeria, and thereafter in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania (Gupta 2008, p. 23; Kirby 2013, p. 67; see also, Morris 1970). In the case of the Ugandan Penal Code, we can see that the language of Section 208 of the Queensland Penal Code is directly reproduced in Section 140 of the Ugandan Penal Code, though the Ugandan Penal Code does include further prohibitions, such as of acts of ‘gross indecency’ in ‘public or private’ (Gupta 2008, pp. 22, 24). Such replications of the language of law demonstrate the colonial disregard for indigenous customary practices and conceptualisations of sexuality when codifying sexual prohibitions in law. Considering the development and implementation of sodomy laws within wider colonial legal frameworks reveals the civilising impetus behind colonial legal practices, primarily concerned with controlling supposedly dangerous elements of the colonial population to ensure order and the protection of White colonial citizens and their imperial interests. This followed similar trends in English law regarding the identification and marking out of dangerous characteristics and behaviours, including in relation to sexuality (Moran 1995). Other British legal models, particularly regarding vagrancy and prostitution, were also replicated in colonial territories to form part of the wider legal machinery that sought to control indigenous bodies (Gupta 2008, pp. 26–31). Similarly, as Gupta (2008) describes, ‘forensic mythologies’, rooted in nineteenth-century legal and forensic conceptual developments, were also replicated in colonial legal contexts in order to mythologise the past histories and behaviours of the ‘habitual sodomite’, thus making prosecutions easier to accomplish through the criminal categorisations of individuals (pp. 31–35). These colonial legal practices regarding sodomy laws reveal a wider trend in colonial approaches to establishing legal structures and controls without the consent or consultation of indigenous communities. The fundamental power structures at the heart of the colonial project allowed administrators and jurors to experiment with and implement legal practices in the colonies with little regard for pre-existing customary laws and practices, as seen in the lack of indigenous involvement in both the development of the Indian and Queensland Penal Codes (Gupta 2008, pp. 15– 16, 22–23). As Gupta (2008) notes, it was the ‘whims, preferences, and power struggles of bureaucrats’ that stimulated the replication, reinterpretation and implementation of sodomy laws; ‘the Queensland Penal

54

M. FARMER

Code spread across Africa indifferently to the will of Africans’ (p. 23). Ethnographic research in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries provided mixed evidence of pre-colonial prohibitions of sexual ‘vice’, though broadly contributed towards supporting colonial legal discourses that prohibited transgressive sexual practices (Epprecht 2008, pp. 47–48). There is now, however, a greater wealth of ethnographic research that reveals the heterogeneity of African sexualities, including accepted and culturally codified practices that clearly deviate from nineteenth-century imperial norms (and arguably some modern African heteronormative sexual discourses) (e.g. Arnfred 2004; Ekine and Abbas 2013; Epprecht 2004; Murray and Roscoe 1998; Tamale 2011). Nevertheless, some contemporary African political voices argue that non-heterosexual sexualities have always been criminalised in African communities, thereby justifying the continued presence and legacy of sodomy laws in most modern African states (Hollander 2009, pp. 225–226). Other African researchers disagree, however, as Tamale explains: Gay people have always lived among communities. Everyone in the village would know that so-and-so sleeps with another man, but they were not vilified. They were not praised – but they were not vilified. (interviewed in Cashdan 2011)

Despite competing claims concerning accepted pre-colonial sexual practices and behaviours (which are undoubtedly imbued with contemporary political currency concerning sexual inequality), it is clear that colonial legal mechanisms were developed without democratic consultation or involvement with indigenous communities. Where colonial magistrates did take an uncommon interest in customary laws, they made assumptions and interpreted their findings in ways that confirmed and reiterated standard imperial approaches to criminalising all non-heterosexual sexual activity (Epprecht 2008, p. 42). Colonial-era sodomy laws remained a fixture of the legal mechanisms of colonial territories even after independence with some states modifying elements of the Penal Code to increase penalties, such as Uganda extending the sentencing term to life-imprisonment in 1990 (Gupta 2008, p. 3). Thus, contemporary legislation that criminalises same-sex sexual activity across a significant number of states can be traced as a legacy of British colonial-era sodomy laws, even whilst the UK has decriminalised homosexuality. Many modern states have claimed social and

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

55

moral ownership over the sentiments imbued in such sodomy laws, justifying their continued presence in penal codes and enacting control over supposedly sexually transgressive individuals that pose a threat to society (Gupta 2008, p. 53). These contemporary forms of control equally utilise the conceptual baggage of such sodomy laws, claiming defence of the moral purity of the nation, or enacting forensic mythologies to categorise and criminalise individuals deemed dangerous (Gupta 2008, p. 33). The legacy of sodomy laws is thus more than simply the continuing codification of legal bodies and more than a legacy of the language and structure of the law. The colonial history of sodomy laws has direct implications for the ways in which human rights activists campaign for the repeal of such laws, creating challenges and complicating international postcolonial relations concerning sexuality (Faucette 2010). That states now defend such inherited legislation as a social and national interest is ironic given the original exportation and imposition of such laws broadly across the British Empire with little regard for indigenous communities. Frantz Fanon and Postcolonial Heteronationalism Several scholars have identified a postcolonial narrative of heteronationalism, which both subverts and perpetuates former, imperial heteronationalist discourses, in the work of Frantz Fanon, most notably in his Black Skin, White Masks. Critiques of Fanon have identified within his work fairly heteronormative assumptions about sexuality and gender, rooted in Freudian psychoanalysis, including a general construction of sexual perversion (homosexuality) ‘as a white pathology’ (Fuss 1994, p. 32). For example, particular attention is given to a footnote in which Fanon (1952/1967) identifies an absence of homosexuality in Martinique, and whilst noting that Martinicans may engage in homosexual behaviour in Europe, as a means of survival, it is not what he calls ‘a neurotic homosexuality’ (p. 180, n. 44). For Fanon (1952/1967), sexual perversion is psychoanalytically linked to Negrophobia, either in the perverse sexual behaviour of White women, or in the perverse sexual object choice of White men: ‘the Negrophobic woman is in fact nothing but a putative sexual partner – just as the Negrophobic man is a repressed homosexual’ (p. 156). Furthermore, Dollimore (1991) notes Fanon’s understanding of masochistic White male desire with dominating black men as an extension of such neurotic racism rooted in expressed, rather than repressed, homosexual perversion (p. 345).

56

M. FARMER

Scholarly analysis is mixed in its response to Fanon’s heteronationalist constructions. Epprecht (2008) is openly critical of Fanon, highlighting Fanon’s racist stereotyping and significant contribution towards postwar intellectual and political trends that legitimised homophobia, which continue to influence and support contemporary political attitudes and practices that attest the absence of African homosexuality (pp. 86–87, 131–132). Hoad (2007) emphasises the nature of the historical context in which Fanon formulated his ideas, reflecting on the influence of colonialism on Fanon’s work, particularly concerning the emasculating experience of colonialism for colonised men (p. 37). As Fuss (1994) notes, Fanon’s concerns with the damaging effect of colonialism on Black masculinity, responsively expressed through his denigration of White femininity and homosexuality, are rooted in identifiable exploitations of Black sexuality, both male and female, in the colonial context (p. 33). Similarly, Fuss (1994) identifies in Fanon’s work an ‘impassioned response to popular colonialist theories of race and sexuality’ set against, for example, the Orientalist fin de siècle sexology of Burton and Ellis, who each constructed representations of Algeria as sexually infectious and immoral (pp. 35–36). Desai (2001) reasons that Fanon’s response to these problematising colonial representations of non-Western sexualities is understandable, given Fanon’s interest in reasserting Black male sexual identity as part of the process of nationalist struggles, necessarily disassociating it from Western ‘homosexuality’ (p. 147). Indeed, independence and nationalist movements saw the rise of expressions of Black hyper-masculinity, which over time materialised into overt and violent forms of homophobia arising from multiple frustrations against colonial governance (Epprecht 2004, pp. 225–226). Thus, it is necessary to recognise the heteronationalist tendencies inherent in colonial discourses, such as Burton’s, as a means to understanding the responsive rearticulation of heteronationalism in postcolonial political and intellectual discourses, to which Fanon’s work contributed (Dunton 1989; Epprecht 2008, pp. 131–159; Hoad 2007, pp. 21–47).

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

57

Illuminating the Impact of Colonial Legacies on LGBT Issues in Contemporary International Relations Though it constitutes only a small part of his writing, the above interrogation of Fanon’s text highlights the intricate ways in which colonialism shaped and was shaped by intersections of race, gender and sexuality, which in turn influenced cultural, social and psychological interactions and resistances to the pervasiveness of coloniality. In turn, many elements in the historical development of European social, political and legal discourses concerning the problematisation and criminalisation of ‘homosexuality’ can be found in many contemporary approaches to criminalising non-conforming sexual behaviours and identities in the Global South, particularly in former British colonial states. Traces of pre-twentieth-century problematisations of homosexuality are identifiable in the legacy of surviving colonial-era sodomy laws implemented throughout the British Empire. The deployment of such legislation, as part of the broader civilising mission of the colonial project, carried with it the complex scientific and psychiatric theoretical baggage of nineteenth-century conceptualisations of the degeneracy of homosexual behaviour. This highlighting of the historical continuities of discriminatory legislation is not intended to detract from the autonomy and responsibility of formerly colonised states that enact or strengthen such legislation that continues to harm sexual and gender minorities. Nevertheless, such legislation must be understood within their historical contexts, deeply rooted in the legacies of colonial interventions. It is not, however, only the inheritance of colonial-era sodomy laws that contribute to the complexity of contemporary international discourses on LGBT rights. Contemporary international relations are fundamentally influenced by the lingering consequences of European imperialism, whether materially or psychologically. Imperial discourses are redeployed to dichotomise debates as the colonisers versus the colonised and conceptualise sexuality as a commodified export that creates conceptions of homosexuality as, for example, ‘un-African’ or a ‘Western import’. Such heteronationalist language ultimately reduces the issue to the same colonial-era attitudes that reproduced conceptions of sexuality along racial and geographic lines, whilst ignoring the inherent legacy of nineteenth-century intellectual conceptualisations of (homo)sexuality that permeated colonial relations.

58

M. FARMER

The complexity of the lingering influence of colonialism on contemporary LGBT rights discourses should be illuminated, particularly when contemporary actors fail to recognise their participation in ignorant reproductions of European modernity/coloniality. For example, legacies of colonialism shape contemporary discourse on the use of aid conditionality as it intersects LGBT rights, witnessed in the ignorance of Western states as they apply economic pressure to threaten the Global South into a new civilised, sexual modernity. This same ignorance manifests in the treatment of LGBT asylum seekers by Western states that fail to acknowledge their historical and contemporary responsibilities for the persecutions that LGBT people face worldwide. Whilst our mutual histories between coloniser and colonised are intimately linked, our identities and experiences forged by interaction and oppression, we must remember that even in the absence of formal colonialism people throughout the Global South experience coloniality every day (Hall 1996; Mignolo 2007, p. 495; Young 2015, p. 57). Thus, we should be vigilant and strive to illuminate the ways in which legacies of colonialism shape the undercurrents of contemporary international discourses so that we can challenge problematic reproductions of colonial power structures in the pursuit of sexual and gender rights globally.

References Arnfred, S. (Ed.). (2004). Re-thinking Sexualities in Africa. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Bakshi, P. K. (1990). Homosexuality and Orientalism: Edward Carpenter’s Journey to the East. In T. Brown (Ed.), Edward Carpenter and Late Victorian Radicalism (pp. 151–177). London: Frank Cass. Benkert, K. M. (1997). An Open Letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice (M. Lombardi-Nash, Trans.). In M. Blasius & S. Phelan (Eds.), We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics (pp. 67–79). London: Routledge (Original work published 1869). Blasius, M., & Phelan, S. (Eds.). (1997). We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics. London: Routledge. Bleys, R. C. (1996). The Geography of Perversion. London: Cassel. Brady, S. (2006). Masculinity and Male Homosexuality in Britain, 1861–1913. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Brooks, R. (2008). “Vices Once Adopted”: Theorising Male Homoeroticism in German-Language Legal and Forensic Discourses, 1752–1869. Reinvention: A Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(2). https://warwick.ac.uk/

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

59

fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/archive/volume1issue2/brooks. Accessed 16 October 2019. Burton, R. F. (1997). ‘Pederasty.’ The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night. In M. Blasius & S. Phelan (Eds.), We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics (pp. 85–91). London: Routledge (Original work published 1886). Carpenter, E. (2010). The Intermediate Sex: A Study of Some Transitional Types of Men and Women. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing (Original work published 1908). Cashdan, B. (Producer). (2011, 12 March). BBC World Debate: Is Homosexuality un-African? [Television episode]. Johannesburg: BBC World News & Broad Daylight Films Foundation. Cocks, H. G. (2003). Nameless Offences: Homosexual Desire in the Nineteenth Century. London: I.B. Tauris. Colligan, C. (2003). “A Race of Born Pederasts”: Sir Richard Burton, Homosexuality, and the Arabs. Nineteenth Century Contexts, 25(1), 1–20. Cook, M. (2003). London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crompton, L. (1981). The Myth of Lesbian Impunity: Capital Laws from 1270 to 1791. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(1–2), 11–25. De Groot, J. (2000). “Sex” and “Race”: The Construction of Language and Image in the Nineteenth Century. In C. Hall (Ed.), Cultures of Empire: Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: A Reader (pp. 37–60). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Desai, G. (2001). Out in Africa. In J. C. Hawley (Ed.), Postcolonial Queer: Theoretical Intersections (pp. 139–164). Albany, NY: State University of New York. Dollimore, J. (1991). Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucault. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunton, C. (1989). “Wheyting Be Dat?” The Treatment of Homosexuality in African Literature. Research in African Literatures, 20(3), 422–448. Ekine, S., & Abbas, H. (Eds.). (2013). Queer African Reader. Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Epprecht, M. (2004). Hungochani: The History of a Dissident Sexuality in Southern Africa. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Epprecht, M. (2008). Heterosexual Africa? The History of an Idea from the Age of Exploration to the Age of AIDS. Athens: Ohio University Press. Fanon, F. (1967). Black Skin, White Masks (C. Farrington, Trans.). New York: Grove Press (Original work published 1952). Faucette, J. A. (2010, Winter). Human Rights in Context: The Lessons of Section 377 Challenges for Western Gay Rights Legal Reformers in the Developing World. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 13(2), 413–439.

60

M. FARMER

Féray, J., & Herzer, M. (1990). Homosexual Studies and Politics in the 19th Century: Karl Maria Kertbeny (G. W. Peppel, Trans.). Journal of Homosexuality, 19(1), 23–47. Foucault, M. (1998). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge (R. Hurley, Trans.). London: Penguin Books (Original work published 1976). Friedland, M. L. (1992). Codification in the Commonwealth: Earlier Efforts. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 18(3), 1172–1180. Fuss, D. (1994). Interior Colonies: Frantz Fanon and the Politics of Identification. Diacritics, 24(2/3), Critical Crossings, 19–42. Gill, A. (1995). Ruling Passions: Sex, Race and Empire. London: BBC Books. Grewal, I. (1996). Home and Harem: Nation, Gender, Empire, and the Cultures of Travel. London: Leicester University Press. Gupta, A. (2008). This Alien Legacy: The Origins of “Sodomy” Laws in British Colonialism. New York: Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/reports/lgbt1208_web.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2019. Hall, C. (1996). Histories, Empires and the Post-Colonial Moment. In I. Chambers & L. Curti (Eds.), The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons (pp. 65–77). London: Routledge. Hamilton, K. (2010). Colonial Legacies, Decolonized Sprits: Balboa, Ugandan Martyrs and AIDS Solidarity Today. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(1–2), 121–136. Han, E., & O’Mahoney, J. (2014). British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27 (2), 268– 288. Han, E., & O’Mahoney, J. (2018). British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality. London: Routledge. Hekma, G. (1989). A History of Sexology: Social and Historical Aspects of Sexuality. In J. Bremmer (Ed.), From Sappho to De Sade: Moments in the History of Sexuality (pp. 173–193). London: Routledge. Herzer, M. (1985, Fall). Kertbeny and the Nameless Love. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(1), 1–25. Hoad, N. (2007). African Intimacies: Race, Homosexuality and Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hollander, M. (2009). Gay Rights in Uganda: Seeking to Overturn Uganda’s Anti-Sodomy Laws. Virginia Journal of International Law, 50(1), 219–266. Hyam, R. (1976). Britain’s Imperial Century, 1815–1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion. London: B.T. Batsford. Hyam, R. (1990). Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hyam, R. (2010). Understanding the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, L. A. (2000). Child Sexual Abuse in Victorian England. New York: Routledge.

3

UNPACKING THE COLONIAL BAGGAGE …

61

Kaplan, M. B. (2005). Sodom on the Thames: Sex, Love and Scandal in Wilde Times. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Karlen, A. (1971). Sexuality and Homosexuality. London: Macdonald. Katz, J. N. (1996). The Invention of Heterosexuality. London: Penguin Books. Kennedy, D. (2000, July). “Captain Burton’s Oriental Muck Heap”: The Book of the Thousand Nights and the Uses of Orientalism. Journal of British Studies, 39, 317–339. Kirby, M. (2013). The Sodomy Offence: England’s Least Lovely Criminal Law Export? In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 61–82). London: University of London. Laquer, T. W. (2003). Solitary Sex: A Cultural History of Masturbation. London: Zone Books. Lauristen, J., & Thorstad, D. (1974). The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864–1935). New York: Times Change Press. Levine, P. (2003). Prostitution, Race & Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire. New York: Routledge. Matar, N. (1999). Turks, Moors, and Englishmen in the Age of Discovery. New York: University of Columbia Press. McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. New York: Routledge. McIntosh, M. (1968). The Homosexual Role. Social Problems, 16(2), 182–192. Mignolo, W. D. (2007). Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 449–514. Moran, L. J. (1995). The Homosexualization of English Law. In D. Herman & C. Stychin (Eds.), Legal Inversions: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Law (pp. 3–28). Philadelphia: Temple University. Moran, L. J. (1996). The Homosexual(ity) of Law. London: Routledge. Morris, H. F. (1970, Autumn). How Nigeria Got Its Criminal Code. Journal of African Law, 12(3), 137–154. Morris, H. F. (1974, Spring). A History of the Adoption of Codes of Criminal Law and Procedure in British Colonial Africa, 1876–1935. Journal of African Law, 18(1), 6–23. Murray, S. O., & Roscoe, W. (Eds.). (1998). Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies in African Homosexualities. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 168–178. Smith, F. B. (1976). Labouchere’s Amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. Historical Studies, 17 (67), 165–173. Stoler, A. L. (1995). Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.

62

M. FARMER

Tamale, S. (Ed.). (2011). African Sexualities: A Reader. Oxford: Pambazuka. Trumbach, R. (1985). Sodomitical Subcultures, Sodomitical Roles, and the Gender Revolution. Eighteenth-Century Life, 9, 109–121. Upchurch, C. (2009). Before Wilde: Sex between Men in Britain’s Age of Reform. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ulrichs, K. H. (1997a). Araxes: Appeal for the Liberation of the Urning’s Nature from Penal Law. To the Imperial Assemblies of North Germany and Austria (J. Steakly, Trans.). In M. Blasius & S. Phelan (Eds.), We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics (pp. 63–65). London: Routledge (Original work published 1870). Ulrichs, K. H. (1997b). Critical Arrow (H. Kennedy, Trans.). In M. Blasius & S. Phelan (Eds.), We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics (pp. 65–66). London: Routledge (Original work published 1879). Weeks, J. (1989). Sex, Politics and Society: The regulation of sexuality since 1800 (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Weeks, J. (1990). Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the Present (rev ed.). London: Quartet Books. Weeks, J. (2011). The Language of Sexuality. Abingdon: Routledge. Young, R. J. C. (2015). Empire, Colony, Postcolony. Chichester: Wiley.

CHAPTER 4

Contemporary Context of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in International Politics

The previous chapter presented an analysis of nineteenth-century discourses on sexuality and their influence on colonial problematisations of sexuality that contributed to altering the sexual landscapes of the Global South. This chapter builds upon this historical analysis to contextualise contemporary international political engagements with sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), noting the ways in which LGBT rights are negotiated and contested between states, within intergovernmental institutions, and by NGOs globally. The chapter presents an analysis of some key points in the development of Uganda’s AntiHomosexuality Act (2014) to illustrate some common contemporary tensions regarding SOGI in international relations, including challenges for LGBT activism. The chapter also reflects upon the production of discourses that seek to delegitimise particular political understandings of SOGI in various international contexts. From heteronationalist discourses that seek to delegitimise indigenous LGBT communities, to homonationalist discourses that articulate simplistic conceptions of homophobia, SOGI and LGBT rights are deployed to further particular political agendas in the front lines of a contemporary, global culture war. It is against the backdrop of these increasingly globalised contentions around the nature of SOGI, the family and LGBT human rights, that UK-based NGOs engage in transnational LGBT activism.

© The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_4

63

64

M. FARMER

Contemporary International Landscape The contemporary international landscape of LGBT rights and discrimination is constantly shifting. As the international spotlight on LGBT issues grows ever brighter, LGBT rights discourses have permeated various international fora, as resolutions are forged to attempt to improve the rights of LGBT people globally. An increasing number of states have adopted rights protections for their LGBT populations and a slowly growing number of states recognise same-sex marriages (Hutt 2018; LeDoux 2019; Reid 2016). There has been, however, a simultaneous ‘push back’ in many parts of the world where resistance to LGBT equality remains strong. The international legal landscape of LGBT rights and discrimination protections is a complicated one, as myriad legal approaches to criminalising LGBT people make comparisons between jurisdictions difficult. Generally, though, whilst some states have clarified, enhanced or entrenched laws that criminalise and discriminate against LGBT people, there is a steady trend towards more states decriminalising and offering greater protections and equality for LGBT communities. For example, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) notes that between 2006 and 2016 the number of states that criminalised homosexuality reduced from 92 to 73 (Carrol 2016, p. 7; see also, Mendos 2019). Whilst some jurisdictions may specifically criminalise LGBT behaviour, such laws are not always acted upon, whereas in other jurisdictions, laws concerning sex work, immorality or propaganda may be used to criminalise sexual and gender minorities in the absence of specific anti-LGBT legislation (Carrol 2016; Mendos 2019; Reid 2016). The legal landscape, however, must be understood against social and cultural approaches to SOGI globally, complicating a simplistic narrative that global LGBT equality is improving worldwide. Social acceptance of LGBT people is, arguably, more difficult to change than legal status and even in states where LGBT equality and protections are enshrined in law, violence against LGBT people continues to be a problem. For example, Brazil highlights the complexity between enhanced legal equality for LGBT communities and a rise in violent crimes targeted towards LGBT people (Jacobs 2016). Also, whilst South Africa is recognised as having significant legal protections and equal rights for its LGBT communities, the use of violence against LGBT people, including ‘corrective rape’ against lesbians, demonstrates that legal progress is not always neatly

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

65

reflected in social attitudes (Ekine 2016; Geen 2011; Wesley 2012). Nevertheless, social attitudes have the potential to change over time and are rarely homogenous, with research on specific states and societies highlighting the influencers of change in particular contexts (e.g. Sutherland 2016). Despite some legal setbacks and continued hostility and threats towards LGBT people internationally, LGBT groups and communities are increasingly visible and vocal, and have built up complex, interconnected, transnational movements. Both the Declaration of Montreal (2006) and the Yogyakarta Principles (2006) highlighted the growing strength and development of a global movement, noting both demands for an international LGBT movement as well as how LGBT rights could be ensured within existing international law (Kollman and Waites 2009). International conferences that draw on the experiences of the international LGBT movement demonstrate the continued efforts to organise internationally (e.g. Carnie 2016). In an age of multi mass media, LGBT constituencies and their allies are increasingly connected across borders, the experiences of ‘local’ LGBT people and groups gaining international attention, fuelling the spotlight. Whilst on the one hand, however, increasing interconnectedness contributes to a sense of a global LGBT movement, attention has tended to be lavished on particular states or regions, undermining a truly global engagement. How the international LGBT community responds to the nuances of local struggles can have a significant impact on the progress of LGBT rights at a local level (e.g. Okafor 2014). Groups opposed to the progress of LGBT rights have likewise utilised the benefits of globalisation to mobilise constituencies internationally to attempt to enhance discrimination against LGBT people.

LGBT Rights at the United Nations Examining the ways in which LGBT rights have been discussed and negotiated at the UN, highlights some of the dynamics of international relations concerning sexual politics and LGBT rights. Within the past ten years, a number of statements, joint statements and resolutions have been issued on SOGI within the various UN fora, demonstrating the willingness of many states to affirm LGBT rights internationally (for a list of statements, see ARC International, n.d.). For example, in December 2008, Argentina delivered a joint statement, signed by 66

66

M. FARMER

states, supporting ‘human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity’, the list of signatories demonstrating the wide range of states that supported protecting LGBT rights internationally, particularly from Latin America and Europe (ARC International 2008a). Challenges to such attempts to affirm LGBT rights in the UN often seek to devalue the concept that SOGI are human rights issues, questioning their applicability to international legal agreements, whilst reiterating the rights of states’ sovereignty to enact legislation concerned with morality and public order. For example, a joint response in opposition to the 2008 statement, delivered by Syria and signed mostly by African, Middle Eastern and Asian states, argued that the SOGI statement had no legal basis and undermined state sovereignty (ARC International 2008b). The Syrian response also suggested that the SOGI statement risked ‘ushering in the social normalization […] of many deplorable acts including pedophilia’, and implied that the focus on ‘sexual interests and behaviors [sic]’ ignored (implicitly) more important forms of discrimination, such as race, gender and religion (ARC International 2008b). States opposed to the discussion of LGBT-related issues in the UN have also attempted to block non-governmental contributions to participating at the UN. In May 2016, a number of states, including Russia, Cameroon, Tanzania and members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) blocked 22 NGOs from participating in a UN High-Level Meeting on Ending AIDS (BBC News 2016a; Sengupta 2016). The NGOs in question supported LGBT people or drug users in different countries, not limited to operating within the countries that issued the ban (Sengupta 2016). Although some UN officials and US, EU, and Canadian representatives protested the ban, the consensus nature of the General Assembly meant that the ban could not be overturned (BBC News 2016a; Sengupta 2016). US Ambassador Samantha Power noted that state efforts to block the participation of NGOs at the UN was becoming ‘epidemic’ (BBC News 2016a). The actions of states such as Russia and members of the OIC in this particular instance are symptomatic of broader state attempts to limit the activities of NGOs and civil society, discussed below. When organisations representing LGBT people and drug users are barred from such high-level intergovernmental meetings it limits the effectiveness of coordinated global efforts to end the AIDS epidemic, particularly when such groups of people are already vulnerable to HIV/AIDS (Sengupta 2016).

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

67

Despite the opposition of some states, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has adopted several key resolutions recognising the need to engage with LGBT rights internationally. A 2011 resolution requested a study to document discriminatory laws and acts of violence against individuals based on SOGI, with a further resolution in 2014 reaffirming this commitment to LGBT rights internationally (UNHRC 2011a, b, 2014). In August 2015, the UN Security Council held an informal meeting, chaired by the United States and Chile, to discuss the impact of Islamic State on LGBT populations in its occupied territories, and to ‘examine what kinds of protections are needed for LGBT individuals, what the international community needs to do to stop the scourge of prejudice and violence’ (Nichols 2015; cf. Long 2015b). In June 2016, the UNHRC adopted a resolution which appointed an independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, who would work to raise awareness and document discrimination, as well as fostering cooperation around implementing protections for LGBT people internationally (UNHRC 2016). The resolution was introduced by Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, though Saudi Arabia attempted to derail the resolution through a noaction motion (UN Human Rights, n.d.). Although the no-action motion was defeated, attempts to further dilute the intention of the resolution came in the form of amendments introduced by Pakistan, speaking on behalf of member states of the OIC (except Albania). The amendments, most of which passed, broadly sought to dilute the main intention of the resolution to focus on SOGI, introducing language that undermined the resolution’s impact, such as reiterating ‘respect for the sovereign right of each country as well as its national laws’, and concern about attempts to ‘impose concepts or notions pertaining to social matters, including private individual conduct’ (UN Human Rights, n.d.). Such language and arguments are consistently deployed by homophobic states to justify and defend their use of discriminatory and oppressive legislation. The UNHRC session discussion about the amendment demonstrates some key tensions regarding SOGI in international relations, as well as which states are at the forefront of support for and opposition against international protections for LGBT people. For example, Latin American states consistently argued against the amendments to weaken the resolution, whilst states such as Saudi Arabia and Russia consistently argued against the resolution as a whole, going as far to say that should the resolution pass they would not cooperate with the independent expert

68

M. FARMER

(UN Human Rights, n.d.). This is concerning given the discrimination and violence faced by LGBT people in such states. Saudi Arabia went as far as to suggest that the resolution was contrary to Islamic law, and that it would not compromise its religious law with man-made legislation (UN Human Rights, n.d.). This position is concerning for the further entrenchment of divisions that such discourse engenders, suggesting as it does that respect and protection for LGBT people will not make progress in Islamic theocracies. Saudi Arabia’s position on the UNHRC is questionable beyond its position on LGBT and human rights, though the same could be said for other member states as well (Human Rights Watch 2016a; Schulz 2016). Although the resolution was ultimately diluted by amendments, the appointment of an independent expert remains a significant achievement, despite continued attempts by states to derail its implementation (The Guardian 2016a, b). Given the rights and legal protections that LGBT people enjoy in South Africa, it is interesting that it chose to abstain on the vote to pass the resolution, reasoning that the resolution added ‘unnecessary divisiveness’ to the UNHRC (UN Human Rights, n.d.). As Melber (2016) has noted, divisiveness has always been ‘an integral part of the battle for human rights and dignity’, so it is curious that South Africa thought LGBT rights an unnecessary cause to pursue in supporting the resolution. The suggestion that maintaining unity in the UNHRC was more important than the lives of LGBT people was met with criticism by some South African commentators (de Vos 2016; Igual 2016a). Some have suggested that South Africa’s decision was reflective of a general caution about alienating itself from other African states and trading partners by supporting pro-LGBT international initiatives, highlighted in South Africa’s emphasis on not wanting to cause ‘division’ (Igual 2016a). This suggests that geopolitical considerations influence states’ decisions to support or oppose progressive LGBT initiatives internationally. As discussed in Chapter 6, there are multiple examples that demonstrate states are more concerned about geopolitics than supporting LGBT communities globally. Leading up to the session discussion about the resolution, NGOs from a wide range of countries internationally had called on the UNHRC to introduce a SOGI independent expert (ILGA 2016). The statement, contributed to the session by a large number of NGOs, argued for the need to:

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

69

take into account the linkages to broader issues of gender equality, autonomy over bodies and lives, and sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination on the basis of factors such as class, religion, gender, race, HIV status and disability. (ILGA 2016, p. 1)

The Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI), a coalition of organisations from Canada, Poland, India, Egypt, Argentina and South Africa, similarly argued that the creation of an independent expert would be more effective if it considered the full range of SOGI related to bodily integrity and autonomy, going beyond ‘LGBTI’ towards a more nuanced understanding (Sexual Rights Initiative 2016). Going beyond simplistic understandings of ‘LGBTI’ and looking towards a more nuanced, intersectional approach that included similarly marginalised groups, such as sex workers and HIV-positive people, would enable the UNHRC resolution to be more effective internationally (Sexual Rights Initiative 2016). Whilst the resolution outlines that the independent expert will ‘address the multiple, intersecting and aggravated forms of violence and discrimination faced by persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity’, it does not go into any detail about what these intersections might specifically include (UNHRC 2016). Whilst some NGOs were very supportive of the resolution as passed, the diluting impact of the amendments and the failure to fully realise an intersectional approach appear to have been glossed over by some (Human Rights Watch 2016b; cf. Khan 2016).

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act (2014): Illustrating International Interactions and Tensions with LGBT Rights Drawing on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA) as a case study, this section will explore some key themes concerning the intersections of international relations and LGBT rights. Aspects of the development of the AHA, as well as discourses generated in response to its development, illustrate broader, contemporary trends in the articulation and deployment of LGBT rights internationally. This section will explore the political utility generated in the deployment of laws that discriminate against LGBT populations, amongst broader assaults on civil society globally, as well as the use of transnational networks to diffuse or otherwise support particular approaches to LGBT rights.

70

M. FARMER

The AHA was first introduced in October 2009 as a member’s bill in the Ugandan Parliament by MP David Bahati. Whilst same-sex sexual activity was already illegal in Uganda, as a legacy of British colonialism, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (AHB) gained international attention for suggesting that ‘aggravated homosexuality’ should be punishable by death. A person was said to commit ‘aggravated homosexuality’ if they engaged in same-sex acts and had HIV, if the victim was underage or disabled, or if the offender was a ‘serial offender’, though the AHB also contained punishments for ‘attempting to commit’ homosexuality, ‘promoting’ homosexuality and failing to disclose an offence (The AntiHomosexuality Bill 2009; Tamale 2010). As Tamale (2010) noted, in addition to duplicating existing laws, the AHB violated a number of basic legal rights, including rights to privacy and free speech, undermining the Ugandan constitution and international agreements (see also, Tamale 2007). The ways in which such LGBT-discriminatory legislation broadly undermines peoples’ rights beyond the LGBT community is a common feature of other states’ attempts at legislating against LGBT populations (e.g. ‘Human Rights and Legal Implications’ 2013). Domestic contestation over the bill, alongside international attention and pressure directed at Uganda, meant that the AHB languished in the Ugandan Parliament until December 2013 when an inquorate parliament finally passed it. The following February, after some domestic political manoeuvres, President Museveni signed the bill into law. On 1 August 2014, however, the Constitutional Court of Uganda ruled that the AHA was invalid because the parliament had not been quorate when it passed the bill (Jjuuko 2015; Jjuuko and Tumwesige 2013; Nyanzi and Karamagi 2015; see also, Box Turtle Bulletin, n.d.; Erasing 76 Crimes, n.d.). Despite some postulation that the AHA may be reintroduced, it is more likely that Ugandan politicians and other actors will attempt to find alternative ways to continue criminalising Ugandan LGBT communities, including maintaining the legacy of British imperial law in the Ugandan Penal Code’s prohibitions on same-sex behaviour (Bariyo 2014; Burroway 2016; Sexual Minorities Uganda 2014; Walker 2016; Wu 2015). Political Utility of LGBT Discrimination Throughout the development of the AHB, it had been used by Ugandan political leaders to foster populist support and to distract from other domestic political issues. Since its introduction in 2009, there were long

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

71

periods during which there was little parliamentary action afforded to the AHB, and it appears to have been periodically revived in parliament as a distractionary measure to coincide with controversial political events (Makofane et al. 2014, pp. 187–188). For example, in 2011, the bill was revived shortly following ‘walk-to-work’ protests against the Ugandan Government over rising prices, in which opposition MPs were arrested and several protestors killed by security forces (Echwalu 2011; Makofane et al. 2014; Namiti 2011). The AHB was also periodically revived around controversial discussions about control and regulation of Ugandan oil production, linked to accusations of government corruption (Burroway 2012; Makofane et al. 2014; Olopade 2012). Reviving interest in the bill has also offered political utility for individual politicians, either to increase their profile and popular support, or to distract from accusations of political or financial corruption (Caplan-Bricker 2012). For example, Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, a proponent of the AHB, has in the past promised to ensure that it passed as a ‘Christmas gift’ to the Ugandan people at a time when she was speculated as being a potential successor to President Museveni (Caplan-Bricker 2012; Nyanzi and Karamagi 2015). Museveni himself has both distanced himself from the AHB and embraced it as and when it has been politically useful to do so. For example, whilst Museveni berated Kadaga and the inquorate parliament for passing the AHB, following a requested ‘Scientific Statement on Homosexuality’ from Uganda’s Ministry of Health, Museveni committed to signing the AHB into law at the ruling party’s caucus, which endorsed Museveni to run unopposed in the 2016 elections (Kasasira 2014; Mugerwa 2014; New Vision 2014; Throckmorton 2014). It should be noted that the political utility of LGBT discrimination is often tied to broader efforts to enforce state control over dissident elements of society and to entrench political power, reinforced by heteronationalist discourses. For example, preceding the passage of the AHB, Museveni had signed into law a Public Order Management Act (2013) and an Anti-Pornography Act (2014), which, Oloka-Onyango (2015) has suggested, taken together demonstrate the ‘growing impunity, autocracy and neglect of the Rule of Law’ of the Museveni Government (see also, Mwikya 2014; Okuda 2015). Such legislative developments were further reinforced by the introduction of a controversial NonGovernmental Organisations Act (2016) that aimed to regulate and tighten control of NGOs, in effect diminishing the ability of civil society to dissent to government positions or hold it to account on issues such as

72

M. FARMER

corruption or human rights abuses (Chapter Four Uganda 2016; Daily Monitor 2015; Human Rights Watch 2015; Mwesigwa 2015). Some Western commentators noted that the NGO bill could endanger the work of LGBT groups in Uganda, following the repeal of the AHA in 2014 (Duffy 2015; Lavers 2016a). Reducing the capacity of NGOs and civil society is not isolated to Uganda. There have been contemporary international trends whereby states have attempted to restrict civil society spaces, often couched in language of protecting the nation from corruption and the influences of ‘foreign’ or ‘imperial’ NGOs. Examples of states attempting to limit NGOs, civil society and human rights activism have included Ethiopia, Kenya, Russia, Egypt, Azerbaijan and Cambodia, amongst others (Amnesty International 2014; Chonghaile and Kweifio-Okai 2014; CIVICUS 2016; del Valle 2014; Dupuy et al. 2015; Kingsley 2014; Naren 2014; Tran 2009). These crackdowns on civil society often include state attempts to restrict organising and activism related to LGBT rights through a heteronationalist discourse that ties LGBT activism to the influence of ‘foreign’ NGOs, thereby attempting to delegitimise indigenous LGBT communities and movements (see also, Weiss 2013). These efforts can be identified in international trends where states have attempted to enact legislation that limits civil society by making it difficult for NGOs to function effectively. For example, there has been a trend towards implementing ‘propaganda laws’ that effectively restrict freedom of association and expression, particularly related to LGBT rights (Davis 2016). The Russian Duma law banning ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations’, and its apparent attempt to spread to neighbouring states is a clear example of this (Human Rights First 2016). These efforts exemplify Lang’s (2013) argument that states retain the power to regulate the limits of NGO activities and disincentivise advocacy and public engagement (pp. 97–99). Further to this, we can see the deployment of heteronationalist discourses in the ways in which some political and religious actors frame same-sex desire as a Western phenomenon, often articulating resistance to LGBT rights using anti-imperial sentiments. This is most evident in responses to Western criticism of LGBT discrimination, such as Western criticisms of the AHB and eventual AHA. For example, in response to threats to cut aid to Uganda following the enactment of the AHA, Simon Lokodo, Ugandan Minister for Ethics and Integrity, claimed that the West could keep its aid and that Uganda would rather preserve its culture and

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

73

morality (Pflanz 2014). The political utility of such discourses is obvious: simultaneously delegitimising indigenous LGBT communities (because homosexuality is something imported from the West) and appealing to populist anti-LGBT sentiments is politically useful (Lokodo got his ministerial position in part because of his anti-LGBT stance) (Pflanz 2014; Sadgrove et al. 2012). Other Ugandan politicians have made similar remarks, defending LGBT discrimination in terms of sovereignty and the defence of Uganda’s cultural morality (Mugerwa 2012). The deployment of such heteronationalist discourse, often in response to Western criticism and aid conditionality, is explored in more detail in Chapter 6. Influence of Transnational Networks The influence of the US Christian Right in Uganda has been widely noted, particularly the role that certain members of the US Christian Right played in influencing political homophobia in Uganda that fuelled the inception and implementation of the AHB (Burroway 2009; Kaoma 2009, 2012; Shartlet 2010). Losing political ground in the United States, where legislative progress seemed to be slowly marching in favour of sexual and gender minorities, members of the US Christian Right turned their attention to the Global South where they found willing recipients of their brand of homophobia. In March 2009, a three-day conference was held in Kampala, Uganda, on ‘Exposing the Homosexual Agenda’. The event was attended by Ugandan politicians and community leaders, including those who would go on to draft the AHB, as well as a number of prominent members of the US Christian Right, such as Scott Lively, who gave presentations on the ‘homosexual agenda’, a specifically conservative, homophobic, Western understanding of homosexuality (Burroway 2009; Gettleman 2010; Kaoma 2009/2010; The Guardian 2014; Throckmorton 2009). These US evangelicals contributed an understanding of same-sex desire that equated homosexuals with Nazism and paedophilia, providing Ugandan actors with a discourse that legitimised and confirmed their own homophobic attitudes, reinforcing the idea that homosexuals were dangerous and implicitly Western. This can be seen in video footage of a seminar given by Stephen Langa, director of the Family Life Network in Uganda, who attended the Kampala conference, in the ways in which he refers specifically to Lively’s teachings on homosexuality (Mother Jones 2014). Langa even refers specifically to writing by a ‘homosexual activist’ that

74

M. FARMER

supposedly outlines the ‘homosexual agenda’, a piece repeatedly cited by elements of the US Christian Right, even though the original was a 1987 satirical contribution to a gay community magazine (Mother Jones 2014; see Swift 1987). That such a specific element of the discourse of the US Christian Right was reproduced in formulating Ugandan discourse prior to the introduction of the AHB demonstrates the influence that particular members of the US Christian Right have exerted in Uganda, despite their attempts to deny any responsibility (The Economist 2010). Indeed, Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) attempted to sue Lively under the US Alien Tort Statute for his role in contributing to the increased persecution of LGBT people in Uganda (Broverman 2016; SMUG 2016). Although Lively’s contributions to homophobic discourses in Uganda were highlighted in the case, SMUG ultimately lost the case against Lively in US courts due to jurisdictional limitations (Ring 2018; SMUG 2017). The unfortunate conclusion to the legal action highlights the contemporary limits of transnational justice for Southern activists affected by the consequences of the US Christian Right’s global activities. In addition to US Christian evangelicals that have attempted to find audiences for their homophobic proselytising in Uganda, homophobic US preachers have also attempted to operate in other Sub-Saharan African states, gaining the attention of international LGBT activists. For example, in response to transnational LGBT campaigning, South Africa’s Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba refused US pastor Steven Anderson’s visa to travel to South Africa, because of Anderson’s homophobic hate speech (All Out 2016; BBC News 2016b). Following this, Anderson was the target of another petition to ban his entry into Botswana, where he intended to establish a branch of his ‘Faithful Word Baptist Church’ (Lavers 2016b; Igual 2016b). Although the petition to stop Anderson’s entry failed, Botswanan immigration officials deported Anderson following reports of hate speech and assault (BBC 2016c; Igual 2016c). It highlights the complexity of approaches to LGBT issues internationally that whilst Botswana deported Anderson for hate speech, less than two months later it led opposition in the UN General Assembly to the UNHRC appointment of a SOGI independent expert, as highlighted above (The Guardian 2016a). Malawi’s government has also blocked Anderson from establishing a church in Malawi because of his ‘hate preaching’ (DeBarros 2016). Although homosexuality is still illegal in both Botswana and Malawi, it is a positive development that these governments recognise the role that US pastors have had in fuelling hate and violence towards LGBT populations and have taken steps to limit this.

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

75

Homophobia, Homonationalism and Pinkwashing Modernity: Highlighting Contemporary Complexities As increasing attention has been given to the status of LGBT rights internationally and Western actors seek to articulate an understanding of LGBT issues in various international contexts, discourses have emerged to explain the homophobia that prohibits expected progress on LGBT rights. The problematic nature of simplistic narratives about homophobia internationally has been identified by several academics, particularly the ways in which Western understandings of homophobia are nationalised and racialised. Most commonly identified are the narratives of ‘Muslim homophobia’ or ‘African homophobia’ as problematic, distinct and framed in ways that highlight, unquestioningly, Western progress and modernity with regard to sexual and gender rights (Awondo et al. 2012; Gunkel 2013; Puar 2007; Rahman 2014; Rao 2014b). This ‘geopolitical mapping of homophobia’ that fails to account for the complex and heterogeneous motivations and expressions of homophobia (or various antagonisms and discriminations against sexual and gender minorities) in local contexts means that Western interventions are susceptible to reproducing Western conceptions of LGBT rights solutions, such as focusing on state legislation (Gunkel 2013, pp. 72–73; Puar 2007; Seckinelgin 2012, p. 542). There is a need for the careful examination and articulation of local conceptions and specificities of homophobia in different contexts if Western interventions are going to be useful and solidaristic to local LGBT and wider communities (Awondo et al. 2012; Epprecht 2013; Seckinelgin 2012). LGBT rights, in part through a geopolitical mapping of homophobia, have been used to emphasise the progress and modernity of Western states compared to other, non-Western states that have failed to ‘catch up’ to the homonormative standards of a pinkwashed modernity (Graff 2010, p. 586; Rahman 2014, pp. 279–280). ‘Pinkwashing’ here refers to the use of ‘ostensibly “progressive” policies around gay tolerance to hide and distract from practices of colonialism’ (AlQaisiya et al. 2016, p. 131). The progress towards realising LGBT rights is conceptualised as a journey that the West has already accomplished and must do its part to help along those states that lag behind. For example, regarding a policy of tying acceptance of LGBT rights to development aid, UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained that ‘I think these countries are all on

76

M. FARMER

a journey and it’s up to us to try and help them on that journey, and that’s exactly what we do’ (The Andrew Marr Show 2011; Gunkel 2013, p. 73). Rao (2014a) noted how, following the Indian Supreme Court decision in 2013 that found Section 377 was not unconstitutional (effectively recriminalising same-sex relations in India), various media supportive of LGBT rights suggested that India should look to the West, framing acceptance of LGBT equality as a marker of modernity already embodied by the West (p. 8). Both Abbas (2012, p. 18) and Ekine (2013) have noted ways in which LGBT rights, as conceptualised and articulated by the West, are often used as a barometer to distinguish between good, liberal states, and bad, uncivilised ones, often reinforcing the positional superiority of Western states in the international system. Thus, in some ways, LGBT rights have already been incorporated into the logics of a pinkwashed European modernity/coloniality, the Western way of enacting a politics of LGBT acceptance as the correct, aspirational one to which other states must progress towards. In Europe, sexual politics and LGBT rights have featured prominently in debates about multiculturalism and Islamophobia in European society, in which LGBT rights are often deployed in homonationalist terms to mark Muslims and ‘others’ as different and unable to embody European ‘values’ (Ayoub and Paternotte 2014; Butler 2008; Fassin 2010; Haritaworn et al. 2008; Mepschen et al. 2010). Sexual politics and LGBT rights are selectively deployed by political actors to mark particular people as non-citizens for their failure to accept or embody the values of the nation, whilst simultaneously denying full rights and equality to queer citizens that would threaten the heteronormativity of the nation. Drawing on France as an example, both Butler (2008) and Fassin (2010) have noted that the means by which the nation is defended against those who do not embody ‘our’ cultural norms only selectively draw upon the sexual politics they claim to defend, whilst restricting those elements of sexual politics that would threaten the nation from within. Immigration policies in both Germany and the Netherlands have been noted to question prospective immigrants on their attitudes to LGBT people and relationships as a means of ensuring that they adhere to the supposed accepted sexual values of the nation (Butler 2008; Fassin 2010, pp. 515– 518). Muslim immigrants in particular are assumed to pose a threat to the values of the nation, or otherwise to LGBT populations (Mepschen et al. 2010, p. 968). Such arguments feature as part of broader far-right,

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

77

anti-immigration politics, which deploy homonationalist fears of particular immigrants (mainly Muslims), whilst simultaneously engaging in a homophobic politics that seeks to discriminate against and restrict queer lives. This is evident in the 2016 US election campaign of Donald Trump, where he and Milo Yiannopoulos, a (formerly) popular figure in the ‘altright’ despite being gay himself, suggested that mass Muslim immigration to the United States would result in the suppression and murder of gay people, whilst Trump’s administration has since consistently reversed LGBT protections and introduced discriminatory policies whilst in power (Berg and Syed 2019; Duffy 2016a, b; Levin 2019; see also, Long 2015a; Rao 2010, pp. 181–183). In light of these complexities that appropriate LGBT issues for other political ends within the dynamics of international relations, LGBT communities and organisations engaged with LGBT issues internationally must navigate a clear articulation and realisation of their international strategies that avoid contributing to homonationalist tropes. Whilst operating with an awareness of the ways in which homophobic political actors derive political utility from LGBT discrimination, as noted in discussions about the UN and the Ugandan AHA above, NGOs should be cautious about conflating multiple, complex homophobias into problematically homogenous, geopolitical articulations of homophobia. NGOs should note that the ways in which they articulate their strategies to contest homophobia internationally do not present limited and exclusionary boundaries about what constitutes LGBT identities or forms of LGBT-discrimination (Bryant and Vidal-Ortiz 2008; Gunkel 2013, p. 72). There is also a need to be cautious about the ways in which queer politics is co-opted by actors for homonationalist discourse, such as when used in anti-immigration or anti-Muslim political strategies, and to ensure that NGO strategies challenge, rather than contribute to, such discourses, as well as European modernity/coloniality more broadly. Such strategies require intersectional approaches to understanding the ways in which LGBT issues intersect and share common struggles with, for example, race, gender and class. Whilst increased attention to LGBT rights in contemporary international relations has the potential to facilitate positive change to LGBT people globally, NGOs and other actors engaged in such global struggles should remain vigilant to the ways in which queer struggles are co-opted to oppressive political ends.

78

M. FARMER

References Abbas, H. (2012). Aid, Resistance and Queer Power. SPW Working Paper 7: The Global Context: Sexuality and Geopolitics, 16–19. http://www.sxpolitics. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spw-wp7-the-global-context-sexualityand-politics.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2019. All Out. (2016, July 18). South Africa: Don’t Let Anti-Gay Hate In. https:// go.allout.org/en/a/block-pastor-anderson/. Accessed 27 October 2019. AlQaisiya, W., Hilal, G., & Maikey, H. (2016). Dismantling the Image of the Palestinian Homosexual: Exploring the Role of alQaws. In S. Bakshi, S. Jivraj, & S. Posocco (Eds.), Decolonizing Sexualities: Transnational Perspectives, Critical Interventions (pp. 125–140). Oxford: Counterpress. Amnesty International. (2014, October 9). Lawfare to Destroy “Enemies Within”—Russian NGOs Tagged as “Foreign Agents.” https://www.amnesty. org/en/latest/news/2014/10/lawfare-destroy-enemies-within-russian-ngostagged-foreign-agents/. Accessed 23 October 2019. The Andrew Marr Show. (2011, October 30). Transcript Philip Hammond Interview. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/ 9627898.stm. Accessed 9 September 2019. The Anti Homosexuality Bill 2009 (Uganda). http://www.publiceye.org/pub lications/globalizing-the-culture-wars/pdf/uganda-bill-september-09.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2019. ARC International. (2008a, December 18). 2008 Joint Statement. http://arcinternational.net/global-advocacy/sogi-statements/2008-joint-statement/. Accessed 18 October 2019. ARC International. (2008b, December 18). Syria Statement: Response to SOGI Human Rights Statement, Read by Syria—18 Dec 2008. http://arc-intern ational.net/global-advocacy/sogi-statements/syrian-statement/. Accessed 18 October 2019. ARC International. (n.d.). SOGI Statements. http://arc-international.net/glo bal-advocacy/sogi-statements/. Accessed 18 October 2019. Awondo, P., Geschiere, P., & Reid, G. (2012). Homophobic Africa? Toward A More Nuanced View. African Studies Review, 55(3), 145–168. Ayoub, P., & Paternotte, D. (Eds.). (2014). LGBT Activism and the Making of Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bariyo, N. (2014, August, 13). Uganda’s Attorney General Won’t Appeal Ruling on Antigay Law. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/ articles/ugandas-attorney-general-wont-appeal-anti-gay-law-ruling-140794 6971. Accessed 19 October 2019. BBC News. (2016a, May 18). LGBT Groups Barred from Attending UN Aids Conference. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36325578. Accessed 18 October 2019.

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

79

BBC News. (2016b, September 13). South Africa Bars Anti-Gay US Pastor Steven Anderson. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-373 49683. Accessed 27 October 2019. BBC News. (2016c, September 20). Botswana to Deport Anti-Gay US Pastor Steven Anderson. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-374 18875. Accessed 27 October 2019. Berg, K., & Syed, M. (2019, November 22). Under Trump, LGBTQ Progress Is Being Reversed in Plain Sight. ProPublica. https://projects.propublica.org/ graphics/lgbtq-rights-rollback. Accessed 15 February 2020. Box Turtle Bulletin. (n.d.). Posts Tagged As: Uganda. http://www.boxturtlebul letin.com/tag/uganda. Accessed 19 October 2019. Broverman, N. (2016, January 5). On Trial for Crime Against Humanity, Homophobe Scott Lively Begs for Cash. Advocate. https://www.advocate. com/world/2016/1/05/trial-crime-against-humanity-homophobe-scott-liv ely-begs-cash. Accessed 25 October 2019. Bryant, K., & Vidal-Ortiz, S. (2008). Introduction to Retheorizing Homophobias. Sexualities, 11(4), 387–396. Burroway, J. (2009, December 15). Slouching Toward Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate. Box Turtle Bulletin. http://www.boxturtlebulletin. com/slouching-toward-kampala. Accessed 25 October 2019. Burroway, J. (2012, November 26). What Does Oil Have To Do With Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill? Box Turtle Bulletin. http://www.boxturtlebulletin. com/2012/11/26/51331. Accessed 23 October 2019. Burroway, J. (2016, August 9). Ugandan Government Minister Promises Program To “Rehabilitate the Members of LGBTI Community.” Box Turtle Bulletin. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2016/08/09/75273. Accessed 19 October 2019. Butler, J. (2008). Sexual Politics, Torture, and Secular Time. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(1), 1–23. Caplan-Bricker, N. (2012, December 5). Uganda Revives Its Favourite Distraction: Anti-Gay Legislation. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/ article/110791/uganda-revives-its-favorite-distraction-anti-gay-legislation. Accessed 23 October 2019. Carnie, L. (2016, July 26). International LGBTI Activists Assemble in Montevideo for Equal Rights Coalition launch. Human Rights Law Centre. https:// www.hrlc.org.au/bulletin-content/international-lgbti-activists-assemble-inmontevideo-for-equal-rights-coalition-launch. Accessed 18 October 2019. Carroll, A. (2016, May). State-Sponsored Homophobia 2016: A World Survey of Sexual Orientation Laws: Criminalisation, Protection and Recognition. Geneva: ILGA. https://ilga.org/downloads/02_ILGA_State_Spon sored_Homophobia_2016_ENG_WEB_150516.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2019.

80

M. FARMER

Chapter Four Uganda (2016). The Non-Governmental Organisations Act, 2016. https://chapterfouruganda.org/resources/acts-bills/non-governmental-org anisations-act-2016. Accessed 23 October 2019. Chonghaile, C. N., & Kweifio-Okai, C. (2014, December 17). Has Kenya’s NGO Crackdown Affected You? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. com/global-development/2014/dec/17/kenya-ngo-crackdown-terrorism-alshabaab. Accessed 23 October 2019. CIVICUS. (2016, October 26). Civil Society Reports Show Evidence of Shrinking Civic Space in Europe. https://www.civicus.org/index.php/media-resources/ news/2631-civil-society-reports-show-evidence-of-shrinking-civic-space-ineurope. Accessed 23 October 2019. Daily Monitor. (2015, November 27). Parliament Passes Controversial NGO Bill on Eve of Pope’s Arrival. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/ Parliament-passes-controversial-NGO-bill/688334-2974692-8n2co1/index. html. Accessed 23 October 2019. Davis, M. (2016). The Perfect Storm: The Closing Space for LGBT Civil Society in Kyrgyzstan, Indonesia, Kenya, and Hungary. New York: Global Philanthropy Project. https://globalphilanthropyproject.org/2016/04/22/perfec tstormreport/. Accessed 23 October 2019. DeBarros, L. (2016, October 27). Malawi Government Applauded for Also Blocking Anderson’s Hate Church. Mamba Online. https://www.mambao nline.com/2016/10/27/malawi-government-applauded-also-blocking-and ersons-hate-church/. Accessed 27 October 2019. Declaration of Montreal. (2006). http://www.declarationofmontreal.org/. Accessed 18 October 2019. de Vos, P. (2016, July 4). South Africa’s Great LGBTI Failure. Daily Maverick. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2016-07-04-southafricas-great-lgbti-failure/#.V5dj6I-cHIX. Accessed 19 October 2019. del Valle, M. (2014, August 15). Azerbaijan Detains Prominent Human Rights Activists in Fresh Crackdown. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. com/world/2014/aug/15/azerbaijan-detains-human-rights-activists-freshcrackdown. Accessed 23 October 2019. Duffy, N. (2015, November 27). Uganda Passes Terrifying New Law That Could Be Used to Shut Down All Pro-Gay Charities. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/27/uganda-passes-terrifyingnew-law-that-could-be-used-to-shut-down-all-pro-gay-charities/. Accessed 23 October 2019. Duffy, N. (2016a, June 13). Donald Trump Claims Clinton Victory Will Lead to Mass Murder of Gays. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/ 06/13/donald-trump-claims-clinton-victory-will-lead-to-mass-murder-ofgays/. Accessed 30 October 2019.

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

81

Duffy, N. (2016b, November 3). Trump Supporter Milo Yiannopoulos Burns Pride Flag in Vile Election ad. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/ 2016/11/03/trump-supporter-milo-yiannopoulos-burns-pride-flag-in-vileelection-ad/. Accessed 30 October 2019. Dupuy, K., Ron, J., & Prakash, A. (2015). Who Survived? Ethiopia’s Regulatory Crackdown on Foreign-Funded NGOs. Review of International Political Economy, 22(2), 419–456. Echwalu, E. (2011, April 19). Ugandan Media Censored Over Walk to Work Protests. Committee to Protect Journalists. https://cpj.org/blog/2011/ 04/ugandan-media-censored-over-walk-to-work-protests.php. Accessed 23 October 2019. Ekine, S. (2013). Contesting Narratives of Queer Africa. In S. Ekine & H. Abbas (Eds.), Queer African Reader (pp. 78–91). Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Ekine, S. (2016). Beyond Anti-LGBTI Legislation: Criminalization and the Denial of Citizenship. In S. Bakshi, S. Jivraj, & S. Posocco (Eds.), Decolonizing Sexualities: Transnational Perspectives, Critical Interventions (pp. 19– 31). Oxford: Counterpress. Epprecht, M. (2013). Sexuality and Social Justice in Africa. London: Zed Books. Erasing 76 Crimes. (n.d.). Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill. https://76crimes. com/tag/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill/. Accessed 19 October 2019. Fassin, É. (2010). National Identities and Transnational Intimacies: Sexual Democracy and the Politics of Immigration in Europe. Public Culture, 22(3), 507–529. Geen, J. (2011, March 15). South African Lesbians Campaign Against Corrective rape. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/15/south-africanlesbians-campaign-against-corrective-rape/. Accessed 18 October 2019. Gettleman, J. (2010, January 3). Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/ africa/04uganda.html. Accessed 25 October 2019. Graff, A. (2010). Looking at Pictures of Gay Men: Political Uses of Homophobia in Contemporary Poland. Public Culture, 22(3), 583–603. Gunkel, H. (2013). Some Reflections on Postcolonial Homophobia, Local Interventions, and LGBTI Solidarity Online: The Politics of Global Petitions. African Studies Review, 56(2), 67–81. Haritaworn, J., Tauqir, T., & Erdem, E. (2008). Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the “War on Terror”. In A. Kuntsman & E. Miyake (Eds.), Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality (pp. 71– 95). York: Raw Nerve Books. Human Rights and Legal Implications of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill, 2011 for Every Nigerian Citizen. (2013). In S. Ekine & H. Abbas (Eds.), Queer African Reader (pp. 328–342). Oxford: Pambazuka Press.

82

M. FARMER

Human Rights First. (2016, July 11). Spread of Russian-Style Propaganda Laws. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/spread-russian-style-pro paganda-laws. Accessed 23 October 2019. Human Rights Watch. (2015, April 20). Uganda: Bill Threatens Rights, Independent Group. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/20/uganda-billthreatens-rights-independent-groups. Accessed 23 October 2019. Human Rights Watch. (2016a, June 29). UN: Suspend Saudi Arabia from Human Rights Council. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/29/un-sus pend-saudi-arabia-human-rights-council. Accessed 19 October 2019. Human Rights Watch. (2016b, June 30). UN Makes History on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/30/un-makeshistory-sexual-orientation-gender-identity. Accessed 19 October 2019. Hutt, R. (2018, June 14). This Is the State of LGBTI Rights Around the World in 2018. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/ 06/lgbti-rights-around-the-world-in-2018/. Accessed 18 October 2019. Igual, R. (2016a, July 4). Watch South Africa Sell Out LGBTI People at the UN. Mamba Online. https://www.mambaonline.com/2016/07/04/watchsouth-africa-sell-lgbt-people-un/. Accessed 19 October 2019. Igual, R. (2016b, September 1). Now Botswana Fights Back Against Gay Hate Pastor Steven Anderson. Mamba Online. https://www.mambaonline.com/ 2016/09/01/now-botswana-fights-back-gay-hate-pastor-steven-anderson/. Accessed 27 October 2019. Igual, R. (2016c, September 20). Breaking: Yes! He’s Being Deported! Gay Hate Pastor Drama in Botswana. https://www.mambaonline.com/2016/09/ 20/yes-hes-deported-gay-hate-pastor-drama-botswana/. Accessed 27 October 2019. ILGA. (2016, June 27). 628 NGOs from 151 Countries Call for a SOGI Independent Expert at the UN . https://ilga.org/downloads/HRC32_Global_Call_S OGI_Independent_Expert.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2019. Jacobs, A. (2016, July 5). Brazil Is Confronting an Epidemic of Anti-Gay Violence. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/ world/americas/brazil-anti-gay-violence.html. Accessed 18 October 2019. Jjuuko, A. (Ed.) (2015, March). The Human Rights Advocate: Beyond Quorum: Why the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014 Was Unconstitutional. Kampala: Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum. https://hrapf.org/index. php/resources/human-rights-advocate-magazine/8-second-issue-of-thehuman-rights-advocate/file. Accessed 19 October 2019. Jjuuko, A., & Tumwesige, F. (2013, November). The Implications of the AntiHomosexuality Bill 2009 on Uganda’s Legal System. IDS Evidence Report 44. Brighton: IDS. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/id/10698/ ER44%20Final%20Online.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2019.

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

83

Kaoma, K. (2009). Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches, & Homophobia. Somerville, MA.: Political Research Associates. https://www.politicalresearch.org/2009/12/01/globalizing-culturewars. Accessed 13 September 2019. Kaoma, K. (2009/2010). The U.S. Christian Right and the Attack on Gays in Africa. Public Eye (Winter–Spring). http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/ v24n4/us-christian-right-attack-on-gays-in-africa.html. Accessed 25 October 2019. Kaoma, K. (2012). Colonizing African Values: How the U.S. Christian Right Is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa. Somerville, MA.: Political Research Associates. https://www.politicalresearch.org/2012/07/24/coloni zing-african-values. Accessed 25 October 2019. Kasasira, R. (2014, February 10). NRM Caucus Endorses Museveni for 2016. Daily Monitor. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/NRM-Caucusendorses-Museveni-for-2016/688334-2199276-318rb0/index.htm. Accessed 8 November 2016. Khan, G. H. (2016, July 6). The UN, Seem from Khayelitsha: Guest Post. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2016/07/06/the-un-seen-from-khayel itsha/. Accessed 19 October 2019. Kingsley, P. (2014, September 24). Egypt’s Human Rights Groups “Targeted” by Crackdown on Foreign Funding. The Guardian. https://www.thegua rdian.com/world/2014/sep/24/egypt-human-rights-crackdown-foreign-fun ding. Accessed 23 October 2019. Kollman, K., & Waites, M. (2009). The Global Politics of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Human Rights: An Introduction. Contemporary Politics, 15(1), 1–17. Lang, S. (2013). NGOs, Civil Society, and the Public Sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lavers, M. K. (2016a, March 14). Ugandan President Signs Controversial NGO Bill. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/03/14/ ugandan-president-signs-controversial-ngo-bill/. Accessed 23 October 2019. Lavers, M. K. (2016b, September 15). Petition Urges Botswana to Ban AntiLGBT U.S. Pastor. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/ 2016/09/15/petition-urges-botswana-ban-anti-lgbt-u-s-pastor/. Accessed 11 November 16. LeDoux, P. (2019, June 26). LGBT Rights 50 Years After Stonewall. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/26/lgbt-rig hts-50-years-after-stonewall. Accessed 18 October 2019. Levin, S. (2019, September 3). ‘A Critical Point in History’: How Trump’s Attack on LGBT Rights Is Escalating. The Guardian. https://www.thegua rdian.com/world/2019/sep/03/trump-attack-lgbt-rights-supreme-court. Accessed 15 February 2020.

84

M. FARMER

Long, S. (2015a, July 20). Gay Hanging in Iran: Atrocities and Impersonations. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2015/07/20/gay-hanging-iniran/. Accessed 4 October 2019. Long, S. (2015b, August 23). The UN Security Council Debates Gays and ISIS: Why This Is a Bad Idea. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2015/08/23/ the-un-security-council-terrible-idea/. Accessed 18 October 2019. Makofane, K., Beck, J., Lubensky, M., & Ayala, G. (2014). Homophobic Legislation and Its Impact on Human Security. African Security Review, 23(2), 186–195. Melber, H. (2016, July 21). LGBTI Vote at the UN Shows BATTLE for Human Rights Is Far from Won. Pambazuka News. https://www.pambazuka.org/gen der-minorities/lgbti-vote-un-shows-battle-human-rights-far-won. Accessed 19 October 2019. Mendos, L. R. (2019, March). State-Sponsored Homophobia 2019. Geneva: ILGA. https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2 019.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2019. Mepschen, P., Duyvendak, J. W., & Tonkens, E. H. (2010). Sexual Politics, Orientalism and Multicultural Citizenship in the Netherlands. Sociology, 44, 962–979. Mother Jones (2014, March 10). Stephen Langa, director of the Family Life Network. YouTube [video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhRXBN 8llPU. Accessed 25 October 2019. Mugerwa, Y. (2012, October 25). Kadaga, Canadian Minister in Gay Row. Daily Monitor. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Kadaga–Can adian-minister-in-gay-row/688334-1594430-t0reff/index.html. Accessed 25 October 2019. Mugerwa, Y. (2014, January 17). Museveni Blocks Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Daily Monitor. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Museveni-blo cks-Anti-Homosexuality-Bill/688334-2148760-lq03yn/index.html. Accessed 23 October 2019. Mwesigwa, A. (2015, June 24). Uganda: NGO Bill Aims to Muzzle Civil Society, Say Activists. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment/2015/jun/24/uganda-ngo-bill-aims-muzzle-civil-society-sayactivists. Accessed 23 October 2019. Mwikya, K. (2014). Unnatural and Un-African: Contesting Queer-Phobia by Africa’s Political Leadership. Feminist Africa, 19, 98–105. Namiti, M. (2011, April 28). Uganda Walk-to-Work Protests Kick Up Dust. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/04/201142 831330647345.html. Accessed 23 October 2019. Naren, K. (2014, November 19). UN Envoy, NGOs Rebuke Gov’t Over Recent Spate of Arrests. The Cambodia Daily. https://english.cambodiadaily.com/

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

85

news/un-envoy-ngos-rebuke%e2%80%88govt%e2%80%88over-recent-spateof-arrests-72621/. Accessed 23 October 2019. Nichols, M. (2015, August 13). U.N. Security Council to Meet on Islamic State Gay Attacks. Reuters. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisisislamic-state-gay-idUKKCN0QI26I20150813. Accessed 18 October. Nyanzi, S., & Karamagi, A. (2015). The Socio-Political Dynamics of the antiHomosexuality Legislation in Uganda. Agenda, 29(1), 24–38. Okafor, U. (2014, July 7). How The International Community Helps And Hurts The LGBT Rights Movement In Nigeria. The Huffington Post. https:// www.huffpost.com/entry/how-the-international-com_b_5559559. Accessed 18 October 2019. Okuda, I. (2015, July 14). Public Order Management Act: Bad Law or Poor Enforcement? Daily Monitor. https://www.monitor.co.ug/SpecialReports/ Public-Order-Management-Act-Bad-law-or-poor-enforcement-/688342-278 7698-seic5jz/index.html. Accessed 8 November 2016. Oloka-Onyango, J. (2015). Of Mice and Farmer’s Wives: Unveiling The Broader Picture Behind Recent Legislation in Uganda. In Battling Over Human Rights: Twenty Essays on Law, Politics and Governance (pp. 473–482). Oxford: African Books Collective. Olopade, D. (2012, February 22). Gay Bashing, a Government Diversion. The New York Times. https://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/gay-bas hing-in-uganda-is-a-diversion-from-government-malfeasance/. Accessed 23 October 2019. Pflanz, M. (2014, February 28). Keep Your Gays and Keep Your Aid, Uganda Tells the West. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ews/africaandindianocean/uganda/10668278/Keep-your-gays-and-keepyour-aid-Uganda-tells-the-West.html. Accessed 10 September 2019. Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press. Rahman, M. (2014). Queer Rights and the Triangulation of Western Exceptionalism. Journal of Human Rights, 13, 247–289. Rao, R. (2010). Third World Protest: Between Home and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rao, R. (2014a). Queer Questions. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16(2), 199–217. Rao, R. (2014b). The Locations of Homophobia. London Review of International Law, 2(2), 169–199. Reid, G. (2016, January 7). Equality to Brutality: Global Trends in LGBT Rights. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/ equality-brutality-global-trends-lgbt-rights. Accessed 18 October 2019. Ring, T. (2018, August 16). Homophobe Scott Lively Makes Shaky Claim of Win in Uganda Suit. Advocate. https://www.advocate.com/world/2018/8/

86

M. FARMER

16/homophobe-scott-lively-makes-shaky-claim-win-uganda-suit. Accessed 25 October 2019. Sadgrove, J., Vanderbeck, R. M., Anderson, J., & Ward, K. (2012). Morality Plays and Money Matters: Towards a Situated Understanding of the Politics of Homosexuality in Uganda. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 50(1), 103–129. Seckinelgin, H. (2012). Global Civil Society as Shepherd: Global Sexualities and the Limits of Solidarity from a Distance. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 536– 555. Sengupta, S. (2016, May 18). U.N. AIDS Meeting Faces Dispute Over 22 Barred Groups. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/world/ aids-un-gay-transgender.html. Accessed 18 October 2019. Sexual Minorities Uganda. (2014, May 9). From Torment to Tyranny: Enhanced Persecution in Uganda Following the Passage of the AntiHomosexuality Act 2014, 20 December 2013–1 May 2014. Kampala, Uganda. https://sexualminoritiesuganda.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/ 11/SMUG-From-Torment-to-Tyranny.pdf. Accessed 1 November 2019. Sexual Minorities Uganda. (2016, November 9). Sexual Minorities Uganda Argues in Federal Court in Case Against U.S. Anti-Gay Extremist Scott Lively for His Role in LGBTI Persecution in Uganda. https://sexualminoritiesug anda.com/sexual-minorities-uganda-argues-in-federal-court-in-caseagainst-us-anti-gay-extremist-scott-lively-for-his-role-in-lgbti-persecution-in-uganda/. Accessed 25 October 2019. Sexual Minorities Uganda. (2017, June 12). SMUG Statement on SMUG vs Lively Ruling in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. https://sexualmin oritiesuganda.com/smug-statement-on-the-smug-vs-lively-case-in-the-u-s-dis trict-court-of-massachusetts/. Accessed 25 October 2019. Sexual Rights Initiative. (2016, June 7). SRI Calls for Political and Legal Framing That Recognizes Full Range of Sexual Rights. https://www.sexual rightsinitiative.com/news/2016-jun/sri-calls-political-and-legal-framing-rec ognizes-full-range-sexual-rights. Accessed 19 October 2019. Schulz, L. (2016, October 24). Saudi Uses Role on UN Human Rights Council to Cover Up Its Abuses. Middle East Eye. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opi nion/saudi-uses-role-un-human-rights-council-cover-its-abuses. Accessed 19 October 2019. Shartlet, J. (2010). Straight Man’s Burden: The American roots of Uganda’s Anti-Gay Persecutions. Harper’s Magazine, 321(1924), 36–48. Sutherland, C. (2016). Progressive Prudes: A Survey of Attitudes Towards Homosexuality & Gender Non-conformity in South Africa. The Other Foundation. http://theotherfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Pro gPrudes_Report_d5.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2019.

4

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION …

87

Swift, M. (1987, February). Gay Revolutionary. Gay Community News, 15– 21. Available at: Internet History Sourcebooks Project, Fordham University. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/swift1.asp. Accessed 25 October 2019. Tamale, S. (2007). Out of the Closet: Unveiling Sexuality Discourses in Uganda. In C. M. Cole, T. Manuh, & S. F. Miescher (Eds.), Africa After Gender? (pp. 17–29). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Tamale, S. (2010, January 14). Human Rights Impact Assessment of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Pambazuka News. https://www.pambazuka.org/ governance/human-rights-impact-assessment-uganda%E2%80%99s-anti-hom osexuality-bill. Accessed 19 October 2019. The Economist. (2010, March 11). Anti-imperialism as a Hand-Washing Strategy. https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/ 03/america_and_ugandan_homophobia. Accessed 25 October. The Guardian. (2014, February 25). How US Evangelical Missionaries Wage War on Gay People in Uganda—Video. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ video/2014/feb/25/us-evangelical-missionaries-gays-uganda-video. Accessed 25 October 2019. The Guardian. (2016a, November 7). African Nations Attempt to Suspend UN’s LGBT Rights Monitor. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ 2016/nov/07/african-nations-attempt-suspend-un-united-nations-lgbt-rig hts-monitor-vitit-muntarbhorn. Accessed 19 October 2019. The Guardian. (2016b, November 12). African States Fail to Block United Nations’ LGBT Rights Protector. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ 2016/nov/21/african-states-fail-block-united-nations-lgbt-rights-protector. Accessed 19 October 2019. The Yogyakarta Principles. (2006). http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/. Accessed 18 October 2019. Throckmorton, W. (2009, November 23). College of Prayer, the Ugandan Parliament and the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. https://www.wthrockmorton. com/2009/11/23/college-of-prayer-the-ugandan-parliament-and-the-antihomosexuality-bill/. Accessed 25 October 2019. Throckmorton, W. (2014, February 15). Report on Homosexuality by Uganda’s Ministry of Health. https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2014/02/15/rep ort-on-homosexuality-by-ugandas-ministry-of-health/. Accessed 23 October 2019. Tran, M. (2009, January 26). Ethiopia Curb on Charities Alarms Human Rights Activists. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/ 26/ethiopia-charities-human-rights. Accessed 23 October 2019. UN Human Rights Council. (2011a, July 14). Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. A/HRC/RES/17/19. https://ap.ohchr.org/doc uments/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/17/19. Accessed 18 October 2019.

88

M. FARMER

UN Human Rights Council. (2011b, November 17). Discriminatory Laws and Practices and Acts of Violence Against Individuals Based on Their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. A/HRC/19/41. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Iss ues/Discrimination/A.HRC.19.41_English.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2019. UN Human Rights Council. (2014, October 2). Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. A/HRC/RES/27/32. https://ap.ohchr.org/doc uments/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/27/32. Accessed 18 October 2019. UN Human Rights Council. (2016, July 15). Protection Against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. A/HRC/RES/32/2. https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?sym bol=A/HRC/RES/32/2. Accessed 19 October 2019. UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Council Establishes Mandate on Protection Against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/ Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20220&LangID=E. Accessed 5 September 2019. Walker, P. (2016, November 3). Gay Men “Tortured and Sodomised” by Police in Uganda to “Prove They Are Gay.” The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/uganda-gay-mentortured-police-sodomised-beaten-a7395856.html. Accessed 19 October 2019. Weiss, M. L. (2013). Prejudice Before Pride: Rise of an Anticipatory Countermovement. In M. L. Weiss & M. J. Bosia (Eds.), Global Homophobia: States, Movements, and the Politics of Oppression (pp. 149–173). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Wesley, T. (2012). Classifying “Corrective” Rape as Hate Crime: A Call for Justice. BUWA! A Journal on African Women’s Experiences. http://www. osisa.org/sites/default/files/75-81.pdf. Accessed 4 November 2016. Wu, J. (2015, March 1). Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” Bill Is Back. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/ugandas-kill-the-gays-billis-back. Accessed 19 October 2019.

CHAPTER 5

Analysing the UK-Based NGO Landscape Engaged in Transnational LGBT Activism

Within a context of increased international attention to LGBT rights issues, as well as the growing acceptance of LGBT rights within the UK, a number of UK-based organisations emerged with an interest in supporting the improvement of LGBT human rights worldwide. In addition to high profile international developments, such as the Ugandan AHB, and imprisonment of a Malawian couple for ‘sodomy and indecency’ in 2010, domestic improvements in social attitudes towards homosexuality in the UK, as well as the implementation of the 2010 Equality Act, appear to have catalysed the desire for NGOs to engage in transnational LGBT activism (Hilton et al. 2012, p. 70; Mapondera and Smith 2010; Park et al. 2013). With progress on LGBT issues at home, Rao (2010) has also suggested that an ‘existential crisis’ drove British and European activists towards engagement with international LGBT issues (pp. 184–185). In identifying challenges to LGBT people internationally, entrepreneurial activists in the UK were able to make use of domestic and international ‘political opportunity structures’, mobilising resources and forging common connections, contributing to the growth and strengthening of transnational advocacy networks around LGBT issues globally (Ahmed and Potter 2006, p. 26; Keck and Sikkink 1998, pp. 7–8, 132; Kitschelt 1986; Tarrow 1996, 1998; see also, Kollman and Waites 2011). More broadly, Lang (2013) has noted that greater clarity offered by the UK Charities Commission in 2008 regarding legal rules for NGOs may © The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_5

89

90

M. FARMER

have helped give NGOs a ‘stronger, more confident voice’ in navigating political activity in the UK (pp. 106–107; see also, Dunn 2008). Although there were no specific legal changes, this apparent strengthening of the UK NGO sector may have contributed to the growth of NGOs interested in transnational LGBT rights activism in the following decade. From 2011, new NGOs emerged in the UK with a commitment to transnational LGBT activism, and existing NGOs adopted revised strategies to increase their international engagements. The simultaneous emergence of these NGOs within the UK presents an opportunity to map the contemporary landscape of a new transnational LGBT politics in the UK (Waites 2015). This chapter introduces a range of UK-based NGOs that engage in transnational LGBT activism, noting the origins of each organisation and their main aims within the space. Before exploring the range of NGO strategies in more detail, the issue of funding is examined to contextualise how disparate access to resources shapes opportunities and challenges for NGOs in the UK. NGO strategies are then explored thematically, noting the ways in which UK-based NGOs favour particular methods of activism, whilst noting commonality in the UK space, such as shared commitments to working with local actors. Finally, the chapter concludes with an assessment of the nature of cooperation and coherency amongst UK-based strategic engagements in transnational LGBT activism. By examining NGO responses to developments in Brunei in 2014 and 2019, the chapter notes that whilst there is a degree of cooperation and coherency in the UK space, there remains scope for improvements in how UK-based NGOs actualise nuanced commitments to working with Southern activists.

Introducing UK-Based NGOs Engaged in Transnational LGBT Activism This section will outline the origins and nature of the main UK-based organisations examined in this book. This will give an indication of the range of UK-based NGOs operating with concern for transnational LGBT rights and will allow for a comparative analysis of the strategies employed by NGOs later in this chapter. The NGOs are listed alphabetically. This is not, however, intended to be a comprehensive list of all NGOs that operate in the UK with some engagement in transnational LGBT activism, but does attempt to highlight those UK-based NGOs whose main interests are oriented towards transnational LGBT activism.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

91

African Rainbow Family African Rainbow Family (ARF) is a diaspora-led registered charity with a central aim of supporting LGBTIQ people of African heritage, including more broadly LGBTIQ people within wider Black and minority ethnic communities (ARF, n.d.). ARF was founded in 2014 in response to the increased persecution of sexual and gender minorities across a number of African states at the time (ARF, n.d.). The organisation was founded by Aderonke Apata, a Nigerian lesbian whose case to seek asylum in the UK became well-publicised after it was rejected, in part because of questions raised about her credibility as a lesbian (Ashton 2017; Blair 2015). Whilst Apata was eventually granted asylum in 2017, her case contributed to highlighting some of the difficulties that LGBT people seeking asylum face within the UK’s asylum system, from issues proving credibility to conditions within detention centres (Ashton 2017; Blair 2015). A central focus for ARF is supporting LGBTIQ diaspora communities and LGBTIQ people seeking asylum in the UK, although it also engages in campaigning on global LGBTIQ issues. ARF argues its members are ‘experts by experience’, highlighting that LGBT diaspora are in the best position to understand their unique experiences and therefore are ‘able to lead on how to be supported’ (ARF, n.d.). ARF has expanded since 2014 into a ‘national network of over 250 people’, operating in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds. Human Dignity Trust Human Dignity Trust (HDT) is a registered charity that describes itself as ‘working globally to use strategic litigation to defend the human rights of LGBT people’ (HDT, n.d.-c). The charity appeals to the principles of human dignity inherent in international human rights law, including the implications of dignity for identity (HDT, n.d.-d). The main focus of the charity is to provide free, technical legal expertise to local activists to support litigation cases against governments that have laws that criminalise homosexuality. Jonathan Cooper, former Chief Executive of HDT, noted that: to understand the Human Dignity Trust is to understand our legal panel, because they are made up of the world’s largest, greatest law firms. […] They act for us pro bono […] we’ve been able to do all of that work,

92

M. FARMER

involve ourselves so intimately and in such a detailed way in those cases because our legal panel is there. (Cooper 2015)

Thus, HDT offers local activists, to the extent that they seek it, free, technical legal expertise to support litigation cases against their government, which Cooper (2015) described as effectively ‘levelling the playing field’ in cases that would otherwise be too costly and resource-demanding for local activists to fight alone. HDT also provides support for governments seeking to reform LGBT-discriminatory legislation and co-founded the Equality and Justice Alliance as part of this work (HDT, n.d.-b). HDT formed in 2011 during a general surge of interest in international LGBT persecution following the introduction of the Ugandan AHB, something that is acknowledged by the Trust: ‘We are, in effect, a response to what was going on in Uganda back then when the AntiHomosexuality Bill was floating around’ (Cooper 2015). The first chair of the organisation, drafted an advice for the Commonwealth Lawyers Association on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and its compatibility with Ugandan law and with Uganda’s international human rights treaty obligations. And, not unsurprisingly, he found it violated all of them. But as a result of going through that process he was surprised how many jurisdictions criminalise in breach of their international human rights treaty obligations. And so he thought, if there was any value, an organisation could be set up that just helped facilitate litigation, which is, in a sense, all we do. (Cooper 2015)

Cooper (2015) has noted, however, that HDT comes from a tradition of organisations that support local activists with test litigation, such as The Death Penalty Project, Reprieve, or the Media Legal Defence Initiative, rather than from a tradition of promoting LGBT rights. Although HDT emerged around the same time as many of the other UK-based NGOs considered in this chapter, Cooper (2015) suggested that, given the tradition and success of other litigation-focused UK-based NGOs, ‘I think we would have happened anyway even if there hadn’t been this flowering of concern about what’s going on to gay and lesbian people around the world’. Even so, HDT have emerged to form a core part of the UK-based NGO movement concerned with transnational LGBT activism. Whilst HDT’s legal panel offers its services pro bono, as a charity HDT is financially supported by donations from a number of notable charitable

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

93

trusts and foundations, alongside donations from individuals (HDT, n.d.-a). En route to receiving charitable status, the Charity Commission twice denied HDT’s application on technical grounds that HDT’s work was too ‘political’ and beyond the definition of ‘public benefit’ under charity law, though the Charity Tribunal eventually awarded HDT charitable status in June 2014 after a successful appeal (Bowcott and Wolfe-Robinson 2013; The Human Dignity Trust v. The Charity Commission 2014; Shawcross 2014). Justice for Gay Africans Society Justice for Gay Africans Society (JfGA) describes itself as ‘a UK-Based collaborative of activists, artists, academics, politicians and others designed to draw on the leadership and insight of Black people in the UK to affect positive change for Black LGBTI communities in Africa, Europe and the Commonwealth’ (JfGA, n.d.-b). Founded in 2009, the group functions as a voluntary collective of influential individuals that aims to end discrimination against Black LGBTI communities, by engaging in ‘educational, campaigning and research projects that help articulate the challenges facing LGBTI people of African descent, as well as potential solutions’ (JfGA, n.d.-a). A motivating factor that contributed to the formation of the group was to highlight the voices of Black LGBTI people, voices that were otherwise rarely heard in either LGBTI or Black communities, and attempt to dispel a lot of myths that surrounded Black LGBTI experiences (Onwuchekwa 2010, 2014). JfGA has a greater focus on engagement within Black communities in the UK, rather than a focus on international activism as such, but hopes that engagement with UK-based communities will help create potential for positive international exchanges, given the cultural and familial connections that many in the Black community have with their ‘home country’ (Onwuchekwa 2014). In addition, JfGA has supported campaigns at an international level. For example, members of the group have contributed critiques and lobbying efforts on the lack of anti-discrimination protections for LGBT communities within Commonwealth governance structures, as well as the absence of such protections in the wider Commonwealth community of member states (e.g. Roberts 2013).

94

M. FARMER

Kaleidoscope Trust Kaleidoscope Trust (hereafter ‘Kaleidoscope’) is a registered charity that seeks to promote the human rights of LGBT people globally. Founded in 2011, during the general escalation of interest in international LGBT rights at the time, Kaleidoscope has since become a prominent NGO in the UK space concerned with international LGBT rights. Created by Lance Price, formerly a part of Tony Blair’s media team, Kaleidoscope has included a notable range of individuals on its board of Trustees, including Simon Fanshawe, a co-founder of Stonewall, Rev. Jide Macaulay, founder of the House of Rainbow Fellowship and member of JfGA, as well as John Bercow, former Speaker of the House of Commons, as President of the Trust (Kaleidoscope, n.d.-d). Price has also noted that campaigner Peter Tatchell was supportive in setting up the Trust, whilst Kaleidoscope appeared to receive support from politicians and some of the wider, UKbased LGBT community at its launch, though with perhaps less than ideal engagement with global LGBT movements (Geen 2011; Waites 2017). Attendances at Kaleidoscope’s annual gala dinners suggests that UK-based support continues, with the presence of celebrity LGBT individuals arguably raising the profile of Kaleidoscope’s work, at least in the UK (e.g. Williams 2016). Despite these connections, Waites (2015) has noted that the initial leadership of Kaleidoscope emerged from the ‘the circles of political elites with related contacts, suggesting a mainstream orientation’ (p. 79; see also, Waites 2017, pp. 648–650). As Kaleidoscope has become a central actor in UK-based transnational LGBT activism, it has certainly maintained its ‘mainstream orientation’ in its approach to international activism. Kaleidoscope, focusing on supporting international LGBT rights, engages in a number of different strategies both within the UK and globally. It has worked with LGBT activists internationally to support media and communications capacity building in countries, conducted with an ethos of listening to and communicating the experiences of LGBT communities ‘in partnership with organisations on the ground’ (Assistant Director 2014). Kaleidoscope also engages in advocacy work with political actors in the UK and internationally, particularly within the Commonwealth, maintaining a Parliamentary Friends group and briefing policymakers on international LGBT rights issues

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

95

(Kaleidoscope, n.d.-a). Lobbying activities also involve engagements with, for example, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development and the Commonwealth Secretariat, with lobbying activities conducted ‘with consultation with actors on the ground’ (Assistant Director 2014). Aside from these strategies, Kaleidoscope has also published a number of reports, including an examination of the status of LGBTI rights in the Commonwealth (Speaking Out 2013, 2015). Kaleidoscope has also been instrumental in establishing The Commonwealth Equality Network, discussed in Chapter 7 (Waites 2017). Out & Proud African LGBTI Out & Proud African LGBTI (OPAL), formerly known as Out and Proud Diamond Group (OPDG), was initially founded in 2011 by Ugandan human rights activists Abbey Kiwanuka and Edwin Sesange, though the group was largely inactive under the operations of other NGOs, until 2013 when it became an active organisation in its own right with the establishment of a steering committee. OPAL gained charitable status in 2016, marking the change of the official name of the organisation to Out & Proud African LGBTI (Stewart 2016). OPAL now clearly asserts its place in the UK LGBT space: ‘Previously operating in obscurity under the umbrella of other organisations, [OPAL] now operates in co-ordination with partners with which it operates on equal terms’ (OPAL, n.d.-b). OPAL has worked with other LGBT activist organisations in the UK, including Rainbow International and the Peter Tatchell Foundation, both introduced below. OPAL has emerged as a prominent diaspora-led group within UK-based transnational LGBT activism spaces, offering support to African LGBTI communities in the UK and LGBTI people seeking asylum. OPAL also holds regular meetings for members and claims an active membership that participates in transnational strategies, including lobbying and protest action, sometimes in coordination with other UKbased groups. The group posts on its Facebook page calling for support for members going through the asylum process and publishes success stories of members who successfully acquire refugee status (OPAL, n.d.-a).

96

M. FARMER

Peter Tatchell Foundation The Peter Tatchell Foundation (PTF) was established in 2011, as Peter Tatchell described, ‘by a group of friends and supporters who wanted to help by giving me a more formal organisational structure for the campaigning work that I do’ (Tatchell 2014). Tatchell has engaged in LGBT and human rights campaigning for a number of decades, having been involved in other UK-based organisations, such as the queer rights direct action group OutRage! (Tatchell was a founding member of OutRage!). The PTF is involved in a range of activism strategies, including campaigning, lobbying and protest actions on issues of global LGBT rights, and has worked with other UK-based NGOs, including Kaleidoscope, HDT and OPAL (Tatchell 2014). Tatchell and the PTF highlight that the focus of their work is on the promotion and protection of human rights, rather than specifically LGBT rights, though the organisation is a prominent actor in the UK LGBT space, and Tatchell himself is perhaps best well known for his campaigning on LGBT issues (PTF, n.d.-a; Tatchell 2014; see also, Hilton et al. 2012, p. 277). Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund (hereafter ‘Rainbow International’) was founded in 2013, with the purpose to promote LGBT rights and support ‘local activists with grants and project funding to further equality and opportunities for LGBT people in the most disadvantaged communities and hostile regions for LGBT people across the world’ (Rainbow International, n.d.-c). Whilst it was first officially launched in December 2013, Rainbow International did not begin to accept grant applications until 2014 after a period of fundraising to establish the organisation’s funding capabilities (Penny 2014; Stewart 2013). Run voluntarily, Rainbow International has organised several fundraising events to help build up the fund from which it can then issue grants to support the efforts of grassroots LGBT groups and activists internationally. Rainbow International has issued grants to activists and organisations in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon and Nigeria, amongst others (e.g. Rainbow International, n.d.-b). Rainbow International emerged out of Rail, Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) support for protest and demonstration actions on international LGBT issues, largely in response to escalating interest in the effects

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

97

of anti-homosexuality legislation in countries such as Uganda, coordinating demonstration action with OPAL and PTF (Penny 2014; Worker’s Liberty 2013). Paul Penny, co-founder and chair of Rainbow International, was the London Transport LGBT Officer within the RMT, and has argued that it is important to recognise the influence of socialist and trade union politics on the ethos of solidarity that is carried through Rainbow International’s work (Penny 2014). Since the launch of Rainbow International, the RMT has affiliated with the organisation, highlighting continued union support for LGBT activism, giving Rainbow International increased credibility as a new organisation at the time, as well as providing a source of funding to enable Rainbow International to carry out its objectives (Cash 2014; Penny 2014). Rainbow International also encourage affiliation of trade unions through its website as a means of supporting the organisation (Rainbow International, n.d.-a). Stonewall Stonewall was founded in 1989 by a group of activists in response to Section 28 of the Local Government Act, continuing campaigning and lobbying on a range of issues for equality of gay and lesbian people in the UK, gaining charitable status in 2003 (Stonewall 2015a; see also, Hilton et al. 2012, p. 230; Kollman and Waites 2011). Stonewall has a comparatively longer history as an established NGO in the UK, which likely has some influence on its positionality in the UK LGBT space, particularly in terms of its visibility, resources and location, compared to some other organisations considered here that are run by small, voluntary teams. Nevertheless, as with most other NGOs considered here, Stonewall has only engaged in international work more recently. Starting in 2012, Stonewall has engaged in a range of strategies to support LGBT activism internationally, including offering a ‘Campaign Development Programme’ to international LGBT activists on delivering effective campaigns, as well as hosting tailored training sessions and ‘Learning Visits’ (Stonewall, n.d.-c). Stonewall is also involved in international advocacy and campaigns, engaging with the UK Government and United Nations on LGBT issues, including contributing to the Universal Periodic Review and UNHRC (Stonewall, n.d.-a). Stonewall has also published a number of reports and resources relevant to international LGBT activism (Stonewall, n.d.-b; e.g. Jacobs 2018; Khambay and Dorey 2018; O’Connor 2016).

98

M. FARMER

UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group The UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) was founded in 1993 to campaign for equality in immigration law concerning same-sex couples, which was eventually secured under the New Labour Government in 1997 (Dillane 2015). Following legal challenges culminating in a House of Lords decision in 1999, and the implementation of the Human Rights Act in 2000, LGBT people were finally recognised as falling under the Refugee Convention, and in 2003 UKLGIG turned its focus to supporting LGBT people seeking asylum in the UK (de Jong 2003, pp. 4–20; Dillane 2015). UKLGIG continues to provide information and support to same-sex couples going through immigration processes, though the bulk of its work now concerns working with LGBT people seeking asylum in the UK (Dillane 2015). UKLGIG does not provide legal services, as former Executive Director of UKLGIG, Paul Dillane (2015) explained, We’re not legal providers. We don’t represent our clients. What we do is facilitate access to legal advice through the meetings that we organise. We have a network of volunteer pro bono lawyers that work with us. So every month we have a legal meeting where between 80, 100, sometimes 120 people of very different nationalities will come and seek advice and information from our lawyers.

In addition to facilitating access to lawyers and legal advice, UKLGIG organises events, meetings and support groups to help LGBT people with the non-legal challenges that they may face whilst going through the asylum process, such as loneliness and isolation (Dillane 2015). Generally, mainstream asylum-seeker-supporting organisations do not have the experience to effectively cater to the specific needs of LGBT asylum -seekers, so demand for UKLGIG’s services is high (Dillane 2015). In addition to the monthly meetings that it organises in London and Birmingham, UKLGIG has detailed information on the asylum process and available support on its website (UKLGIG, n.d.-a). UKLGIG is also involved in campaigning and advocacy work on LGBT asylum issues and has published reports reviewing how the UK asylum system handles LGBT asylum claims (Dillane 2015; UKLGIG, n.d.-b; e.g. Asanovic 2018; Gray 2010, Yoshida 2013).

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

99

Comparative Funding Issues for NGOs This section examines funding issues for UK-based NGOs that engage in transnational LGBT activism to contextualise how the material resources available contribute to shaping the nature, capacity and limitations of NGOs as they participate in activism spaces. NGOs rely on a range of sources of income, such as individual donations, fundraising events, or institutional and philanthropic grants. For most NGOs, availability of funding presents limitations on the amount or type of work that they are able to do, particularly with regards to global reach (Ahmed and Potter 2006, p. 29). The disparity between UK-based NGOs’ capacity for action is highlighted in the limited resources available to them. A common experience for UK-based NGOs is a reliance on donations and fundraising, rather than receiving public funds. The Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope described the variety of funding sources that support its work: We’re entirely funded by donations. And donations drawn from the usual pots of money that sector organisations get their money from, so, direct donations, small donations, but also institutional donations. Our project work has been largely funded by institutional funders.

This reliance on multi-level donations is a common experience amongst NGOs, and so institutional grants provide important sources of funding. For example, the Sigrid Rausing Trust has issued grants to HDT, Stonewall and UKLGIG (Sigrid Rausing Trust, n.d.-a). Whilst institutional grants offer significant financial support to NGOs, they can be restricted to use for certain projects or objectives, whereas charitable donations, as unrestricted funds, can cover organisational costs not covered by grant funding. Invitations to donate and fundraise for NGOs are common on organisation websites, whilst reiterating the importance of donations to support organisational activities and strategies. Income from donations can differ remarkably between NGOs. For example, Stonewall received £1,692,019 in income from ‘donations and legacies’ for its 2018 financial year, whereas the PTF received £287,910 during approximately the same period (PTF 2019a, p. 16; Stonewall Equality Limited 2019, p. 20). It is worth noting the disparity in finances between UK-based NGOs given the consequent impact on NGOs’ capacity to engage in multiple strategies of transnational LGBT activism.

100

M. FARMER

The size of an organisation and the funding available are a commonly recognised limitation amongst NGOs in the UK space, as it prohibits participation and engagement in some international activism strategies (Dillane 2015; Hanson 2015; Penny 2014). For example, Tatchell (2014) has noted the limitations of size and funding on the PTF: ‘So, obviously we’re very small, so there’s a very limited number of campaigns that we can take on’. Similarly, whilst JfGA is keen to maintain the voluntary structure of the organisation, the dependence on members volunteering their time does mean a lack of human and financial resources affect the work that they can engage in (Onwuchekwa 2014). Even Stonewall recognises the value of volunteers who assist in the operation of the organisation and help to save on staff costs, which can be substantial for larger organisations (Stonewall Equality Limited 2019, pp. 13, 31). This highlights the significant costs of human resources for NGOs in the sector, and the importance of voluntary work for smaller organisations that would otherwise struggle to meet such costs. Nevertheless, lack of size and available funding does not necessarily limit all contributions to transnational LGBT activism, as the Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope noted, when Kaleidoscope was still relatively new, that organisations can add value in other ways: We’re also a very small and very young organisation and so doing lots of direct funding is slightly beyond our capacity at the moment. And, largely where we add value, I think, with the in-country work, is we bring certain experiences and skills to a project that we can run jointly in-country.

Gaining charitable status can be important for new organisations as it provides greater legitimacy and can open more avenues to funding, as Penny (2014) of Rainbow International, speaking before it acquired charitable status itself in 2015, noted: ‘once we have charitable status then we can actually start speaking to big philanthropists and people who could perhaps give us large sums of money, which would be great’. Even when organisations secure charitable status, access to funding remains a limitation on the amount of work that organisations can undertake (Dillane 2015). Some NGOs use a variety of fundraising methods to improve funding beyond individual charitable donations. Fundraising events are popular for several organisations, usually attended by a number of LGBT celebrities to boost the profile of the events. For example, Kaleidoscope hosts an

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

101

annual Gala Dinner to raise funds for the charity, whilst the PTF organised an ‘Equality Ball’ fundraiser in 2015 and 2016 (Kaleidoscope 2017b; PTF 2015, 2016b). Stonewall similarly hosts an annual ‘Equality Dinner’ (Stonewall, n.d.-d). A number of fundraising gigs and benefits have been organised to raise money for Rainbow International (Penny 2014). Both the PTF and Rainbow International also advertise ‘fundraise while you shop’ initiatives to help generate donations via online shopping. Rainbow International, given its connections to the trade union movement, also suggest the option of trade union affiliation, as a way of building solidarity alongside fundraising (Penny 2014; Rainbow International, n.d.-a). Although the NGOs considered here use multiple methods of fundraising, and it is reasonable to suggest that some NGOs have access to more funds than others, it is also worth noting the broader context of funding in the UK NGO sector during a contemporary era of ‘austerity’. LGBT organisations have been found to be disproportionately affected by cuts to funding, with voluntary, community-based organisations and those dealing with trans issues having particularly suffered (Colgan et al. 2014; Strudwick 2014). Concerns have similarly been raised by several members of LGBT-oriented NGOs on the negative impacts that austerity and cutbacks have had on fundraising for organisations’ activities (Dillane 2015; Hanson 2015). Cutbacks to government funding can also have wider ramifications within the NGO sector, as Dillane (2015) commented: Austerity has had a huge impact on LGBT charities. […] competition is fierce. Central Government is losing a lot of its money. Government funding is decreasing, and pressure on those philanthropic trusts and foundations is increasing. So, LGBT organisations are finding it very difficult to get the money they need to survive and thrive.

Felicity Daly, former executive director of Kaleidoscope, has highlighted that individuals’ contributions to the charity remain important amidst cutbacks, though limited funds still have an impact on the growth and efficacy of the Trust: ‘We’re so well supported by individuals that that’s what’s kept us up. But it’s also kept us small’ (Godfrey 2015b). Nevertheless, the increase in the number of LGBT organisations supported by the Sigrid Rausing Trust suggests that at least some philanthropic trusts are increasing support for LGBT groups, including HDT and UKLGIG (Sigrid Rausing Trust, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). The majority

102

M. FARMER

of Sigrid Rausing Trust’s ‘LGBTI Rights’ grants, however, are given to organisations outside of the UK, or are targeted to organisations that deal with the Trust’s ‘particular interest in the relationship between discriminatory laws, homophobia and violence’ (Sigrid Rausing Trust, n.d.-b). This highlights a further tension when considering funding sources in the different conceptions of ‘competition’ in the LGBT space. Cooper (2015) has suggested that whilst organisations might be in competition for some sources of funding, the fact that some funders support particular interests suggests that competition between groups is not always an issue: It’s interesting. Are we rivals? I suppose, ultimately, we might be rivals for funding. But we all do different things […] if funders are interested in litigation, which a number of funders are, then they would fund us and they wouldn’t fund Kaleidoscope, because they don’t do that.

Nevertheless, there is a sense from some smaller organisations that there is a lot of competition for funding and that it is relatively easier for larger organisations to command greater resources to enable them to access further funding, such as having staff dedicated to producing evidence for funding applications (Colgan et al. 2014, p. 73; Penny 2014). Reflecting on the experiences of setting up Rainbow International, Penny (2014) noted: Any organisation that is set up to ask for funding, or collect funds, is competing with much the same money that other activists are. And I think we were probably treated with deep suspicion when we were set up.

As highlighted by Penny, this sense of competition is not limited to LGBT-oriented organisations. Dillane (2015) has observed, compared to many other countries, the UK is fortunate that it has a wide variety of funding sources in a charity sector that sees exchanges of billions of pounds, though some issues, such as cancer or children’s issues, tend to receive much larger shares of money: ‘the number of organisations that are willing to save money for Black, gay, migrants are not plentiful’. This is perhaps a significant point of concern for organisations engaged in LGBT issues, particularly those engaged in transnational issues, in that LGBT rights are simply not as universally popular as other causes, and that activists and organisations may still experience social or institutional

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

103

homophobia. As Penny (2014) noted: ‘We can’t easily go out on the street and just shake a bucket without there being some kind of risk’. Whilst we may recognise competition for limited funding as a concern for UK-based NGOs, several NGO representatives have highlighted the funding limitations placed on those activists and organisations that they work with in the Global South. For example, Penny (2014) recognised how limited access to funding for activists in the Global South can have a significant impact on the capacity for Southern LGBT NGOs to contribute to and engage in transnational LGBT activism. The costs of travel to international conferences can be a limiting factor, compounded by the difficulties of securing visas, and can have significant implications of effectively silencing Southern LGBT contributions to transnational LGBT dialogues and activism (Penny 2014; see also, Kestler-D’Amours 2016; Xtra 2014). Competition for funding is also an issue for LGBT organisations in the Global South, which has an impact on the activism strategies they engage in and on their relationship with other actors in transnational LGBT activism (Penny 2014; Tatchell 2014). For example, better-funded NGOs may be more well known internationally, increasing their profile and voice in transnational activism, or will at least have more resources to allow for travel to conferences internationally, or security at the in-country level (Penny 2014). Smaller NGOs or groups of local activists are also less likely to have the resources or experience required to access international foundation funding, meaning that funding is disproportionately awarded to larger, professionalised, Northern NGOs (Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 182). LGBT organisations face serious funding limitations globally, particularly compared to transnational forces opposed to LGBT equality, such as transnational networks supported by funds from the US Christian Right (All Party Parliamentary Group [APPG] 2016, pp. 41–42; Kaoma 2009). There is also little concrete data on funding for LGBT issues globally, or on how such money flows through international organisations or is spent locally (APPG 2016, pp. 41–42; e.g. Ordover and Zelermyer 2011; Kan et al. 2018). Available data does highlight, however, that a greater proportion of LGBT funding is dedicated to LGBT issues in the Global North. For example, between 2015 and 2016, the Global North received 62% of global funding for LGBTI issues, whereas the Global South and East received only 24% of global funding (Kan et al. 2018, pp. 10–11). Considering overall international funding from Northern foundations in the same period, for every US$100 awarded, only 17 cents

104

M. FARMER

specifically benefited LGBTI issues and communities, highlighting how global funding for LGBTI issues remains comparatively small (Kan et al. 2018, p. 9; see also, Hammond et al. 2016, pp. 6–9; Thoreson 2014, pp. 52–56).

Analysing the Activism Strategies Employed by UK-Based NGOs This section explores the range of strategies pursued by UK-based NGOs, highlighting common themes in the practices and discourses deployed in their work. This section examines the use of protest action within the UK, transnational strategies utilised by NGOs as well as the ways in which UKbased NGOs engage with LGBT diaspora groups in the UK, and how NGOs have adopted an ethos and language of ‘working with local actors’ internationally. The section concludes by addressing NGO engagement with public mobilisation around international LGBT issues, particularly how NGOs contribute to unpacking the complexity of making effective activism strategies more accessible to domestic constituencies. Protest Strategies A number of UK-based NGOs engage in protest action as a method of raising awareness of issues facing LGBT people globally, commonly in response to specific laws or legislative proposals that discriminate against LGBT people in particular countries. Such protest strategies are a form of ‘public advocacy’, by which NGO actors attempt to simultaneously mobilise public engagement on LGBT rights and exert pressure on authorities to support LGBT rights in particular international contexts (Lang 2013, pp. 22–23). Rainbow International has regularly engaged in protest action, usually in cooperation with other organisations such as OPAL, often targeting the embassies and high commissions of countries such as Uganda, Jamaica, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Russia (Penny 2014). Rainbow International’s protest activity is partially a continuation of protest strategies used by the RMT to promote awareness of international LGBT issues, prior to the founding of Rainbow International (Penny 2014). Protest actions attempt to highlight human rights abuses of LGBT people, educating the public and media on the persecution of LGBT people globally, and thereby generate pressures on politicians to act or speak out where they have

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

105

greater international political influence. Tatchell (2014) shares a similar position on the use of protest action to raise public awareness of an issue or put authorities under pressure when other methods of engagement have not been successful: For me, the protest is not an end in itself. It’s a means to an end. So, the purpose of any successful protest is to raise public awareness about an issue by getting media coverage, to encourage thinking and debate. But also, through media coverage, to put the authorities under pressure.

Penny (2014) noted, however, that raising public awareness through protest action is dependent on the celebrity profile of those attending the protest to attract media attention to report on the event, thereby limiting the impact that smaller or less well-known groups can sometimes have: The difficulty is getting it reported mainstream, because if it got to the stage where Peter Tatchell was there, there would always be a reporter, because he’s got connections and he’s a well-known face […] If the African Out and Proud group called it and he wasn’t there, no-one would turn up. Or, if the RMT did a demo, no-one would turn up.

Whilst the leaders of some diaspora-led organisations have been recognised in ‘influential LGBTI people’ lists in traditional media, such as Abbey Kiwanuka and Edwin Sesange of OPAL (Kuchu Times 2015), these lists remain within the niche interests of the LGBT community and do not in themselves demonstrate a genuinely persistent interest in non-celebrity LGBT campaigning from traditional media sources. The Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope suggested that the focus on figureheads within the LGBT movement can present challenges for movement building, particularly for a movement that ‘tends to love figureheads and then it tends to love to shoot them’. Tatchell (2014) acknowledged that his status as a well-known activist will likely draw more media attention to activities that he participates in, but noted that this is symptomatic of media culture in the UK: Sadly we live in a culture where public figures and celebrities have more media kudos and coverage than ordinary citizens. It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s the reality. So, if I turn up at a protest, or even better, if Stephen Fry or Ian Mckellen turn up, it tends to massively increase the chances of substantial media coverage.

106

M. FARMER

Tatchell has certainly cultivated a celebrity image that helps draw attention to activism strategies that he participates in, such as protests and direct action campaigns. As noted above, Tatchell was involved in the queer rights group OutRage!, which used direct action to draw media attention to highlight its campaigns (Lucas 1998; Tatchell 1999). Whilst celebrity involvement can increase media attention to otherwise underreported international LGBT issues, celebrity involvement can equally obscure and detract from the veracity and quality of activist strategies that claim to support LGBT people (Long 2014, 2015a). Despite potential difficulties of attracting media attention, Penny (2014) has suggested that there are alternative ways that activists can publicise their activities and protest actions through social media platforms and interactions: ‘we can get out lots of stuff ourselves now, internationally, and we have contacts in other countries who will spread that reporting’. Still, despite challenges that organisations face to increase the media profile of protest actions, Rainbow International and the PTF have continued to regularly engage in protest activities in response to ongoing LGBT human rights violations and anti-LGBT legislation globally. Diaspora-led organisations equally engage in regular protest activities, with groups such as OPAL participating in protest activity alongside other activists and groups, including Rainbow International and the PTF. Diaspora-led LGBT organisations regularly demonstrate solidarity with other diaspora groups by engaging in protest activities together around issues of global LGBT persecution, sometimes on issues specifically related to the identity or experiences of the diaspora group (e.g. ARF 2015a). Diaspora-led LGBT groups have also been involved in protest action concerned with the Commonwealth and Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (e.g. ARF 2015b; PTF 2018). African LGBT diaspora-led organisations have been notably active and vocal in this regard given the number of African Commonwealth Nations that continue to criminalise and discriminate against LGBT people. Protest action is also not limited to international LGBT issues, as demonstrated by the protest action in response to the 2016 Ugandan election results, co-organised by OPAL, the PTF and Uganda Diaspora P10 (PTF 2016a). Conferences, Lectures and Other Information-Sharing Events Several of the UK-based NGOs that engage in transnational LGBT activism have participated in conferences and events aimed at sharing and enhancing knowledge on issues affecting LGBT people globally.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

107

The format and type of event varies from public lectures aimed at engaging UK-based constituencies interested in global LGBT issues, to more insular academic or NGO-focused conferences aimed at information sharing and strategy formulation within these sectors. Kaleidoscope has organised a number of public lectures, including an annual International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia (IDAHOTB) lecture since 2012, which has featured guest speakers including Anna Grodzka, the first transgender Polish MP, and Maurice Tomlinson, a prominent LGBT activist involved in the Caribbean region (Kaleidoscope 2013b, 2014a). Kaleidoscope has also organised public lectures for Human Rights Day (Kaleidoscope 2014f). It has also helped to organise events in partnership with other organisations. For example, Kaleidoscope and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) organised a conference to discuss ‘Can aid donors help support LGBT rights in developing countries?’ that brought together a diverse range of actors involved in either LGBT rights or development (Kaleidoscope 2014c; ODI 2014). Ahead of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, the Equality Network led the organisation of an ‘LGBTI Human Rights in the Commonwealth’ conference with partners Kaleidoscope, Glasgow Human Rights Network and Pride Glasgow, with support from the University of Glasgow (Glasgow Human Rights Network 2014). The conference featured a range of activists and policymakers from across the Commonwealth, resulting in the publication of a conference statement that outlined an intersectional strategy to improve the realisation of LGBTI human rights throughout the Commonwealth (Kaleidoscope 2014d; Waites 2014). In September 2014, a number of UK-based organisations co-hosted an event titled ‘Exploring the Efficacy of Advocacy’, featuring a ‘wide array of speakers from across civil society, government and inter-governmental organisations’ (Kaleidoscope 2014e). The event was co-hosted by Kaleidoscope, HDT, All Out, Stop AIDS and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance. Events such as these demonstrate a range of actors coming together to share strategies and knowledge on a diverse range of issues related to global LGBT persecution, including the role of law, politics and culture. In bringing together a range of actors, including grassroots actors from across the Global South, criticisms of Western intervention in this area can be raised, allowing the potential that actors can develop improved strategies from such experience-sharing forums (Kaleidoscope 2014e).

108

M. FARMER

In addition to being spaces to share strategies on transnational LGBT activism and organising, conferences can also be spaces to share first-hand experiences of LGBT persecution and how such persecution extends into Western asylum systems. For example, in 2018, ARF organised a conference that sought to address the abuse and exploitation that LGBT people seeking asylum face. The conference drew on the first-hand experiences of LGBT people who have gone through the UK asylum system, as well as professionals who work in areas of sexual abuse or LGBT asylum (ARF 2018). Events such as this give voice to the particular experiences of LGBT people who have been caught within tensions of how LGBT rights are practiced both internationally and in the UK, as well as within the cracks in between, that can in turn influence activism to push for positive changes. Working with Diasporas, Asylum Seekers and Black and Minority Ethnic Communities A small number of UK-based NGOs directly offer support to LGBT people seeking asylum in the UK. Different organisations tend to offer different types of support, from offering support networks and legal advice, to offering legal representation. For example, UKLGIG organises monthly meetings to provide legal advice to LGBT asylum seekers, often catering to large numbers (Dillane 2015). UKLGIG also provides opportunities for emotional and social support for LGBT asylum seekers via meetings and support groups, as Dillane described, to ‘try and keep people strong and positive in, as I’ve said, what can be a very gruelling process’ (Dillane 2015). No Going Back, a charity formerly based in Leeds, similarly offered support to LGBT asylum seekers. No Going Back differed to UKLGIG in that it offered legal representation to LGBT asylum seekers and did not engage in the same kinds of advocacy work that UKLGIG does with the UK Government (Hanson 2015). Both organisations offer support to LGBT asylum seekers in multiple ways, including in terms of educating other services that asylum seekers might use (Dillane 2015; Hanson 2015). ReachOUT was another organisation based in Leeds, now part of ARF, that also offers support to LGBT asylum seekers and refugees, such as offering workshops and safe spaces to build community relationships, as well as educating different services about LGBT asylum issues (Consortium 2018).

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

109

Diaspora-led organisations also offer support to LGBT asylum seekers as well as settled diaspora communities. Groups such as ARF and OPAL support individual cases, attending member court hearings as part of their asylum process, organise meetings and events on a range of issues affecting diaspora communities, as well as offering much-needed networks of support for members (ARF, n.d.). There are a number of similar diaspora-led organisations across the UK that act as support networks for LGBT diaspora living in the UK, including the Lesbian Immigration Support Group, based in Manchester, Rainbows Across Borders, based in Croydon and Pride Without Borders, based in Leicester. Bisi Alimi, a Nigerian LGBT activist active in the UK and Executive Director of the Bisi Alimi Foundation, has been critical of a wider lack of support for diaspora and minority ethnic communities in the UK from UK-based LGBT organisations, voicing particular criticism of Stonewall and Kaleidoscope in this regard (Alimi 2014). Alimi (2014), recognising a general lack of strategic coherency in the wider UK-based NGO sector on LGBT issues, was critical of NGOs failing to recognise that international strategies should intersect strategies for supporting diaspora and minority ethnic communities within the UK: You don’t get to hear that, as far as arrests in Uganda, this is our strategy to support activism on the ground. And in case they find their way to our country, this is our strategy to be able to support them. So you don’t want to support me in my own home, that when I come to your own home, you tell me I’m not welcome, or you turn your back against me. Your strategy doesn’t have to start and stop in Uganda.

Whilst a few NGOs do work with diaspora communities or support LGBT asylum seekers, such as ARF, OPAL and UKLGIG, there is more that UK-based NGOs could do to link international LGBT strategies to supporting LGBT diaspora and minority ethnic communities in the UK. For example, although Stonewall has produced research on Black and minority ethnic LGBT experiences in the UK, including the experiences of LGBT people in the asylum system, and supported UK Black Pride for a number of years (Bachmann 2016; Guasp and Kibirige 2012; Miles 2010; Stonewall 2015b), there is little articulation of a clear strategy linking international strategies to support for LGBT diaspora in the UK, as Alimi suggests there should be.

110

M. FARMER

One NGO that perhaps best attempts to link work with UK Black communities to international strategies is JfGA. JfGA aims to work within Black communities to support Black LGBT people and ‘dispel a lot of myths that exist within that community’ around LGBT issues, particularly myths that might produce or sustain homophobia in these communities (Onwuchekwa 2014). Given the cultural and heritage links that many within Black communities have with their ‘home countries’, including ties maintained through contact with relatives or through political interests, JfGA hopes that working with Black communities in the UK can have a positive impact globally: We know that by extension, by bringing an understanding of same-sex relationships, by making sure that those people know the harm of homophobia or homophobic thoughts within them that they will be a sort of channel to reach out to their relatives and heritage. (Onwuchekwa 2014)

The work that JfGA does with Black communities is important for dispelling myths about LGBT issues within these communities where cultural issues are not addressed adequately or sensitively. Onwuchekwa (2014) has argued that no one is having conversations that address the cultural concerns of some members of these communities. One strategy of dispelling myths about LGBT people and issues has been to bring together Black LGBT people who are successful and respected to counter negative stereotyping, not to force people to accept LGBT issues, but to make them aware that it is only one facet of a person’s life (Onwuchekwa 2014). This is perhaps most starkly contrasted to the implicit tone of Stonewall’s broad ‘Some people are gay. Get over it!’ campaign, which does not invite the same level of nuance as JfGA’s strategies in challenging homophobia. Inter/Transnational Strategies Beyond the UK At the core of Rainbow International’s transnational strategies is its function as a solidarity fund, providing grants to individuals and groups internationally to support LGBT rights defenders. Penny (2014) has highlighted the significance of Rainbow International’s willingness to support individual activists, even if they are not tied to well-known organisations, which he suggests is different from many other Western NGOs:

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

111

There will be people with courage who may not […] belong to any otherwise recognised groups in a country, but if they come to us and they can prove that they really have good ideas and all they’re short of is some money to actually get some equipment to organise, a computer, phone, or whatever, and just be in action, then we will actually support them financially.

Penny (2014) also noted that it is important to highlight individuals’ work ‘so that other funders will go and help them’ too. Rainbow International has awarded grants to groups including Youth on Rock Foundation in Uganda, funding grassroots sexual health and LGBT activism, as well as helping to fund other initiatives to support activists and events in Uganda (Rainbow International, n.d.-b; see also, Ambrose 2015). For example, in 2014, Rainbow International contributed support to help Ugandan LGBT refugees who had fled to Kenya and became vulnerable to homophobic persecution there (Rainbow International, n.d.-b). These examples demonstrate the range of recipients that Rainbow International grants funding to, despite the relatively small size of the fund, highlighting the sense of grassroots solidarity central to the organisation. Penny (2014) also highlighted that, whilst it would be challenging to have established contacts in all homophobic states around the world, it is important to work on building links with local activists and groups to find out what is going on at a local level. Reaching out and developing these contacts can help to inform the work of Rainbow International in identifying groups or individuals who could benefit from the fund (Penny 2014). Tatchell has also noted the importance of transnational networking, highlighted in support for Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, two Malawians who were jailed for unnatural acts and gross indecency in 2010 (Mapondera and Smith 2010), making use of links he had developed in Malawi in the 1970s: Through that connection and the International Humanist Movement, I was able to contact George Thindwa of the Association for Secular Humanism in Malawi, who was a former political prisoner during the Banda tyranny. We arranged for him to do regular prison visits to the two people in prison. Because he had experience of the prison system, with money we provided, he was able to ensure that Steven and Tiwonge were moved from cells where they were being harassed and brutalised, and ensure they received regular food parcels, medicine and vitamins, to supplement the meagre prison rations. (Tatchell 2014)

112

M. FARMER

This demonstrates a practical example of transnational solidarity that is facilitated through the relationships that activists had built across multiple causes, highlighting the possibilities of engaging in effective transnational activism across borders (Tatchell 2014). Kaleidoscope’s advocacy work utilises ‘established relationships’ within multiple levels of the UK political system, including parliamentarians and officials in government departments, such as the FCO and DFID, to ‘spread awareness among officials and policy-makers about LGBT rights across the globe’ (Kaleidoscope, n.d.-a). Kaleidoscope has received support from the UK political establishment since its launch in 2011, from MPs publicly supporting the aims of the Trust, to the launch of a ‘Parliamentary Friends Group’ in 2013, which later evolved into the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights (APPG LGBT) in 2015 (Duffy 2015; Duncan 2011; Kaleidoscope 2013a, 2015). Kaleidoscope’s advocacy focus at the international level centres on Commonwealth institutions, highlighted in its co-founding The Commonwealth Equality Network (TCEN), a transnational network of civil society organisations that work towards ending LGBT inequality throughout the Commonwealth (Assistant Director 2014; Kaleidoscope, n.d.-a; Waites 2017). Stonewall is similarly active in its institutional advocacy work with UK political actors, building upon its history of campaigning on LGBT issues within the UK, though relatively younger NGOs, such as Kaleidoscope, have equally demonstrated an aptitude for working closely with political actors in the UK. The relationships that both Kaleidoscope and Stonewall have curated with UK governmental actors are emblematic of institutional advocacy strategies that attempt to influence policy change (Lang 2013, p. 22). Stonewall uses its experience of working with the UK Government to both advocate for supporting LGBT groups internationally as well as helping LGBT groups to engage with UK political actors within the UK and internationally (O’Connor 2016; Stonewall, n.d.-a). Stonewall has not demonstrated as much of an international focus on the Commonwealth as Kaleidoscope has done, instead engaging more with the UN, including contributing to the Universal Periodic Review (Stonewall, n.d.-a). Both Stonewall and Kaleidoscope engage in UK-based and international advocacy around including LGBT issues in international development frameworks (Dorey 2016; Kaleidoscope 2016; Stonewall, n.d.-a). UKLGIG has experience of working with the UK Government, particularly around raising concerns about

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

113

LGBT asylum, working with other refugee and asylum organisations to increase government attention to LGBT asylum seeker experiences (Dillane 2015). Kaleidoscope’s earlier capacity building strategies sought to help organisations ‘to develop their ability to engage with local opinion formers and policy makers through a range of channels and mechanisms’ (Kaleidoscope, n.d.-b). This has included a ‘strategic communications project’ in Uganda, in September 2013, to support the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, ‘to conduct a review of their communications strategy’ (Kaleidoscope, n.d.-b). Kaleidoscope also supported a ‘media and communications project’ in the Caribbean, supporting activists from Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, resulting in the launch of a coalition of LGBT youth organisations called Generation Change, which included organisations from Belize, Guyana and St. Lucia (Kaleidoscope Trust 2014b, n.d.-b). The Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope noted that these kinds of projects are developed in consultation with the organisations concerned: These projects are developed from the conceptual stage through to their delivery in partnership with organisations on the ground, rather than us coming in with a particularly set agenda, or trying to bypass local partners to work either with the media there or politicians there.

Kaleidoscope has been criticised, however, by Alimi (2014), who helped to set up Kaleidoscope and was Director of Africa for the Trust between 2011 and 2012. Alimi (2014) has been critical of Kaleidoscope’s lack of a clear strategy, particularly in its first few years of operating. Kaleidoscope has since more clearly focused its strategies, particularly around the Commonwealth, seen in its central role within TCEN. Several NGOs are involved in campaign work that aims to raise awareness of international LGBT issues. Kaleidoscope has run a number of campaigns including producing a viral video ‘What if it were illegal for you to be you?’ in July 2012, to raise awareness of the criminalisation of same-sex behaviour around the world, as well as a ‘To Russia With Love’ campaign in December 2013, to raise money for Kaleidoscope and Russian LGBT activists (Kaleidoscope 2012, 2013c). The PTF is also involved in campaigning on international issues. Tatchell (2014) has argued that publicising what is happening in other countries can be a key step to place authorities under pressure to instigate change. Stonewall

114

M. FARMER

has also run various campaigns on international LGBT issues and also makes available materials based on its ‘Some People Are Gay, Get Over It’ campaign in a number of different languages (Stonewall, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). It is not clear to what extent the ‘Get Over It’ element of the campaign is convincing in different international contexts, nor how Stonewall decides on translations in a meaningful way that accounts for local nuances of LGBT identity and discourse. It is also unclear to what extent ‘Get Over It’ is a useful way to engage with homophobia internationally to help people understand LGBT lives and debunk homophobic myths to foster greater understanding between communities. One aspect of Stonewall’s international work is the training that it offers LGBT human rights defenders, suggesting that this training ‘has been at the core of what we do ever since we started to work internationally in 2012’ (Stonewall, n.d.-c). Stonewall’s ‘Campaign Development Programme’ ‘equips LGBT human rights defenders with the tools and tactics they need to develop more effective campaigns’, presumably drawing upon Stonewall’s experiences of campaigning in the UK, Stonewall’s website highlighting how the programme was well-received by Russian LGBT activists (n.d.-c). Other NGOs offer similar kinds of training support to LGBT activists, such as All Out which has provided training on digital security and online campaigning to activists from Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda (All Out 2019b). Whilst the nuances of effective campaigning will vary between different countries, training events such as these can be useful sites of transnational exchanges of skills and experiences between activists. Solidarity and the Mantra of ‘Working with Local Actors’ A common theme amongst UK-based NGOs is an emphasis that they are ‘working (in solidarity) with local actors’. This sentiment is expressed in different ways, depending on the nature of the organisation, though the central premise that NGOs practice transnational solidarity remains the same, acting with the consent and participation of allied actors in the communities that their operations seek to target. As Dillane (2015) has observed: ‘it’s quite de rigueur these days for LGBT and human rights organisations to say, “well, we’re always led by the activists incountry”’. Tatchell (2014) has suggested that although UK-based NGOs pursue different strategies of supporting the rights of LGBT people internationally,

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

115

there is a broad general consensus, which is that we should consult and take our lead from activists in the countries we’re seeking to engage with. It’s very much around the principle of solidarity with their struggles. All of us reject the idea of imposing Western values or a Western agenda.

The emphasis with which many UK-based organisations talk about solidarity and being led by local activists is arguably a reiterative response to a discourse critical of the historic pattern of Western interventions in the Global South that dictate action, rather than seeking solidarity and being led by local knowledge. These criticisms are not merely rooted in observation of Western contributions to transnational LGBT activism, but are, arguably, rooted in more general, postcolonial approaches to critiquing Western interventions, based on a history of problematic encounters. Alimi, who was involved in the setting up of Kaleidoscope, adding a Nigerian activist voice to a white, middle-class organisation, said at the launch event for Kaleidoscope: ‘I am tired of international organisations coming to Africa to tell us what to do. Kaleidoscope is coming to Africa to say, “What do you want us to do?”, and that is the most important thing’ (Geen 2011). Alimi’s experiences of working with Kaleidoscope, as Director of Africa, were not entirely positive however, whereby Kaleidoscope changed strategies from working in Nigeria to working in Uganda without his knowledge, input or participation (Alimi 2014). Alimi’s experiences bring into question the extent to which Kaleidoscope offered an unproblematic alternative to other Western interventions that Alimi was hopeful for. Tatchell has also faced criticism from African LGBT activists regarding campaigning conducted by Tatchell and OutRage! (before the PTF was established) on LGBT issues in Nigeria and Uganda specifically. African activists were critical of OutRage! for not verifying information in press releases and not consulting ‘relevant local activists before embarking on campaigns’ (MR Online 2007). The public statement was signed by a number of African LGBTI activists from a range of countries and organisations (MR Online 2007). Tatchell and Kizza Musinguzi, African Affairs spokesperson for OutRage!, responded to the criticism by arguing that ‘This controversy has nothing to do with LGBTI liberation. It is all about certain African LGBTI groups vying for power and funding, and their bid to damage other, more radical grassroots, African LGBTI groups, which they see as political rivals’ (Tatchell 2007). Further details of the criticisms

116

M. FARMER

and defensive responses can be read in each public statement, though verifying accusations in each is difficult (see also, Rao 2010, pp. 183–188). What is interesting about the incident is that it provides an example of possible tensions inherent in the concept of ‘working with local actors’. Reflecting on his experiences of working transnationally, Tatchell (2014) suggested: In some countries there are rival groups with different ideas, different strategies, who expect different things of people in the West. Then, campaigners like me face a dilemma: who do we support? My instinct is that I want to unite and support them both, but that isn’t always possible. There’s been some occasions when I and others have been criticised for supporting one group and not another. […] It’s not the business of the West to pick and choose which groups or campaigns to support, but sometimes, faced with very divergent approaches by organisations in the Global South, we inevitably have to make that choice.

Whilst Tatchell provides a Western perspective on the potential impact that local rivalries can have on transnational activism, Rao (2010) suggests that the ways in which Western activists choose to work with particular local groups can ‘exacerbate local tensions and rivalries’ as groups compete for the resources and influence offered by Western activists (pp. 187–188). Rao (2010) further notes that ‘Western solidarity activists gravitate towards local interlocutors who desire their presence, while ignoring those who do not’, thus Western activists’ particular transnational strategies become authenticated by their choice of local partners (pp. 187–188). That Northern NGOs have the opportunity to choose which Southern activists and organisations they work with highlights a key structural inequality in transnational activism, in which power is skewed to the initiatives of Northern actors. The transformative potential of transnational networks, however, suggests that tensions between Northern and Southern actors, as highlighted above, can motivate Northern actors to alter their approach to participation in the network (Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 207). This can be seen in the increased NGO reiteration of ‘being led by local actors’ concurrent to the growth of the UK-based NGO space engaged in transnational LGBT activism throughout the 2010s. This transformative potential should be viewed with caution, however, since solidaristic rhetoric does not guarantee solidaristic action,

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

117

or directly remedy the structural inequality of transnational networks and differential power of Northern and Southern actors. The passing of the Ugandan AHA in February 2014 provides an example of the ways in which UK-based NGOs respond to and act upon being led by local actors. For example, Kaleidoscope lobbied various UK governmental institutions, including the FCO, British Parliament and British Government, relaying particular ‘asks’ that were coming from Ugandan LGBT organisations: All of that lobbying was done in very close consultation with actors like Sexual Minorities Uganda and Frank Mugisha in particular. All asks of the UK Government and members of the UK Parliament were crafted in conjunction with those actors, if not direct requests from the ground. (Assistant Director 2014)

This example is symptomatic of the recognised ability of Ugandan LGBT activists to communicate with and use transnational LGBT activist networks effectively. For example, Dillane (2015) has noted how ‘SMUG and a coalition of other activists are very clear with the international community what they want and what action they’re calling for’. Cooper (2015) has highlighted that Southern activists are well aware of the benefits of engaging with the international LGBT activist community, noting that activists have developed the knowledge and skills to use the international community in the best ways for their local struggles. The international community is evolving in synergistic ways in which ‘people do know their place, and they know what they offer, they know what they can bring, or what they need’ (Cooper 2015). This view is somewhat complicated by the realities of engaging with Northern actors, who can make competing representative claims on behalf of LGBT people in different global contexts in ways that aren’t always helpful to local activists or communities (DeMars 2005, p. 25; e.g. Abbas 2012; Long 2014, 2015b; Teik 2019; see also, Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 19). This is highlighted by the ways in which Northern actors responded to developments in Brunei in 2014 and 2019, producing competing, problematic representative claims about vulnerable LGBT communities, explored in greater detail below. Other examples of organisations making claims to being led by local actors include Kaleidoscope’s point that in-country projects are developed ‘in partnership’ and ‘in consultation’ with local organisations, ‘rather

118

M. FARMER

than us coming in with a particular set agenda or trying to bypass local partners’ (Assistant Director 2014). HDT aims to provide local actors access to legal resources which have the effect of ‘levelling the playing field’, providing LGBT activists with access to the same world-class law firms that governments have access to (Cooper 2015). Cooper (2015) has noted, however, that the level of support that HDT provides to activists is dependent on what the activists themselves want to do: ‘To the extent they want our help we offer it and we will do everything for them if they want us to do everything for them, or we’ll just give them advice and they can use that as they want to use it’. This is exemplified in a Singapore case in which HDT advised activists not to pursue litigation because the ‘constitutional framework isn’t strong enough to win’, though activists took their case to court anyway and lost: ‘they still went ahead, which of course is their choice, and we carried on helping them. It’s their choice to litigate, not ours, we have no role in that, other than to give them our view to the extent that they want to have our view’ (Cooper 2015). Alimi (2014) has been critical of Western approaches to ‘solidarity’ and perceptions of NGOs being led by local actors, highlighting a problematic emphasis on litigation strategies: I think the conversation we are having in the world now, it’s about telling me what to do. We see that happening in litigations around the world, where activists, mostly from the Caribbean and Africa, have been bullied into suing their government, you know, to change the laws in their country; when the legal framework in that country is not ready for it and you put the community in danger. (see also, Baudh 2013; Robinson 2012)

Cooper (2015) has recognised that some people are ‘suspicious’ or ‘actively hostile’ towards the idea of what HDT represents, as a ‘white, legal kind of imperialism’, which he acknowledged as an understandable view. Indeed, given the world history of Northern interventions and oppression in the Global South and the lingering impact of coloniality, trust in Northern actors’ intentions is no small issue for Southern groups (Keck and Sikkink 1998, p. 16). Nevertheless, Cooper (2015) has emphasised that for those activists and local lawyers who do want transnational support to engage in litigation, HDT offers advice and support, facilitating access to substantial legal resources, to the extent that activists want it (cf. Jones 2018). Southern caution is reasonable, however, particularly given the enthusiasm for bringing litigation cases that HDT demonstrated

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

119

when it launched, suggesting ‘If appropriate, we may bring cases in our own name’ (Bowcott 2011). In practice, HDT’s approach appears to have been more measured, and in some instances have supported existing challenges rather than initiating new cases. For example, in 2013, HDT became involved in supporting Belizean activists’ legal challenge against their government after the case had already started (Lennox and Waites 2013, pp. 40–41). What was problematic about HDT’s intervention in this case, however, was the way in which its involvement was described in the UK press as initiating the legal challenge as a ‘first test case’ of a ‘global campaign to decriminalise homosexuality’, without acknowledging the role of local and regional organisations that had already been contributing to the case in Belize (Bowcott 2011; Lennox and Waites 2013, p. 41; see also, Waites 2015). The framing of the legal challenge as a Northern-led intervention provided an easy opportunity for Belizean groups opposed to the case to delegitimise the local action as part of a plot by the Global North to promote homosexuality (Lennox and Waites 2013, pp. 41–42). Following the eventual success of the challenge in 2016, in which the Belizean law was found to be unconstitutional, HDT’s press release about the victory at least recognised and paid tribute to the work of local actors in the case: ‘The case is the culmination of years of work by a Caribbean-led coalition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) activists, academics and legal experts’ (HDT 2016). For Rainbow International, solidarity forms a central part of the ethos of how the fund operates, embodying some of the spirit of the trade union movement from which it emerged. For Penny (2014), solidarity is a key part of why the fund was established, drawing upon his experiences of making international contacts and hearing the stories of those LGBT people who face daily challenges to survive: What comes through all the time is that there’s no shortage of courage and bravery, and at the end of the day, the fight, the struggle always has to come from within the country. […] We use the term ‘solidarity’ rather than help. We’re not patting people on the head and ‘there, there, have some money.’ We really feel we are working together in solidarity. There’s a real difference for me, that word.

Penny (2014) has argued that it is important to be led by strategies developed by local actors, ‘We have to look for direction, for strategy from within the countries and not be telling any leaders or groups how

120

M. FARMER

they should be’. This suggests a collaborative approach to transnational activism, which suits the nature of Rainbow International as a fund that can help facilitate local activism strategies by providing financial resources, particularly when funding asymmetries of transnational organising make it difficult for smaller Southern groups to access funds (Keck and Sikkink 1998, pp. 182–183). Dillane (2015) has acknowledged how, whilst UK-based NGOs are keen to note that they work with and support local actors, it is less common for UK-based NGOs to consult or seek input from LGBT diaspora communities in the UK: ‘we have a rich resource in this country of people who have experienced first-hand LGBT discrimination, violence and persecution, and we’re not involving them in the debates and discourses in the ways that we should be’. Dillane (2015) did note, however, that UKLGIG has been in dialogue with other UK-based organisations, as well as journalists and politicians, to encourage more UK-based actors to include LGBT diaspora in discussions about international LGBT rights, and that there is evidence that some organisations and politicians are responding proactively to this. Dillane (2015) believes that including LGBT diaspora in UK-based approaches to transnational LGBT activism will help to disrupt narratives of Western interventions as white, imperialist and problematic. Indeed, discourse that has been critical of Western or Global North interventions as imperialist has arguably stimulated the overt reiterations of ‘working with local actors’. Therefore, for UK-based NGOs, journalists and politicians to engage more with LGBT diaspora in the UK, or to reach out to local activists in the Global South, has the potential to strengthen the solidaristic nature of UK-based approaches to transnational LGBT activism, if UK-based actors take seriously and act upon their claims of solidarity. Concerning transnational solidarity within the wider UK-based LGBT community, Dillane (2015) has suggested that the support that UKLGIG has received suggests that there is a growing sense of solidarity within the community: I think it does exist actually, and I think it’s not always recognised. […] I think sometimes, there might be reasons for you to be pessimistic, but I think it does exist, and I think it is growing actually. Over the last twelve months, whilst I’ve been director of this charity, I think, quite tangibly, I can feel that it’s increasing.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

121

For example, Dillane (2015) noted UKLGIG’s experiences at the 2015 London Pride, being placed at the top of the parade, ‘because they told us they wanted to demonstrate how important asylum and refugee issues were for Pride in London […] the whole way along the parade members of the public were applauding our clients and I think people recognise the difficulties’. Although people favourably supported UKLGIG and LGBT people from beyond the UK in this case, Penny (2014) has noted that Pride events have not traditionally supported international LGBT issues: ‘Pride, only in the last two years, I would say, has really given any real focus to international LGBT rights’. The experiences of UKLGIG hopefully demonstrate an increasingly active support for LGBT communities abroad as people become more aware of international LGBT issues and find opportunities to engage in transnational LGBT activism. Public Engagement and Mobilisation Penny (2014) has suggested that repeated activities in the UK space around transnational LGBT activism and LGBT rights internationally helps to build awareness and increase peoples’ recognition and consciousness of the issues LGBT people face globally. Repeated protest actions, that the public can get directly involved in, can be a good way to increase mobilisation around transnational LGBT activism; even though mobilisation might be a slow process: I think that’s a way that many people just begin to want to get involved. I go outside an embassy now and it’s no worries, but for lots of people that’s quite a big thing to stand with a placard. It does take courage, even in this country, for people to do that. So, mobilising is a slow thing, but, yeah. We get numbers just by keeping on doing it. Inspiring people. Telling the story. (Penny 2014)

Whilst it is positive for the movement that more people are recognising the need to engage with and support transnational LGBT activism, Penny (2014) recognised the limitations of purely online participation: ‘It’s like our Facebook page. We’ve got lots of likes. Lots of people like things. It’s converting, translating the likes into action. Action either in donations or supporting demonstrations in this country that highlight the issue’. The Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope has noted the increase in mobilisation around international LGBT rights, particularly around

122

M. FARMER

well-publicised issues, such as the AHB in Uganda, or the Sochi Olympic Games and LGBT propaganda laws in Russia. This increase in mobilisation, however, presents a complex problem of how to utilise people’s desire to contribute to transnational LGBT activism in both effective and accessible ways: It’s very difficult, I think, to square the circle between effective activism in this space and accessible activism in this space. And it’s something that we struggle with, and something that I struggle with: how can someone on the street, for want of a better term, actually be effectively and positively engaged in this, when it is a complicated and difficult space, and calling for boycotts or not buying of vodka isn’t perhaps the most effective and may actually be deleterious to the situation on the ground. (Assistant Director 2014)

That being said, they are also wary of ‘gatekeeperism’ within the movement that is overly critical of methods of public participation that might lack experience or engage in forms of online activism (Assistant Director 2014). They argue that education is an important factor here, in that a key way to make accessible activism more effective is to educate UK-based constituencies about the nuances of the issues, such that they can choose to act in more informed, and thereby hopefully more effective, ways: I guess the challenge is to try and make the accessible activism slightly more thorough and rigorous in its approach. But also, there is an educating level of this as well, that you can’t just expect to step into this space and act effectively without doing a little bit of work. […] if we want to get people on board and on board effectively, actually as UK-based activists and advocates, we need to engage in a process of educating domestic constituencies around the subtleties and nuances of the issue. (Assistant Director 2014)

NGOs play an important role in framing ‘the issue’ in ways that are understandable and accessible to a target audience, educating the public on the significance of the issue in order to generate interest and support for NGO strategies (Ahmed and Potter 2006, p. 48). Global LGBT ‘issue characteristics’ are commonly framed around the vulnerability of LGBT people to violence or persecution, or the legal inequality of opportunity that LGBT people face, both common issue characteristics of transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998, pp. 26–28).

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

123

For example, NGO framing of the Ugandan AHA involved both characteristics, as the AHA risked both harm to vulnerable LGBT people and legal inequality of opportunity for LGBT people. Regarding education, Dillane (2015) has noted how UKLGIG has tried to educate the UK public on the issues that it deals with: ‘We’ve tried to engage with the media and different types of media to try to talk about these issues, to talk in a way that’s easy for the public, who might not know a great deal about migration, asylum, refugee issues, to understand’. Dillane (2015) highlighted that he has seen an increased interest in these issues, such as interest from elements of the gay press to report on the experiences of LGBT people who have sought refugee status in the UK (e.g. Godfrey 2015a). Tatchell (2014) has argued, however, that there is sometimes a blasé attitude of some journalists and mainstream press towards the global scale of homophobia: ‘Unless something exceptional happens, there’s a tendency to say “Oh we’ve done homosexuality – we’ve done homophobia in Africa umpteen times.” […] Reporting about the AntiHomosexuality Act in Uganda has often been wildly inaccurate, even by big name liberal papers, like The Guardian and the LGBTI media’. Similarly, the Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope noted that whilst media attention on some international LGBT issues has allowed for increased mobilisation and momentum of the movement to engage with these serious issues, it is unclear how long such a momentum can be sustained, particularly in the mainstream media: I think there is certainly a window of opportunity here and I think it’s probably beyond our power as an organisation, potentially beyond our power as a movement, to keep that window open indefinitely, possibly even to keep it open long enough for things to change fundamentally in some parts of the world.

Most NGOs have utilised the contemporary mobilisation around international LGBT issues by suggesting ways that people can become involved in the space. Accessible methods of activism usually just involve participating in protests or contributing financially to NGOs. For example, Kaleidoscope’s ‘Get Involved’ page on its website mainly suggests methods of fundraising or ‘limited opportunities’ for volunteering (Kaleidoscope, n.d.-c). Tatchell (2014) noted that the PTF aims to ‘give people a range of options’, in addition to the usual fundraising,

124

M. FARMER

such as making financial donations to groups in the UK or abroad, or writing letters to politicians or representatives (e.g. PTF, n.d.-b). New and expanding information and communication technologies provide more opportunities for NGOs to connect diverse constituencies, particularly smaller NGOs with fewer resources, facilitating accessible participation in online activism strategies (Lang 2013, p. 212; see also, Earl and Kimport 2011). Nearly all the UK-based NGOs examined here have some kind of active online presence, whether through their own websites or through social media. These new technologies also allow quick and effective communication across transnational networks, allowing local groups in the Global South to share up-to-date information with their Northern network partners (Keck and Sikkink 1998, pp. 21–22). Thus, participation in online forms of activism can be an easily accessible way for people interested in international LGBT issues to contribute to transnational LGBT activism. This can be seen in the use of petition websites, such as All Out, which is dedicated to organising petitions related to LGBT issues internationally, as well as facilitating donations to fund grassroots LGBT groups (All Out, n.d.). Some have noted, however, that there are limitations to the use of online petitions in attempting to foster change internationally. Alimi (2014) argued that, whilst there are some benefits to social media for LGBT activism, there are also significant limitations: As the President of Nigeria, governing 170 million people, do I care that you get a petition mainly from Europe and America, 100,000 people saying that you should leave the gays alone? Fuck are you. Your vote doesn’t even count, so why should I lose my sleep over you?

As highlighted by Alimi, the effectiveness of online petitions is still constrained by issues of location and space, and the political pragmatism of target decision-makers; it still matters who signed the petition and where they come from. Although online petitions are an easily accessible form of activism, NGOs should be careful not to suggest that they are necessarily solely effective and ensure that they do not undermine potentially more effective and nuanced local strategies. It should be noted, however, that not all online petitions only focus on the Global South, with plenty of petitions aimed at issues in Europe and the United States. For example, All Out has used petitions to put pressure on the EU to in turn pressure European, LGBT rights-denying

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

125

states (e.g. All Out 2019a). This is an example of Keck and Sikkink’s (1998) ‘boomerang pattern of influence’, whereby online petitions are a tool that local LGBT activists use to mobilise support within transnational networks to pressure states or intergovernmental institutions to bring pressure against the LGBT activists’ own oppressive government. Relatedly, there appears to have been an increasing trend, as pointed out above, towards clearly stating how petitions are devised in consultation with local activists. For example, compared to the language and style of some earlier petitions, All Out now tends to highlight how local activists have been involved in creating their campaigns (e.g. All Out 2019a). Nevertheless, despite the ability of online petitions to make transnational LGBT activism more accessible to people not usually involved in spaces of transnational activism, Alimi (2014) has suggested that our efforts should not be limited to online participation: ‘I think what happens offline is much more effective than what happens online’. Even All Out notes that its petitions are used in combination with other ‘offline actions’ (All Out, n.d.). Thus, whilst new technologies offer accessible ways to mobilise public support, UK-based NGOs must continue to navigate the complex negotiation between accessible and effective activism in transnational LGBT organising.

Assessing Cooperation and Coherency in UK-Based Transnational LGBT Activism Reflecting on the different strategies that UK-based NGOs pursue, as well as the different objectives and organisational structures that comprise the UK-based NGOs explored in this chapter, questions arise about the extent to which the UK LGBT space can be understood to cooperatively engage in a coherent approach to transnational LGBT activism. Given the post2011 emergence of most of these NGOs, it is worth reflecting upon the ways in which they cooperate and engage with each other in the UK and within transnational networks. Some are positive about the level of cooperation between NGOs in the UK space. For example, the Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope has highlighted that most organisations that work in the area of international LGBT rights maintain regular contact: ‘We do have roundtable meetings relatively regularly, where we work out what each other is doing, and where we sit within the space’. This was particularly true of the informal Doughty Street Group of NGOs, comprised of HDT,

126

M. FARMER

International HIV/AIDS Alliance, Kaleidoscope, Stonewall, Stop Aids and UKLGIG. Cooper (2015), who is a member of Doughty Street Chambers, from which the informal group derived its name, described how the group met six times a year to ‘just share stories’, otherwise meeting ‘if there’s an issue of common concern’ for the members of the group. Although members had different specific concerns and approaches to international LGBT issues, the effort to communicate and coordinate between NGOs on matters of common interest, even if informally, demonstrated a clear attempt at cooperation between particular NGOs within the UK. As the Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope noted: Even though we don’t necessarily always come at the issue from the same place, there is a level of agreement within the movement. There is a level of consultation and coordination, particularly when we’re talking about UK-based advocacy.

More recently, there has been a concentrated effort at establishing a formalised coalition of UK-based NGOs working a more coherent strategy on global LGBT rights. In 2017, the UK Alliance for Global Equality was established, with eight UK-based NGOs making up its founding membership: All Out, Commonwealth HIV & Aids Action Group, HDT, International HIV/AIDS Alliance (now Frontline AIDS), Kaleidoscope, Stonewall, Stop AIDS and UKLGIG (Kaleidoscope 2017a; Stonewall 2017). Considering all six members of the informal Doughty Street Group of NGOs were founding members, it appears as though the UK Alliance for Global Equality is an evolution of efforts to coordinate on international LGBT issues amongst some key NGOs within the UK. Since 2017, the UK Alliance has expanded to include ARF, Equality Network and UK Black Pride, and is open to other UK-based organisations who wish to join (Kaleidoscope 2017a; UK Alliance, n.d.-a). The UK Alliance aims to build an ‘active network of campaigners in the UK’, drawing on the combined influence and resources of its members to ensure the UK Alliance is ‘an effective coalition working to promote global LGBT rights’ by 2020 (Kaleidoscope 2017a; UK Alliance, n.d.-b). Dillane (2015) has noted that cooperating and engaging with other groups in the space can benefit an organisation’s work due to the contacts and influence that different NGOs have with other actors, such as politicians. UKLGIG works with HDT, Stonewall and Kaleidoscope, ‘because these organisations are very prominent, they have a role to play in

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

127

influencing politicians, government departments, particularly the Foreign Office, and media, in Britain’s role in the international human rights and LGBT discourse’ (Dillane 2015). Dillane also noted, however, the importance of working with as many organisations as possible to ensure that UKLGIG’s LGBT clients seeking asylum are supported in multiple ways. UKLGIG works with organisations such as the Helen Bamber Foundation, Freedom from Torture, Terrence Higgins Trust, NAZ Project, House of Rainbow and Imaan. For example, ‘the NAZ Project is a sexual health service that works with [Black, Asian and minority ethnic] communities and they come into us once a month to give sexual health sessions and also to facilitate onward referrals to other organisations’ (Dillane 2015). Some activists not involved in the core, big names of the Doughty Street Group or UK Alliance for Global Equality have felt that there is a lack of cooperation and coherency in the UK space. For example, Penny (2014) has suggested that there has not been a ‘real connection to other groups in working a coherent strategy’ in the UK, though Rainbow International has worked with diaspora-led groups, such as OPAL, and PTF on protest action in the past, so there is some cooperation even in the absence of a coherent strategy. Coordinated protest actions between organisations, such as OPAL, PTF and ARF, demonstrate solidarity between groups with shared strategies (e.g. ARF 2015a). Alimi (2014) has been very critical of the lack of a coherent strategy within the UK, particularly in the ways in which organisations have emerged without a clear strategy on how to engage effectively in international LGBT advocacy. This is potentially a key criticism of some UK-based NGOs, though the NGOs in question have, to a large degree, developed clearer strategies over the past decade, even if they lack coherency across the UK space. Waites (2015) has highlighted that several of the core organisations in this space ‘have been learning on the job’, evidenced by the lack of international engagement prior to launching (p. 87). For example, Alimi’s experiences at Kaleidoscope suggest that the organisation lacked a clear international strategy at the outset, though it has since developed a clearer role for itself concerning focus and engagement in the Commonwealth (Alimi 2014; see also, Waites 2017). Onwuchekwa (2014) has suggested that even though there may not be a coherent approach to international LGBT issues in the UK, there are still advantages in the ways in which peoples’ passions motivate action in the space, and that the different experiences that people bring to the

128

M. FARMER

space can creatively benefit the development of organisations’ strategies. He does note, however, that some organisations can be driven by agendas that are often hard to ‘step out of’ when necessary, and that there is also a lot of incoherency about the authenticity of ‘voices’ within the UK space: A lot of people disagree, even within the LGBT community, about what is necessary or what is important and who should speak and who should not speak. A lot of people disagree on whose voice is the right voice and whose is not right. (Onwuchekwa 2014)

Whilst NGOs employ different strategies in their engagement with global LGBT issues, some NGOs and activists have tended to have a louder voice within the UK space, such as Stonewall, Kaleidoscope and Tatchell, maintaining a more dominant presence within the national discourse on global LGBT issues. Depending how effectively the UK Alliance for Global Equality evolves in producing a coherent strategy amongst UK-based NGOs, it may go some way to presenting a unified voice on global LGBT issues. Considering this, it will be important to note which UK-based NGOs remain within and outside of the Alliance and how this impacts the way the Alliance shapes its strategies. Whilst greater cooperation and coherency amongst UK-based strategies on global LGBT issues is welcome, how porous the Alliance is to critical approaches to global LGBT issues, such as radical queer and decolonial discourses that challenge existing hierarchies of power in inter- and transnational relations, will determine whether it is simply an entrenchment of the dominant voices of the UK LGBT NGO space. Even though UK-based NGOs may adopt different strategies and have different ideas about how to best engage in transnational LGBT activism, the UK space is generally coherent to the extent that all appear to be concerned with doing the best to improve LGBT human rights internationally (Cooper 2015). As discussed above, there is a particular coherency within the UK space concerning the need to engage with and be led by local activists, regardless of the different strategies that UKbased NGOs pursue. It is clear, however, that in analysing the coherency and cooperation of UK-based NGOs, that a general ethos of ‘being led by local actors’ has been selectively adopted in practice.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

129

Boycotting Brunei A notable example of the above complexities can be seen in UK-based reactions to developments in Brunei that sought to introduce increased penalties for various crimes under the implementation of sharia law, which included escalating the penalty for engaging in adultery and sodomy to the death penalty, thereby contravening international law (Colville 2014; Duffy 2014). In the spring of 2014, upon hearing of the proposed changes to Brunei’s law, some celebrities in the United States and UK responded by calling for a boycott of the Dorchester Collection chain of hotels, because the chain is owned by the Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah (or, more specifically, an investment of the Brunei Ministry of Finance) (Allen 2014; Long 2014). The celebrity boycott of the Dorchester hotels was echoed by some UK-based activists, particularly Tatchell and the PTF, who encouraged a global boycott of the hotels, whilst also calling on the Commonwealth to suspend Brunei (PTF 2014). Stonewall, however, criticised the boycott action, questioning whether the action would even be effective and highlighting that the LGBT community in Brunei had not asked for the action (Hunt 2014). Ruth Hunt, then acting chief executive of Stonewall, released a public statement outlining Stonewall’s position: By turning the issue into a battle between gay people and the Sultan – which it isn’t, it affects everyone in Brunei, not just gay people – we limit the opportunity for dialogue and put the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people of Brunei at far greater risk. A group of people, I hasten to add, who’ve yet to publicly call for a boycott. (Hunt 2014)

Whilst Stonewall appeared to enact the ethos of being led by local actors, including highlighting how the changes would impact more than just LGBT people in Brunei, the organisation came under criticism for its refusal to participate in the boycott by Western constituencies. Other prominent London-based LGBT organisations, such as Kaleidoscope or HDT, largely stayed silent on the issue. In response to criticism, Hunt published a second piece confirming that Stonewall would no longer use Dorchester hotels for its events to dispel suggestions that its stance was for commercial reasons (McCormick 2014). Whilst Hunt reiterated the importance of working with and being guided by local and international activists, Hunt’s statement curiously put the knowledge and experience of

130

M. FARMER

local and international activists on a par with the opinions of UK-based constituencies: We’re sorry that we didn’t anticipate the strength of feeling in the LGBT community, and beyond, and take longer to talk to you about our position and ask what you think. That was a mistake on our part. […] We will be creating opportunities for you to feed-in your views about what you think we should do – on boycotts and our wider international agenda. We’re currently working with activists in 30 countries, from Armenia to Peru, and we’ll ask them what they think too. (quoted in McCormick 2014)

Given that those who advocated the use of the boycott failed to engage with activists in the Southeast Asian region, including groups other than LGBT people who would also be disproportionately affected by the legal changes, particularly women, Stonewall’s suggestion that the views of US and UK-based constituencies are as valid as those most effected by the law is rather disingenuous to the people they claim to ‘work with’ internationally. Considering, however, that it is important for NGOs to maintain public support for their activities, it is understandable that Hunt attempted to assuage criticism of Stonewall’s perceived lack of action. Indeed, that Stonewall admitted any mistake is unusual, since NGOs may risk public or donor support if they do (Lang 2013, p. 92). Other UKbased NGOs engaged in transnational LGBT activism have rarely (if at all) admitted to making mistakes in their work, and at least Hunt’s second statement went some way to attempt to educate readers on the complexity of engaging in transnational activism. Ultimately, the boycott action in 2014 failed to ignite any major change and Western calls for boycotts of Brunei resurfaced inconsistently in subsequent years until April 2019 when plans to fully implement the proposed amendments to Brunei’s penal code sparked a more concerted international response (Girijashanker 2019; Tan 2019). Western celebrities renewed calls for boycotts of Brunei-owned hotels and travelling to Brunei as a holiday destination, joining Western media in again framing the issue mainly around the impact to LGBT communities (BBC News 2019a; Teik 2019). Compared to the lack of a coordinated response in 2014, between the PTF calling for boycott action and Stonewall’s struggle with public opinion, a somewhat more coordinated effort was made amongst UKbased NGOs to condemn the situation in Brunei, though NGOs pursued

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

131

different activist strategies in doing so. For example, both Kaleidoscope and Stonewall made statements that emphasised that it was important to be led by local actors and that the law would affect other vulnerable groups in addition to sexual and gender minorities in Brunei (Kaleidoscope 2019; MacMillan 2019). Neither contributed to advocating for boycott action and instead noted how they were engaging with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and UK Government to pressure Brunei to adhere to international human rights standards (Kaleidoscope 2019; MacMillan 2019). Kaleidoscope specifically referred to a statement released by a network of Southeast Asian human rights activists that called on Brunei to honour and adhere to international human rights standards and regional agreements (Kaleidoscope 2019; ASEAN SOGIE Caucus 2019). Kaleidoscope also drew attention to a joint statement released by member organisations of TCEN (which includes HDT, Kaleidoscope and Stonewall), which reiterated much the same focus of Kaleidoscope and Stonewall’s statements: be led by local actors, referencing the Southeast Asian activist statement; recognise the wider impact beyond the LGBT community; and influence governments to apply pressure to Brunei (TCEN 2019). In contrast, the PTF called for ‘a global boycott of businesses owned by the Sultan and his regime’ and organised protest action outside the Dorchester Hotel in London, though the protest action overwhelmingly emphasised the threat to LGBT people and did not appear to acknowledge whether Bruneian or Southeast Asian activists supported a boycott or protest action (PTF 2019b, c). Southeast Asian activists have criticised the emphasis on LGBT rights in relation to the new penal code, because of the way in which it obscures the broader challenges that activists and civil society face with legislation that is anti-democracy and anti-freedom of expression, such as the legacy of colonial-era sedition laws (Teik 2019; see also, Sukumaran 2019). Whilst UK-based NGOs generally acknowledged the impact of the new penal code on vulnerable people beyond sexual and gender minorities, as well as highlighting the excessive punishments that contravened international agreements, there was no recognition of the broader challenges faced by Bruneian and Southeast Asian activists and civil society. In addition, whilst protest and boycott action can create awareness of an issue, it’s unclear how meaningful these strategies were as enacting solidarity in this instance: is it meaningful solidarity to boycott Brunei-owned hotels or travel to Brunei if you couldn’t afford it in the first place (Teik 2019)? Amplifying the voices of Southeast Asian activists in a way that accounts

132

M. FARMER

for their broader struggles would produce more meaningful solidarity than focusing attention on reactionary boycotts (Girijashanker 2019; see also, Long 2014). This is particularly important to consider for the future given that the situation in Brunei remains largely unchanged. Whilst international attention to the issue appears to have pressured Sultan Bolkiah into extending Brunei’s moratorium on the death penalty to the new sharia penal code, the scope of the laws and other excessive punishments, as well as broader restrictions to democracy and freedom of expression remain (BBC News 2019b; Girijashanker 2019). This example case study of UK-based NGO responses to the situation in Brunei between 2014 and 2019 demonstrates that whilst some NGOs have attempted to strengthen national and transnational cooperation on international LGBT issues, the space as a whole continues to navigate the tensions between accessible and effective activism when engaging UKbased constituencies. Despite a general recognition of the importance of ‘working with’ or ‘being led by’ local actors when engaging in transnational LGBT activism, this has only been selectively adopted in practice. Given the competition between NGOs for resources (financial, contributions of volunteers, public engagement), it could be suggested that invoking solidarity as best practice for international engagements might be just as important as actually engaging in effective solidarity (Lang 2013, p. 87). The boycotts against Brunei highlight how some NGOs have acted without the support of local groups and that appeasement to UK-based constituencies for feel-good rather than effective action has muddied the narratives of effective solidarity with local actors. Whilst UK-based NGOs are subject to the support they can generate from UKbased constituencies, it remains important that NGOs amplify the voices of local activists, rather than speaking for them (Long 2014). Only by educating UK-based constituencies on the complexities of transnational LGBT activism will public appreciation for the nuances of effective solidarity be realised (Assistant Director 2014). Given that UK-based NGOs have had to grow and develop more nuanced strategies, engagements, and cooperation around transnational LGBT activism throughout the past decade, extending that experience to transforming public engagements will understandably take time. Yet, whilst we might identify some improvements in how UK-based NGOs contribute to transnational LGBT activism, there remains scope for further engagement with Southern activists and decolonial politics in order to effectively support local struggles, extending solidarity beyond only LGBT rights, rather than

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

133

projecting Western strategies to improve LGBT rights within a framework of modernity/coloniality (Alimi 2014; Robinson 2012; Waites 2015, 2017).

References Abbas, H. (2012). Aid, Resistance and Queer Power (SPW Working Paper 7: The Global Context: Sexuality and Geopolitics), 16–19. http://www.sxpoli tics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spw-wp7-the-global-context-sexual ity-and-politics.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2019. African Rainbow Family. (2015a, October 5). African Rainbow Family London Rally Demands Repeal Nigeria Anti-Gay Law. https://africanrainbowfamily. org/2015/10/05/african-rainbow-family-london-rally-demands-repeal-nig eria-anti-gay-law/. Accessed 16 November 2019. African Rainbow Family. (2015b, November 20). Rally Against LGBTI Persecutions in Commonwealth Nations. https://africanrainbowfamily.org/2015/ 11/20/rally-against-lgbti-persecutions-in-commonwealth-nations/. Accessed 12 August 2019. African Rainbow Family. (2018, July 13). Unreported! Sexual Abuse & Exploitation of LGBTIQs Seeking Asylum, UK. https://africanrainbowfamily.org/ 2018/07/13/unreported-sexual-abuse-exploitation-of-lgbtiqs-seeking-asy lum-uk/. Accessed 21 November 2019. African Rainbow Family. (n.d.). About Us. https://africanrainbowfamily.org/. Accessed 21 November 2019. Ahmed, S., & Potter, D. M. (2006). NGOs in International Politics. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Alimi, B. (2014, August 19). Personal interview. Nigerian LGBT Activist. All Out. (2019a). We’re Under Attack in Poland. https://action.allout.org/en/ a/poland/. Accessed 28 November 2019. All Out. (2019b, October 23). Help LGBT + Activists in Brazil to Rise Up Against Homophobia. https://go.allout.org/en/a/brazil-training/. Accessed 22 November 2019. All Out. (n.d.). What Is All Out. https://allout.org/en/what-all-out. Accessed 28 November 2019. All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights: The UK’s Stance on International Breaches of LGBT Rights. (2016). http://media.wix.com/ ugd/cf74d6_9aef960a172749b6ae9da560b09e8e61.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Allen, N. (2014, May 10). Hollywood Turns on Sultan of Brunei. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamer ica/usa/10821808/Hollywood-turns-on-Sultan-of-Brunei.html. Accessed 21 December 2019.

134

M. FARMER

Ambrose, B. (2015, December 2). Youth on Rock Foundation (Y.R.F) Celebrates World AIDS Day Event 2015. Kuchu Times. https://www.kuchut imes.com/2015/12/youth-on-rock-foundation-y-r-f-celebrates-world-aidsday-event-2015/. Accessed 22 November 2019. Asanovic, B. (2018). Still Falling Short: The Standard of Home Office DecisionMaking in Asylum Claims Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. UKLGIG. https://uklgig.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/StillFalling-Short.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2019. ASEAN SOGIE Caucus. (2019, April 3). Statement of ASEAN Civil Society Organizations on the Full Enforcement of Sharia Law in Brunei Darussalam. https://aseansogiecaucus.org/news/external-news/132-statement-of-aseancivil-society-organizations-on-the-full-enforcement-of-sharia-law-in-bruneidarussalam. Accessed 16 February 2020. Ashton, J. (2017, August 11). Nigerian Gay Rights Activist Who Judge Accused of “Faking” Her Sexuality Wins 13-Year Legal Battle for Asylum in UK. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ nigeria-gay-rights-activist-aderonke-apata-uk-asylum-granted-high-court-fakesexulaity-lesbian-lgbt-a7888931.html. Accessed 21 November 2019. Assistant Director. (2014, July 29). Personal interview. Kaleidoscope Trust. Bachmann, C. L. (2016). No Safe Refuge: Experiences of LGBT Asylum Seekers in Detention. Stonewall and UKLGIG. https://uklgig.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/no_safe_refuge.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2019. Baudh, S. (2013). Decriminalisation of Consensual Same-Sex Sexual Acts in the South Asian Commonwealth: Struggles in Contexts. In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 287–311). London: Human Rights Consortium, University of London. BBC News. (2019a, March 29). George Clooney Calls for Hotel Boycott Over BRUNEI LGBT Laws. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47744566. Accessed 19 February 2020. BBC News. (2019b, May 6). Brunei Says It Won’t Enforce Death Penalty for Gay Sex. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48171165. Accessed 21 December 2019. Blair, J. (2015, March 4). “Not a Lesbian”: Aderonke Apata and the Impossibly High Threshold for Asylum Claims Based on Sexuality. The Justice Gap. https://www.thejusticegap.com/lesbian-home-secretarysets-impossibly-high-threshold-asylum-claims-based-sexuality/. Accessed 21 November 2019. Bowcott, O. (2011, November 16). Global Campaign to Decriminalise Homosexuality to Kick Off in Belize Court. The Guardian. https://www.thegua rdian.com/world/2011/nov/16/global-campaign-decriminalise-homosexua lity-belize-court. Accessed 23 November 2019.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

135

Bowcott, O., & Wolfe-Robinson, M. (2013, November 17). Gay Rights Group Challenges Charity Commission Refusal. The Guardian. https://www.the guardian.com/law/2013/nov/17/human-dignity-trust-charity-commission. Accessed 30 October 2019. Cash, M. (2014, September 25). Affiliation: Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund. RMT. https://www.rmt.org.uk/about/policies/pol itical-circulars-and-submissions/affiliation-rainbow-international-lgbt-activistsolidarity-fund/. Accessed 8 November 2019. Colgan, F., Hunter, C., and McKearney, A. (2014, June 26). ‘Staying Alive’: The Impact of ‘Austerity Cuts’ on the LGBT Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) in England and Wales. London Metropolitan University. https:// www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/StayingAlive.pdf. Accessed 9 November 2019. Colville, R. (2014, April 11). Press Briefing Notes on Brunei Penal Code, Death Penalty Abolition and USA—Execution of Mexican National. UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/New sEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14501&LangID=E. Accessed 21 December 2019. Consortium. (2018, June 13). “African Rainbow Family” Taking Over LGBTQI + Asylum Charity “ReachOUT”. http://www.lgbtconsortium.org.uk/ news/%E2%80%98african-rainbow-family%E2%80%99-taking-over-lgbtqi-asy lum-charity-%E2%80%98reachout%E2%80%99. Accessed 20 November 2019. Cooper, J. (2015, July 23). Personal interview. Former Chief Executive, Human Dignity Trust. de Jong, A. (2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) refugees and asylum seekers. Information Centre About Asylum and Refugees (ICAR) Archive. http://icar.livingrefugeearchive.org/navgdlgbt.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2016. DeMars, W. E. (2005). NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics. London: Pluto Press. Dillane, P. (2015, August 11). Personal interview. Former Executive Director, UKLGIG. Dorey, K. (2016). The Sustainable Development Goals and LGBT Inclusion. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/sdg-guide.pdf. Accessed 22 November 2019. Duffy, N. (2014, April 30). Brunei: “Stone the Gays” Law to Be Phased in from Tomorrow. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/30/bruneistone-the-gays-law-to-be-phased-in-from-tomorrow/. Accessed 21 December 2019. Duffy, N. (2015, June 29). Nick Herbert: Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights Will Help Tackle “Discrimination and Abuses”. Pink News. https:// www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/29/nick-herbert-parliamentary-group-on-

136

M. FARMER

global-lgbt-rights-will-help-tackle-discrimination-and-abuses/. Accessed 22 August 2019. Duncan, A. (2011, September 12). Alan Duncan: Launch of the Kaleidoscope Trust. Department for International Development. https://www.gov.uk/gov ernment/speeches/alan-duncan-launch-of-the-kaleidoscope-trust. Accessed 22 November 2019. Dunn, A. (2008). Charities and Restrictions on Political Activities: Developments by the Charity Commission for England and Wales in Determining Regulatory Barriers. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 11(1), 51–66. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enable Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Geen, J. (2011, September 14). Speaker Launches Gay Rights Group Kaleidoscope. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/09/14/speaker-lau nches-gay-rights-group-kaleidoscope/. Accessed 1 November 2019. Girijashanker, S. (2019, June 2). Brunei LGBT Laws: Move Over George Clooney, Why Asian Activists Are Better Off Without “Western Saviours”. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/art icle/3012738/brunei-lgbt-laws-move-over-george-clooney-why-asian-activi sts-are. Accessed 16 February 2020. Glasgow Human Rights Network. (2014, July 18). LGBTI Human Rights in the Commonwealth Conference 2014. Conference, University of Glasgow. https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/az/glasgowhumanrightsnetwork/ events/pastevents/conferences/lgbtihrc/. Accessed 18 August 2019. Godfrey, C. (2015a, June 4). Asylum in the Scene. QX Magazine. https://www. qxmagazine.com/2015/06/asylum-in-the-scene/. Accessed 12 August 2019. Godfrey, C. (2015b, August 19). LGBT Charities vs Austerity. QX Magazine. https://www.qxmagazine.com/2015/08/lgbt-charities-vs-auster ity/. Accessed 9 November 2019. Gray, L. M. (2010). Failing the Grade: Home Office Initial Decisions on Lesbian and Gay Claims for Asylum. London: UKLGIG. https://uklgig.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Failing-the-Grade.pdf. Accessed 12 August 2019. Guasp, A., & Kibirige, H. (2012). One Minority at a Time: Being Black and Gay. London: Runnymede; Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resour ces/one-minority-time-2012. Accessed 22 November 2019. Hammond, N., Kan, L. M., & Maulbeck, B. F. (2016). 2013–2014 Global Resources Report: Philanthropic and Government Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Communities. New York: Funders for LGBTQ Issues and Global Philanthropy Project. https://lgbtfunders.org/ research-item/2013-2014-global-resources-report/. Accessed 9 November 2019.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

137

Hanson, S. (2015, August 3). Video call interview. Founder and Former CEO, No Going Back. Hilton, M., Crowson, N., Mouhot, J., & McKay, J. (2012). A Historical Guide to NGOs in Britain: Charities, Civil Society and the Voluntary Sector Since 1945. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Human Dignity Trust. (2016, August 10). Belize Scraps Law Targeting Gay Men. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/news/belize-scraps-law-targetinggay-men/. Accessed 23 November 2019. Human Dignity Trust. (n.d.-a). Funders. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/ who-we-are/funders/. Accessed 30 October 2019. Human Dignity Trust. (n.d.-b). Legislative Reform. https://www.humandignity trust.org/what-we-do/legislative-reform/. Accessed 30 October 2019. Human Dignity Trust. (n.d.-c). Who We Are. https://www.humandignitytrust. org/who-we-are/. Accessed 30 October 2019. Human Dignity Trust. (n.d.-d). Why the Human Dignity Trust? http://hum andignitytrust.org/pages/OUR%20WORK/Why%20Human%20Dignity. Accessed 17 December 2015. The Human Dignity Trust v. The Charity Commission for England and Wales [2014] CA/2013/0013 (2014, July 9). https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/human-dignity-trust-v-charity-commission.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2019. Hunt, R. (2014, May 16). Why Stonewall Isn’t Joining the Dorchester Boycott. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hotels/10834611/WhyStonewall-isnt-joining-the-Dorchester-boycott.html. Accessed 21 December 2019. Jacobs, L. (2018). International Campaigners Toolkit: Storytelling, Reclaiming and Reacting and Community Mobilisation. London: Stonewall. https:// www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/international_campaigners_toolkit_eng lish.pdf. Accessed 8 November 2019. Jones, J. (2018, April 14). We Won in Trinidad. Now It’s Time to End All Homophobic Laws in the Commonwealth. The Guardian. https://www.the guardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/13/trinidad-homphobic-laws-wincase-commonwealth. Accessed 24 January 2020. Justice for Gay Africans Society. (n.d.-a). About Justice for Gay Africans [JfGA] Society. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/JusticeforGayAfricans/info? tab=page_info. Accessed 28 January 2016. Justice for Gay Africans Society (n.d.-b). Overview. LinkedIn. https://www. linkedin.com/company/justice-for-gay-africans-society/about/. Accessed 30 October 2019. The Kaleidoscope Trust. (2012, July 3). What If It Were Illegal for You to Be You?—Kaleidoscope Trust. YouTube [video]. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=z9w-Fug2aCk. Accessed 22 November 2019.

138

M. FARMER

Kaleidoscope Trust. (2013a, February 28). Kaleidoscope Trust Launches Parliamentary Friends Group. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/36. Accessed 22 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2013b, May 17). “I Don’t Demand Tolerance, I Demand Equal Rights” Anna Grodzka Gives IDAHOT Lecture. https://kaleidoscope trust.com/news/42. Accessed 20 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2013c, December). To Russia With Love. https://kaleidosc opetrust.com/to-russia-with-love. Accessed 22 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014a, May 17). Jamaican Activist Maurice Tomlinson Delivers Kaleidoscope Lecture. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/67. Accessed 20 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014b, June 9). Caribbean LGBT Youth Group Issues Urgent Call for Equality and Inclusion. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/new s/68. Accessed 22 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014c, July 8). Solidarity and Partnership Emphasised at Development Aid Event. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/69. Accessed 20 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014d, July 21). Conference Highlights LGBTI Human Rights in the Commonwealth in Run-Up to Glasgow Games. https://kaleid oscopetrust.com/news/70. Accessed 20 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014e, September 5). Inspiring Seminar Explored Advocacy Options to Tackle LGBTI Persecuted Globally. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/ news/72. Accessed 18 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014f, December 18). U.S. Ambassador to the UK Delivers Human Rights Day Lecture. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/new s/79. Accessed 20 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2015, July 23). All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights Launched. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/94. Accessed 22 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2016, February 10). The Kaleidoscope Trust’s Response to the Department for International Development’s Approach on LGB&T Rights. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/101. Accessed 7 September 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2017a, July 5). Kaleidoscope Trust Co-founds New UK Alliance to Help Global LGBT Equality. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/new s/131. Accessed 30 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2017b, November 15). Sixth Annual Gala Dinner. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/121. Accessed 9 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2019, April 18). Kaleidoscope Trust Joins 50 Organisations in Condemning the Recent Implementation of the Brunei Penal Code. https:// kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/158. Accessed 16 February 2020. Kaleidoscope Trust. (n.d.-a). Advocacy. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/what-wedo/advocacy/. Accessed 1 November 2019.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

139

Kaleidoscope Trust. (n.d.-b). Capacity-Building. http://kaleidoscopetrust.com/ what-we-do/capacity-building/. Accessed 2 February 2016. Kaleidoscope Trust. (n.d.-c). Get Involved. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/whatyou-can-do/. Accessed 28 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (n.d.-d). Our Team. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/aboutus/kaleidoscopes-team/. Accessed 1 November 2019. Kan, L. M., Maulbeck, B. F., & Wallace, A. (2018). 2015/2016 Global Resources Report: Government and Philanthropic Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Communities. New York: Funders for LGBTQ Issues and Global Philanthropy Project. https://lgbtfunders.org/researchitem/2015-2016-global-resources-report/. Accessed 9 November 2019. Kaoma, K. (2009). Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches, & Homophobia. Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates. https://www.politicalresearch.org/2009/12/01/globalizing-culturewars. Accessed 13 September 2019. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kestler-D’Amours, J. (2016, May 17). Canada Denies Visa to Tunisian LGBT Activist. Middle East Eye. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/canada-den ies-visa-tunisian-lgbt-activist. Accessed 18 August 2019. Khambay, A., & Dorey, K. (2018). Engaging with LGBT + Advocates: A Guide for UK Officials Working Abroad. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ system/files/engaging_with_lgbt_advocates.pdf. Accessed 23 August 2019. Kitschelt, H. (1986). Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Antinuclear Movements in Four Democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57–85. Kollman, K., & Waites, M. (2011). United Kingdom: Changing Political Opportunity Structures, Policy Success and Continuing Challenges for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Movements. In M. Tremblay, D. Paternotte, & C. Johnson (Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship (pp. 181–196). Farnham: Ashgate. Kuchu Times. (2015, 17 November). OPDG Directors Listed Among Most Influential LGBTI People in Britain. https://www.kuchutimes.com/2015/ 11/opdg-directors-listed-among-most-influential-lgbti-people-in-britain/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Lang, S. (2013). NGOs, Civil Society, and the Public Sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lennox, C., & Waites, M. (2013). Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: From History and Law to Developing Activism and Transnational Dialogues. In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth:

140

M. FARMER

Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 1–59). London: University of London. Long, S. (2014, May 25). Too Brown to Be Heard: The Brunei Brouhaha. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2014/05/25/too-brown-to-be-heardthe-brunei-brouhaha/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Long, S. (2015a, February 21). On Death Threats, Trolls, and Truth. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2015/02/21/on-death-threats-trollsand-truth/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Long, S. (2015b, July 20). Gay Hanging in Iran: Atrocities and Impersonations. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2015/07/20/gay-hanging-iniran/. Accessed 4 October 2019. Lucas, I. (1998). OutRage!: An Oral History. London: Cassell. MacMillan, L. (2019, April 4). The Situation in Brunei. Stonewall. https://www. stonewall.org.uk/node/133581. Accessed 16 February 2020. Mapondera, G., & Smith, D. (2010, May 20). Malawian Gay Couple Jailed for 14 Years. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/ 20/malawian-gay-couple-jailed-14-years. Accessed 30 October 2019. McCormick, J. (2014, May 18). Stonewall Confirms It Will No Longer Use Hotel Owned by Sultan of Brunei Who Wants to Execute Gays. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/05/18/stonewall-confirmsit-will-no-longer-use-brunei-owned-dorchester-hotel-for-events/. Accessed 21 December 2019. Miles, N. (2010). No Going Back: Lesbian and Gay People and the Asylum System. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/no-going-back2010. Accessed 12 August 2019. MR Online. (2007, January 21). African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public Against Participation in Campaigns Concerning LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage! https://mronline.org/2007/ 01/31/african-lgbti-human-rights-defenders-warn-public-against-participa tion-in-campaigns-concerning-lgbti-issues-in-africa-led-by-peter-tatchell-andoutrage/. Accessed 23 November 2019. O’Connor, J. (2016). Engaging with the UK Government: A Guide for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Activists Worldwide. Stonewall. https:// www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/engaging-uk-government-english. Accessed 23 August 2019. Onwuchekwa, G. (2010, August 26). Justice for Gay Africans Society: Strategic Planning Meeting. https://jfgas.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/strategicpla nningmtgs20100825.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2019. Onwuchekwa, G. (2014, August 13). Video call interview. Co-founder and Chair, Justice for Gay Africans Society. Ordover, N., & Zelermyer, K. (2011). A Global Gaze: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Grantmaking in the Global South and East 2010.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

141

Funders for LGBTQ Issues. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/13786/ 13786.pdf. Accessed 9 November 2019. Out and Proud African LGBTI. (n.d.-a). Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/ opalgbti/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Out and Proud African LGBTI. (n.d.-b). Vision and Mission. https://africanlg bti.org/vision-mission/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Overseas Development Institute. (2014, July 7). Can Aid Donors Help Support LGBT Rights in Developing Countries? Public event. https://www.odi.org/ events/3968-can-aid-donors-help-support-lgbt-rights-developing-countries. Accessed 20 November 2019. Park, A., Bryson, C., Clery, E., Curtice, J., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (2013). Personal Relationships: Changing Attitudes Towards Sex, Marriage and Parenthood (British Social Attitudes: The 30th Report). London: NatCen Social Research. http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/1146/bsa30_personal_relati onships_final.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2019. Penny, P. (2014, August 5). Personal interview. Co-founder and Chair, Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2014, May 6). Commonwealth Urged to Suspend Brunei. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/commonwealth-urged-tosuspend-brunei/. Accessed 21 December 2019. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2015, October 26). Marc Almond Joins Line Up at Equality Ball 28 November. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/marcalmond-joins-line-up-at-equality-ball-28-november/. Accessed 9 November. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2016a, March 10). London Protestors Condemn Rigged Uganda Elections. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/londonprotesters-condemn-rigged-uganda-elections/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2016b, October 27). INVITATION: Peter Tatchell Foundation Equality Ball 26 November. https://www.petertatchellfound ation.org/invitation-peter-tatchell-foundation-equality-ball-26-november/. Accessed 9 November 2019. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2018, March 13). Protest in front of Queen & PM Against Homophobia. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/protestin-front-of-queen-pm-against-homophobia/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2019a). Trustees’ Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31st October 2018. https://www.petertatchellfoundation. org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Peter-Tatchell-Foundation-Signed-Acc ounts-31-10-2018.pdf. Accessed 8 November 2019. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2019b, April 5). Sultan of Brunei Protest This Saturday at Dorchester Hotel. https://www.petertatchellfoundation. org/sultan-of-brunei-protest-this-saturday-at-dorchester-hotel/. Accessed 16 February 2020.

142

M. FARMER

Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2019c, April 8). Sultan of Brunei’s Hotel Besieged in Protest at Gay Death Penalty. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/sul tan-of-bruneis-hotel-besieged-in-protest-at-gay-death-penalty/. Accessed 19 February 2020. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (n.d.-a). About Us. https://www.petertatchellfound ation.org/about/. Accessed 8 November 2019. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (n.d.-b). Lobby Your MP & Other Elected Representatives. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/lobby-your-mp-other-ele cted-representatives/. Accessed 28 November 2019. Rainbow International. (n.d.-a). Affiliate. https://rainbow-international-fund. org/affiliate/. Accessed 8 November 2019. Rainbow International. (n.d.-b). Grants Awarded. https://rainbow-internati onal-fund.org/grants-award/. Accessed 8 November 2019. Rainbow International. (n.d.-c). Our Vision & Mission. https://rainbow-intern ational-fund.org/our-vision-mission/. Accessed 8 November 2019. Rao, R. (2010). Third World Protest: Between Home and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, S. (2013, March 11). Justice for Gay Africans: “Queen’s Commonwealth Charter Is Silent on Sexuality.” Pink News. https://www.pinknews. co.uk/2013/03/11/justice-for-gay-africans-queens-commonwealth-charteris-silent-on-sexuality/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Robinson, C. (2012, April). Decolonising Sexual Citizenship: Who Will Effect Change in the South of the Commonwealth? London: Commonwealth Advisory Bureau. https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4836/1/04_12_Opinion_v6a.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2020. Shawcross, W. (2014, July 11). Charity Commission Clarifies Its Position on the Human Dignity Trust. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ society/2014/jul/11/charity-commission-clarification-human-dignity-trust. Accessed 30 October 2019. Sigrid Rausing Trust. (n.d.-a). Grantees. https://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/ Grantees. Accessed 8 November 2019. Sigrid Rausing Trust. (n.d.-b). LGBTI Rights. https://www.sigrid-rausing-trust. org/Grantees/Programmes/LGBTI-Rights. Accessed 9 November 2019. Speaking Out 2015: The Rights of LGBTI People Across the Commonwealth. (2015). London: Kaleidoscope Trust. http://kaleidoscopetrust.com/usr/ library/documents/main/2015_speakingout_241115_web.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Speaking Out: The Rights of LGBTI Citizens from Across the Commonwealth. (2013). London: Kaleidoscope Trust. http://kaleidoscopetrust.com/usr/lib rary/documents/main/speaking-out-lgbti-rights-in-the-cw.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019.

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

143

Stewart, C. (2013, November 18). New Group to Help Activists in 76+ Countries with Anti-gay Laws. Erasing 76 Crimes. https://76crimes.com/ 2013/11/18/new-group-to-help-activists-in-76-countries-with-anti-gaylaws/. Accessed 8 November 2019. Stewart, C. (2016, October 7). Diaspora African LGBTI Activists Win Status as U.K. Charity. Erasing 76 Crimes. https://76crimes.com/2016/10/07/dia spora-african-lgbti-activists-win-status-as-u-k-charity/. Accessed 8 November 2019. Stonewall. (2015a, June 10). Stonewall’s History. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ about-us/stonewalls-history. Accessed 8 November 2019. Stonewall. (2015b, August 12). Stonewall Sponsors UK Black Pride for Fifth Year. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/stonewall-sponsors-ukblack-pride-fifth-year. Accessed 22 November 2019. Stonewall. (2017, July 6). New UK Alliance to Help Global LGBT Equality. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/new-uk-alliance-help-globallgbt-equality. Accessed 30 November 2019. Stonewall. (n.d.-a). International Advocacy. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ourwork/international/international-advocacy-0. Accessed 8 November 2019. Stonewall. (n.d.-b). International Resources. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ourwork/international/international-resources. Accessed 8 November 2019. Stonewall. (n.d.-c). International Training. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ourwork/international/international-training-0. Accessed 8 November 2019. Stonewall. (n.d.-d). Stonewall Equality Dinner 2019. https://www.stonewall.org. uk/events/stonewall-equality-dinner-2019. Accessed 9 November 2019. Stonewall Equality Limited. (2019). Trustees’ Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 September 2018. https://www.stonewall.org. uk/sites/default/files/stonewall_2017-18_signed_accounts_.pdf. Accessed 8 November 2019. Strudwick, P. (2014, September 3). Lesbian and Gay Groups Face Funding Crisis. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/ 03/lesbian-gay-transgender-community-groups-funding-crisis-cuts. Accessed 9 November 2019. Sukumaran, T. (2019, June 2). Being Gay in Brunei: How a Travel Ban and Sharia Law Upended Activist’s Life. South China Morning Post. https:// www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3012744/being-gay-bru nei-how-travel-ban-and-sharia-law-crippled. Accessed 16 February 2020. Tan, Y. (2019, April 3). Brunei Implements Stoning to Death Under Anti-LGBT Laws. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-477 69964. Accessed 21 December 2019. Tarrow, S. (1996). States and Opportunities: The Political Structuring of Social Movements. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing

144

M. FARMER

Structures, and Cultural Framings (pp. 41–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tatchell, P. (1999, July 18). Protest as Performance. http://www.petertatc hell.net/lgbt_rights/outrage/protestasperformance/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Tatchell, P. (2007, March 30). African LGBTI Smear Campaign. http://www. petertatchell.net/international/world_general/africanlgbtismears/. Accessed 23 November 2019. Tatchell, P. (2014, September 20). Personal interview. Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation. Teik, P. K. (2019, April 5). How Selective Liberal Outrage Against Brunei Is Missing the Point. Queer Lapis. https://www.queerlapis.com/how-selectiveliberal-outrage-against-brunei-is-missing-the-point/. Accessed 23 November 2019. The Commonwealth Equality Network. (2019, April 9). The Commonwealth Equality Network Stand in Solidarity with the People of Brunei. https://www. commonwealthequality.org/news/23/. Accessed 16 February 2020. Thoreson, R. R. (2014). Transnational LGBT Activism: Working for Sexual Rights Worldwide. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. UK Alliance for Global Equality. (n.d.-a). Home. https://www.ukallianceforgloba lequality.org.uk/. Accessed 30 November 2019. UK Alliance for Global Equality. (n.d.-b). Strategy. https://www.ukallianceforgl obalequality.org.uk/strategy/. Accessed 30 November 2019. UKLGIG. (n.d.-a). Asylum Support Work. https://uklgig.org.uk/?page_id=24. Accessed 8 November 2019. UKLGIG. (n.d.-b). UKLGIG Publications. https://uklgig.org.uk/?page_id= 1225. Accessed 8 November 2019. Waites, M. (2014, July 23). The Commonwealth Can Play a Role in the Worldwide Struggle for LGBTI Human Rights. The Conversation. https:// theconversation.com/the-commonwealth-can-play-a-role-in-the-worldwidestruggle-for-lgbti-human-rights-29373. Accessed 13 September 2019. Waites, M. (2015). The New Trans-National Politics of LGBT Human Rights in the Commonwealth. In F. Stella, Y. Taylor, T. Reynolds, & A. Rogers (Eds.), Sexuality, Citizenship and Belonging: Trans-National and Intersectional Perspectives (pp. 73–92). New York: Routledge. Waites, M. (2017). LGBTI Organizations Navigating Imperial Contexts: The Kaleidoscope Trust, the Commonwealth and the Need for a Decolonizing, Intersectional Politics. The Sociological Review, 65(4), 644–662. Williams, J. (2016, February 1). In Pictures: Ian McKellen Among Stars at Kaleidoscope Trust’s Annual Gala Dinner. Pink News. https://www.pin

5

ANALYSING THE UK-BASED NGO LANDSCAPE ENGAGED …

145

knews.co.uk/2016/02/01/in-pictures-ian-mckellen-among-stars-at-kaleidosc ope-trusts-annual-gala-dinner/. Accessed 1 November 2019. Worker’s Liberty. (2013, November 18). African LGBT Activists Protest at Uganda House. https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2019-04-23/africanlgbt-activists-protest-uganda-house. Accessed 8 November 2019. Xtra. (2014, June 17). Ugandan gay Rights Activist on Being Denied Canadian Visa. YouTube [video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuNzSRtHivg. Accessed 18 August 2019. Yoshida, K. (2013). Missing the Mark: Decision making on Lesbian, Gay (Bisexual, Trans and Intersex) Asylum Claims. London: UKLGIG. https://uklgig. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Missing-the-Mark.pdf. Accessed 12 August 2019.

CHAPTER 6

UK Governmental Interventions and Transnational LGBT Activism

In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the role of UKbased NGOs in transnational LGBT activism, consideration must be given to the ways in which UK-based NGOs engage with the UK Government on international LGBT issues. As domestic interest and support for international LGBT issues has increased within the UK, the UK Government has similarly increased its support for LGBT rights internationally, either through direct engagement with governments and LGBT communities in countries of concern, or through international forums such as the UN. The establishment of an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights (APPG LGBT) in 2015 signified a parliamentary effort to engage with UK-based NGOs towards evaluating the UK’s response to international LGBT issues. Despite increased engagement, concerns of deprioritisation and lack of a coordinated, central strategy risk undermining UK governmental contributions to international LGBT rights. This chapter explores key UK governmental engagements with international LGBT issues, via an analysis of the APPG LGBT, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DFID), and how UK-based NGOs are involved with each. Using LGBT aid conditionality as a case study, the chapter evaluates some

© The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_6

147

148

M. FARMER

of the key complexities that have emerged in UK engagements in international LGBT rights, shaped by the coloniality of power in contemporary international relations.

All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights The APPG LGBT was founded in June 2015 with the purpose to ‘provide a forum for parliamentarians and organisations across the public, private and third sectors to work together to champion LGBT rights and push back against abuse and discrimination’ (All Party Parliamentary Group [APPG] 2016, p. 2). As an All-Party Parliamentary Group, the APPG LGBT is an informal, cross-party group, though it lacks any official status within Parliament. Nevertheless, the creation of the APPG LGBT demonstrated the desire of some parliamentarians to support greater coordination and engagement between UK political and civil society actors on LGBT issues. This was clear at the inception of the APPG LGBT, in that UKLGIG, Kaleidoscope, HDT and Stonewall (all members of the Doughty Street Group at the time) were present at the founding meeting of the APPG LGBT (Dillane 2015). The Chair of the APPG LGBT, MP Nick Herbert, particularly thanked the role of Kaleidoscope and MP Crispin Blunt in ‘providing the foundations for this group’ (Duffy 2015). Indeed, the APPG LGBT is an evolution of Kaleidoscope’s Parliamentary Friends Group, which was founded in February 2013 in the interest of strengthening ties between Kaleidoscope and parliamentarians (Herbert 2015; Kaleidoscope Trust 2013, 2015). This proactive interest to work with NGOs has allowed the APPG LGBT to draw upon the experience and work of key UK-based NGOs that work in the area of global LGBT rights. As Dillane (2015) noted, being involved at the founding meeting allowed UKLGIG to encourage the APPG LGBT to consider UK domestic LGBT issues, particularly LGBT asylum, rather than only being concerned with global LGBT issues that happen elsewhere in the world. The APPG LGBT launch event demonstrated a continued close association between the APPG LGBT and UK-based NGOs. In addition to politicians that supported the initiative, the launch event was attended by LGBT activists and organisations, including many that did not attend the founding meeting, such as JfGA, Black Pride and the PTF (Strudwick 2015). Dillane (2015) noted that the inclusion of diaspora-led NGOs

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

149

at the APPG LGBT launch event was a positive step in demonstrating the APPG LGBT’s commitment to working with LGBT diaspora and asylum seekers and ensured that the APPG LGBT was not only seen as a white, Western, politician-led initiative. The launch event was also used to announce the first task of the APPG LGBT to undertake an inquiry into ‘The UK’s stance on international breaches of LGBT rights’, and invited evidence from individuals and organisations across all sectors with an interest in global LGBT issues (APPG on Global LGBT Rights 2015). The APPG LGBT published its first report in April 2016, detailing its findings from the inquiry and making recommendations for future action across different UK government departments. The report drew on evidence submitted by more than 40 organisations and individuals (APPG 2016, p. 59). The APPG LGBT made an overall fairly positive analysis of UK Government commitments to global LGBT rights, though noted that more could be done to improve the effectiveness of UK responses to global LGBT rights abuses. Key findings of the inquiry included the need for a ‘coherent, co-ordinated cross Whitehall strategy for promoting equality of LGBT people around the world’, as well as more political and resource investment ‘to ensure effective implementation’ of British strategies for promoting LGBT rights globally (APPG 2016, pp. 4–7). The report noted that NGO contributors to the inquiry, such as Stonewall, Kaleidoscope and UKLGIG, highlighted that the lack of a central strategy and government coordination was ‘an obstacle to effective, timely and strategic interventions’ (p. 52). Therefore, the need for greater clarity, direction and coordination in UK Government responses to international LGBT issues is a key priority, the lack of which is evident in prior departmental engagements with international LGBT issues, as explored below. One significant element of the APPG LGBT’s approach to global LGBT rights, that clearly echoes UK-based NGO discourse on the issue, is the need to take the lead from ‘local LGBT communities’: In all of this, however, it is vital for stakeholders in parliament, government, the private sector and civil society to take their lead from local LGBT communities. Successful and long lasting change comes from within countries. While there is role for external pressure from international leaders, businesses, states and multilateral forums, it needs to be allied to national strategies that have civil society support and operate within specific political and cultural contexts. (APPG 2016, p. 4)

150

M. FARMER

Whilst this is a welcome realisation, reflective as it is of a broader UK-based emphasis on the importance of ‘local actors’ in international LGBT engagements, the APPG report lacks critical reflection of how the mantra of ‘local actors’ would be enacted in practice. For example, the report favourably cited the role of external interventions that responded to guidance from Ugandan LGBT activists as contributing to successful opposition to the Ugandan AHA (APPG 2016, pp. 40–41). The report, however, neglected to explain how UK governmental actors can be led by local actors in contexts where LGBT civil society may be less organised, or in contexts that are less high-profile than the situation in Uganda had been. Also, the emphasis on ‘local actors’ as a cohesive unit fails to acknowledge that multiple local actors may have competing strategies or priorities, or that local actors necessarily want to work with Western actors, particularly UK governmental actors. Whilst the focus on being led by local actors is a necessary outlook for international engagements, it remains to be seen to what extent the APPG LGBT can influence UK Government policy and action in this regard. The APPG LGBT report also drew attention to wider, intersecting concerns linked to global LGBT rights. For example, the report engaged with contemporary health issues affecting LGBT populations, from predictable consideration of HIV and MSM, to considering wider health issues, such as mental health, at the prompting of contributions from Kaleidoscope and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) (APPG 2016, p. 19). The report also drew attention to specific issues that ‘women who have sex with women’ and trans people face, drawing on research from Felicity Daly, former executive director of Kaleidoscope (APPG 2016, p. 18; Daly 2015). The report also reflected a growing interest in researching the economic costs of LGBT discrimination for individuals, businesses and economies, drawing upon academic research in this area, including contributions to the inquiry from IDS (APPG 2016, pp. 22–28). The APPG report also gave consideration to the role that the private sector can play in the progress of LGBT rights internationally, something that is often overlooked in favour of a greater focus on governmental and civil society actions (pp. 49–51). The report appealed to the Yogyakarta Principles to outline the definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity that it used in the report, an internationally focused effort to define sexual orientation and gender identity that often seems to be neglected in UK-based LGBT activism (p. 8).

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

151

Focused as it was on UK engagement with global LGBT rights, the report recognised the significant role of British colonial-era legislation on the contemporary international landscape of LGBT rights, from which it drew the following conclusion: While this fact alone offers a justification for British action to address the persecution faced by LGBT people, it also suggests caution when seeking to intervene bilaterally in support of LGBT rights, particularly against the backdrop of an often fraught colonial history. The same colonial history that impels actions can also lead to accusations of neo-colonialism when that action fails to take into account local contexts. (APPG 2016, pp. 12–13)

The conclusion that British action is ‘justified’ due to Britain’s role in introducing much anti-LGBT legislation globally is problematic. Aside from neglecting the complexity of the multitude of forces that influence homophobia in different contexts internationally, such a language of ‘justification’ suggests that the UK’s stance is more concerned with redeeming the sins of our colonial past, rather than acting in the pursuit of equality and justice for LGBT human rights. The APPG LGBT at least recognised, however, the need for caution when acting or navigating against the postcolonial dynamics of contemporary international relations. This caution had been lacking in previous UK governmental approaches to LGBT rights, explored below, and so the recognition of the need for caution and reflection on our postcolonial relations that the APPG LGBT demonstrated is suggestive of a potentially positive influence on future UK Government action. UK-based NGOs responded favourably to the APPG LGBT, though this is a little unsurprising given the close relationship between the APPG LGBT and some NGOs. Cooper (2015) noted that the APPG LGBT was beneficial as it now meant that there was a central point in Parliament to work on UK-based approaches to international LGBT issues. HDT had included the suggestion of an APPG on global LGBT issues in a list of policy recommendations to the British Government, several of which appear in the APPG LGBT report (HDT 2015). Dillane (2015) similarly noted that the APPG LGBT could have a potentially positive influence on shaping the UK Government’s agenda on international LGBT rights, particularly when the Government lacks a clear and informed strategy. Dillane (2015) also noted, however, that since the APPG LGBT is a

152

M. FARMER

parliamentary body, rather than a government initiative, it remained to be seen what degree of influence the APPG LGBT could exercise on the Government. Stonewall and Kaleidoscope, as the other two NGOs at the APPG LGBT founding meeting, also praised the APPG LGBT report, favourably noting that their submitted recommendations were included in the report (House 2016; Kaleidoscope Trust 2016b). Others have also responded favourably to the APPG LGBT report, including Aderonke Apata, founder of ARF, though Apata expressed similar concerns to Dillane that the effectiveness of the APPG LGBT to influence change remains to be seen (ARF 2016). Wood (2016) noted that whilst the report provided a good foundation for future coordinated action between politicians and civil society, there is a need to ensure that recommendations are realised, particularly given the lack of ‘practical, measurable commitments or timelines’ in the report. The APPG LGBT represents an interesting development in the evolution of UK-based engagements with LGBT issues internationally. That the APPG LGBT is led and supported by a number of out LGBT MPs and LGBT-friendly, cross-party allies is illustrative of the progress of LGBT rights in the UK. The formation of the APPG LGBT also represented the formalisation of working relationships between parliamentarians and UK-based NGOs, centred around a greater awareness of and engagement with international LGBT issues within the last decade. With input from interested civil society actors, the APPG LGBT report provides a useful evaluation of different government departments’ records on international LGBT issues, as well as highlighting multiple approaches to understanding the challenges that LGBT people face globally, such as criminalisation and asylum (Wood 2016). Whilst it is a benefit of the report that the APPG LGBT’s considerations of LGBT issues is informed by UK-based NGOs, it also presents a limitation in that it does not stray beyond mainstream NGO discourse to provide a more critically reflective evaluation of UK interventions internationally. For example, the report took for granted the role and activities of NGOs, rather than engaging with Southern voices that might provide a more critical evaluation of Western NGO interventions. Nevertheless, the APPG LGBT is a good starting point that presents opportunities for discussions and working relationships between UK governmental and civil society actors that can evolve over time. Key to the success of the APPG LGBT will be the degree to which it can influence government

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

153

policy and action, and whether its recommendations, and by extension the recommendations of NGOs and civil society actors, can be realised.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office There are two elements to the FCO’s work on promoting the protection of the rights of LGBT people: internationally, the FCO vocally supports resolutions agreed at the Human Rights Council on sexual orientation; whereas at the in-country level, the FCO supports the work of NGOs rather than acting publicly itself, but may engage in private conversations with political leaders in some cases (FCO Official 2014). The APPG LGBT noted how the FCO’s ‘strategic deployment of diplomatic resources behind the scenes’ has successfully supported initiatives in multilateral spaces that aim to defend the rights of LGBT people internationally, such as UNHRC resolutions on sexual orientation and gender identity (APPG 2016, p. 30). The FCO has made clear that it works with ‘like-minded states and civil society colleagues’ at the UN level, as well as the EU and Council of Europe (FCO 2014, pp. 75–76). In 2014, the UK supported the second resolution on sexual orientation in the UNHRC and became a member of the UN LGBTI Core Group in New York (FCO 2015, p. 62). The FCO has stated that its embassies and high commissions ‘undertake a variety of initiatives on LGBT rights, through funding projects, lobbying on LGBT rights and supporting local LGBT NGOs’, giving examples of such work in Serbia, Hungary, Chile and Brazil (FCO 2014, pp. 77–78). In 2010, the FCO outlined its ‘programme for promoting the human rights of LGBT people’, which included the recommendation that the FCO should work with LGBT groups to identify ‘countries where support from Posts and The British Council would provide added value to equality and non-discrimination work’ (FCO 2010, p. 2). A member of the FCO’s Human Rights & Democracy Department noted the benefit of the FCO working with UK-based NGOs on these issues: It’s important that when we do speak out that we’re consistent with what we’re saying. And I work reasonably closely with some of the international NGOs that are headquartered in the UK, especially in London. It’s useful for me to be able to have a conversation with them about global trends, and what’s working, what’s not working. (FCO Official 2014)

154

M. FARMER

The Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope noted that the FCO has responded positively to NGO suggestions for government actors to adopt more nuanced approaches to LGBT rights internationally, suggesting that the FCO appeared to be ‘well appraised of what it can and can’t do in this space’. The FCO has also engaged in projects with UK-based NGOs. For example, the FCO worked with Kaleidoscope to deliver a project in Trinidad and Tobago ‘that encouraged public and political support for progress toward the repeal of legislation discriminating against LGB&T citizens’ (FCO 2015, p. 63). The FCO has a good relationship with international and domestic NGOs, working in consultation on strategies, as well as using private diplomacy and the reach and access of the FCO’s diplomatic network as a way to ‘echo the views of civil society’: A good example of that would be we have quite a few events hosted at our missions, whereby you’ll get politicians, you’ll get business leaders, but we also bring in civil society people into that space so that they can have direct contact with influential people in-country. (FCO Official 2014)

Both the APPG LGBT and Stonewall have noted the work that the FCO engages in to support local LGBT organisations and initiatives, such as providing funding for local programmes and events, or engaging in quiet diplomacy on behalf of local actors (APPG 2016, p. 31; FCO 2016, p. 10, 2019, pp. 12–13; Khambay and Dorey 2018, pp. 5–9). The FCO also supports embassies and high commissions that support local Pride events, although the decision to do so is ultimately left to the individual posts, recognising that ‘open UK support for LGBT rights might be counterproductive in some countries’ (FCO 2014, p. 78; see also, Khambay and Dorey 2018, p. 6). Whilst funding for the FCO’s Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy doubled to £10.6 million in 2015, there remained barriers for LGBT groups to access the fund as in many countries LGBT groups are prevented from registering as NGOs, meaning that LGBT groups may fail to meet registration requirements to access the fund (APPG 2016, p. 31; see also, Currier and Cruz 2013, p. 343; Human Rights Watch 2015). Such barriers to access the Magna Carta Fund were noted by the Foreign Affairs Committee, drawing on evidence submitted by Stonewall, concluding that the Fund ‘acts against an intelligent deployment of resources which takes into account a clear assessment of in-country human rights priorities’ (Foreign

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

155

Affairs Committee 2016, p. 11). The Foreign Affairs Committee recommended that the FCO should change its policy of mandatory registration for the Magna Carta Fund so that affected groups, such as LGBT groups, are not prohibited from applying to the fund (Foreign Affairs Committee 2016, p. 11). In response, the FCO noted that it makes decisions ‘with careful assessment’ that takes ‘account of local factors’, whilst recognising the limitations NGOs face to legal registration and recognition in some states (UK Parliament Website 2016). In 2018, the Fund allocated £1.1 million to ‘LGBT rights projects worldwide’, which formed 10% of the Fund’s total allocation for 2018 (FCO 2019, p. 13). In the international work that the FCO engages in on LGBT rights, there has been a tension between the expectation that the FCO should be seen to condemn countries that violate the human rights of LGBT people, and the private conversations that FCO officials have with political leaders to encourage them to drop homophobic legislation or support LGBT rights. Baroness Anelay, then Minister of State at the FCO, in a speech for International Human Rights Day talked about the FCO and private diplomacy, suggesting that private diplomacy can have very positive impacts in a range of human rights abuses, but that drawing attention to instances of private diplomacy can harm the UK’s influence by ‘undermining the trust and respect we’ve built so painstakingly’ (Anelay 2015). This highlights a tension of private versus public diplomacy by suggesting that demands that the FCO be seen to be publicly condemning countries can undermine the impact of private diplomacy that the FCO engages in. Former Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has suggested that whereas publicly censuring states can be ‘counterproductive’, the absence of public criticism does not mean that the FCO is not engaged in private diplomacy on LGBT rights issues (APPG 2016, pp. 31–32; Hammond 2015). The FCO has engaged in private diplomacy, expressing concern at high-level meetings with government actors, in response to a number of international developments that sought to discriminate against LGBT people, such as in Uganda, Nigeria and Russia (FCO 2014, p. 76). Anelay (2015) has also recounted ways in which the FCO has defended LGBT rights internationally by working with the governments of Belarus, Uganda, Nigeria, Belize and Mozambique. Although it is important that the FCO engages in private diplomacy, it is difficult to assess the impact of such work on preventing LGBT human rights abuses globally. Sen (2014) has noted that, whilst ‘megaphone diplomacy’ is problematic and counterproductive, particularly from

156

M. FARMER

a postcolonial analysis, the failure to publicly censure rights-abusing political leaders sends a message to other leaders that there are few personal consequences to abusing vulnerable communities in their own countries (see also, Hogarth 2015). Tatchell (2014) has noted the challenges that the FCO faces in openly supporting LGBT communities, where overt support can sometimes jeopardise future work or the NGOs concerned: ‘It’s a very fine line they’re treading. In some instances, if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is too outspoken, it just plays into the hand of those within the country who claim this is all a Western plot’. Stonewall has similarly advised that UK officials should give careful consideration to how they publicly support LGBT rights in order to mitigate any potentially harmful backlash, highlighting that working with local LGBT groups is important to navigate this (Khambay and Dorey 2018, pp. 17–18). Even where private diplomacy is the preferred option, its impact will largely depend on how receptive political leaders are to the diplomatic influence of the UK on LGBT rights. Whether or not private diplomacy is useful can depend upon the mood in the country towards LGBT rights and how individual political leaders respond to private diplomatic efforts: So, if we were to go in, even in private, and try and convince a leader of their country to change, then that leader of the country would, particularly if they were facing a political battle or elections, they would use those conversations to play out in public […] it very much depends on the mood in the country. (FCO Official 2014)

An example of this can be seen in Ugandan President Museveni publicly recounting conversations that he had with Western leaders who wanted to talk about ‘the gays’, as Uganda faced increasing pressure around its then proposed AHB (Rice 2010). Despite this, carefully chosen private interventions that appeal to international human rights agreements, rather than specifically Western values about LGBT rights, can help to mitigate homophobic, postcolonial rhetoric from political leaders that is more commonly triggered by overtly pro-LGBT pronouncements against the Global South from Western states (FCO Official 2014). Key to any action, however, is the necessity of being led by local LGBT communities, rather than the FCO acting alone: ‘We are there to support the voices of people on the ground who are demanding the change themselves’ (FCO Official 2014). From this it can be seen that the FCO takes

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

157

a similar approach to being led by local activists as the broader UK-based NGO space does: in-countries, it’s important that it’s civil society that is speaking […] we do a lot of work with NGOs in different countries to build their capacity to do things like communications effectively, how to engage with the media. (FCO Official 2014; see also, O’Connor 2016)

Furthermore, there are opportunities for business leaders to also support private diplomacy by highlighting the potential economic impacts of LGBT discrimination within a country: A lot of the private companies at the moment […] they’re having conversations with leaders of various different countries, saying that if you’re discriminatory towards people, we don’t think that creates a very sustainable and fertile ground for investment, and we’ll think twice about coming to your country. (FCO Official 2014)

This approach complements a growing interest in the ways in which businesses and the private sector can contribute to supporting LGBT rights internationally, as noted in the APPG LGBT report (APPG 2016, pp. 25–26, 50–51). The ways in which the FCO has shaped its human rights agenda and given priority to different international issues has changed under successive governments. Under the former Labour Government (1997–2010) sexual orientation discrimination was a standalone priority for the FCO, whereas under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government (2010–2015) it was not a standalone priority, but was incorporated into a broader approach of non-discrimination (FCO Official 2014). Whilst having sexual orientation discrimination as a standalone priority gave clarity to the work of the FCO network and diplomatic posts, not having a fixed strategy has arguably allowed the FCO to respond to LGBT rights abuses with greater flexibility, as observed by an FCO Official (2014): The results of having a standalone priority probably didn’t match the results we’re seeing over the last five years or so. But again, I think that’s probably as a result of what’s going on internationally, as well as just what the UK is doing. Possibly, by taking a broader approach to nondiscrimination, we were more flexible in being able to respond to the

158

M. FARMER

dynamics internationally and also in some countries, rather than just trying to come down with a very fixed priority strategy.

The formal deprioritisation of LGBT discrimination factored into broader concerns that the FCO had deprioritised all its human rightsrelated work. Drawing on evidence from the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as contributions by UK-based NGOs, such as HDT, the APPG LGBT report highlighted concerns that the FCO had deprioritised its human rights work in favour of focusing on a ‘prosperity agenda’ (APPG 2016, pp. 32–33). For example, Human Rights Watch submitted evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee that demonstrated that the ‘FCO/UK response to the human rights crisis in Egypt has been extremely weak’ (Foreign Affairs Committee 2016, p. 7). The Committee also noted that whilst organisations found that they could meet with some FCO officials, ‘it had become harder to get access to senior Ministers and their immediate advisors’, and that the FCO ‘may focus on engaging with larger more well-established NGOs at the expense of smaller organisations’ (Foreign Affairs Committee 2016, pp. 7–8). Whilst ministers such as Anelay and Hammond may have rejected the idea that human rights had been deprioritised within the FCO, the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that ‘there is plainly a perception’ that human rights had been deprioritised, and argued that ‘[p]erceptions and symbols matter, particularly in the context of the UK’s soft power and international influence’ (UK Parliament Website 2016; Foreign Affairs Committee 2016, p. 7). The perception that the FCO had deprioritised human rights has been noted by other commentators who have drawn comparisons to the overt human rights objectives of previous Labour and Coalition governments (Dillane 2015; The Guardian 2016a; cf. Anelay 2015). Further to the perception that the FCO had deprioritised its human rights work are broader concerns about the UK’s relationship to human rights-denying states. For example, the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia has been called into question concerning an alleged vote-trading deal to secure seats at the UNHRC, this following widespread criticism of rights-abusing states holding key positions within the UNHRC (Bowcott 2015; Brooks-Pollock 2015). The UK’s support of rights-denying states by other means, such as arms sales, also contradicts the perception that international human rights are a priority for the UK Government, and has drawn criticism from some UK-based NGOs (BBC News 2016). These complications can have consequences for the progress of LGBT

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

159

rights internationally, as seen in attempts by Saudi Arabia and other states to derail UNHRC SOGI resolutions (UN Human Rights, n.d.). If the UK Government is to be taken seriously in its commitment to international human rights and LGBT rights then it should reflect on how its actions internationally contradict such commitments and contribute to the perception that human rights have been deprioritised by government departments, such as the FCO. Even though LGBT rights may not be a priority for the FCO, diplomatic posts are still active in supporting LGBT issues at a local level. Whilst the FCO will not put as much pressure on diplomatic posts to promote protection of LGBT rights as it would other standalone human rights priorities, such as women’s rights, diplomatic posts will relay any domestic LGBT issues and concerns to central FCO administration in the UK. As an FCO Official (2014) highlighted: ‘I suppose by having it not as a priority, you don’t get me as much from the centre pushing down actions on posts, but our posts are very responsive to what’s going on on the ground and will push back up towards London’. The APPG LGBT has raised concerns, however, that the lack of a central strategy or formal mechanisms to exchange knowledge and good practice limit the effectiveness of British foreign policy on LGBT rights internationally, despite the evident ‘good will’ towards LGBT rights in the FCO (APPG 2016, p. 34). Cooper, contributing evidence to the APPG LGBT, argued that: ‘A clearly defined approach could support the reduction in the number of jurisdictions that criminalise considerably in the next five to ten years’ (APPG 2016, p. 34). Even in the absence of formal mechanisms, however, the FCO has made use of its networks for knowledge exchange and sharing good practice (FCO Official 2014). Whilst the APPG LGBT and NGOs such as Stonewall and HDT have argued that a central strategy is needed to ensure the FCO can more effectively support LGBT rights internationally, the APPG LGBT report does not outline specific recommendations, other than that a strategy be objective-oriented, identifying appropriate interventions for countries that are ‘responsive to change’ (APPG 2016, pp. 34, 52–53). Whilst such a specific strategy for particular countries could benefit the FCO’s work to support LGBT rights by providing guidance and direction to posts, the nature of international LGBT issues would require such a strategy to be frequently reassessed. Most importantly, a central strategy would need to be informed by local LGBT communities. It remains to be seen how effective a central strategy would be, particularly in such a way that it would be different from the

160

M. FARMER

current position of posts independently responding to and engaging with local LGBT communities. The perception that the FCO had deprioritised human rights, including specifically LGBT rights, was compounded by the decision of Hammond as Foreign Secretary in 2015 to not allow the rainbow flag, a universal symbol of the LGBT community, to be flown at FCO buildings during Pride events, including overseas embassies and high commissions (APPG 2016, p. 33; Fenton 2015). Several embassies previously flew the rainbow flag during Pride events in 2013 and 2014 whilst William Hague was Foreign Secretary, including embassies in Paris, Oslo, Santiago and Tel Aviv (Fenton 2015; Perraudin 2015). The FCO justified this decision by stating that the FCO’s policy is to only fly the Union Flag and the flag of the constituent country, and that the FCO does not fly flags of any other organisations or associations of which it supports or is a member of (UK Parliament Website 2016). This last point is peculiar in that the use of the rainbow flag more accurately represents support for LGBT rights, rather than a representation of a particular organisation. Nevertheless, the FCO suggested that the decision not to allow the rainbow flag should not be seen as a lack of commitment to LGBT rights and highlighted that it has supported Pride events and marked IDAHOTB in other ways (UK Parliament Website 2016). Dillane (2015) noted that the British embassy in Riga has worked with and supported the Latvian LGBT group MOZAIKA, and recounted his experience of attending a reception at the embassy for British and Latvian LGBT activists. Dillane (2015) highlighted, however, that it was ‘disappointing’ that the embassy was prohibited from flying the rainbow flag after it had done so much to support LGBT activists in Latvia in other ways, particularly considering that other foreign embassies were flying the rainbow flag nearby. That government departments have taken different positions on whether to fly the rainbow flag demonstrate the lack of a clear, central position on LGBT rights within the UK Government. Whilst the FCO refused to fly the rainbow flag, both the Cabinet Office and DFID have done so at different times in support of LGBT events (DFID 2016b; Perraudin 2015). In August 2016, following his new appointment as Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson lifted the former ban on flying the rainbow flag at FCO buildings, reversing Hammond’s stance, though the decision to fly the rainbow flag is at the discretion of individual ambassadors and high commissioners (The Guardian 2016b). It is appropriate that the decision be made by individual posts, rather than enforced

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

161

centrally, given the need for careful consideration of the impact of such action on local attitudes and approaches to LGBT rights. This was a positive decision that followed from the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the APPG LGBT and UK-based NGOs to allow the rainbow flag to be used (APPG 2016, p. 33; Foreign Affairs Committee 2016, p. 8). That the Foreign Affairs Committee made note of the issue of the FCO disallowing the use of the rainbow flag is evidence of a broader acceptance of the importance of LGBT rights within British politics in the twenty-first century, particularly compared to even late twentieth century British politics (see Kollman and Waites 2011). It is also worth noting here that, at the time, Crispin Blunt MP was both chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the APPG LGBT, as well as being an openly gay politician, demonstrating the potential for politicians and parliamentary bodies to influence and hold the government to account on LGBT issues (Dillane 2015; Foreign Affairs Committee 2016).

Department for International Development DFID shares similar criticism to the FCO regarding its approach to LGBT issues internationally. Whilst the department has demonstrated an engagement with and support of LGBT rights internationally, such support is often expressed more than it is realised as a comprehensive strategy. As the APPG LGBT noted in its inquiry, whilst ministers have been keen to support LGBT rights through DFID’s work, it has often been unclear to what extent these commitments have been ‘translated into significant streams of work’ (APPG 2016, p. 35). Nevertheless, positive steps toward a (potential) comprehensive strategy can be seen in the publication of DFID’s ‘approach’ to LGBT rights, the consultation that DFID engages in with UK-based NGOs, particularly Kaleidoscope and Stonewall, and the inclusion of an LGBT theme in the UK Aid Connect fund (DFID 2016a, 2017a, b). Over the past decade, successive Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State for International Development have been openly supportive of LGBT rights and have emphasised DFID’s commitment to engaging with LGBT issues internationally. It is likely that more support for LGBT issues has been shown by the Under Secretary of State than other ministers due to the ‘inclusive societies’ element of the Under Secretary’s responsibilities. For example, Lynne Featherstone stated that LGBT rights were one of her ‘top priorities’ and engaged with Kaleidoscope and Stonewall to

162

M. FARMER

discuss international strategies, highlighting that DFID was ‘led by local gay campaigners’ (Featherstone 2014). Baroness Northover also reiterated a commitment to ‘strengthening southern voices’ and ‘integrating LGBT issues into DFID’s inclusion work’ (The Voice 2015). Baroness Verma has also spoken about DFID’s commitment to LGBT rights whilst chairing a session on LGBT issues for the Commonwealth People’s Forum shortly before the 2015 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Malta (APPG 2016, p. 29; Verma 2015). Whilst ministers have been keen to emphasise DFID’s commitment to LGBT rights internationally, it has not always been clear to what extent DFID has engaged in projects that specifically support LGBT rights. DFID’s own publications vaguely reiterate that it works with the FCO to challenge ‘punitive and discriminatory laws and other human rights abuses’, though this approach has primarily contextualised LGBT populations with regard to HIV and health issues (DFID 2013b, pp. 22, 45). Indeed, in many countries LGBT people face barriers to receiving effective and sensitive health care, and so it is welcome that DFID has funded projects that supported the delivery of health care and sex education to LGBT populations (DFID 2013a, pp. 11–12). DFID has also supported research on understanding international LGBT issues, such as funding the Sexuality, Poverty and Law Research Programme at IDS, Sussex University (The Voice 2015). This is a practical demonstration of DFID’s emphasis on the need for more evidence to inform and support policymaking on LGBT issues internationally (DFID 2016a). In February 2016, following roundtable discussions with NGOs, which included Kaleidoscope, Stonewall and IDS, amongst others with an interest in including LGBT issues in development frameworks, DFID published their ‘approach on LGB&T rights’ (DFID 2016a). This ‘approach’ was welcomed by UK-based actors, though as the APPG LGBT report noted: ‘Whilst this is a positive development the approach is brief and represents a starting point, rather than a fully realised strategy’ (APPG 2016, p. 35). Kaleidoscope, Stonewall and IDS welcomed the ‘approach’, though this is unsurprising given their engagement with DFID prior to the release of the report (APPG 2016, p. 35, n. 114). This highlights the positive engagement and impact that UK-based NGOs can have on the development of government strategies on international LGBT issues. DFID’s commitment to link an understanding of

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

163

LGBT issues to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was particularly welcomed by commentators (APPG 2016, p. 35; DFID 2016a; Kaleidoscope Trust 2016a; see also, Majeedullah et al. 2016). Nevertheless, there remains the issue, similar to critiques of the FCO, that whilst expressed support for global LGBT rights and an outlined ‘approach’ are positive steps, DFID has lacked a clear, publicly recognisable, central strategy that demonstrates a practical engagement with LGBT-specific issues, particularly beyond health care. Whilst DFID has made some positive contributions, it falls subject to a broader critique of the international development industry in that international commitments to supporting LGBT rights are not always meaningfully realised at a local level (Haste et al. 2016). Regarding DFID, the APPG LGBT noted that: No additional streams of funding for LGBT programming have been publicly identified, raising concerns about how the department plans to match its aspirations with action, particularly given the relative underresourcing of the sector. Furthermore, there is a need for DFID to clearly identify and track funding of programmatic work with an LGBT component. (APPG 2016, p. 36)

Kaleidoscope has similarly noted that DFID’s engagement with LGBT issues would benefit from more detailed tracking of its spending on LGBT issues, particularly as part of mainstreaming LGBT rights into its project work in a similar way that it has done with women’s rights and disability rights (Assistant Director 2014). It is important for sources of funding to consider LGBT issues beyond health and HIV, realising the broader economic costs of discrimination and the impact that this has on local civil society groups (APPG 2016, p. 36; see also, Badgett 2014; Browne 2019; Cornwall and Jolly 2009; Gosine 2015; Mason 2018; Westcott 2014). As identified by Kaleidoscope in the APPG LGBT report: Overwhelmingly, the greatest need identified by our partners is the challenge they face in resourcing their work. There is a pressing need to make resources available for LGBT-specific programming that is innovative in approach and aimed at creating long term positive change. (APPG 2016, pp. 53–54)

164

M. FARMER

Whilst DFID’s commitment to work with local civil society is positive, DFID’s ‘approach’ lacks a clearly outlined strategy of how engaging with local civil society will inform projects, or whether DFID can seriously commit to increasing necessary funding and investment in civil society to ensure projects effectively support local LGBT people (Wood 2016). It also worth noting that DFID’s ‘approach’ does not outline any strategies for engaging specifically with trans and gender identity issues, or how trans and gender non-conforming people may be ‘left behind’ in ways that are distinct from issues of sexual orientation. For example, the gap in DFID’s engagement with trans people’s specific needs in development has previously been identified by STOP AIDS (Murphy 2014, p. 17). Following from the publication of DFID’s ‘approach’ and the concerns raised above, DFID has demonstrated continued growth on its engagement with LGBT rights issues by incorporating an LGBT-focused theme, ‘Addressing Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual and Transgender Inclusion’, as part of a series of ‘priority thematic areas’ of its UK Aid Connect fund (DFID 2017b). The fund aims to support a consortium of actors to undertake collaborative research and gather evidence to inform the development of ‘innovative solutions to deliver real change to poor people’s lives in low and middle income countries’ (DFID 2017b). Stonewall welcomed the inclusion of LGBT concerns to the fund, noting that this inclusion ‘comes after years of work by Stonewall to highlight the issue’, suggesting that NGO engagement with governmental actors has contributed to policy changes favourable to international LGBT rights concerns (Stonewall 2017). Indeed, the ‘Terms of Reference’ document for the LGBT inclusion theme demonstrates acknowledgement of contemporary research on the economic costs of LGBT discrimination, both at personal and national levels (DFID 2017a, pp. 4–6). In 2019, the UK Aid Connect grants were announced, with £12 million awarded to fund LGBT inclusion, with the proposed countries of interest including Nigeria, Senegal, Mozambique, Kenya and Zambia (DFID 2019; Kaleidoscope Trust 2019). Kaleidoscope is a member of the consortium, which is led by Hivos, and includes two pan-African networks of organisations: Coalition of African Lesbians, and African Men for Sexual Health and Rights (DFID 2019; Kaleidoscope Trust 2019). Over the past decade, DFID has demonstrated a generally improved inclusion of LGBT rights within its work, as seen in the publication of its ‘approach’ and UK Aid Connect funding, though there is still

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

165

scope for commitments to be realised via effective engagement with local civil society actors. It will be necessary to assess how funding practices continue in the future and how the research outcomes of the UK Aid Connect consortium project might inform future practice. DFID has also demonstrated a willingness to engage with UK-based NGOs on international LGBT rights issues, particularly Kaleidoscope and Stonewall. This is not surprising, given their close working relationships with governmental actors, and organisational interests in the intersections of LGBT rights and development.

Aid Conditionality This section provides a detailed analysis of ‘aid conditionality’ as it relates to governmental interventions into international LGBT rights activism. ‘Aid conditionality’ broadly refers to practices whereby states in the Global North attach conditions to development aid given to states in the Global South. This section examines the practice and discourse of LGBT aid conditionality, whereby Northern development assistance is leveraged against pressure to improve LGBT rights in Southern states. The analysis highlights the influence of colonial legacies in LGBT aid conditionality discourse, illuminating trends in contemporary UK-based LGBT activism and governmental interventions that operate unmindful of the legacies of empire and the coloniality of power in the international system. Aid conditionality has featured as a major part of the discourse of UK governmental involvement in international LGBT rights issues. Literature that engages with aid conditionality and LGBT rights inevitably references comments made by UK Prime Minister David Cameron in October 2011 at the CHOGM in Perth, Australia. Cameron made comments suggesting that governments that received British aid should adhere to human rights, including the human rights of LGBT people, effectively threatening the withdrawal of aid from countries that violated the rights of LGBT people (BBC News 2011). Cameron later reiterated his statement on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show: We’re also saying that British aid should have more strings attached in terms of do you persecute people for their faith or their Christianity, or do you persecute people for their sexuality? We don’t think that’s acceptable. […] we want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper

166

M. FARMER

human rights, and that includes how people treat gay and lesbian people. (The Andrew Marr Show 2011)

This sentiment of ‘aid conditionality’ would only affect bilateral budget support to governments, which in 2011 accounted for about 5% of the UK’s annual aid budget, and which already had conditions attached to it that required recipients to adhere to ‘rules on poverty reduction, respect of human rights, good governance and domestic accountability’ (BBC News 2011). These public statements outlined the UK Government’s intended approach to link aid policy to an international LGBT rights agenda by highlighting that LGBT rights were included in ‘human rights’ requirements. To focus on these public statements alone as the genesis of LGBT aid conditionality betrays some of the complexity of the issue and assumes a clear UK Government strategy that NGOs can narrate an opposition to on behalf of their Southern allies. The reality behind the discourse reveals the lack of a centralised strategy on international LGBT rights for the UK Government at the time and a general lack of historical or critical awareness of the complexities of development from NGO and broader public approaches to the intersection of LGBT rights and development aid. Understanding the Broader Context of Cameron’s Aid Conditionality Message Conditionality in development aid policy is not something new or unique to contemporary approaches to development. For decades, the UK, along with other donor states, used conditionality in its aid policies to attempt to ensure that particular policies or practices were implemented by recipient states. The use of Structural Adjustment Programmes in the 1980s was a clear example of the deployment of conditionality in development policy, though conditionality persists in other development interventions and policy programmes (Burnell 2008; Gould 2005; Harrison 2001; Morrissey 2004; Mosely 1987; Sørensen 1993). From 2005 onwards, documents detailing the UK’s approach to conditionality in aid policy attempted to reflect broader international changes that sought to place more emphasis on ‘partnerships’ and ‘greater country ownership’ of conditions placed on aid (DFID 2005, 2009, 2014). Agreements from The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

167

the Accra Agenda for Action (2008) were reflected in DFID commitments to increase aid effectiveness, such as by ‘ensuring that development is driven by partner countries’ (DFID 2009, p. 127; OECD 2005/2008). Whilst such commitments related particularly to bilateral aid relationships, the UK was also involved in pushing for reform to reduce conditionality in multilateral financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank (DFID 2009, pp. 115–116). In 2014, several years after Cameron’s CHOGM statement and with no examples to show for any significant LGBT aid conditionality in practice, DFID reinforced a reserved approach to conditionality, suggesting that cuts to aid ‘should not be made on the basis of a predetermined formula’, instead favouring careful, case-by-case reviews (DFID 2014, pp. 9–10). Whilst DFID has outlined an aid conditionality policy that is reflective of an international intent to shift away from Northern-imposed conditions on aid, it retains basic criteria of conditionality focused on four ‘Partnership Principles’ of financial accountability, poverty reduction, human rights and good governance (DFID 2005, 2014). Focusing on the ‘human rights’ element of the Principles, Cameron’s CHOGM statements implied a return to imposed conditionality, using British aid to coerce dependent states to behave in particular ways. This is evident in the responses of some Southern actors to Cameron’s statements, such as Given Lubinda, a Zambian government minister, who appealed to the Paris and Accra agreements to criticise Cameron: David Cameron must be reminded of what we agreed when we met in Paris for the Paris Declaration. When we met in Ghana, we came up with the Accra Agenda for Action and both those declarations are that no country will use its aid to influence the policies of an aid receiving country. (Gray 2011a)

Naturally, such criticisms aim to detract from the poor LGBT rights records of countries who can appeal to international agreements such as Paris and Accra, and conveniently ignore commitments to international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nevertheless, such criticisms also serve to highlight the inconsistency of the UK Government’s approach to conditionality and the lack of foresight to how its belligerent articulation of aid conditionality, in contrast to its ‘Partnership Principles’ policy, would be received by states of the Global South. It also confirms critique of the Paris and Accra agreements that they lack

168

M. FARMER

breadth and depth and alone are insufficient to ensure donor states enact commitments to improving aid effectiveness (Wathne and Hedger 2009). The lack of clarity in the UK’s position on conditionality can be seen in that although the ‘violation of human rights or other international obligations’ is a potential factor in considerations to reduce or suspend aid, LGBT rights are not specifically mentioned in policy documents on conditionality in aid (DFID 2005, 2009, 2014). Nevertheless, the principle that conditionality might be applied in cases where violations of LGBT rights were seen to constitute a ‘violation of human rights’ had some potential within UK development policy even before Cameron made his CHOGM statement. The fact that the UK Government did not have a specific policy relating to aid conditionality and LGBT rights was symptomatic of a general lack of a clear, central strategy on international LGBT issues, as highlighted previously in this chapter. This adds to the sense that Cameron’s CHOGM statement, without being backed by a clear policy position or framework, can be regarded more as posturing in an international forum than as a concrete plan of action. Indeed, the potential that LGBT rights might be applied under the umbrella of ‘human rights’ in DFID policy became apparent even before Cameron’s CHOGM statement. Earlier in the same October that Cameron made his CHOGM statement, Andrew Mitchell, Secretary of State for International Development at the time, had already commented on the UK Government’s position of being willing to enact aid conditionality against states that ‘do not have respect for human rights’ (Park 2011). These comments followed an article in the Mail on Sunday that revealed the UK Government’s supposed new policy of aid conditionality on ‘gay rights’: Poor African countries which persecute homosexuals will have their aid slashed by the Government in a bid by David Cameron to take his gay rights crusade to the Third World. International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has already cut aid to Malawi by £19 million after two gay men were sentenced to 14 years hard labour. (Walters 2011)

The article framed the policy within the context of Cameron’s ‘decision to legalise gay weddings’, as well as suggesting that aid to Malawi was cut, earlier in 2011, in response to Steven and Tiwonge’s persecution and imprisonment (Walters 2011), which was a misleading oversimplification of why aid was cut to Malawi. The Daily Mail issued a follow-up article

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

169

with essentially the same content and arguments a few days later (Martin 2011). Arguably, these Mail stories, in addition to Mitchell’s statements shortly afterwards, contributed to much of the misreporting and confusion on the Government’s position on LGBT aid conditionality. Suggesting that £19 million of budget support was cut to Malawi in response to Malawi’s poor record on LGBT rights, even in response to Steven and Tiwonge’s imprisonment specifically, misleadingly ignored the more primary concerns of economic mismanagement and poor governance in Malawi (Tran 2011). Prior to the aid cut, diplomatic relations had deteriorated between the UK and Malawi, under the increasingly autocratic government of President Bingu wa Mutharika, though widespread concerns amongst the international community also saw aid cuts to Malawi from the World Bank, the EU, the African Development Bank, Germany and Norway (Tran 2011). Whilst Mitchell confirmed, following the publication of the Mail articles, that state homophobia had factored into his decision to suspend budget support to Malawi, Mitchell later made comments, whilst visiting Malawi, that development aid was not tied to acceptance of LGBT rights (Nyasa Times 2012; PANAPRESS 2012; Park 2011). These comments were not reported in UK media, which instead focused on the reforms of the new Malawian President, nor in government statements on Mitchell’s visit (e.g. DFID 2012a; Tran 2012). President Joyce Banda, who succeeded Bingu wa Mutharika, had been attempting to reform policies to see the return of donor funding, also stating that she sought to overturn Malawi’s ban on homosexual acts (BBC News 2012a). That Mitchell might be seen to be disavowing LGBT aid conditionality to assuage Malawian criticisms of tying aid to acceptance of LGBT rights could be understandable, particularly given the state-sponsored homophobic vitriol and incitement to violence following the 2011 aid cuts to Malawi, over five months prior to Cameron’s CHOGM statements (Canning 2011a). It did highlight, however, a lack of a clear, central strategy on the use of aid conditionality to press for LGBT rights internationally, at least in terms of how UK Government ministers articulated the policy to different audiences, and how such a policy was inconsistently applied to different states worldwide. The LGBT aid conditionality discourse seemed to reflect the UK Coalition Government’s attempts to pursue LGBT progress, and by extension LGBT domestic support. In March 2011, the Coalition Government published a report that set out its plans to tackle LGBT inequalities both

170

M. FARMER

domestically and internationally. The report outlined the Government’s commitment to: Use our political dialogue with other countries to push for the recognition of LGB&T rights and advocate for changes to discriminatory practices and laws that criminalise homosexuality and same sex behaviour. We will also work with EU and international partners to oppose the introduction of new anti-homosexual legislation. (HM Government 2011, p. 14)

Whilst the report did not suggest the use of aid to leverage progress on LGBT rights internationally, Cameron and Mitchell’s later statements on aid conditionality could be seen to be at least a nominal extension of this commitment, suggesting to UK audiences favourable to such progress that the Government could be seen to be acting on such interests. This was evident in a speech Cameron gave at a Downing Street reception for the LGBT community in June 2011, at which he suggested the UK was in a strong position to put pressure on homophobic states to enact change: [maintaining a commitment to spending 0.7% gross national income on foreign aid by 2013] has a spin-off benefit of giving us some moral authority in the world to talk to other leaders and governments about our relationship with them and what we expect from them. […] We have got the ability to speak to African leaders, African governments, about this issue that I know concerns everyone here tonight. And it concerns me. (Geen 2011)

It is questionable to what extent ‘committing’ to achieving the 2013 target of 0.7% would have given the UK ‘moral authority’ to pressure other governments, given that the original UN target was set in 1970 and the UK only achieved it in 2014 (Anderson 2015). Furthermore, Cameron’s focus on ‘African leaders’ and ‘African governments’ was symptomatic of a significant problem of the UK Government’s contribution to the LGBT aid conditionality discourse. Cameron’s CHOGM statement, and much of the discourse favourable to LGBT aid conditionality, has been focused on the interaction between governments, rather than engaging with LGBT activists and civil society to understand other ways the UK Government might act that would be more effective for supporting LGBT people internationally. The focus on ‘African leaders’ and ‘African governments’ was also problematic given that it contributed

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

171

to the stereotype of ‘African homophobia’, failed to acknowledge other rights-denying states beyond ‘Africa’, and reinforced the UK’s participation in perpetuating modernity/coloniality by attempting to leverage economic support to coerce political and societal change in formerly colonised states. Long (2011a) suggested that Cameron’s CHOGM statement played well for multiple domestic audiences, from right-wing constituencies hostile to increases in foreign aid spending, to LGBT constituencies who could feel that the Government was supporting LGBT equality internationally, at a time when support for same-sex marriage was also increasing domestically. The homonationalist deployment of LGBT aid conditionality suggested an attempt by Cameron to garner support from multiple domestic audiences, rather than pursuing a realistic international LGBT rights agenda that engaged with ‘local’ LGBT activists (Alimi 2014b). Furthermore, Tren and Bate (2011) questioned why Cameron chose to focus on LGBT rights in light of the multitude of human rights abuses conducted by states, which the UK Government knowingly continued to support with aid despite such abuses. Similarly, Kretz (2013) has noted how the lack of specificity concerning how such an LGBT aid conditionality policy would be implemented suggests that the CHOGM statements were posturing for a domestic audience, rather than a coherent policy plan: Cameron’s refusal to engage policy specifics allows his pronouncement to be all things to all constituencies. LGBT voters see it as a piece of a larger equality agenda, while social conservatives view it as a throwaway to LGBT voters, an important voting bloc in Cameron’s coalition. (p. 21)

Indeed, the inconsistent application of the policy raises questions about the UK Government’s commitment to improving LGBT rights internationally. The evolution of the discourse itself, very much focused on Commonwealth nations in the context of the CHOGM, has targeted particular countries as problematic despite the range of anti-LGBT legislation across the Global South, as well as in the Global North. For example, compare the different approaches to Malawi and Uganda, which are more dependent on UK aid and have received harsher threats on aid conditionality, with the approaches to countries of strategic interest to the UK, such as Nigeria, Russia and Saudi Arabia (Alimi 2014b; Kretz 2013, p. 20, n.

172

M. FARMER

126; Tren and Bate 2011). Furthermore, even where LGBT aid conditionality has been threatened, it is more often the case that aid has been suspended due to other reasons, as seen in the experience of Malawi in 2011. In 2012, the UK, along with several other countries, suspended aid to Uganda due to corruption, rather than any reason specifically relating to LGBT rights abuses or the continued threat of the AHB (BBC News 2012b; DFID 2012b; Mwesigwa 2012; Tran and Ford 2012). There are also no details concerning DFID’s current stance on LGBT aid conditionality in its most recent publication detailing DFID’s approach to LGBT rights (DFID 2016a). Ultimately, as Kretz (2013, pp. 21–22) has highlighted, simply posturing on LGBT aid conditionality, instead of actually implementing policy interventions against homophobic states, will result in states not taking the UK’s commitment to LGBT rights seriously, potentially undermining other diplomatic strategies, such as FCO initiatives (see also, Allison 2011). The LGBT aid conditionality discourse appears to have been most useful to political leaders, in both the UK and the Global South, as fostering political support domestically, rather than producing any significant successful progress on LGBT rights internationally as a result of threats to cut UK aid. For Cameron, the LGBT aid conditionality discourse allowed him to garner support from across the UK political spectrum. For homophobic leaders in the Global South, the discourse provided them with an opportunity to capitalise on domestic anti-imperial and homophobic sentiment for political utility, distracting from corruption or other rights abuses. Coloniality and Postcolonial Resistance to Aid Conditionality Perhaps the most significant consequence of this LGBT aid conditionality discourse has been the ability of elites in the Global South to sustain the discourse beyond the initial threats from Western leaders, such as Cameron’s CHOGM statements. Examining the responses of some homophobic politicians from the Global South reveals how the concept of LGBT aid conditionality has been used in postcolonial rhetoric in defiance of Western imperialism both when LGBT aid conditionality has and has not posed an immediate threat. This rhetoric employs the threat of LGBT aid conditionality to entrench homophobia and scapegoating of LGBT communities in the Global South, garnering public support and distracting from other human rights abuses and corruption.

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

173

Following Cameron’s CHOGM statements, Ghanaian President, John Atta Mills, made clear that he would ‘never initiate or support any attempts to legalize homosexuality in Ghana’, adding that Cameron should not ‘direct other sovereign nations as to what they should do’ regarding ‘societal norms’ (France-Presse 2011). Ugandan presidential adviser John Nagenda was critical of the UK’s ‘bullying mentality’ and suggested that the UK was treating states like Uganda as ‘children’ (Helton 2011). Such statements immediately following Cameron’s CHOGM statements highlight a core element of this postcolonial rhetoric, namely that the West should respect the sovereignty of Southern states to enact their own laws. As Penny (2014) observed: There’s lots of resentment from many leaders in the Global South that this is just colonialism again, Western leaders imposing these restrictions and conditions. And these leaders have used that against the LGBT community.

Indeed, Cameron’s use of the CHOGM to make a statement on aid conditionality merely served to reinforce coloniality, the perpetuation of historical power relations between the UK and other Commonwealth nations, such that postcolonial resistance from states that were former colonies is unsurprising (Anguita 2012, p. 12; Dunne 2012, pp. 67–68). In addition to failing to appreciate that the Commonwealth itself is a legacy of the British Empire, Cameron also failed to acknowledge the British imperial genesis of a significant number of laws that criminalise LGBT people across many Commonwealth countries (Alimi 2014b; see also, Gupta 2008; Han and O’Mahoney 2018; Kirby 2013). Even prior to Cameron’s CHOGM statements, as the AHB in Uganda was gaining traction and international attention, Ugandan leaders were critical of Western condemnation of what they saw as a Ugandan matter. For example, then Ugandan Minister for Ethics and Integrity, Nsaba Buturo, responded to Swedish threats to withdraw aid by highlighting the negative impact of the withdrawal of aid on the Ugandan people, positioning the Ugandan government as protectors of Ugandan citizens: ‘It is also revealing that support which would benefit countless number of orphans, children and mothers can be withdrawn simply because government is protecting its citizens against vices such as homosexuality’ (quoted in Geen 2009). Similarly, as the AHB met stalled progress in the Ugandan Parliament due to executive intervention, most likely encouraged by international pressure on President Museveni, parliamentarians emphasised

174

M. FARMER

their view that Ugandan ‘traditional values’ were more important than donor funds; that the passage of the AHB was a moral issue (Imaka 2011). David Bahati, Ugandan MP and author of the AHB, suggested that Ugandan dependency on aid detracted from Uganda’s independence to make its own decisions, specifically highlighting Cameron’s threats of aid conditionality (Kron 2012). Thus, despite Uganda’s dependency on aid, elements of the political class in Uganda were clear that what they considered to be a moral issue was significantly more important than the acceptance of aid. Indeed, that aid is the method by which the West would seek to leverage change in the developing world is telling of the coloniality of power within aid relationships between the North and South. Tren and Bate (2011) suggested that Cameron should have called the bluff of some African leaders who said that the UK should halt aid to them, in part because it would, in the long run, reduce their reliance on UK aid (see also, Pflanz 2014). Abbas (2012) similarly argued that since aid dependency is not in the long-term interest for African peoples, ‘why would aid conditionality be a tool for African social justice?’ (p. 17). Thus, whilst we should question whether aid is an appropriate method by which to leverage progress on LGBT rights, the discourse also has the potential to feed into a wider discussion about the re-evaluation of aid and aid relationships between the North and South. The ways in which the Ugandan political class appealed to morality and ‘traditional values’ in response to threats of aid conditionality, demonstrated a moral framing to the narrative of postcolonial resistance that harms local LGBT communities in a number of ways. The narrative of resistance is framed against what is regarded as a Western social phenomenon, simultaneously appealing to populist resistance to Western imperialism whilst delegitimising domestic LGBT communities by claiming their sexual identities and experiences are a Western taint on the morality of the state. Thus, the discourse of LGBT aid conditionality initiated by Western politicians harms local LGBT communities’ attempts to ‘shift the same-sex sexuality discourse from the morality debate to a human rights debate’, by providing Southern politicians with opportunities to frame the debate as a moral issue against Western threats of moral corruption (‘African Statement’ 2013; Pambazuka News 2011). Furthermore, Khanna (2011) noted that ‘Cameron’s statement suggests that a progressive politics of sexuality can only be imagined in the form that it has taken in Europe and North America’, such that as well as failing to

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

175

consult local actors, Cameron reinforced a Western-dominated heterohomo binary discourse of sexuality that silences local sexual realities, expression and experiences. One significantly problematic element of aid conditionality discourse has been that even when it is not employed by Western states or agencies, homophobic elites can still enact the discourse at any time to suggest that the sovereignty of their nation is threatened. Prime examples of this type of postcolonial, anti-Western posturing can be found in recurring and spontaneous statements from former Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe. For example, in a speech at a party for his 92nd birthday, Mugabe said, ‘If aid, as I understand, is to be given on the basis that we accept the principle of gay marriages, then let that aid stay where it is’ (Rae 2016). Seemingly unprompted by any demands that Zimbabwe would actually have to accept ‘gay marriages’ in exchange for development assistance, Mugabe made the comments at a party that reportedly cost $800,000, held in a region that was amongst the hardest hit by drought and starvation (Domonoske 2016). Mugabe had a history of impulsive and unprompted homophobic rhetoric that served as populist and postcolonial posturing (e.g. Carter 2013; Rae 2016; Wells 2015). Such examples highlight the significant problem whereby the mere concept of LGBT aid conditionality, which has rarely been implemented by Western actors, serves as an easily accessible rhetorical device for homophobic elites. As Kretz (2013, p. 22) has suggested, the UK Government’s failure to enact aid conditionality, despite postulating threats, has undermined the potential for such threats to have any effect on Southern governments, thereby reinforcing populist, homophobic rhetoric that encourages violence against local LGBT communities. UK-Based Activist Responses to Aid Conditionality: The ‘Redirect Aid’ Narrative The LGBT aid conditionality discourse had been steadily developing alongside increasing international attention to LGBT rights abuses, such as the progress of the AHB in Uganda, even before the British Government’s publicised stance on aid conditionality in the autumn of 2011. As early as 2008, Tatchell (2008) argued that US aid should be redirected from ‘anti-gay regimes’ to ‘local and international aid agencies that respect LGBT and other human rights’ (see also, The Scotsman 2009). In May 2011, a panel discussion of African LGBT activists addressed

176

M. FARMER

the increasing discourse of aid conditionality by raising concerns about the impact that it could have in developing states, ultimately suggesting that cutting aid in response to legislation such as the AHB would not be a good idea (Johnson 2011). Val Kalende, a Ugandan activist, argued that it would be better to see a grassroots approach to building dialogue and debate that incorporated LGBT rights as part of wider human rights in Uganda, not as a special case that ignores human rights abuses or reinforces the idea that homosexuality is a Western imposition (Johnson 2011). Following the Mail articles and Mitchell’s statements concerning threats to withhold aid in the autumn of 2011, international activists commented on the policy approach of aid conditionality. Some activists, such as Joseph Akoro, executive director of The Initiative for Equal Rights in Nigeria, raised concerns that a policy of aid conditionality further reinforces the perception that states of the Global North are engaging in neo-colonial behaviour in their relationships with the Global South (Canning 2011b). A common concern has also been that Western governments had not engaged with or consulted LGBT activists on the issue before making statements or enacting it as a policy (Canning 2011b; Kretz 2013, p. 13; Wood 2011). Onwuchekwa (2014) noted that the UK Government had clearly not sought the advice of those who would be most impacted or who understood the political nuances of potential target countries. Abbas (2012, p. 18) also noted the lack of consultation with communities, as well as the broader impact that this would have on LGBT communities, let alone whole populations as struggling public services would be affected by cuts to aid. A few days before the 2011 CHOGM and Cameron’s statements, African social justice activists released a statement responding to reports of cutting British aid to countries that violated LGBT rights. The statement reiterated concerns raised by other actors internationally, such as aid conditionality reinforcing the unequal power dynamics between donors and recipients, as well as the disregard for ‘the agency of African civil society movements and political leadership’ (‘African Statement’ 2013; Pambazuka News 2011). The statement also highlighted a key problem of the LGBT aid conditionality discourse that is often overlooked, particularly in Western discourse, that ‘singling out LGBTI issues emphasizes the idea that LGBTI rights are special rights and hierarchically more important than other rights’, which can create tensions in civil society organising

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

177

and solidarity, let alone that LGBT people would suffer equally under the effects of general budget cuts (‘African Statement’ 2013, p. 93). Others have, however, argued in favour of aid conditionality. For example, Kaoma (2009) has argued that the US Government should make aid conditional to African states that ‘have sanctioned the persecution of LGBT persons’ (p. 22). Sarah Margon of Human Rights Watch suggested that the United States should link human rights violations with Ugandan security assistance, particularly since police and security forces ‘are going to be the ones tasked with implementing the law’ (Stearns 2014; see also, Human Rights Watch 2014a). The Nepali LGBT organisation Blue Diamond Society welcomed British statements on aid conditionality, though suggested that respect for human rights should extend beyond just LGBT rights (Canning 2011b). Although there may not be a clear international consensus on the issue of aid conditionality, the lack of consultation is evident in the disconnect between the British Government’s simplified narrative and the more nuanced discussions happening amongst activists internationally that highlight the problematic tensions of aid conditionality as a practice (e.g. Kaleidoscope Trust 2014; ODI 2014). As Alimi noted, ‘While the government might think it is working in good faith, they most of the time failed to consult with the community at the centre of the issues’ (Canning 2011b). Maurice Tomlinson, a Jamaican LGBT activist, drew attention to other methods that could be more effective at encouraging LGBT rights than simply cutting aid, such as targeting anti-LGBT policymakers with visa restrictions or freezing overseas assets, whilst supporting local organisations that document LGBT rights abuses (Canning 2011b). Tomlinson’s suggestions have been echoed by other actors, including Kaleidoscope, which has suggested that actions such as visa restrictions for homophobic politicians avoids some of the counterproductive repercussions of aid conditionality, such as scapegoating and backlashes against local LGBT communities (Assistant Director 2014; Canning 2011b). In the wake of these responses to the widely reported British Government’s position on LGBT aid conditionality, Mitchell ‘clarified’ the Government’s position in November 2011, stating that rather than cut aid to homophobic states entirely, the Government would redirect any aid away from central government to NGOs and civil society organisations (CSOs) (Gray 2011b). Mitchell also highlighted that the Government’s policy on aid conditionality had been misreported in the media and continued to be based upon the four ‘Partnership Principles’, of which

178

M. FARMER

LGBT rights were only a small part and were clearly outlined in previous DFID reports (Gray 2011b; Lloyd 2011; e.g. DFID 2005). Indeed, there was misleading reporting of the Government’s policy, such as in the Mail articles, though Cameron’s statements at the CHOGM 2011 and Andrew Marr appearance only served to reiterate the focus that LGBT rights were a specific condition of aid. Also, not all reporting was misleading with some reports in the LGBT press accurately reporting on the specifics of the policy regarding the broader human rights requirements and the withdrawal of budget support, rather than claims to blanket cuts to aid (e.g. Gray 2011a). Mitchell made these clarifications to UK aid policy at a meeting attended by Kaleidoscope, JfGA, Tatchell, Stonewall and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, at which the UK-based NGOs presented Mitchell with statements from the group of African social justice activists, mentioned above (‘African Statement’ 2013; Pambazuka News 2011), and the Coalition Against Homophobia in Ghana (Assistant Director 2014; Kaleidoscope Trust 2011; Onwuchekwa 2014; Tatchell 2011b). That the meeting took place suggests that the Government was at least willing to engage with UK-based NGOs on the issue, even if not with those activists and communities who would be most affected by the policy in the Global South. Lance Price, then executive director of Kaleidoscope, noted of the meeting: Andrew Mitchell clearly understands the importance of setting LGBT rights into a wider context and of avoiding any risk of harm to those that British policy is designed to help. We are fortunate to have a government that takes these issues seriously and is prepared to speak out when necessary. (Kaleidoscope Trust 2011)

Such comments were oddly flattering of a government that failed to effectively communicate its approach to the issue, that has brought into question that it ‘takes these issues seriously’ given its uneven record of interactions with homophobic states, that it failed to engage with local civil society before acting, and that spoke out in ways that were inconsistent and entirely unnecessary. Nevertheless, UK-based NGO intervention here was positive in that it highlighted to the government African activists’ concerns with its aid conditionality policy that it might otherwise not have engaged with. As explained by the Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope:

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

179

I think one of the big challenges in the UK space […] was to make the British Government aware of when its interventions were unhelpful. So, following 2011, when David Cameron famously made a statement about aid conditionality, which wasn’t well received on the ground or by activists in the UK space, a lot of the work that had been done since that was actually to get the UK Government to understand the subtlety and the nuance that is needed to intervene in this space.

The focus on consultation with local actors, encouraged by UK-based NGOs as well as the APPG LGBT, will hopefully go some way to prevent postulating statements by Government ministers that fail to take into account their impact on those they are claiming to help. As Anguita (2012) pointed out, however, Northern actors should appreciate the difficulties of consulting with Southern actors when ‘organizations from the North want to quickly respond to rights violations in other areas’, given that Southern actors may not have the time or resources to develop detailed strategies to contribute to a quick Northern response (p. 13). Whilst UK-based NGOs contributed to pressuring the UK Government to seek to consult with LGBT communities more, the involvement of UK-based NGOs on the issue of aid conditionality has not been unproblematic. Alimi (2014b) has argued that whilst the majority of African activists have been clear that they do not support aid conditionality, UK-based NGOs have pushed the aid conditionality discourse because it favours the UK Government’s agenda to reduce aid spending. Although it should be noted that UK-based NGOs have generally condemned government statements on aid conditionality, as evidenced by the NGO meeting with Mitchell above, some NGO actors have largely reiterated the aid conditionality narrative by suggesting that aid should be diverted from abusive governments to NGOs and CSOs. For example, Tatchell (2011a) has argued that ‘Instead of cutting aid, Britain and other donor countries should divert their aid money from human rights abusing governments and redirect it to grassroots, community-based humanitarian projects’. Tatchell (2011a) referenced the African social justice activists’ statement as part of his criticism of aid conditionality and was present at the NGO meeting that delivered the statement to Mitchell. However, whilst Tatchell (2011a) claimed to ‘stand in solidarity with their statement’, it should be noted that the African activist statement did not call for the policy of diverting aid that Tatchell advocated. Instead, it specifically called for the expansion of aid to ‘community based and led LGBTI

180

M. FARMER

programmes’ (‘African Statement’ 2013, p. 94). Some have pointed out that Tatchell has previously advocated for aid conditionality (Long 2011b; Waites 2014, 2015). It should be noted, however, that Tatchell has broadly maintained a narrative of redirecting aid, rather than outright cuts to aid assistance (e.g. Tatchell 2008). Onwuchekwa (2014) has advocated a similar approach: We say, instead of cutting aid entirely, what you can do is change how you apply aid to these countries. So, why don’t you give aid to local charities that are on the ground working, because then it can reach the people who need it, because people really do need help.

This redirecting aid narrative is suggested as an alternative to aid conditionality, yet it was precisely this policy that DFID was already enacting anyway, such as in Malawi (Sparrow 2012). The redirecting of aid is still essentially aid conditionality: governments will receive aid so long as they demonstrate acceptance and protection of LGBT rights. The redirecting aid narrative is symptomatic of a broader misunderstanding of the complexities of international development aid within some activist and NGO spaces. As Long (2012) has noted, some discussions about LGBT rights and aid conditionality appear ignorant of developments in international aid negotiations, such as the Paris and Accra agreements, or at least fail to informatively frame the debate with an understanding of the impact of historical practices of aid conditionality on the Global South. Anguita (2012) has similarly argued that the framing of the aid conditionality debate as it relates to LGBT rights has only been framed in terms of LGBT rights: ‘I do think we should challenge ourselves to climb a step further and try to see the whole scene, to abandon for a moment the detailed picture (LGBT) and look at the broader one (human rights)’ (p. 11). There are intersecting issues of concern that we miss in our singular focus on LGBT aid conditionality, including the inconsistencies between development policies and foreign policies with different states in the Global South, as well as failing to take into account the changing development landscape and the role that non-Western states can play in the promotion of LGBT rights (Anguita 2012, p. 11). Long (2011b) has questioned whether redirecting aid to NGOs and civil society is a good suggestion, given that it is similar to neoliberal approaches to development in the 1980s and 1990s, which continue to have a lasting impact on states in the Global South (Gumede 2016).

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

181

Rao (2012) has similarly pointed out that this redirecting aid narrative fails to recognise that it is a replication of widely critiqued 1980s and 1990s neoliberal development practices. Indeed, in bypassing the state, the redirecting aid narrative problematically absolves the state of its responsibilities both to provide public services and to protect the rights of its citizens. As Long (2011b) has argued, ‘whilst civil society in some places has played important roles in providing health care and schooling the young, treaties and international law still makes these the core tasks of governing’ (see also, Leach 2014; Overseas Development Institute 2014). Thus, whilst civil society provides much-needed services, particularly to vulnerable communities, it should not be expected to fulfil the roles and responsibilities that states are bound by agreement to uphold. As noted above, the African social justice activist statement called on donor states to expand aid, rather than redirect it (‘African Statement’ 2013; Pambazuka News 2011), suggesting the possibility that, given the stated problems with aid conditionality, the allocation of funding to local NGOs could be run simultaneously to continued general budget support. Abbas (2012) has cautioned, however, that funding as a strategy to support LGBT communities should be critically evaluated: on very little, the African LGBTIQ movement has made great strides. If funding is to genuinely be a strategy for solidarity, the African LGBTIQ movement must be afforded the space to dictate its own funding priorities. […] The movement also needs to begin to set the parameters of what money is acceptable given the political framework in which the movement operates and seeks to have an impact on. (p. 18)

Broader questions should be considered about the role of aid in development and the progress of LGBT rights, as well as whether the sources of funding support or contradict the long-term political interests of communities across the international LGBT rights movement. It matters what message the source and application of funding convey for LGBT movements and activist organising. Questions are also being asked about whether contemporary international funding models for LGBT rights are accountable and transparent to actors in the Global South (Global LGBTI Politics 2016). These are relevant questions not only for LGBT organising in the Global South, but also for Western NGOs to also ensure that the sources of their funding support social justice and solidarity internationally (Long 2013; see also Feder 2013).

182

M. FARMER

Not all UK-based NGOs appear to lack an appreciation for the complexities of development and demonstrate an understanding of the changing landscape of aid and development (Assistant Director 2014). It is concerning, however, that whilst the APPG LGBT reiterated many of the criticisms of aid conditionality shared by UK-based NGOs, it offered solutions within the bounds of the ‘redirect aid’ narrative: ‘Instead of threats of blanket cuts to aid, the strategic reallocation of aid and the use of reviews of existing funding may be effective in bringing pressure to bear on states that violate the rights of LGBT people’ (APPG 2016, p. 46). The APPG LGBT report, however, did not make clear what ‘strategic reallocation’ or ‘reviews of existing funding’ would entail, or how they would be different to other forms of aid conditionality. Indeed, regardless of threatening statements, reviewing existing funding and reallocation of aid was the policy that DFID had been adhering to all along. This is symptomatic of elements of the aid conditionality discourse to fail to extend a critique of aid conditionality beyond Cameron’s CHOGM statements, undermining a much needed critical analysis of the role of aid conditionality in international and multilateral funding practices. International Practices of Aid Conditionality Whilst most attention is given to the UK and Cameron’s CHOGM statements in the aid conditionality discourse, several other states have threatened to or cut aid on the basis of LGBT rights abuses. Instances of aid conditionality in practice have mostly revolved around the development of the AHB in Uganda. For example, Swedish Development Assistance Minister Gunilla Carlsson suggested that Swedish aid to Uganda could be jeopardised if the AHB became law, though efforts would be made to redirect aid to NGOs and civil society (Geen 2009). Responding to the development of the AHB, US Congressman Barney Frank introduced an amendment in the House Financial Services Committee that directed the Treasury Department to oppose the use of financial assistance from multilateral development institutions to states that violated the human rights of sexual, gender and religious minorities (Johnson 2011; Oluka 2011). Once the AHB became law in February 2014, several countries suspended aid to Uganda, including The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United States, though most suggested that aid would be redirected to local NGOs in Uganda (Croome 2014; McCormick 2014; Potts 2014). The Dutch Government’s aid cuts affected funding to the

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

183

Ugandan justice sector, thereby targeting state apparatus linked to the enforcement of the new law (Government of the Netherlands 2014; Potts 2014). Whilst the above state-enacted aid conditionality in response to the AHB might be critiqued in a similar fashion to the above analysis of UK governmental interventions, albeit with less posturing and fewer complicated colonial dimensions, it is interesting to analyse the World Bank’s response to the AHB in light of criticism of state-enacted aid conditionality. The APPG LGBT report favourably noted the role of the World Bank temporarily suspending a $90 million healthcare loan to Uganda following the passage of the AHA, citing Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank, who suggested that the suspension had deterred other African leaders from adopting similar legislation in other countries: The temporary withholding of development loans to Uganda by the World Bank is an example of how reviewing funding arrangements in light of human rights violations can successfully exert pressure on governments. (APPG 2016, p. 46)

Since Kim would not disclose which African leaders had told him they would not adopt similar legislation because of the loan suspension, it is difficult to measure how effective the loan suspension really was as a deterrent (Feder 2015). Indeed, it is not clear whether the suspension had any real effect on Uganda specifically, given that the law was eventually overturned on a matter of constitutionality, Museveni’s reluctance to pursue a reintroduction of the bill appears to have more to do with international threats to trade rather than aid, and many Ugandan MPs continued to push for new anti-homosexuality legislation (Houttuin 2015). Indeed, it is misleading to suggest that the loan was only temporarily withheld, as the loan was officially ‘dropped’ by at least April 2014 (Feder 2015; World Bank, n.d.). Furthermore, even after the AHA was overturned in August 2014 by Ugandan’s Constitutional Court, Ugandan civil society actors and international allies continued to pressure the World Bank to enact safeguards to ‘prevent discrimination in health service provision’ for LGBT people, noting concerns in Uganda beyond the AHA, such as the HIV Prevention and Control Act passed by Museveni in July 2014 (Human Rights Watch 2014b, c). Such pressure levied against the World Bank is fair, considering that few practical developments in safeguarding were enacted following the suspension of the loan and a Ugandan police

184

M. FARMER

raid of an HIV centre in April 2014 highlighted how homophobic politics continued to impact healthcare provision in Uganda (Feder 2014). Indeed, what is particularly surprising about the suspension is that the World Bank loan was intended to ‘focus on maternal health, newborn care, and family planning’, information which was conspicuously absent from much media reporting on the suspension at the time, including in the APPG LGBT report (Long 2014; World Bank, n.d.; e.g. APPG 2016, p. 46). It is curious that a loan, equivalent to 20% of Uganda’s health budget, that was primarily concerned with maternal health care in a country with high maternal and child mortality rates, should be suspended on concerns of LGBT discrimination (Long 2014). Long (2014) has suggested that the suspension of this particular loan was a matter of convenience, chosen because it coincided with the introduction of the AHA, in order to play to domestic audiences in the West. President Kim, however, has suggested that it was a matter of ensuring non-discrimination in the project in the wake of the AHA: In that case, I took a careful look. I know that country and the healthcare system in Africa. I just wasn’t convinced that we could ensure nondiscrimination. So we pulled it back. Now there is a conversation that started in Uganda that never would have happened if we were not able to do that. (quoted in Douglas-Gabriel 2014)

Kim’s statement failed to specifically elaborate on how the healthcare loan would be affected by LGBT discrimination, or why LGBT discrimination was necessarily more significant than maternal mortality and health care. Questions could also be asked of why the World Bank targeted Uganda aside from the timing of the AHA, particularly since many states have severe anti-LGBT legislation, some of which is arguably worse than the AHA was. Indeed, a majority of the Bank’s members have legislation that discriminates against sexual and gender minorities in some way (The Economist 2014). What was particularly arrogant about Kim’s justification was the suggestion that the loan suspension has started a ‘conversation’ in Uganda, as though the work of Ugandan LGBT activists had contributed nothing to the progress of LGBT rights in Uganda in the years prior to the AHA becoming law. Though international activist responses to the loan suspension and other states enacting aid conditionality in reaction to the AHA was somewhat mixed, Julian Pepe Onziema, programme director of SMUG, was critical of such actions:

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

185

There are so many horrible laws in this country, but to single out, to radically react to the AHA is not only patronizing but also further enhances LGBTI persons’ vulnerability to both non-state and state-sanctioned homophobia. (quoted in The New Humanitarian 2014)

Concerns were raised from both Ugandan civil society and the Ugandan Government about the impact that the suspension of the loan would have on the Ugandan healthcare system (The New Humanitarian 2014). Other international activists, such as Alimi (2014a), whilst critical of state-enacted aid conditionality have argued in favour of the World Bank making loans conditional on the improvement of LGBT rights. Since the World Bank action is tantamount to aid conditionality, the production of positive narratives about the aid suspension, as seen in the APPG LGBT report, is oddly jarring against the de riguer anti-aid conditionality narrative of UK-based (and broader international) LGBT activism. Also, given that lack of consultation with local actors has been a common criticism of aid conditionality practices, it should further be noted that the World Bank failed to consult Ugandan LGBT activists before the AHA was passed and the loan suspended (Lavers 2014). Ultimately, the decision of the World Bank to suspend the healthcare loan to Uganda played out very similarly to the British LGBT aid conditionality discourse. The practice is enacted with supposedly goodwill to improve LGBT rights, but with no consultation with actors on the ground, such that it appears to be played more for Western domestic constituencies at the expense of those most impacted. Furthermore, LGBT rights are singled out as special against a backdrop of other serious human rights abuses, often in reactionary ways that fail to engage with broader problems, particularly if doing so would question or undermine Western systems that benefit from the continued subjugation of the Global South. Long (2014) has highlighted this dissonance between the attention given to Western religious groups ‘exporting homophobia to Africa’ whilst Western activists ‘ignore the neo-colonialism of foreign financial institutions that enforce neoliberal economics on an abject continent’. This is symptomatic of the failure to confront the coloniality of power in global politics, instead focusing singularly on LGBT rights. Moreover, despite the action to suspend the loan as a possible attempt by the World Bank to appear to be doing something about LGBT rights, the Bank continued to receive criticism for its failure to not be doing enough to address LGBT rights internationally (Lavers 2014). This is

186

M. FARMER

not surprising given that the loan suspension was a reactionary attempt to appear to support LGBT rights, rather than part of a serious, long-term strategy.

Challenges and Opportunities for Future UK-Based Engagements The ways in which UK-based NGOs adopted varying stances on LGBT aid conditionality, acting as arbiters for the defence of LGBT communities, betrays their complicity with UK Government forces in their continued support of ‘redirecting aid’. That NGOs failed to engage with the specifics of DFID’s policy, complicated by Mitchell and Cameron’s confused articulation of the policy, is symptomatic of NGOs’ failure to contextualise contemporary LGBT rights within a broader understanding of aid relations, coloniality and legacies of colonialism. For example, NGOs made no reference to the Paris or Accra agreements, nor to a situated understanding of the impact and legacies of Structural Adjustment Programmes and economic underdevelopment of the Global South. Also, there appears to have been very little engagement in working a strategy, either from the UK Government or UK-based NGOs, to disrupt narratives of postcolonial resistance that deploy LGBT aid conditionality as a means of delegitimising local LGBT communities in the Global South. This is perhaps the most detrimental consequence of the aid conditionality discourse initiated by Western actors, situated as it is within a history of the West leveraging economic power against the Global South. Even where LGBT aid conditionality has not been used in practice (and it rarely has, particularly by the UK), the incitement to discourse has given homophobic elites an easily deployable heteronationalist narrative with which to delegitimise already disadvantaged LGBT communities. How the UK Government and UK-based NGOs will contribute to mitigating the effects of the discourse of LGBT aid conditionality remains to be seen. Despite this, the UK Government has demonstrated some potentially positive engagements with global LGBT rights. For example, in addition to UK involvement in and support of UN resolutions supporting the progress of LGBT rights during its time on the UNHRC, the UK was amongst a number of states that signed a commitment to an ‘Equal Rights Coalition’ at an international conference in Uruguay (‘Equal Rights Coalition—Factsheet’ 2016; ‘Equal Rights Coalition’ 2019; Lavers 2016; Stonewall 2018). UK political actors have also contributed to establishing

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

187

the Global Equality Caucus, ‘an international network of parliamentarians and elected representatives aiming to tackle discrimination against LGBT+ people’ (Global Equality Caucus 2019). DFID’s addition of an LGBT theme to its UK Aid Connect fund demonstrates an effort to support research concerned with improving LGBT inclusion in development work. Vocal support for global LGBT rights has come from across various government departments, though time will tell whether a coordinated, central strategy will emerge to transform supportive sentiment into effective action. Whilst the FCO itself has previously suggested that it should work with other departments to ensure that ‘the same message is being used across Whitehall’, the APPG LGBT noted that there has been a lack of clear coordination or cross-government policy on the UK’s approach to international LGBT rights (APPG 2016, pp. 29, 52; FCO 2010, pp. 3–4). If UK-based NGOs continue to lobby the UK Government on this and hold it to account for its actions, then perhaps the UK can make some effective contributions internationally. For example, in 2016, Kaleidoscope, Stonewall, UKLGIG, HDT, StopAids and United Belize Advocacy Movement met with officials from the FCO, DFID and Government Equalities Office ‘to discuss greater cross government coordination on a range of global LGBT rights issues’ (Kaleidoscope Trust, newsletter email communication, 1 November 2016). Hopefully, the close links between NGOs and the UK government, as seen with the potential of the APPG LGBT to effectively facilitate such relationships, will encourage political representatives to think more carefully before speaking out on international LGBT issues. Certainly, there appears to be a commonly accepted ethos that UK-based actors, both governmental and non-governmental, should engage with and be led by local activists in countries of concern, though the extent to which either group effectively enact such an ethos should be subject to continued critique. The close relationships that some UK-based NGOs enjoy with UK governmental actors presents both opportunities and challenges for effective transnational LGBT activism. As Kollman and Waites (2011) have noted, the concentration of power in the executive branch within the UK political system presents fewer opportunities for NGOs to influence policy change, without having to rely on ‘the good will of either elected politicians or Whitehall officials to be heard’ (p. 184). The favourable shift in governmental attitudes towards LGBT rights in the 2000s has helped to create more political opportunities for NGOs to influence governmental actors on global LGBT issues. For example, the APPG LGBT would not

188

M. FARMER

have been established without parliamentarians that were sympathetic to global LGBT rights, giving a formal point of access to NGOs engaged in transnational LGBT activism, though its influence is still constrained by the power of the executive. Kaleidoscope and Stonewall’s institutional advocacy demonstrates that some actors in UK government departments such as the FCO and DFID have been receptive to NGO engagements on global LGBT issues. That Kaleidoscope and Stonewall are well positioned for institutional advocacy is unsurprising, given that Kaleidoscope was formed from and had the support of elite networks at its inception, and Stonewall has had a longer history with which to develop connections with political elites (see also Waites 2017). What is of concern, however, is that whilst there has been some productive critique of UK governmental (in)action on global LGBT issues from UK-based NGOs, there remains a lack of sustained decolonial critique of UK interventions in international LGBT activism. For example, as seen with LGBT aid conditionality above, NGOs have not effectively challenged the broader perpetuation of coloniality in the UK’s international relations, or how coloniality continues to impact and shape Southern LGBT activists’ participation in transnational solidarity. Whilst it is worth recognising that NGOs engaged in institutional advocacy must balance critique of government action against jeopardising institutional access (Lang 2013, p. 8), absence of any challenge to the preservation of UK coloniality limits transformative solidarity with Southern LGBT struggles beyond shared identity politics. Whilst access to UK governmental actors increases the power of UK-based NGOs to influence change internationally, such close relations also infuse NGO engagements with the problematic dynamics of governmental coloniality by association (Long 2011c; Rao 2012). The choice of when to challenge these relations is not easy to make, but NGOs and activists must also be aware of when our LGBT struggles are deployed by governments in homonationalist ways that perpetuate states’ coloniality of power, as Cameron attempted at the CHOGM (Long 2011c; Rao 2012). Given their positions of power relative to Southern activists, UK-based NGOs should critically reflect on whether their participation in transnational LGBT activism enacts meaningful solidarity with Southern struggles (beyond only LGBT rights), or whether their strategies are complicit with the perpetuation of coloniality and oppression (Long 2016).

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

189

References Abbas, H. (2012). Aid, Resistance and Queer Power (SPW Working Paper 7: The Global Context: Sexuality and Geopolitics, 16–19). http://www.sxpoli tics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spw-wp7-the-global-context-sexual ity-and-politics.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2019. African Rainbow Family. (2016, April 14). UK Parliament Urges for More Actions to Tackle Serious Breaches of LGBT Rights Globally. https://africanra inbowfamily.org/2016/05/09/uk-parliament-urges-for-more-actions-to-tac kle-serious-breaches-of-lgbt-rights-globally/. Accessed 10 August 2019. African Statement to British Government on Aid Conditionality. (2013). In S. Ekine & H. Abbas (Eds.), Queer African Reader (pp. 92–94). Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Alimi, B. (2014a, June 17). The Development Costs of Homophobia. Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/adebisi-alimicalls-on-the-world-bank-and-other-lenders-to-condition-aid-on-legal-protec tions-for-lgbt-people. Accessed 13 September 2019. Alimi, B. (2014b, August 19). Personal interview. Nigerian LGBT Activist. Allison, S. (2011, December 9). Britain’s Half-Hearted Fight for Gay Rights in Africa. Daily Maverick. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/ 2011-12-09-britains-half-hearted-fight-for-gay-rights-in-africa/. Accessed 10 September 2019. All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights: The UK’s Stance on International Breaches of LGBT Rights. (2016). http://media.wix.com/ ugd/cf74d6_9aef960a172749b6ae9da560b09e8e61.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Anderson, M. (2015, March 9). UK Passes Bill to Honour Pledge of 0.7% Foreign Aid Target. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/glo bal-development/2015/mar/09/uk-passes-bill-law-aid-target-percentageincome. Accessed 9 September 2019. Anelay, J. (2015, December 9). Speech for International Human Rights Day. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/baroness-anelay-speech-for-int ernational-human-rights-day. Accessed 23 August 2019. Anguita, L. A. (2012). Aid Conditionality and Respect for LGBT People Rights (SPW Working Paper 7: The Global Context: Sexuality and Geopolitics, 9–15). http://www.sxpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spw-wp7the-global-context-sexuality-and-politics.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2019. APPG on Global LGBT Rights. (2015). Invitation to Submit Written Evidence on: The UK’s Stance on International Breaches of LGBT Rights. https://africa nrainbowfamily.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/appglgbt-pdf.pdf. Accessed 22 August 2019. Assistant Director. (2014, July 29). Personal Interview. Kaleidoscope Trust.

190

M. FARMER

Badgett, M. V. L. (2014). The Economic Cost of Stigma and the Exclusion of LGBT People: A Case Study of India. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/527261468035379692/Theeconomic-cost-of-stigma-and-the-exclusion-of-LGBT-people-a-case-study-ofIndia. Accessed 11 October 2019. BBC News. (2011, October 30). Cameron Threat to Dock Some UK Aid to Anti-gay Nations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15511081. Accessed 9 September 2019. BBC News. (2012a, May 18). Malawi to Overturn Homosexual Ban, Joyce Banda Says. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18118350. Accessed 9 September 2019. BBC News. (2012b, November 16). UK Cuts Aid to Ugandan Government. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20368182. Accessed 10 September 2019. BBC News. (2016, August 23). Yemen Crisis: Oxfam Critical of UK-Saudi Arms Deals. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37161486. Accessed 9 September 2019. Bowcott, O. (2015, September 29). UK and Saudi Arabia “In Secret Deal” over Human Rights Council Place. The Guardian. https://www.thegua rdian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/29/uk-and-saudi-arabia-in-secret-deal-overhuman-rights-council-place. Accessed 5 September 2019. Brooks-Pollock, T. (2015, September 20). Anger After Saudi Arabia “Chosen to Head Key UN Human Rights Panel”. The Independent. https://www.indepe ndent.co.uk/news/world/anger-after-saudi-arabia-chosen-to-head-key-unhuman-rights-panel-10509716.html. Accessed 5 September 2019. Browne, E. (2019). Gender Norms, LGBTQI Issues and Development: A Topic Guide. ALIGN Guide. https://www.alignplatform.org/resources/2019/08/ gender-norms-lgbtqi-issues-and-development. Accessed 11 October 2019. Burnell, P. (2008). Governance and Conditionality in a Globalizing World. In P. Burnell & V. Randall (Eds.), Politics in the Developing World (pp. 291–311). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canning, P. (2011a, April 21). Malawi Government Threatens ProLGBT Groups, Activists over Foreign Aid Withdrawals. LGBT Asylum News. http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/04/malawi-government-thr eatens-pro-lgbt.html. Accessed 9 September 2019. Canning, P. (2011b, October 11). Cautious Welcome, Concern as UK Ties Foreign Aid to LGBT Human Rights. LGBT Asylum News. http://mad ikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/10/cautious-welcome-concern-as-uk-ties.html. Accessed 10 September 2019. Carter, D. (2013, August 23). President Mugabe Uses Inauguration Speech to Say: “Homosexuality a Filthy, Filthy Disease”. Pink News. https://www.pin knews.co.uk/2013/08/23/president-mugabe-uses-inauguration-speech-tosay-homosexuality-a-filthy-filthy-disease/. Accessed 10 September 2019.

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

191

Cooper, J. (2015, July 23). Personal Interview. Former Chief Executive, Human Dignity Trust. Cornwall, A., & Jolly, S. (2009). Sexuality and the Development Industry. Development, 52(1), 5–12. Croome, P. (2014, March 13). U.S. Suspends Some Aid to Uganda over Antigay Law. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uganda-usa-idUSBR EA2C1Y120140313. Accessed 13 September 2019. Currier, A., & Cruz, J. M. (2013). Civil Society and Sexual Struggles in Africa. In E. Obadare (Ed.), The Handbook of Civil Society in Africa (pp. 337–360). New York: Springer. Daly, F. (2015). Claiming the Human Right to Health for Women Who Have Sex with Women Through South Africa’s National Strategic Plans on HIV and STIs. HEARD Policy Brief . http://www.heard.org.za/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/08/women-have-sex-with-women.pdf. Accessed 22 August 2019. Department for International Development. (2005). Partnerships for Poverty Reduction: Rethinking Conditionality (Policy Paper). https://assets.pub lishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/211182/partnerships-poverty-reduction.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2009). Eliminating World Poverty: Building Our Common Future. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/gov ernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229029/7656.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2012a, May 31). Malawi: UK Protects Poorest from Devaluation Difficulty. GOV.UK. https://www.gov. uk/government/news/malawi-uk-protects-poorest-from-devaluation-diffic ulty. Accessed 9 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2012b, November 16). Uganda: UK Suspends Aid to Government. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/news/uganda-uk-suspends-aid-to-government. Accessed 10 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2013a, September 5). DFID Diversity and Inclusion—Annual Report 2012–13. https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 237038/DFID-annual-equality-diversity-report.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2013b, November 27). Towards Zero Infections—Two Years On. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ons/towards-zero-infections-two-years-on. Accessed 7 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2014). DFID Guidance Note: The Partnership Principles. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/govern

192

M. FARMER

ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358341/how-to-par tnership-principles-march2014a.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2016a, February 9). DFID’s Approach on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGB&T) Rights. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dfids-approach-on-lesbiangay-bisexual-and-transgender-lgbt-rights. Accessed 7 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2016b, May 17). DFID Flies the Rainbow Flag. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dfid-fliesthe-rainbow-flag. Accessed 8 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2017a). UK Aid Connect: Terms of Reference: Addressing Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual and Transgender Inclusion. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5968a106e5274a0a69000 194/Terms-of-Reference-Addressing-Lesbian-Gay-and-Bisexual-and-Transg ender-Inclusion.pdf. Accessed 8 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2017b, July 6). UK Aid Connect. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/international-development-funding/uk-aidconnect. Accessed 8 September 2019. Department for International Development. (2019, April 12). UK Aid Connect—Consortia Grants Formally Announced. https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/media/5c128861ed915d0b7268eeb4/Consortia-Grants-for mally-announced-April19.pdf. Accessed 8 September 2019. Dillane, P. (2015, August 11). Personal Interview. Former Executive Director, UKLGIG. Domonoske, C. (2016, February 27). Robert Mugabe’s 92nd Birthday Present: More Outrage from Critics. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2016/02/27/468385992/robert-mugabes-92nd-birthday-presentmore-outrage-from-critics. Accessed 10 September 2019. Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2014, April 3). Here Is Why the World Bank Withheld Aid to Uganda. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/wonk/wp/2014/04/03/here-is-why-the-world-bank-withheld-aid-touganda/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Duffy, N. (2015, June 29). Nick Herbert: Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights Will Help Tackle “Discrimination and Abuses”. Pink News. https:// www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/29/nick-herbert-parliamentary-group-onglobal-lgbt-rights-will-help-tackle-discrimination-and-abuses/. Accessed 22 August 2019. Dunne, P. (2012). LGBTI Rights and the Wrong Way to Give Aid. The Harvard Kennedy School Review, 12. https://issuu.com/harvardksr/docs/ 2012. Accessed 10 September 2019. Equal Rights Coalition. (2019, July 5). Canada.ca. https://www.international. gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

193

rights-droits_homme/coalition-equal-rights-droits-egaux.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed 14 September 2019. Equal Rights Coalition—Factsheet. (2016). LGBTI Montevideo. https://lgbtim ontevideo2016.elis.biz/admin/files/lgbtimontevideo2016/upload/files/Fac tsheet%20Equal%20Rights%20Coalition%20ENG.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2019. Featherstone, L. (2014, February 28). Lynne Featherstone MP Writes…A Great Leap Backwards for Gay Rights. Liberal Democrat Voice. https://www.lib demvoice.org/lynne-featherstone-mp-writesa-great-leap-backwards-for-gayrights-38379.html. Accessed 7 September 2019. Feder, J. L. (2013, November 5). Human Rights Campaign’s Move into International Work Puts Global LGBT Advocates on Edge. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lesterfeder/humanrights-campaigns-move-into-international-work-puts-glo. Accessed 4 January 2020. Feder, J. L. (2014, April 22). World Bank Review Team to Recommend Approving Loan to Uganda Despite Anti-Homosexuality Act. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lesterfeder/world-bank-rev iew-team-to-recommend-approving-loan-to-uganda. Accessed 13 September 2019. Feder, J. L. (2015, April 9). World Bank President: Our Efforts Have Slowed Rise of Anti-LGBT Laws. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ article/lesterfeder/world-bank-president-our-efforts-have-slowed-rise-of-antilg#.ygZL4vR. Accessed 13 September 2019. Fenton, S. (2015, June 16). Foreign Secretary “Tells Embassies Not to Fly Rainbow Flag for Gay Pride. The Independent. https://www.independent. co.uk/news/uk/politics/foreign-secretary-tells-embassies-not-to-fly-rainbowflag-for-gay-pride-10322822.html. Accessed 7 September 2019. Foreign Affairs Committee. (2016). The FCO’s Administration and Funding of Its Human Rights Work Overseas: Fourth Report of Session 2015–16. http:// www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmfaff/860/860. pdf. Accessed 23 August 2019. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2010, June 30). An FCO Programme for Promoting the Human Rights of LGBT People. https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/publications/an-fco-programme-for-promoting-the-human-rights-oflgbt-people. Accessed 23 August 2019. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2014). Human Rights and Democracy: The 2013 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2013. Accessed 23 August 2019. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2015). Human Rights and Democracy: The 2014 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. https://www.gov.uk/govern

194

M. FARMER

ment/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2014. Accessed 23 August 2019. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2016). Human Rights and Democracy: The 2015 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2015. Accessed 10 August 2016. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2019). Human Rights and Democracy: The 2018 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2018. Accessed 23 August 2019. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Official. (2014, November 21). Telephone Interview. Human Rights & Democracy Department. France-Presse, A. (2011, November 2). I Will Never Support Legalizing Homosexuality, Ghana’s President Says. National Post. https://nationalpost. com/news/ghanas-president-vows-to-never-support-any-attempts-to-legalizehomosexuality. Accessed 10 September 2019. Geen, J. (2009, December 3). Swedish Minister Suggests Aid Funding Could Be Cut over Uganda’s Anti-gay Bill. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co. uk/2009/12/03/swedish-minister-suggests-aid-funding-could-be-cut-overugandas-anti-gay-bill/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Geen, J. (2011, June 22). David Cameron Says UK Will Pressure Africa on Gay Rights. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/06/22/david-cam eron-says-uk-will-pressure-africa-on-gay-rights/. Accessed 9 September 2019. Global Equality Caucus. (2019). About the Caucus. https://equalitycaucus.org/ about-the-caucus. Accessed 21 February 2020. Global LGBTI Politics. (2016, July 22). Are International LGBTI Funders Accountable? YouTube [video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_H rYygOm8g. Accessed 13 September 2019. Gosine, A. (2015). Rescue, and Real Love: Same-Sex Desire in International Development. Brighton: IDS. https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/ rescue-and-real-love-same-sex-desire-in-international-development/. Accessed 10 October 2019. Gould, J. (Ed.). (2005). The New Conditionality: The Politics of Poverty Reduction Strategies. London: Zed Books. Government of the Netherlands. (2014, February 24). Dutch Government Announces Measures in Response to Ugandan Anti-gay Law. https://www. government.nl/latest/news/2014/02/24/dutch-government-announcesmeasures-in-response-to-ugandan-anti-gay-law. Accessed 13 September 2019. Gray, S. (2011a, November 4). Zambia and Zimbabwe Appear to Reject Gay Rights “Pressure” on Aid. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/ 2011/11/04/zambia-and-zimbabwe-also-reject-gay-rights-pressure-on-aid/. Accessed 9 September 2019.

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

195

Gray, S. (2011b, November 22). Minister Confirms UK Will Redirect Aid, Not Cut It, for Human Rights Violations. Pink News. https://www.pin knews.co.uk/2011/11/22/minister-confirms-uk-will-redirect-aid-not-cut-itfor-human-rights-abuses/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Gumede, W. (2016, July 21). The Retreat of Neoliberalism. Pambazuka News. https://www.pambazuka.org/economics/retreat-neoliberalism. Accessed 13 September 2019. Gupta, A. (2008). This Alien Legacy: The Origins of “Sodomy” Laws in British Colonialism. New York: Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/reports/lgbt1208_web.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2019. Hammond, P. (2015, December 9). Promoting Human Rights Is Not About Who Can Shout the Loudest. The Independent. https://www.independent. co.uk/voices/promoting-human-rights-is-not-about-who-can-shout-the-lou dest-a6767386.html. Accessed 23 August 2019. Han, E., & O’Mahoney, J. (2018). British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality. London: Routledge. Harrison, G. (2001). Post-conditionality Politics and Administrative Reform: Reflections on the Cases of Uganda and Tanzania. Development and Change, 32(4), 657–679. Haste, P., Overs, C., & Mills, E. (2016). Avenues for Donors to Promote Sexuality and Gender Justice. IDS Policy Briefing, 120. https://www.ids. ac.uk/publications/avenues-for-donors-to-promote-sexuality-and-gender-jus tice/. Accessed 7 September 2019. Helton, J. (2011, November 4). Uganda: Fury at UK Threat to Cut Aid over Gay Rights. Global Post. https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-11-04/ugandafury-uk-threat-cut-aid-over-gay-rights. Accessed 10 September 2019. Herbert, N. (2015, July 26). MPs and Peers form New Group to Champion LGBT Rights Around the World. https://www.nickherbert.com/news-rel eases-archive/2018/1/24/mps-and-peers-form-new-group-to-championlgbt-rights-around-the-world. Accessed 22 August 2019. HM Government. (2011). Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality: Moving Forward. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/govern ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85482/lgbt-actionplan.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2019. Hogarth, A. (2015, December 11). The Government Says We Shouldn’t “Shout the Loudest” on Human Rights: I Wonder Why That Is. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-government-says-we-shouldntshout-the-loudest-on-human-rights-i-wonder-why-that-is-a6769196.html. Accessed 23 August 2019. House, C. (2016, April 14). UK Government Urged to Tackle LGBT Rights Globally. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/node/28063. Accessed 23 August 2019.

196

M. FARMER

Houttuin, S. (2015, January 6). Gay Ugandans face New Threat from AntiHomosexuality Law. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ 2015/jan/06/-sp-gay-ugandans-face-new-threat-from-anti-homosexualit y-law. Accessed 13 September 2019. Human Dignity Trust. (2015). Policy Recommendations of the Human Dignity Trust: Briefing for the UK Government. http://humandignitytrust.org/upl oaded/Policy_Proposals_2015-2020_pdf.pdf. Accessed 9 August 2016. Human Rights Watch. (2014a, February 19). Uganda: Anti-Homosexuality Law Will Come at a Serious Cost. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/19/uga nda-anti-homosexuality-law-will-come-serious-cost. Accessed 13 September 2019. Human Rights Watch. (2014b, September 23). Joint CSO Letter to World Bank on Discrimination in Uganda’s Health Sector. https://www.hrw.org/ news/2014/09/23/joint-cso-letter-world-bank-discrimination-ugandas-hea lth-sector. Accessed 13 September 2019. Human Rights Watch. (2014c, September 23). World Bank: Safeguards Essential for Uganda Loan. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/23/world-bank-saf eguards-essential-uganda-loan. Accessed 13 September 2019. Human Rights Watch. (2015, April 28). Kenya: High Court Orders LGBT Group Registration. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/28/kenya-highcourt-orders-lgbt-group-registration. Accessed 23 August 2019. Imaka, I. (2011, August 23). Blocking Gays Bill Is Moral Corruption—MPs. Daily Monitor. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/122 3838/-/bjw4hwz/-/index.html. Accessed 10 September 2019. Johnson, C. (2011, May 18). African Activists Oppose Cuts to Ugandan Aid. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/05/18/ african-activists-oppose-cuts-to-ugandan-aid/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2011, November 22). Andrew Mitchell Says UK Support for LGBT Rights Will Not Lead to Cuts in Aid Levels. https://kaleidoscopetrust. com/news/31. Accessed 13 September 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2013, February 28). Kaleidoscope Trust Launches Parliamentary Friends Group. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/36. Accessed 22 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014, July 8). Solidarity and Partnership Emphasised at Development Aid Event. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/69. Accessed 20 November 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2015, July 23). All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights Launched. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/94. Accessed 22 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2016a, February 10). The Kaleidoscope Trust’s Response to the Department for International Development’s Approach on LGB&T Rights. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/101. Accessed 7 September 2019.

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

197

Kaleidoscope Trust. (2016b, April 14). Kaleidoscope Trust Welcomes All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights Report. http://kaleidoscope trust.com/news/109. Accessed 12 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2019, March 29). Kaleidoscope Trust Joins New Consortium to Lead UK Government-Funded £12 Million Programme to Promote LGBT + Inclusion Across Africa. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/news/157. Accessed 8 September 2019. Kaoma, K. (2009). Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches, & Homophobia. Somerville, MA.: Political Research Associates. https://www.politicalresearch.org/2009/12/01/globalizing-culturewars. Accessed 13 September 2019. Khambay, A., & Dorey, K. (2018). Engaging with LGBT + Advocates: A Guide for UK Officials Working Abroad. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ system/files/engaging_with_lgbt_advocates.pdf. Accessed 23 August 2019. Khanna, A. (2011, October 31). Aid Conditionality and the Limits of a Politics of Sexuality. IDS: Participation, Power and Social Change. https://participa tionpower.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/aid-conditionality-and-the-limits-ofa-politics-of-sexuality/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Kirby, M. (2013). The Sodomy Offence: England’s Least Lovely Criminal Law Export? In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 61–82). London: University of London. Kollman, K., & Waites, M. (2011). United Kingdom: Changing Political Opportunity Structures, Policy Success and Continuing Challenges for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Movements. In M. Tremblay, D. Paternotte, & C. Johnson (Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship (pp. 181–196). Farnham: Ashgate. Kretz, A. J. (2013). Is Aid Conditionality the Answer to Antigay Legislation? An Analysis of British and American Foreign Aid Policies Designed to Protect Sexual Minorities. Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law, 7, 476–500. Kron, J. (2012, February 28). Resentment Toward the West Bolsters Uganda’s New Anti-gay Bill. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/ 02/29/world/africa/ugandan-lawmakers-push-anti-homosexuality-bill-again. html. Accessed 10 September 2019. Lang, S. (2013). NGOs, Civil Society, and the Public Sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lavers, M. K. (2014, October 13). World Bank Criticized for “Ignoring” LGBT Issues. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/ 10/13/world-bank-criticized-ignoring-lgbt-issues/. Accessed 13 September 2019.

198

M. FARMER

Lavers, M. K. (2016, July 15). Uruguay Hosts Global LGBT Rights Conference. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/07/15/ uruguay-hosts-global-lgbt-rights-conference/. Accessed 14 September 2019. Leach, A. (2014, July 9). Talkpoint: Should Aid Be Withdrawn from Countries Violating LGBT Rights? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/glo bal-development-professionals-network/2014/jul/09/lgbt-aid-developmentrights. Accessed 13 September 2019. Lloyd, P. (2011). Government Will Divert—Not Cut—Financial Aid, Says MP. DIVA. http://www.divamag.co.uk/category/news/government-will-div ert-not-cut-foreign-aid,-says-mp.aspx. Accessed 21 July 2016. Long, S. (2011a, October 31). African Activists on Human Rights and Aid. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2011/10/31/african-activists-on-humanrights-and-aid/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Long, S. (2011b, November 1). Growing Pains: More on British Aid. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2011/11/01/growing-pains-more-on-bri tish-aid/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Long, S. (2011c, December 9). More on Hillary and Barack. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2011/12/09/more-on-hillary-and-bar ack/. Accessed 21 February 2020. Long, S. (2012, June 26). Resources for the Unbelievers, on Aid Conditionality and LGBT Rights. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2012/06/26/ resources-for-the-unbelievers-on-aid-conditionality-and-lgbt-rights/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Long, S. (2013, November 4). HRC and the Vulture Fund: Making Third World Poverty Pay for LGBT Rights. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/ 2013/11/04/hrc-and-the-vulture-fund-making-third-world-poverty-pay-forlgbt-rights/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Long, S. (2014, March 10). Uganda, the World Bank, and LGBT Rights: Winners and Losers. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2014/03/10/uga nda-the-world-bank-and-lgbt-rights-winners-and-losers/. Accessed 22 August 2019. Long, S. (2016, November 2). Selling Out: The Gays and Governmentality. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2016/11/02/selling-out-the-gays-andgovernmentality/. Accessed 14 September 2019. Majeedullah, A., Wied, K., & Mills, E. (2016). Gender, Sexuality and the Sustainable Development Goals: A Meta-Analysis of Mechanisms of Exclusion and Avenues for Inclusive Development (IDS Evidence Report 206). Brighton: IDS. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/ 12636. Accessed 11 October 2019. Martin, D. (2011, October 10). Foreign Aid for Countries with Anti-gay Rights Records to Be Slashed, Pledges Cameron. Daily Mail. http://www.dailym

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

199

ail.co.uk/news/article-2047254/David-Cameron-Foreign-aid-cut-anti-gaycountries.html. Accessed 26 May 2016. Mason, C. L. (Ed.). (2018). Routledge Handbook of Queer Development Studies. London: Routledge. McCormick, J. P. (2014, February 25). Several Countries Cut Aid to Uganda over Anti-gay Law. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/02/25/ several-countries-cut-aid-uganda-anti-gay-law/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Morrissey, O. (2004). Conditionality and Aid Effectiveness Re-evaluated. World Economy, 27 (2), 153–171. Mosely, P. (1987). Conditionality as Bargaining Process: Structural-Adjustment Lending, 1980–86. Essays in International Finance (p. 168). Princeton: Princeton University. Murphy, F. (2014). Increasing DFID’s Contribution to Addressing HIV Among Key Populations: Review and Recommendations. STOPAIDS. http://filese rver.idpc.net/library/STOPAIDS-DFID-contribution-to-addressing-HIVkey-population-report.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2019. Mwesigwa, A. (2012, December 2). Uganda: NGOs Launch Anti-corruption Week as Germany Cuts Aid. Global Policy Forum. https://www.globalpol icy.org/ngos/introduction/general-analysis-of-the-role-of-ngos/52130-uga nda-ngos-launch-anti-corruption-week-as-germany-cuts-aid.html?itemid=id. Accessed 10 September 2019. Nyasa Times. (2012, May 31). Britain Tells Malawi Aid Not Tied to Gays. https://www.nyasatimes.com/britain-tells-malawi-aid-not-tied-togays/. Accessed 9 September 2019. O’Connor, J. (2016). Engaging with the UK Government: A Guide for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Activists Worldwide. Stonewall. https:// www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/engaging-uk-government-english. Accessed 23 August 2019. OECD. (2005/2008). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008). http://www.oecd.org/development/effect iveness/34428351.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2019. Oluka, B. H. (2011, March 28). US Legislators Push for Aid Cut to Uganda over Gays Bill. Daily Monitor. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/ 688334-1128350-ap0qujz/monitor.co.ug. Accessed 13 September 2019. Onwuchekwa, G. (2014, August 13). Video Call Interview. Co-founder and Chair, Justice for Gay Africans Society. Overseas Development Institute. (2014, July 7). Can Aid Donors Help Support LGBT Rights in Developing Countries? Public Event. https://www.odi.org/ events/3968-can-aid-donors-help-support-lgbt-rights-developing-countries. Accessed 20 November 2019. Pambazuka News. (2011, October 27). Statement on British “Aid Cut” Threats to African Countries That Violate LGBTI Rights. http://www.pambazuka.

200

M. FARMER

org/activism/statement-british-aid-cut-threats-african-countries-violate-lbgtirights. Accessed 20 July 2016. PANAPRESS. (2012, May 31). UK Will Not Tie Malawi Aid to Gay Rights. http://www.panapress.com/-UK-will-not-tie-Malawi-aid-to-gayrights—13-830450-17-lang2-index.html. Accessed 24 May 2016. Park, J. (2011, October 16). Andrew Mitchell: UK Will Withhold Aid from African Countries with Poor Gay Rights. Pink News. https://www.pinknews. co.uk/2011/10/16/andrew-mitchell-uk-will-withhold-aid-from-african-cou ntries-with-poor-gay-rights/. Accessed 9 September 2019. Penny, P. (2014, August 5). Personal Interview. Co-founder and Chair, Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund. Perraudin, F. (2015, June 22). Cabinet Office and FCO Divided over Flying Rainbow Flag. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2015/jun/22/cabinet-office-fco-flag-lgbt-pride-london. Accessed 7 September 2019. Pflanz, M. (2014, February 28). Keep Your Gays and Keep Your Aid, Uganda Tells the West. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ews/africaandindianocean/uganda/10668278/Keep-your-gays-and-keepyour-aid-Uganda-tells-the-West.html. Accessed 10 September 2019. Potts, A. (2014, February 25). First Countries Cut Aid to Ugandan Government over Anti-gay Law. Gay Star News. https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ first-countries-cut-aid-ugandan-government-over-anti-gay-law250214/#gs. 2z5xx3. Accessed 13 September 2019. Rae, B. (2016, March 1). Robert Mugabe Will Refuse “Filthy Aid” If He Has to Accept Gay Rights. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/01/ robert-mugube-will-refuse-filthy-aid-if-he-has-to-accept-gay-rights/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Rao, R. (2012, January 1). On “Gay Conditionality”, Imperial Power and Queer Liberation. KAFILA. https://kafila.online/2012/01/01/on-gayconditionality-imperial-power-and-queer-liberation-rahul-rao/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Rice, X. (2010, January 14). Uganda Rows Back on Draconian Anti-gay Law After Western Outrage. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2010/jan/14/uganda-backpedals-on-gay-law. Accessed 23 August 2019. Sen, P. (2014, May 5). Stoning Gays to Death? Life in Prison for Being LGBT? Britain Cannot Stay Silent Any Longer. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-purna-sen/stoning-gays-to-deathlif_b_5286649.html?. Accessed 18 August 2016. Sørensen, G. (Ed.). (1993). Political Conditionality. London: Frank Cass. Sparrow, A. (2012, March 23). Andrew Mitchell Interview: “This Is the Most Interesting Job I’ve Had in Politics”. The Guardian. https://www.thegua

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

201

rdian.com/global-development/2012/mar/23/andrew-mitchell-interviewinternational-development. Accessed 13 September 2019. Stearns, S. (2014, March 19). HRW: US Should Cut Security Aid to Uganda Over Anti-gay Law. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/africa/hrwus-should-cut-security-aid-uganda-over-anti-gay-law. Accessed 13 September 2019. Stonewall. (2017, July 6). Stonewall Response to International Development Funds. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/mediastatement/stonewall-response-international-development-funds. Accessed 8 September 2019. Stonewall. (2018, December 10). Stonewall Welcomes UK Global Leadership Role with Guide to International LGBT Equality. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ about-us/media-centre/media-statement/statement/stonewall-welcomes-ukglobal-leadership-role-guide. Accessed 14 September 2019. Strudwick, P. (2015, July 21). MPs Demand an End to Discrimination Against LGBT People Around the World. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeedn ews.com/article/patrickstrudwick/mps-from-all-parties-come-together-todemand-lgbt-rights-acr. Accessed 22 August 2019. Tatchell, P. (2008, July 21). No US Aid for Anti-gay Regimes. http://www. petertatchell.net/international/united_states/nousaidforantigayregimes/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Tatchell, P. (2011a, November 1). UK: Don’t Cut Aid over Human Rights Abuses, Switch It. Peter Tatchell Foundation. https://www.petertatchellfound ation.org/uk-dont-cut-aid-over-human-rights-abuses-switch-it/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Tatchell, P. (2011b, November 22). UK Won’t Cut Aid over Human Rights Abuses. http://www.petertatchell.net/international/world_general/uk-wontcut-aid-over-human-rights-abuses/. Accessed 13 September 2019. Tatchell, P. (2014, September 20). Personal Interview. Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation. The Andrew Marr Show. (2011, October 30). Transcript Philip Hammond Interview. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/ 9627898.stm. Accessed 9 September 2019. The Economist. (2014, April 12). Right Cause, Wrong Battle. https://www. economist.com/leaders/2014/04/12/right-cause-wrong-battle. Accessed 13 September 2019. The Guardian. (2016a, April 5). The Guardian View on Human Rights and Foreign Policy: Do the Right Thing, Not the Easy One. https://www.the guardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/05/guardian-view-on-human-rig hts-and-foreign-policy-philip-hammond-foreign-office. Accessed 5 September 2019.

202

M. FARMER

The Guardian. (2016b, August 5). Boris Johnson Lifts Ban on UK Embassies Flying Gay Pride Rainbow Flag. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ 2016/aug/05/boris-johnson-lifts-ban-on-uk-embassies-flying-gay-pride-rai nbow-flag. Accessed 7 September 2019. The New Humanitarian. (2014, April 2). Briefing: Punitive Aid Cuts Disrupt Healthcare in Uganda. http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/ 2014/04/02/briefing-punitive-aid-cuts-disrupt-healthcare-uganda. Accessed 13 September 2019. The Scotsman. (2009, December 29). Scotland Is Urged to Act After Malawi Police Arrest Gay Couple for Marrying. https://www.scotsman.com/news/ world/scotland-is-urged-to-act-after-malawi-police-arrest-gay-couple-for-mar rying-1-784104. Accessed 10 September 2019. The Voice. (2015, March 5). Baroness Lindsay Northover on Developing Evidence-Based Policy to Strengthen LGBT Rights Across the World. Liberal Democrat Voice. https://www.libdemvoice.org/baroness-lindsay-northoveron-developing-evidencebased-policy-to-strengthen-lgbt-rights-across-theworld-44899.html. Accessed 7 September 2019. Tran, M. (2011, July 14). Britain Suspends Aid to Malawi. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/jul/14/britainsuspends-aid-to-malawi. Accessed 9 September 2019. Tran, M. (2012, June 13). Andrew Mitchell Praises Malawi But Holds Back on Budget Support Aid. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment/2012/jun/13/andrew-mitchell-malawi-budget-aid. Accessed 9 September 2019. Tran, M., & Ford, L. (2012, November 16). UK Suspends Aid to Uganda as Concern Grows over Misuse of Funds. The Guardian. https://www.the guardian.com/global-development/2012/nov/16/uk-suspends-aid-ugandamisuse. Accessed 10 September 2019. Tren, R., & Bate, R. (2011, November 23). United Kingdom: Cameron Plays Politics with Gay Rights. Global Post. https://www.pri.org/stories/ 2011-11-23/united-kingdom-cameron-plays-politics-gay-rights. Accessed 10 September 2019. UK Parliament Website. (2016, July 7). Appendix: Response from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/ cmselect/cmfaff/545/54504.htm#_idTextAnchor005. Accessed 23 August 2019. UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Council Establishes Mandate on Protection Against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/ Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20220&LangID=E. Accessed 5 September 2019.

6

UK GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTIONS …

203

Verma, S. (2015, November 24). Interview: Universal Human Rights Belong to All of Us. Commonwealth People’s Forum. http://cpf.commonwealthfounda tion.com/universal-human-rights-belong-to-all-of-us. Accessed 30 October 2016. Waites, M. (2014, July 23). The Commonwealth Can Play a Role in the Worldwide Struggle for LGBTI Human Rights. The Conversation. https:// theconversation.com/the-commonwealth-can-play-a-role-in-the-worldwidestruggle-for-lgbti-human-rights-29373. Accessed 13 September 2019. Waites, M. (2015). The New Trans-National Politics of LGBT Human Rights in the Commonwealth. In F. Stella, Y. Taylor, T. Reynolds, & A. Rogers (Eds.), Sexuality, Citizenship and Belonging: Trans-National and Intersectional Perspectives (pp. 73–92). New York: Routledge. Waites, M. (2017). LGBTI Organizations Navigating Imperial Contexts: The Kaleidoscope Trust, the Commonwealth and the Need for a Decolonizing. Intersectional Politics. the Sociological Review, 65(4), 644–662. Walters, S. (2011, October 8). We’ll Cut Your Aid If You Persecute Gays, Britain Warns African Nations. Mail on Sunday. https://www.dailymail. co.uk/news/article-2046965/Well-cut-aid-persecute-gays-Britain-warns-Afr ican-nations.html. Accessed 9 September 2019. Wathne, C., & Hedger, E. (2009). Aid Effectiveness Through the Recipient Lens (ODI Briefing Paper, 55). https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-files/3593.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2019. Wells, N. (2015, September 29). Robert Mugabe to the UN: We Are Not Gays. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/29/robert-mugabe-tothe-un-we-are-not-gays/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Westcott, L. (2014, March 12). What Homophobia Costs a Country’s Economy. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/ 03/what-homophobia-costs-countrys-economy/359109/. Accessed 11 October 2019. Wood, S. (2011, November 3). Sexuality, Development and Continued Colonialism? IDS: Participation, Power and Social Change. https://participatio npower.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/sexuality-development-and-continuedcolonialism/. Accessed 10 September 2019. Wood, S. (2016, May 16). Responding to the UK Parliamentary Report on global LGBT Rights. IDS. https://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/respondingto-the-uk-parliamentary-report-on-global-lgbt-rights/. Accessed 23 August 2019. World Bank. (n.d.). Uganda Health Systems Strengthening Project AF (P145280): Overview. http://projects.worldbank.org/P145280/?lang=en& tab=overview. Accessed 13 September 2019.

CHAPTER 7

Navigating the Intersections of Colonial Legacies and LGBT Lives

Legacies of colonialism and the coloniality of power in the international system shape contemporary international relations in multiple forms, from the economic inequalities between states, to jurisdictional and institutional structural legacies. There is a need to appreciate these legacies of British imperialism and their impact on the contemporary international landscape of LGBT rights and how UK-based NGOs acknowledge and engage with these legacies. Firstly, the chapter explores the British imperial legacy of sodomy laws that continue to be used to criminalise LGBT populations globally. Sodomy laws are an easily identifiable legacy of British imperialism in many jurisdictions and a recognition of this is prominent within contemporary international LGBT discourse. How UK-based actors and NGOs conceptualise and engage with the legacy of sodomy laws reveals how colonial history is selectively articulated, often prioritising LGBT rights above other colonial legacies that impact upon the lives of sexual and gender minorities throughout the Global South. Secondly, the chapter explores how UK-based NGOs engage with the Commonwealth as an institutional consequence of British imperialism, examining whether NGOs fully engage with the complexities of coloniality and colonial legacies in their pursuit of LGBT rights within the Commonwealth. To develop a comprehensive understanding of UK-based approaches to international LGBT activism, it is important to consider not only the © The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_7

205

206

M. FARMER

ways in which UK-based actors respond to LGBT lives ‘out there’, but also how they respond when the people they claim to help seek help ‘here’. Thus, recognising the challenges that LGBT asylum seekers face reveals some of the tensions and contradictions in UK-based approaches to international LGBT issues when (non-British) LGBT lives have been deprioritised at home. The chapter concludes by reflecting on tensions and differences between seeking to improve LGBT rights and seeking to improve the lives of LGBT people internationally. The latter requires engagement with a complex, intersectional approach to international relations, beyond a narrow focus on LGBT rights.

Contemporary Complexities of Colonial Sodomy Laws There is widespread recognition within contemporary international LGBT discourses that the British Empire had a direct influence on the spread of ‘sodomy laws’ that criminalise LGBT people globally. As discussed in Chapter 2, a legal template diffused across the British Empire that implemented legislative criminalisation of same-sex behaviour, which has broadly persisted after the withdrawal of empire (Gupta 2008; Han and O’Mahoney 2018; Kirby 2013). Contemporary UK-based approaches to international LGBT rights should be contextualised within a historical framework that notes the contribution that British colonialism had on influencing many patterns of homophobia globally, whilst recognising the complexities and limits that colonial legacies place on contemporary international relations. Recognising the historical influence of British sodomy laws has contributed to a discourse that emphasises that homophobia was imported to countries worldwide through the application of colonial penal codes. The deployment of the ‘imported homophobia’ discourse attempts to contest the widespread, politically popular discourse of ‘imported homosexuality’ in many countries, which rationalises criminalisation of homosexuality as a cultural or moral issue, rather than as a consequence of British colonialism. The ‘imported homosexuality’ discourse attempts to delegitimise indigenous LGBT communities by suggesting that these behaviours and identities are merely products of Western decadence. What is problematic about both discourses is that they only assign agency to Western influences and rely on oversimplifications of SOGI and homophobia. For example, the ‘imported homophobia’ discourse fails to

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

207

account for the complexity of influences that motivate homophobia in various cultural contexts independently of British imperialism (Awondo et al. 2012; Bosia 2014; Epprecht 2013; Weiss and Bosia 2013). The issue of agency is particularly important given that a singular focus on the influence of British imperialism draws attention away from contemporary actors in the Global South that could actually influence change in legislation, or could have done so in the decades following independence. Nevertheless, it is worth highlighting that in the wake of the imperial powers rush to abandon their colonies, criminalisation of sexual and gender minorities was not usually a priority for post-independence leaders, and that the inheritance of sodomy laws has been applied (or not) in myriad ways in different countries (Epprecht 2013, pp. 128–129). Therefore, it is relevant to evaluate the ways in which UK-based actors have engaged with the issue of British imperialism and colonial sodomy laws, and the impact of such colonial legacies on contemporary transnational activism. An engagement with the impact of colonial legacies is not intended to suggest that UK-based actors have a contemporary responsibility to act in any particular way, but to attempt to understand whether UK-based interventions are responding responsibly to the impact of British colonial legacies, including legacies beyond sodomy laws. The colonial legacy of British sodomy laws is widely recognised amongst UK-based activists, arguably because it is relatively easy to highlight the clear causal chain between contemporary legislation and historical British colonial responsibility, rather than engage with the complexity of contemporary homophobias in different contexts in which responsibility becomes harder to place (Keck and Sikkink 1998, pp. 26– 28). For example, Apata has noted that ‘most of these countries that criminalise LGBT people inherited these anti LGBT laws from their colonial master, Britain’ (ARF 2016). Tatchell (2014) has explained that the purpose of including a recognition of the origin of ‘anti-gay laws’ in activism strategies is to highlight the Western influences of such homophobia, be it from legislation or missionary evangelism, ‘in order to debunk the idea that the anti-gay laws and values that existed in many of these countries came out of an authentic national tradition’ (see also, Tatchell 2010). Edwin Sesange, former director of OPAL, has similarly noted the pervasive impact of colonial-era laws that criminalised same-sex behaviour: ‘The existence of these anti-gay laws over the last century has created a climate where many people believe that homophobic attitudes and laws are a part of their cultures’ (O’Toole 2015). Unfortunately,

208

M. FARMER

whilst these approaches recognise the role of British imperialism in influencing homophobia in many contexts globally, they fail to appreciate the complex ways in which such homophobias have developed since colonisation. Specifically, they fail to account for the ways in which different homophobias have evolved or have drawn upon existing, ‘traditional’ homophobias to produce contemporary cultural approaches to same-sex sexualities (Awondo et al. 2012; Thoreson 2014). Whilst recognising the influence British imperial homophobia has had in multiple contexts globally, reiterating only historical influences of homophobia is not necessarily conductive to producing effective strategies to engage with contemporary realities (Bosia 2014). Adopting the tone of UK-based NGOs on the issue, the APPG LGBT report also included a recognition of the influence of British colonialism on the criminalisation of LGBT people globally, but went further in explicitly suggesting that such history justifies contemporary British intervention: While this fact alone offers a justification for British action to address the persecution faced by LGBT people, it also suggests caution when seeking to intervene bilaterally in support of LGBT rights, particularly against the backdrop of an often fraught colonial history. The same colonial history that impels action can also lead to accusations of neo-colonialism when that action fails to take into account local contexts. (APPG 2016, pp. 12–13)

At least the APPG LGBT report mitigates the problematic ‘justification for British action’ to intervene on the issue with a recognition that British intervention should be understood against the ‘backdrop of an often fraught colonial history’ (though ‘fraught’ is an understated way of describing the broader, systemic horrors of colonialism). This is a welcome change to the ways in which UK political actors have approached international LGBT issues in the past in failing to acknowledge the complexities of colonial legacies, such as with LGBT aid conditionality. Given the history of problematic Western intervention in the Global South, however, effective strategies to improve LGBT rights globally should be based on more than Western guilt to correct perceived historical responsibility. Onwuchekwa (2014) has argued that we should recognise the ways in which governments in the Global South have kept colonial laws that criminalise LGBT people, or have introduced new laws to expand on existing

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

209

legislation: ‘I would rather blame the Nigerian Government for making the law, keeping it, than blame the UK Government for putting that law there in the first place’. Onwuchekwa (2014) further noted that the realities of international politics mean that the UK has no power to enforce change in Nigerian law, and so a focus on the colonial origins of the law directs attention away from potentially effective sources of power to actually bring about change: Arguing and blaming colonial government is really a waste of energy, because colonial government doesn’t exist anymore. […] It’s acknowledged and I do think we should acknowledge it’s something that happened. Two-hundred years down the line, our efforts should be about how do we remove it and who has the power to remove it.

The Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope offered a similar assessment of the implications of appealing to historical responsibility for contemporary problems: I still think there is a challenge there where if you place all the responsibility, for want of a better term, on the British Empire, on Britain, you also remove agency from the South as well. So it’s a difficult line to manage. I think on the one hand you need to recognise that history, particularly with this legislation, but on the other hand realise that there’s still agency on the ground to change it.

Dillane (2015c) has similarly noted that, in the case of LGBT people seeking asylum, we should recognise the laws that LGBT people are fleeing were implemented by the British, but that we should also note that these countries have chosen to keep such laws. Cooper (2015) has also suggested that given Britain’s historical role that it has an obligation to commit resources to supporting LGBT people globally, whilst at the same time holding countries to account for the ways in which they ‘have embraced these laws as their own’. Beyond discussions of historical responsibility, Dillane (2015c) suggested that as much as we should recognise Britain’s responsibility in first establishing these laws, Britain should be as much compelled to act because ‘we are a country committed to those causes’. Thus, there is a sense that regardless of Britain’s historical role in influencing contemporary homophobia, the values that UK-based actors purport to support, such as equality and rights for LGBT people,

210

M. FARMER

should motivate effective strategies to help improve the lives of LGBT people internationally. Whilst colonial sodomy laws are a clearly identifiable legacy of British imperialism related specifically to LGBT lives, there appears to be less engagement with the broader legacies of colonialism amongst UKbased NGOs engaged in transnational LGBT activism. Whilst NGOs are focused on improving the lives of LGBT people, there is little sense that such strategies are linked to improving the lives of LGBT people beyond their experiences of SOGI, as the Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope noted: Talking about wider colonial legacies, beyond just the sodomy laws, I’m not entirely convinced that the movement thoroughly engages with the wider problems and legacies of colonialism, whether it being the rise of relatively fundamental Christianity, or the economic costs still being borne by the decolonized zones.

The focus on sodomy laws, as easily identifiable colonial legacies, risks a discourse that suggests LGBT issues are a more significant legacy of the problems of colonialism, uniquely affecting the lives of LGBT people. Calls for Britain to apologise for implementing colonial-era sodomy laws, without explaining the strategic efficacy of such a move, risk such a position. For example, although some LGBT people that have been directly affected by the legacies of such laws have called for Britain to apologise (ARF 2016), it is still unclear what broader strategic outcome such a move would create. Whilst Tatchell (2018) has argued that an apology ‘would help change the narrative around anti-LGBT legislation’ by highlighting the colonial introduction of such laws, complex and entrenched antiLGBT narratives are unlikely to be dispelled by a British apology (Edozien 2018). What is also lacking is a sense that broader problematic legacies of colonialism, such as continuing economic burdens and underdevelopment, racism and the coloniality of power in international relations, affect the lives of LGBT people regardless of their SOGI experiences. This is aptly highlighted by Rao (2012): the demand for an apology for the sodomy law, as opposed to, oh I don’t know, late Victorian holocausts, dependency, slavery or all of the phenomena typically grouped under the sign of ‘colonialism’ […] isolates and elevates Commonwealth queer subjects as a privileged constituency

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

211

deserving of an apology that is in fact owed to the entirety of the societies in which they are embedded.

Thus, LGBT people become further isolated, marked out as special recipients of imperial atonement, but only for the implementation of sodomy laws (that states have willingly kept), and not for the other legacies of colonialism that affect them and their non-LGBT neighbours equally. Such isolation disconnects LGBT people and activism strategies from the broader challenges that colonialism has entrenched in international relations and decolonised states. For example, colonial-era sedition laws have been used to prohibit freedom of expression and silence Southern activists, affecting LGBT activists and wider civil society alike (Teik 2019). If the whole range of colonial legacies that impact contemporary international relations are not thoroughly engaged with, then Western LGBT activism risks being co-opted by contemporary exercises of imperial power (Puar 2007). As both Onwuchekwa (2014) and Penny (2014) have noted, a focus on colonial history serves to help repressive governments in the Global South to use colonial narratives against various forms of outside intervention, simultaneously delegitimising local LGBT communities. As explored in the previous chapter, such references to colonialism are usually made to imply any contemporary Western interventions are neo-colonial, undermining the sovereignty of states to enact their cultural values, and conveniently ignoring historical legacies such as sodomy laws. In November 2016, however, Sam Kutesa, Uganda’s Foreign Minister, blamed British colonialism for Uganda’s current laws that criminalise LGBT people, suggesting that Uganda was ‘tolerant’ of sexual minorities (Duffy 2016). Such a narrative of Uganda’s treatment of sexual and gender minorities conveniently ignored a great deal, including the AHA, and raids on Ugandan LGBT community gatherings (McCormick 2016). This demonstrates the problematic nature of only ‘blaming empire’ for contemporary legislation, rather than acknowledging the nuances of historical legacies to understand the complexity of the present. In this case, as others have noted above, by assigning blame and responsibility to the British Empire, Kutesa absolved responsibility from contemporary Ugandan political actors who have the agency to enact contemporary change. The discourse of colonial sodomy laws and their influence on contemporary homophobias in multiple contexts globally is worthwhile to the extent that it contextualises contemporary international relations and

212

M. FARMER

strategies related to LGBT issues. Colonial-era sodomy laws are an easily identifiable influence on contemporary homophobias, though, are best understood within a broader recognition of the deployment of sexual and social control by imperial forces in the Global South. A recognition of the influence of sodomy laws is perhaps best used to help shape appropriate and responsible responses from UK-based actors in ways that mitigate practices or accusations of neo-colonialism. If UK-based actors are going to appeal to the legacies of sodomy laws, then they should do so in ways which clearly outline practical contemporary strategies that will support LGBT communities internationally, rather than bemoaning the imperial past, whilst recognising that not all Southern activists prioritise decriminalisation (e.g. Robinson 2012). Such strategies should be articulated in ways that appreciate the broader legacies of colonialism beyond sodomy laws, in ways that ensure support for LGBT people extends beyond the limits of LGBT rights.

LGBT Rights Within the Commonwealth of Nations Although several Commonwealth countries have decriminalised samesex activity in the past few years, including Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago, around two-thirds of the 53 Commonwealth member states still criminalise same-sex activity, just under half of the more than 70 jurisdictions globally that maintain some form of criminalisation (Feder 2016; Persio 2018). The Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental consequence of the British Empire, though not all of the current 53 members are former British colonies. All members of the Commonwealth, however, must subscribe to the Commonwealth’s values and principles as outlined in The Commonwealth Charter, which includes a commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and an opposition to ‘all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds’ (Charter of the Commonwealth 2013). Whilst sexual orientation and gender identity are not explicitly included as forms of discrimination in The Commonwealth Charter, there has been a slow recognition by some actors within the Commonwealth network that protecting the rights of LGBT people should be a shared value of the Commonwealth. For example, former Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma has argued that Commonwealth values opposed LGBT discrimination (Sharma 2013)

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

213

and that there should be ‘mutually respectful and constructive national debate’ on the issue at different intergovernmental levels (Sharma 2014); whilst the current Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland has committed to discuss LGBT rights with member states (Leftly 2015). This ‘support’ for LGBT rights is reminiscent of the UK Government’s discordant approach between rhetoric in favour of LGBT rights and lacklustre action in that few formal mechanisms to engage the issue have been utilised. For example, whilst the 2015 CHOGM People’s Forum in Malta included two sessions dedicated to LGBT themes, these were ultimately fringe, civil society-led events that did not translate into explicit action or recognition on LGBT rights by governmental actors at the central CHOGM (Commonwealth Foundation 2015; Waites 2017). This does highlight, however, an evolving engagement on LGBT rights, the nature of the Commonwealth facilitating networks that connect actors across Commonwealth nations, with opportunities for civil society to engage with governmental actors within Commonwealth structures (Brooks and Stewart 2015; Cowell 2013; Lennox and Waites 2013b; Speaking Out 2013; Speaking Out 2015). Several UK-based NGOs have targeted activism strategies at engagement with Commonwealth structures, aimed at improving the Commonwealth’s response to LGBT rights. For example, JfGA has worked with the Human Rights Unit of the Commonwealth Secretariat to lobby for LGBT rights to be discussed within Commonwealth forums and was critical of The Commonwealth Charter for not explicitly including SOGI as categories protected from discrimination (JfGA, n.d.; Roberts 2013). Onwuchekwa (2014) has noted that whilst working with the Commonwealth Secretariat can open good avenues for dialogue and networking, there is a limit to sustaining discussion about LGBT rights at a governmental level, particularly given the majority of homophobic governments within Commonwealth forums. Tatchell has also been noted to have engaged with the Human Rights Unit of the Commonwealth Secretariat from 2009, and, having been critical of the lack of action from the Commonwealth on supporting LGBT rights, has lobbied the UK Government to speak out at CHOGMs (Tatchell 2011; Tatchell 2018; Waites 2014; Waites 2015a). Other UK-based NGOs and activists have also focused campaigning and lobbying efforts around the CHOGMs as focal points of Commonwealth activity and discussion. The previous chapter noted the role of UK-based NGO activity around the 2011

214

M. FARMER

CHOGM, particularly with regard to LGBT aid conditionality. Diasporaled LGBT groups have also engaged in protest action centred around CHOGMs, such as OPAL and ARF’s rally outside the Commonwealth Secretariat in London during the 2015 CHOGM, also supported by the PTF (ARF 2015b; O’Toole 2015). UK-based activists also launched a campaign and petition to include LGBT rights on the main agenda for the 2018 CHOGM, held in the UK, supported by a range of UKbased NGOs including PTF, OPAL, Kaleidoscope, ARF, and others (PTF 2018). The petition asked CHOGM organisers to invite ‘openly LGBTI people from the Commonwealth to address CHOGM leaders’, with the aim of opening up dialogue between discriminating governments and their LGBT populations, rather than structuring the forum as LGBT-friendly states telling other states to decriminalise (Stewart 2016). This campaign demonstrated a maturity in UK-based protest against the Commonwealth in that it presented concrete suggestions to facilitate LGBT dialogue within Commonwealth structures, compared to previous protest action that criticised the Commonwealth for not discussing LGBT issues without clear appreciation for the intergovernmental nature of Commonwealth structures that rely on consensus and voluntarism (e.g. PTF 2013). Other than the participation of UK-based LGBT diaspora, it is not clear that such protest action is conducted with the endorsement of ‘local’ LGBT organisations from across the Commonwealth, particularly given the focus on decriminalisation and human rights which are not primary goals universally shared amongst all LGBT organisations within the Commonwealth (Waites 2015b, pp. 82–84). During the 2018 CHOGM in the UK, activists successfully lobbied then UK Prime Minister Theresa May to publicly recognise the colonial legacy of Britain’s historical role of introducing legislation that criminalises same-sex activity throughout much of the Commonwealth (Crerar 2018a; Staples 2019). May expressed ‘regret’ for the ‘legacy of discrimination’, and highlighted that the UK was willing to support any Commonwealth country seeking to decriminalise, providing a more sensitive and less offensive platform for supporting LGBT rights in the Commonwealth than Cameron had attempted in 2011 (Crerar 2018a, b; Staples 2019). The statement was broadly supported by LGBT activists, though as seen with the singular focus on sodomy laws above, some activists argued that an apology for the implementation of the breadth of problematic colonial legislation would have been more meaningful (Crerar 2018b, Staples 2019; cf. Edozien 2018).

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

215

Kaleidoscope has maintained a keen focus on the Commonwealth, as seen in the publication of its Speaking Out reports, which detail the status of LGBT rights across the Commonwealth, as well as its engagement with the Royal Commonwealth Society, and its co-organisation of conferences related to LGBT rights in the Commonwealth (Brooks and Stewart 2015; Kaleidoscope Trust 2015a; Speaking Out 2013; Speaking Out 2015; Waites 2017). Kaleidoscope has also been instrumental in establishing The Commonwealth Equality Network (TCEN), a network of civil society organisations from across the Commonwealth that have an interest in ending LGBT inequality, of which HDT and Stonewall are also members. Analysing Kaleidoscope’s engagement with the TCEN, Waites (2017) has observed the ‘internally leading and agenda-setting role of Kaleidoscope within TCEN’, raising questions about the impact of ‘internal inequalities’ on shaping the strategy of the network around the Commonwealth (p. 653). In the early formation of the network as an email list, Kaleidoscope had control of initial access to the list, which Waites (2017) has noted ‘implied some circumventing of key southern activist intellectuals’ on other key email lists (such as the global SOGI and Euro-Queer lists), that might have offered critical postcolonial or decolonial intellectual perspectives that were lacking in some functional aspects of the network (p. 654). For example, there has been a lack of critical engagement with the London-centric nature of the network Secretariat, or how it reflects the broader London-centric nature of the Commonwealth, participation of elite networks and UK-based NGOs (Waites 2015a, b, 2017). Nevertheless, the transnational networks that Kaleidoscope had engaged with through the TCEN contributed to the organisation of two LGBT themed sessions at the CHOGM People’s Forum in Malta in 2015, shortly before the main CHOGM events (TCEN 2015; Waites 2017, pp. 655–657). Although the main CHOGM did not include any formal engagement with LGBT issues, the sessions at the People’s Forum marked an advance in terms of Commonwealth civil society recognition of and engagement with LGBT discrimination, which had the potential of moving discussion of LGBT issues into the main forums of future CHOGMs. Collaboration between the TCEN, Kaleidoscope and the FCO contributed to the 2015 Commonwealth Leader’s Communique that outlined a commitment ‘to protect individuals from all forms of violence’, which Kaleidoscope has suggested ‘can advance the rights of LGBT people’ with its focus on violence, rather than on human rights (APPG 2016, p. 31; Kaleidoscope Trust 2015b; Kaleidoscope Trust

216

M. FARMER

2016). Waites (2017) has noted, however, a lack of critical awareness or engagement with the risks that the Commonwealth may end up embodying homonationalist tendencies of favouring LGBT rights, particularly given the colonial dynamics of anti-LGBT discourse within many Commonwealth states: Paradoxically it seems organizations believe one cannot talk about imperialism in the Commonwealth, when both the history of criminalization and sometimes neo-colonial economic relations through which LGBT culture can be privileged, call for precisely this. (p. 657)

As identified in other areas of this book, the preoccupation of LGBT rights, particularly LGBT decriminalisation, without proper engagement with intersectional issues such as race and income inequality, has the potential to undermine effective, radical solutions to the improvement of LGBT lives globally. Although a transnational effort to produce a contextual framing of postcolonial power relations was attempted at the LGBTI Human Rights in the Commonwealth Conference (University of Glasgow, 18 July 2014; Waites 2015a), by the time of the Malta CHOGM People’s Forum sessions, Waites (2017) argued that ‘LGBTI human rights-claims are insufficiently framed through decolonizing discourses’ by Kaleidoscope and TCEN (p. 657). Despite Waites’ critique, they have noted that, given the scope of challenges LGBT activists face globally, transnational engagement with(in) the Commonwealth is still important (Waites 2015a). The key point here, however, is that precisely because the Commonwealth has the potential to be a valuable forum for transnational LGBT activism, it is necessary to thoroughly engage with and understand the ‘colonial baggage’ that infuses relations within the Commonwealth (Waites 2014). Compared to other international forums, such as the UNHRC, which can involve a greater range of allies, such as Latin American states, which have been instrumental as leading Southern voices on LGBT rights at the UN, proponents of LGBT issues within the Commonwealth (at the state-level) have most strongly tended to be the UK and Canada. Thus, the contemporary relations and discourse within the Commonwealth on the issue of LGBT rights continues to risk being framed within a North–South colonial dynamic. A solution would be to bring ‘Southern’ Commonwealth states that have decriminalised, such as the Bahamas,

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

217

into the dialogue more to upset this imbalance (Lennox and Waites 2013a; Waites 2015a, b, p. 77). In addition to this are further concerns about the ways in which UKbased actors and the Commonwealth fail to disrupt legacies of colonialism and coloniality beyond the discussion of LGBT rights. Waites (2015a) has highlighted the ways in which ‘UK elites maintain disproportionate power in the Commonwealth Secretariat’, which has fed into UK-based NGO engagement with the Commonwealth as a primary focus of transnational LGBT activism without thorough questioning of other colonial legacies. For example, there has been little recognition or challenge to the persistence of structures of global economic inequality as a consequence of colonialism, or the failure of the Commonwealth to effectively deal with this (Waites 2015a). The UK-based activists’ petition to urge the 2018 CHOGM to discuss and support LGBT rights did not indicate any recognition of colonial legacies beyond the impact of colonial sodomy laws (PTF 2018). Similarly, although Kaleidoscope has maintained a focus on engagement with the Commonwealth, there has been little recognition of the ways in which the Commonwealth might be a forum for change beyond LGBT issues that still affect LGBT people regardless of their SOGI, such as economic inequality (e.g. Speaking Out 2013; Speaking Out 2015). The contemporary strength of the Commonwealth in making positive change to LGBT people’s lives internationally lies in the networking and civil society-driven forums of the Commonwealth, as demonstrated at the Malta and UK CHOGMs. This current momentum, driven as it is by civil society from across the Commonwealth, has the opportunity to shape LGBT discourse in the Commonwealth in intersectional terms that would help to overcome some of the challenges of coloniality that hang over state-level Commonwealth relations. This could involve, for example, a radical decolonial politics that challenges the focus of power in London-centric networks and empowers Southern activist voices on transformative ways of engaging in LGBT liberation throughout the Commonwealth. Such an approach needs to appreciate the intersectional themes of racial, gender and income inequality that shapes coloniality in international relations, going beyond the overly simplistic mantra of ‘decriminalisation’ that appears to drive much of contemporary UK-based activism. Considering the poor treatment that LGBT activists have experienced attempting to operate within Commonwealth forums in the past

218

M. FARMER

(Robinson 2012, p. 5), it is a welcome development that the Commonwealth approved TCEN accreditation as a Commonwealth organisation in 2017, opening up more opportunities for the network to operate within Commonwealth forums, as seen during the UK CHOGM (TCEN 2017). Which organisations become involved in (or are left out of) TCEN will matter for how much global impact the network can achieve and whether the membership can have a transformative, decolonial impact on advancing LGBT liberation throughout the Commonwealth (Waites 2017, p. 657). The contrasts between the 2011 and 2018 CHOGMs suggests that UK engagements are improving to be more sensitive to the complexities of global LGBT struggles. The two most recent Executive Directors of Kaleidoscope, Paul Dillane and Phyll Opoku-Gyimah, also appear to demonstrate an awareness of intersectional issues and privilege when engaging in transnational activism (Staples 2019). If Kaleidoscope and TCEN can successfully navigate the intersectional complexities of effective transnational LGBT activism and coloniality in practice, then they have the potential to support Southern LGBT liberation throughout the Commonwealth.

LGBT Asylum Whilst analysing UK-based approaches to transnational LGBT activism, it is important to consider how the consequences of colonial legacies, such as sodomy laws, affect the lives of LGBT people internationally. One consequence of LGBT violence and discrimination internationally is LGBT people seeking asylum in countries with better LGBT rights protections, such as the UK. When considering the range of UK-based engagements in transnational LGBT activism, it is relevant to consider the ways in which these engagements extend to supporting those LGBT people who seek asylum in the UK, rather than only considering LGBT activism as something that happens ‘out there’. Evolving State of LGBT Asylum The UK’s approach to LGBT asylum has evolved over the past three decades, from changes in the legal definition and recognition of who counted as a LGBT asylum seeker, to changes in how LGBT asylum claims are evidenced and understood by UK authorities. An initial legal challenge faced by LGBT asylum seekers was whether persecution based

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

219

on SOGI fit within the 1951 Refugee Convention as reasons for which asylum seekers could claim refugee status in the UK. In 1989, the High Court in the UK ruled that ‘homosexuals’ were not a ‘particular social group’ and therefore not eligible to claim asylum under grounds that the asylum seeker faced persecution due to their association with a sexuality or gender non-conforming group (de Jong 2003, pp. 8–9). After a series of legal decisions in the 1990s that culminated in the cases of Shah & Islam (1999), the House of Lords decided that LGBT people did constitute a ‘particular social group’ under the grounds of the Refugee Convention, though the issue of credibility and evidencing state persecution continued to present a challenge to LGBT asylum claimants (de Jong 2003, pp. 9–10; Dillane 2015c). Whilst LGBT people could now claim asylum based on persecution they faced for being LGBT, the UK asylum system continued to disfavour LGBT asylum claims through poor decision-making based on false understandings of sexual identity and the nuances of LGBT persecution. UKLGIG published research that found that in 2009, whilst ‘73% of all asylum claims made in the UK were denied at the initial decision making stage’, 98% of claims made by lesbians and gay men were rejected at the same stage (Gray 2010, p. 2). Stonewall also published research in 2010 that investigated LGBT asylum in the UK, demonstrating an increasing awareness of the issue amongst UK-based NGOs (Miles 2010). Between 1999 and 2010, the Labour Government’s approach to LGBT asylum assumed that ‘discretion’ and ‘relocation’ were acceptable alternatives to granting refugee status, accounting for the significant proportion of rejected LGBT asylum claims during this time (Dillane 2015c; Gray 2010, pp. 4–6). As UKLGIG noted, the ‘discretion’ requirement suggested that it was acceptable to deny refugee status to a person on the basis that they ‘get back in the closet’, even though similar requirements were not placed on people claiming religious or political persecution (Gray 2010, p. 4; Dillane 2015c). This focus on sexuality as relating to discrete sexual acts ignored many of the more complex realities of LGBT lives in homophobic countries, including that the reason LGBT people seek asylum is because it is already known that they are LGBT, for example by their family, or are perceived to be LGBT by their community (Gray 2010, p. 5). In addition, the suggestion that LGBT asylum seekers could simply relocate within their country of origin ignores the extent of legal and societal homophobia

220

M. FARMER

that LGBT people may be subject to (Gray 2010, pp. 5–6). Furthermore, credibility is a barrier to LGBT asylum claims where Home Office case owners do not believe that a person is LGBT or has suffered persecution for being LGBT. Applications may have been dismissed because they do not conform to the case owner’s narrow, stereotypical view of LGBT identity, or because the applicant had previously been married or had children (de Jong 2003, pp. 22–23; Gray 2010, pp. 8–9). Again, much of this focus on credibility relies on ignorance about the complexities of LGBT lives in different societies, as well as the expectation that LGBT people can reasonably lead closeted lives to avoid persecution. The fact that LGBT rights greatly improved in the UK under the Labour Government, such as with the equalisation of age of consent laws (2001), civil partnerships (2004) and employment and discrimination protections (2003, 2006, 2010), suggests that a double standard was being applied to LGBT people seeking asylum. Specifically, it would be inappropriate to expect LGBT citizens in the UK to live in the closeted ways the Home Office suggested LGBT asylum seekers should do as stated in the rejection of their asylum claims. In 2010, the newly elected Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government declared its commitment to ‘stop the deportation of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution’ (HM Government 2010, p. 18). Following the general election, the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2010) ruled that the discretion requirement was not valid grounds for refusing asylum (APPG 2016, p. 37; Dillane 2015c). Whilst the Coalition commitment and Supreme Court ruling were welcome developments in the UK’s handling of LGBT asylum, UKLGIG found that in practice the asylum system continued to present challenges to LGBT people, including continued misunderstandings of sexuality and discretion. For example, there is evidence that decisions to reject claims have been based on expectations that the applicant could choose to keep their sexuality discreet, or that because they have chosen to keep their sexuality discreet in the UK, they could reasonably be expected to do so in their home country (Yoshida 2013, pp. 23–25; see also, Vine 2014, p. 44). UKLGIG highlighted that these decisions betray a lack of understanding about why some LGBT asylum seekers may be reserved about expressing their sexuality:

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

221

In some cases, where a person has only been in the UK for a short period of time, it may be difficult for a lesbian or gay man from a homophobic country to express openly feelings they have suppressed all their lives. In other cases, an asylum seeker may for economic reasons be living within their home country community where it is difficult to be open about their sexuality due to homophobia. (Yoshida 2013, p. 24)

LGBT people may also not disclose their sexual orientation because they feel uncomfortable doing so to interpreters or other officials who they perceive to be homophobic, or may not be fully aware of their rights to claim asylum based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (de Jong 2003, p. 22). Issues of credibility also continue to affect LGBT asylum claims (Asanovic 2018; Yoshida 2013, pp. 11–17). It has been noted that there appears to have been a shift towards requiring more ‘proof’ that a claimant is gay following the change in policy in 2010, as Chelvan describes, ‘the shift has been from discretion to disbelief’ (Home Affairs Committee 2013, pp. 27–28). The suggestion here is that in the absence of being able to reject LGBT asylum claims using the discretion test, where establishing the sexual identity of the claimant is ultimately irrelevant, in order to ensure the rejection of asylum claims under the new policy the requirements of ‘proof’ for sexual identity are purposefully high. Between 2011 and 2013, 86% of asylum claims were rejected because the Home Office did not believe the applicant to be gay, lesbian or bisexual. Even small inconsistencies in an applicant’s claim have been cited as reasons for refusal, and the evidentiary requirements for sexual identity claims appear inconsistent from case to case (Yoshida 2013, pp. 12–14). There has also been evidence of caseworkers relying on stereotypes to inform their questioning and decision-making, as well as the use of inappropriate sexual questioning (Dillane 2015c; Yoshida 2013, pp. 18– 20). Examples of such questioning range from stereotypes about whether someone looks gay or lesbian, to whether they had read Oscar Wilde or knew famous gay celebrities, to whether they had attended popular gay clubs or Gay Pride in the UK (Dillane 2015c; Hanson 2015; Townsend and Taylor 2014; Yoshida 2013, pp. 18–20). There is also evidence of expectations that upon reaching the UK, previously persecuted LGBT people would embrace the sexual freedom of the UK and enjoy stereotypical aspects of gay life, such as attending gay clubs, and enter into relationships as proof of their sexuality (Miles 2010, p. 16). Whilst some

222

M. FARMER

LGBT asylum seekers may find confidence in the relative freedom that the UK can offer LGBT people, experiences are not homogenous for all LGBT people seeking asylum and are not meaningful proof of one’s sexual identity (Godfrey 2015). Inappropriate sexual questioning has also been reported, such as invasive, explicit and humiliating questioning about sexual practices or number of partners (Miles 2010, p. 17; Taylor and Townsend 2014; Yoshida 2013, p. 20). As UKLGIG has noted previously, examples of inappropriate questioning ‘highlights that some case workers remain fixated on sexual practice rather than on sexual identity’ (Yoshida 2013, p. 19). Such inappropriate questioning demonstrates elements of systemic ignorance in the way asylum claims are handled, particularly in that they do little to prove a person’s sexual identity in any meaningful way. Evaluating the Home Office’s approach to LGBT asylum raises concerns as to whether the high rejection rate of LGBT asylum claims and ignorance demonstrated in interview questioning is evidence of systemic homophobia in the asylum process. Despite legal developments and formal guidelines, case holders have asked inappropriate questions, some of which occupy an uncomfortable tone between ignorance and homophobia. Even beyond the pressures to evidence their sexuality against ignorant questioning, LGBT asylum seekers face homophobic bullying and violence in detention centres, from both fellow detainees and guards (Miles 2010, pp. 13, 20; Taylor and Townsend 2014; Zadeh 2019). Hanson (2015) has suggested, however, that it is more an issue of ignorance and lack of training within the asylum process, than that the system is homophobic. Whilst the use of the discretion test prior to 2010 was a clear example of systemic homophobia, in the way it specifically discriminated against and disadvantaged LGBT asylum seekers, it would be more accurate to attribute more recent failings to systemic ignorance. A lack of adequate training has been a clear factor contributing to the absence of sensitivity in handling asylum cases and the inappropriateness of questions asked. Case holders themselves had admitted that they have not known what questions to ask in LGBT asylum interviews (Miles 2010, p. 16). It is curious that whilst Stonewall identified the systemic ignorance of the UK asylum system in its 2010 report, in 2011 it named the Home Office as the best public sector employer for LGBT people (Home Office 2012). The Home Office won the same award in subsequent years too, such that it gained recognition as a ‘Stonewall Star Performer’ (Stonewall 2016). This is symptomatic of an inherent problem in the way in which

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

223

the UK Government has approached LGBT rights, specifically in that it has improved LGBT inclusivity for its employees, whilst failing to provide adequate and fair support for LGBT people seeking asylum in the UK. In the 2016 edition of its ‘Top 100 Employers’ list, Stonewall noted the improvements the Home Office had implemented to improve the quality of the asylum process for LGBT asylum seekers, and ‘reduce the number of LGBT customer complaints’ (Stonewall 2016). Due to the inconsistency of evidentiary requirements, systemic ignorance of the UK asylum system, and focus on credibility, some LGBT asylum seekers have tried to pre-empt stereotypical and sexual questioning by attempting to embody gay stereotypes, or provide evidence of sexual activity in the form of pornographic photos or video (ARF 2015a; Hanson 2015; Townsend and Taylor 2014). Of course, whilst such evidence is driven in response to the systemic ignorance of the asylum process, it does not prove sexual identity in any meaningful way. NGOs and lawyers involved in immigration and asylum have advocated for questions to focus more on sexual identity and move away from stereotyping sexual practice. Dillane (2015c) has argued that instead of relying on stereotypes, ‘what we should see is a sensitive inquiry into a person’s understanding and development of their sexual orientation or gender identity’. Hanson (2015) has noted how No Going Back supported LGBT asylum seekers’ applications by adopting the DSSH model created by Chelvan, which seeks to allow for a sensitive investigation into the applicant’s individual narrative about their sexuality, focusing on their experiences of Difference, Stigma, Shame and Harm (DSSH) (Chelvan 2014). Whilst the model may not apply to all applications, Chelvan notes that the detailed narratives that the model encourages have resulted in approvals for refugee status, and the model has been endorsed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and been referred to by a number of European governments, including the UK (Chelvan 2014; see also, UNHCR 2012, 2015). As an alternative to problematic trends in questioning that focus on sexual practice and stereotyping, models such as this are important for LGBT asylum seekers to be able to frame their personal narrative in a meaningful way that explains their persecution as a result of difference, stigma, shame and harm that they have experienced under heteronormative oppression. Rather than relying on inappropriate material evidence or gay stereotypes as a standard threshold of evidence, this approach attempts to identify experiences common to people with non-normative sexuality or gender identity in ways that transcend cultural

224

M. FARMER

stereotypes of a particular country or region, giving credibility to a LGBT asylum seeker’s personal experiences of persecution. Identifying feelings and experiences of difference and shame is more appropriate than caseworkers questioning when an applicant ‘knew they were gay’. As Dillane (2015c) noted, it is difficult to have standard questions to apply to all LGBT asylum cases, so it is important that civil servants have adequate training to be able to handle cases in appropriate and sensitive ways: There isn’t any standard questioning or standard list of questions, because a lesbian from Gambia is not going to present in the same way as a trans woman from the Philippines. […] There isn’t a checklist. We understand that these are very complex claims, so it’s about giving civil servants the skills and tools they need to sensitively assess these claims.

Therefore, a big role that non-governmental actors in the UK play is in advocating for more sensitive models of inquiry in LGBT asylum cases, engaging with UK Government bodies as UKLGIG does, or utilising such models when supporting LGBT asylum cases as No Going Back did. Whilst some caseworkers and judges have demonstrated sensitivity and reasonable questioning in the asylum process, examples of concerning behaviour continue to be observed (Asanovic 2018; Yoshida 2013, pp. 18–20). In 2014, following criticisms of the UK asylum process by the Home Affairs Committee, as well as media reporting on the issue of inappropriate questioning and the barriers LGBT asylum seekers face in the UK, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, commissioned an investigation into the Home Office’s handling of asylum claims based on sexual orientation (APPG 2016, p. 37; Dillane 2015c; Home Affairs Committee 2013, pp. 27–28, 45; Taylor and Townsend 2014). In October 2014, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, John Vine, published the findings of the investigation, noting that whilst the Home Office had produced guidance on handling LGB asylum claims, the application of guidance was ‘inconsistent’ (Vine 2014, pp. 2–3). Stereotyping of applications was found to have occurred in a fifth of substantive interviews, whilst inappropriate questions were asked in over a tenth of interviews (Vine 2014, pp. 3, 24–27). The report made eight recommendations to the Home Office to improve its handling of LGB asylum claims, including improving training so that consistency is improved, whilst ensuring stereotyping and inappropriate sexual questions are not used by caseworkers (Vine 2014, p. 4). The Home Office broadly

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

225

accepted the recommendations (Home Office 2014). It is worth noting, however, that the investigation did not consider asylum claims based on gender identity (APPG 2016, p. 38). The report also found that information about LGBT asylum cases was not properly being recorded by the Home Office (Vine 2014, pp. 40– 45). UKLGIG has also noted the lack of reliable and accessible data on LGBT asylum from the Home Office, even after the recommendations of the Vine report (Dillane 2015c). The lack of concrete data impacts on our understanding of LGBT asylum in the UK, which in turn places limitations on support provision and data to inform training guidelines, as well as making it difficult for civil society and parliamentary bodies to hold the Home Office to account on its commitments to improving its record on LGBT asylum (APPG 2016, pp. 38–39; Dillane 2015c). Dillane (2015c) noted that whilst UKLGIG can identify trends in the number of service users from particular countries, as a charity it lacks the resources to collect the detailed data that the Home Office should be providing, instead prioritising resources to support LGBT people seeking asylum. Whilst the Home Office has since made efforts to publish data on asylum claims based on sexual orientation, the data remains statistically experimental. The data does highlight, however, that only 22% of people claiming asylum on the basis of their sexual orientation were granted asylum in 2017, compared to a grant rate of 39% in 2015 (Home Office 2018; UKLGIG 2018). The Vine report and the Home Office response both make reference to the DSSH model to improve the quality of interviewing in LGBTI asylum cases. The Vine report recognised that whilst the Home Office includes DSSH in its training, ‘the Home Office’s current approach to DSSH seems to us to be a “half-way house” and rather confusing’, whereas the Home Office response recommended that further consultation is required on the use and efficacy of the model (Home Office 2014, p. 5; Vine 2014, p. 14). In February 2015, the Home Office published revised guidance on ‘sexual identity issues in asylum interviews’ (updated in August 2016), though has not revised its guidance on transgender identity claims (Home Office 2011, 2016; UKLGIG 2015b, 2018). UKLGIG has welcomed the revised guidance on sexual identity claims, though has emphasised the need for ‘effective implementation’ by civil servants (UKLGIG 2015b, p. 5). Ensuring effective implementation of guidance is very important given the shortcomings of the asylum system that failed to consistently

226

M. FARMER

implement the law and policy guidance following 2010. Given the evolution of the Home Office’s handling of LGBT asylum, it is concerning that stereotyping and a focus on sexual practice has continued to inform some interviews and decisions (Blair 2015; Dillane 2015b; McKinney 2019), though UKLGIG notes that improvements have been made concerning inappropriate questioning (Asanovic 2018, pp. 14–16). Other LGBT asylum claims continue to reach the notice of media attention, sustaining the discussion about LGBT asylum in the UK regardless of the merits of individual cases (Bulman 2019; Kirby 2015; Morgan 2016; Singer 2015). Some cases also attract the attention of petitions that attempt to pressure the Home Office to stop the deportation of people refused asylum on grounds of sexual orientation. Whilst the evolution of the Home Office’s approach to LGBT asylum has demonstrated some improvements since 2010, there has remained a slowly closing gap between policy commitments and the implementation of guidelines. These improvements have largely been driven by legal developments, civil society and media pressures, and the top-down implementation of policy guidelines within the Home Office has clearly required time to shift the systemic ignorance that has pervaded the asylum system investigation and decision-making processes. Although there is clearly still room for improvement in the way the Home Office handles LGBT asylum, particularly with regard to record management and the detention of asylum seekers, discussed below, it is encouraging that parliamentary bodies including the Home Affairs Committee and the APPG LGBT have taken the issue of LGBT asylum seriously in their holding the Home Office to account. The APPG LGBT, clearly drawing on the evidence and experience of NGOs such as UKLGIG, noted ‘that the issues facing LGBT asylum seekers are closely linked to international concerns’ (APPG 2016, p. 9). It is important that the UK Government understands its own positionality in the international scope of LGBT subjectivities, that if it is to be taken seriously on its commitment to improving LGBT rights internationally, it must demonstrate that it takes seriously the rights and experiences of LGBT people seeking asylum in the UK. As it stands, even though the Home Office’s evolving policies on LGBT asylum show some improvements since 2010, the experiences of LGBT people seeking asylum within the broader complexities of the asylum process suggests that there is still more that could be done to support LGBT and other people seeking asylum in the UK (Asanovic 2018; Home Office 2018; Zadeh 2019).

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

227

LGBT Asylum Seekers’ Experiences of the Asylum Process Whilst the legal and governmental approaches to LGBT asylum have somewhat improved, LGBT people seeking asylum in the UK continue to face obstacles during and after the asylum process. In some cases, these obstacles are issues for all asylum seekers, regardless of the reason for their asylum claim. LGBT people seeking asylum, however, also face challenges specifically due to their being LGBT. Some obstacles for LGBT people occur during the asylum application process, as explored above. These obstacles can range from LGBT people not understanding their rights to asylum as LGBT people, to finding it difficult to divulge information due to homophobia applicants may have experienced in their country of origin and the UK. Dillane (2015c) has noted the difficulties that LGBT asylum seekers can face in being able to verify or prove their identity or experiences, compared to political or religious refugees that may be able to prove their identity of belonging to a persecuted group, or have access to networks that can corroborate their membership of a particular group. As Dillane (2015c) has highlighted: ‘If you’re a LGBT person and you’ve spent a large portion of your life in the closet, in fear of your life, for your safety in another country, there aren’t necessarily going to be many people who are able or willing to confirm who you are’. ARF has also noted that fear of authority due to experiences of harassment, abuse and torture by authority figures in their country of origin, can make it difficult for LGBT asylum seekers ‘to make asylum claims or divulge any evidence of what we went through especially when we aren’t provided with an enabling environment to do so’ (ARF 2015a; see also, Zadeh 2019). Whilst this can be a particular issue for LGBT people seeking asylum due to homophobia and transphobia they have experienced, it can also apply to others seeking asylum for other reasons who may have faced abuse from authority figures previously. Therefore, it is important that all asylum seekers feel comfortable enough to disclose their experiences and that their applications are treated with sensitivity and respect. Case holders, interviewers and other figures of authority within the UK asylum system should be reflective of how their position as figures of authority may be understood and perceived by asylum seekers who have faced abuse from authority figures in the past. These concerns can be directly linked to the detention of asylum seekers in the UK. Whilst the UK Government may be critical of other countries that imprison LGBT people, this is exactly what happens to

228

M. FARMER

some LGBT people who seek asylum in the UK. As Dillane (2015c) has pointed out, what kind of message does it project internationally that the UK indefinitely detains LGBT people seeking asylum, locking them up in facilities where they are subject to homophobic abuse and harassment? Most often it is other detainees that threaten homophobic or transphobic abuse and violence, which can compound other problems that LGBT asylum seekers may be experiencing, such as mental health issues or feelings of isolation (ARF 2015a; Bachmann 2016, pp. 16–17; Dillane 2015c; Miles 2010, p. 13; Micro Rainbow International [MRI] 2013, pp. 27–28). LGBT asylum seekers may also be bullied by members of staff, or feel that staff members do not take their vulnerability and security seriously (Bachmann 2016, pp. 18–20). Such environments can prohibit LGBT asylum seekers from being open about the reasons for their asylum claims, which can make it difficult for them to talk about or prepare for the processes of claiming asylum (Asanovic 2018; Bachmann 2016; Dillane 2015c; Zadeh 2019). Being held in sex-segregated detention centres can present particular challenges for trans people when their gender identity and expression does not conform to the expectations of other detainees (Bachmann 2016, p. 17). The APPG LGBT has recognised the homophobic abuse that asylum seekers face from other detainees whilst in detention, and a joint inquiry into the use of detention by the APPG on Refugees and the APPG on Migration also noted the homophobic abuse and harassment that LGBT asylum seekers can face in detention (APPG 2016, pp. 21, 37–38; ‘The Report of the Inquiry’ 2015, p. 68). Whilst the UK is one of only a few countries in Europe with no upper time limit on detention, LGBT asylum seekers face homophobic abuse in detention centres across Europe (Jansen and Spijkerboer 2011, pp. 77–78; ‘The Report of the Inquiry’ 2015, p. 16). For example, LGBT refugees have faced abuse and harassment at the hands of fellow refugees in asylum centres in the Netherlands and Germany. In both cases, local LGBT groups have attempted to support these LGBT refugees, in some cases being able to offer or find alternative accommodation arrangements for the LGBT refugees to provide safe spaces away from the homophobia of the refugee centres (BBC 2016; Porter 2016). The asylum policies of other European countries have also been called into question. For example, Germany designated Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia as ‘safe places of origin’ for LGBT asylum seekers, despite each of these countries having laws that prohibit same-sex conduct and discriminate

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

229

against LGBT people (All Out 2016; see also, Human Rights Watch 2016; Williams 2016). In 2010, the Czech Republic was criticised for using ‘phallometric tests’ to determine whether asylum seekers were gay, whereby the arousal of asylum seekers was measured whilst they watched heterosexual pornography, the practice of which has since been banned (BBC 2010; Dillane 2015c). Beyond the specific challenges that LGBT asylum seekers face in asylum detention, UK-based organisations, such as UKLGIG, contribute to a broader movement of asylum reform that seeks to improve the ways in which asylum seekers are treated within the UK. For example, UKLGIG was amongst a number of organisations that raised questions concerning a government policy on vulnerable adults in detention (Schleicher et al. 2016). Following challenges to processes such as the Detained Fast Track system and civil society and parliamentary pressures to reduce the use of asylum detention in the UK, there is some hope that the way the UK handles asylum detention could improve in the future (Dillane 2015a; Phelps 2015). Community-based alternatives to detention that draw upon the work and experiences of ex-detainees and civil society are promising areas of detention reform (Ohtani and Phelps 2016). Given the experiences that LGBT people claiming asylum can face in detention centres, and the impact that these environments can have on their mental health as well as their ability to pursue their asylum application openly, Dillane (2015c) has highlighted that it is ‘important that there are as many safe spaces as possible for [UKLGIG’s] clients, because LGBT asylum seekers can often be very marginalised and very isolated’. Even beyond detention centres, however, LGBT refugees and asylum seekers can face further challenges whilst living in the UK. Whilst they face many of the same challenges as other asylum seekers, in some cases their status as LGBT people can compound the difficulties they face. The UKbased charity Micro Rainbow (formerly Micro Rainbow International), with support from Lesbian Immigration Support Group and UKLGIG, published a report that investigated the relationship between poverty and sexual orientation for LGBTI refugees in the UK (MRI 2013). Whilst for many LGBT asylum seekers the UK represents greater opportunities for safety and freedom, the material realities of being a LGBT refugee in the UK often means a decline in one’s quality of life: Throughout the interviews we saw that the dream of a land of opportunities and liberation that respondents construe was easily shattered after

230

M. FARMER

arriving in the UK. […] For many respondents the land of opportunity merely represents a downward social mobility ladder. (MRI 2013, p. 28)

Due to being LGBT, some asylum seekers lack the emotional and financial support of family members in their home communities, and can face harassment and housing insecurity, such as amongst homophobic diaspora in the UK (Dillane 2015c; MRI 2013, p. 6). LGBT asylum seekers have experienced anti-LGBT discrimination whilst living in asylum support accommodation due to the homophobic sentiments of other asylum seekers or property management staff (Bell and Hansen 2009, pp. 17, 19–20, 29–30). Due to the financial limitations of LGBT asylum seekers, alternative accommodation arrangements are limited and often results in reliance on the goodwill of friends and partners, placing LGBT asylum seekers in precarious housing situations and vulnerable to homelessness (Bell and Hansen 2009, pp. 16–17, 27–29; Stuart 2012). Whilst LGBT asylum seekers can face particular challenges related to accommodation due to hostility towards their sexual orientation, it is worth acknowledging the broader vulnerabilities of all asylum seekers to homelessness in the UK (Bell and Hansen 2009, pp. 27–28; e.g. McVeigh 2015). Regardless of sexual orientation, the systemic limitations that all asylum seekers face create barriers to financial stability both during and after the asylum process. Asylum seekers can face difficulties in securing work and opening bank accounts in the UK whilst their asylum process is still open, limiting their ability to gain job experience or build a credit history, increasing their financial instability even if they do eventually gain refugee status (MRI 2013, pp. 8, 13; Walker 2016). Some refugees also experience discrimination in the job market because of their refugee status, or find that qualifications they have earned in their countries of origin are not valid in the UK, limiting their job prospects (MRI 2013, pp. 6, 12–13). Micro Rainbow has suggested that asylum seekers should be allowed to work whilst their asylum case is decided to allow asylum seekers opportunities to gain work experience and help lift them out of poverty in the long run (MRI 2013, p. 33). Micro Rainbow has also argued that more support should be available to refugees after gaining refugee status due to the ‘precarious living conditions’ that they can find themselves in after completing the asylum process (MRI 2013, pp. 33–34).

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

231

The UK can present greater opportunities for personal and sexual freedom for LGBT refugees, compared to other more repressive societies, giving them more confidence to express their sexuality or gender identity in ways they couldn’t previously (Godfrey 2015). Despite this greater sexual freedom, however, LGBT refugees can face discrimination based on their race, culture or immigration status, even from within the LGBT community and social scenes in the UK (Godfrey 2015). This can be understood within a broader problem of racism within the LGBT community in the UK, to the extent that racism can be a bigger issue than homophobia for Black and minority ethnic LGBT people (Haggas 2015; Polson 2015). As Alimi (2014) noted, ‘we forget the intersectionality that every time you as a gay person is racist, you’re racist against a fellow gay person who is not like you’. Though not specific to the UK LGBT community, the failure to understand and respect the intersectional experiences of sexuality and race undermines the potential for solidarity to impact positive change. If UK LGBT civil society wants to meaningfully improve the lives and experiences of Black and minority ethnic LGBT people, including LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, then it must look to tackle the intersectional issues that impact on quality of life beyond simply a concern for homophobia, particularly when homophobia alone is not always the primary concern for all LGBT people in the UK. Although LGBT people seeking asylum can have specialist needs, they also have the needs of any other asylum seeker, and so it is important to ensure that asylum services that LGBT people may need to use are LGBT-friendly, as Dillane (2015c) noted of the work UKLGIG does: [LGBT asylum seekers] may want help with their English skills, they may need medical and sexual health services. They may need help with their housing and financial assistance. So, we need to try to make sure that other organisations are LGBT friendly and knowledgeable. So we do try to offer support and training and information to others so that when our clients go and ask for help that they can get what they need.

There are organisations across the UK that offer information and support to LGBT asylum seekers and refugees, either in the form of specialist LGBT-focused support, or LGBT-friendly refugee services (e.g. Scottish Refugee Council 2014). There are several local and regional groups that seek to provide support for LGBT refugees and asylum seekers across the UK, such as the Lesbian Immigration Support Group

232

M. FARMER

based in Manchester, ReachOUT based in Leeds or LGBT Unity based in Glasgow. As well as providing services and support to LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, some groups also engage in campaigning or lobbying the UK Government on issues relating to LGBT asylum. For example, both UKLGIG and ARF have contributed evidence to All-Party Parliamentary Group inquires on LGBT asylum (APPG 2016; ‘The Report of the Inquiry’ 2015). The APPG LGBT notes that LGBT refugees and diaspora can contribute unique, first-hand perspectives of the asylum system in the UK, as well as the persecution LGBT communities face globally (APPG 2016, p. 57). This hopefully marks the growth of a parliamentary trend to seek out and include the perspectives of LGBT diaspora in the UK that can contribute to informing government policy on LGBT issues in the UK and abroad. Taking into account the organisations discussed here, it is evident that there has been a growth in the number of UK-based organisations that seek to support LGBT refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, particularly throughout the 2010s, the growth of which is comparable to the broader growth in interest of international LGBT issues. UKLGIG, Lesbian Immigration Support Group, OPAL, No Going Back, Micro Rainbow, ARF, ReachOUT and LGBT Unity, amongst others, offer advice, organise support networks, campaign on behalf of LGBT people going through the asylum process, and contribute to and publish research on LGBT refugee and asylum seeker experiences in the UK. These organisations deliver different aspects of support that often work in overlapping and complimentary ways. The comparable origins and formation of these groups is also interesting, with several of the groups emerging as diaspora-led initiatives to support LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, or LGBT diaspora communities more broadly, such as Lesbian Immigration Support Group, OPAL, Rainbows Across Borders and ARF. On the other hand, organisations including No Going Back, ReachOUT and Micro Rainbow emerged to fill a gap in asylum services that were failing to adequately support LGBT refugees and asylum seekers. The emergent trend of these organisations broadly reflects the general growth of LGBT organisations with an interest in international LGBT issues. The reasons for this trend are likely a combination of improving awareness, acceptance and rights for LGBT people in the UK that allows these groups to operate with greater freedom and flexibility. With regard to LGBT asylum, a combination of legal developments in this field, coupled with a growing interest in global LGBT issues has provided fertile ground

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

233

for organisations to establish themselves. The emergence of diasporaled groups is symptomatic of the growing strength of LGBT diaspora communities in the UK that have created networks of support in the absence of more comprehensive support from broader civil society or the UK Government.

LGBT Lives, Intersectionality and Coloniality Whilst LGBT asylum seekers may have more opportunities to access support and services in the UK following the developments outlined above, LGBT people continue to face the pressures and challenges of being detained in the UK for seeking asylum from persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (Bachmann 2016; Dillane 2015c; Hunt 2016). Thus, the ways in which the UK Government has treated LGBT people seeking asylum risks contradicting the UK Government’s vocal support for LGBT rights internationally. As highlighted by Dillane (2015c), what kind of message does it send to the international community that the UK detains LGBT people who have sought asylum from homophobic violence, discrimination and imprisonment in their countries of origin? Compare this to the issues raised in the previous chapter, particularly concerning the UK Government’s support for LGBT rights-denying states, and the UK Government appears to undermine its own commitments to improving LGBT rights internationally. Whilst appreciating the complexities of international relations, it is necessary to hold governments to account to ensure that commitments to improving LGBT rights translate into real action to improve the lives of LGBT people globally. In a contemporary environment in which LGBT rights are deployed as a virtue of the West, perpetuating a pinkwashed modernity/coloniality, simultaneous to anti-asylum sentiments against the backdrop of the ‘migrant crisis’, it is perhaps unsurprising to find myths that suggest LGBT asylum is an easy option for those seeking refugee status in the UK. For example, in August 2015, the Daily Mail claimed that posters in the migrant camps at Calais were encouraging migrants to lie about their sexuality as a way of claiming asylum in the UK (Smith 2015). UKLGIG noted that there was no evidence of any such posters and that stories such as these perpetuate myths that seeking LGBT asylum is an easy option, highlighting that ‘LGBT people face significant obstacles in navigating the complex and frequently unsympathetic UK asylum system’

234

M. FARMER

(UKLGIG 2015a; also, Dillane 2015c). Such myths appear to arise amidst inconsistencies between the ways in which states claim to value LGBT rights and the ways in which states treat LGBT people. For example, in 2014, Richard Lusimbo, a Ugandan LGBT activist, was initially denied a visa to enter Canada to attend WorldPride in Toronto to share Ugandan LGBT activism experiences, because of fears that he would claim asylum once he got to Canada (Xtra 2014). In 2016, Tunisian LGBT activist Ramy Ayari faced a similar problem securing a visa to participate in a forum in Montreal (Kestler-D’Amours 2016). Compare this to the supposed prioritisation of LGBT people over non-LGBT people in some instances of asylum applications, such as Canada’s acceptance of LGBT Syrian refugees, but not single, male Syrian refugees in 2015 (Kingsley 2015; Long 2016). It is worth highlighting, however, that Canada’s asylum system has undergone its own evolution on how it approaches LGBT asylum (Deif and Reid 2017). This is emblematic of the problem of prioritising LGBT rights in certain situations that contributes to the perpetuation of myths about the prioritisation of LGBT rights, which is problematic because the prioritisation of LGBT rights does not always equate to improvements in the lives of LGBT people (Ndashe 2013; see also, White 2013). The above examinations of sodomy laws, the Commonwealth and LGBT asylum highlight the need to recognise how legacies of British imperialism impact on the contemporary landscape of LGBT rights and LGBT lives globally, and whether UK-based actors successfully navigate the complexities and intersectionalities of these colonial legacies when engaging in transnational LGBT activism. For example, it is important that actors sensitively navigate the coloniality of power in international relations, recognising that LGBT lives are impacted by coloniality in ways other than only sodomy laws or similar legislation that specifically targets same-sex sexual behaviour or gender identity and expression. LGBT people living in the Global South are impacted by decades of underdevelopment, Western neo-imperial belligerent interventions, or Western support for oppressive political regimes. Therefore, it is important that Western engagements in transnational LGBT activism acknowledge and appreciate how their interventions may be perceived within the broader matrix of coloniality. This might become particularly apparent when operating within international political structures that are legacies of empire, such as the Commonwealth, which carry their own challenges of coloniality, such as the concentration of elite networks operating in the

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

235

metropole. UK-based NGOs also have more relative power to choose who they work with and which voices they’ll amplify, which can have a large impact on which strategies transnational networks decide to engage in and whether they reflect the interests of Southern LGBT activists. For example, decriminalisation is not a universal objective of international LGBT rights movements, despite it being a common strategy and widely emphasised amongst UK-based NGOs. Furthermore, recognising that LGBT asylum is a legacy of colonialism highlights inconsistencies between the ways in which UK governmental actors voice support for LGBT rights globally and the ways in which LGBT people seeking asylum face challenges in the UK. It is important that UK-based NGOs continue to pressure the UK Government to approach LGBT asylum with greater sensitivity, whilst recognising that there are challenges that LGBT people seeking asylum face that are both unique to their being LGBT and common to their being asylum seekers, opening opportunities to connect with broader networks of solidarity to improve the asylum system in the UK. That is the central thread that emerges from these examinations of colonial legacies: that meaningful and impactful solidarity, which can help to destabilise the problematic perpetuation of coloniality, must be able to connect to strategies beyond LGBT identity in ways that recognise the intersectional complexities of LGBT lives. For example, Southern LGBT activists and civil society allies continue to face oppression from colonial legislative legacies such as sedition laws that restrict freedom of expression. Civil society spaces that Southern LGBT activists work within must navigate the power inequalities of transnational networks. LGBT people seeking asylum face challenges due to their race, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and financial vulnerability. As UK-based NGOs and activists more thoroughly engage with these intersectional complexities, they will be able to contribute meaningful solidarity to transnational strategies that support LGBT liberation, beyond only an emphasis on decriminalisation.

References African Rainbow Family. (2015a). Submission to All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights (APPG LGBT)’s Invitation to Submit Written Evidence on: The UK’s Stance on International Breaches of LGBT Rights. https://africanrainbowfamily.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ african-rainbow-family-submission-to-appglgbt.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2019.

236

M. FARMER

African Rainbow Family. (2015b, November 20). Rally Against LGBTI Persecutions in Commonwealth Nations. https://africanrainbowfamily.org/2015/ 11/20/rally-against-lgbti-persecutions-in-commonwealth-nations/. Accessed 12 August 2019. African Rainbow Family. (2016, April 14). UK Parliament Urges for More Actions to Tackle Serious Breaches of LGBT Rights Globally. https://africanra inbowfamily.org/2016/05/09/uk-parliament-urges-for-more-actions-to-tac kle-serious-breaches-of-lgbt-rights-globally/. Accessed 10 August 2019. Alimi, B. (2014, August 19). Personal interview. Nigerian LGBT Activist. All Out. (2016, May 23). Germany: Don’t Send Them Back! https://go.allout. org/en/a/not-safe/. Accessed 17 August 2019. All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights: The UK’s Stance on International Breaches of LGBT Rights. (2016). http://media.wix.com/ ugd/cf74d6_9aef960a172749b6ae9da560b09e8e61.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Asanovic, B. (2018). Still Falling Short: The Standard of Home Office DecisionMaking in Asylum Claims Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. UKLGIG. https://uklgig.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/StillFalling-Short.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2019. Assistant Director. (2014, July 29). Personal interview. Kaleidoscope Trust. Awondo, P., Geschiere, P., & Reid, G. (2012). Homophobic Africa? Toward a More Nuanced View. African Studies Review, 55(3), 145–168. Bachmann, C. L. (2016). No Safe Refuge: Experiences of LGBT Asylum Seekers in Detention. Stonewall and UKLGIG. https://uklgig.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/no_safe_refuge.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2019. BBC News. (2010, December 8). Czech Gay Asylum “Phallomertric Test” Criticised by EU . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11954499. Accessed 17 August 2019. BBC News. (2016, May 24). Gay Refugees Say They Have Been “Bullied” in Dutch Camps. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-36363376/ gay-refugees-say-they-have-been-bullied-in-dutch-camps. Accessed 17 August 2019. Bell, M., & Hansen, C. (2009). Over Not Out: The Housing and Homelessness Issues Specific to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Asylum Seekers. Metropolitan Support Trust. https://www.metropolitan.org.uk/ima ges/Over-Not-Out.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2019. Blair, J. (2015, March 4). “Not a lesbian”: Adoronke Apata and the impossibly high threshold for asylum claims based on sexuality. The Justice Gap. https://www.thejusticegap.com/lesbian-home-secretary-sets-imp ossibly-high-threshold-asylum-claims-based-sexuality/. Accessed 14 August 2019.

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

237

Bosia, M. J. (2014). Strange Fruit: Homophobia, the State, and the Politics of LGBT Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Rights, 13(3), 256–273. Brooks, L., & Stewart, A. (2015). Collaboration and Consensus: Building a Constructive Commonwealth Approach to LGBT Rights. London: The Royal Commonwealth Society; Kaleidoscope Trust. https://www.thercs.org/ass ets/Research-/Collaboration-and-Consensus-Building-A-Constructive-CWApproach-to-LGBT-Rights.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Bulman, M. (2019, June 4). Home Office Accused of “Hypocrisy” After Adopting Pride Flag While Deporting Gay Rugby Player to Kenya. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homeoffice-gay-pride-asylum-refused-kenneth-macharia-bristol-bisons-a8943376. html. Accessed 15 August 2019. Charter of the Commonwealth. (2013). http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/def ault/files/page/documents/CharteroftheCommonwealth.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Chelvan, S. (2014, July 23). From ABC to DSSH: How to Prove That You Are a Gay Refugee? Free Movement. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/fromabc-to-dssh-how-to-prove-that-you-are-a-gay-refugee/. Accessed 14 August 2019. Commonwealth Foundation. (2015). CPF Malta 2015 Programme. http://cpf. commonwealthfoundation.com/programme-what-makes-societies-resilient/. Accessed 12 October 2016. Cooper, J. (2015, July 23). Personal interview. Former Chief Executive, Human Dignity Trust. Cowell, F. (2013). LGBT Rights in Commonwealth Forums: Politics, Pitfalls and Progress? In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 125–143). London: University of London. Crerar, P. (2018a, April 16). Theresa May Urged to Apologise for Britain’s Anti-gay Colonial Past. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2018/apr/16/theresa-may-urged-to-apologise-for-britains-anti-gaycolonial-past. Accessed 11 August 2019. Crerar, P. (2018b, April 17). Theresa May Says She Deeply Regrets Britain’s Legacy of Anti-gay Laws. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2018/apr/17/theresa-may-deeply-regrets-britain-legacy-anti-gaylaws-commonwealth-nations-urged-overhaul-legislation. Accessed 11 August 2019. Deif, F., & Reid, G. (2017, May 5). Canada Levels the Playing Field for LGBTI Refugees. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/05/ canada-levels-playing-field-lgbti-refugees. Accessed 23 February 2020. de Jong, A. (2003). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Information Centre About Asylum and

238

M. FARMER

Refugees (ICAR) Archive. http://icar.livingrefugeearchive.org/navgdlgbt. pdf. Accessed 13 September 2016. Dillane, P. (2015a, April 20). Are the Days of Indefinite Detention Finally Numbered? The Justice Gap. https://www.thejusticegap.com/are-the-days-ofindefinite-detention-finally-numbered/. Accessed 17 August 2019. Dillane, P. (2015b, April 27). LGBT Asylum Seekers: A Toxic Mix of Homophobia, Misogyny and Ignorance Corrupts the Asylum System. Free Movement. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/lgbt-asylum-seekers-a-toxicmix-of-homophobia-misogyny-and-ignorance-corrupts-the-asylum-system/. Accessed 14 August 2019. Dillane, P. (2015c, August 11). Personal interview. Former Executive Director, UKLGIG. Duffy, N. (2016, November 4). Uganda’s Foreign Minister: Our Anti-gay Laws Are Britain’s Fault. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/11/04/ ugandas-foreign-minister-our-anti-gay-laws-are-britains-fault/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Edozien, F. (2018, April 25). Britain Apologized for Its Colonial-era Anti-gay Laws But It Won’t Help African LGBT Communities. Quartz Africa. https://qz.com/africa/1261482/theresa-may-sorry-for-colonial-anti-gaylaws-in-commonwealth-africa-but-it-wont-help-lgbt-community/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Epprecht, M. (2013). Sexuality and Social Justice in Africa. London: Zed Books. Feder, J. L. (2016, August 12). Belize’s Supreme Court Just Struck Down a Law That Made Homosexuality Illegal. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buz zfeednews.com/article/lesterfeder/belizes-supreme-court-just-struck-downa-law-that-made-homos#.tfpq1W3Nx. Accessed 24 January 2020. Godfrey, C. (2015, June 4). Asylum in the Scene. QX Magazine. https://www. qxmagazine.com/2015/06/asylum-in-the-scene/. Accessed 12 August 2019. Gray, L. M. (2010). Failing The Grade: Home Office Initial Decisions on Lesbian and Gay Claims for Asylum. London: UKLGIG. https://uklgig.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Failing-the-Grade.pdf. Accessed 12 August 2019. Gupta, A. (2008). This Alien Legacy: The Origins of “Sodomy” Laws in British Colonialism. New York: Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/reports/lgbt1208_web.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2019. Haggas, S. (2015, June 3). Racism and the Gay Scene. FS Magazine 148. https://www.gmfa.org.uk/fs148-racism-and-the-gay-scene. Accessed 18 August 2019. Han, E., & O’Mahoney, J. (2018). British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality. London: Routledge. Hanson, S. (2015, August 3). Video call interview. Founder and Former CEO, No Going Back.

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

239

HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. (2010). UKSC 31. Supreme Court, UK, 7 July 2010. http://www.refworld. org/docid/4c3456752.html. Accessed 12 August 2019. HM Government. (2010). The Coalition: Our Programme for Government. London. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-ourprogramme-for-government. Accessed 12 August 2019. Home Affairs Committee. (2013). Asylum: Seventh Report of Session 2013– 2014 (Vol. 1). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cms elect/cmhaff/71/71.pdf. Accessed 12 August 2019. Home Office. (2011, June 13). Gender Identity Issues in the Asylum Claim: Transgender. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dealing-withgender-identity-issues-in-the-asylum-claim-process. Accessed 14 August 2019. Home Office. (2012, January 11). Stonewall Announces the Home Office as Top Public Sector Employer. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ stonewall-announces-the-home-office-as-top-public-sector-employer. Accessed 12 August 2019. Home Office. (2014). The Home Office Response to the Independent Chief Inspector’s Report: “An Investigation into the Home Office’s Handling of Asylum Claims Made on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation” March–June 2014. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/365654/ResponseAsylumClaimsBasisSexua lOrientation.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2019. Home Office. (2016, August 2). Asylum Policy Instruction: Sexual Orientation in Asylum Claims. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sexual-ide ntity-issues-in-the-asylum-claim. Accessed 14 August 2019. Home Office. (2018, November 29). Experimental Statistics: Asylum Claims on the Basis of Sexual Orientation. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/govern ment/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-september-2018/exp erimental-statistics-asylum-claims-on-the-basis-of-sexual-orientation. Accessed 15 August 2019. Human Rights Watch. (2016, March 29). Tunisia: Men Prosecuted for Homosexuality. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/29/tunisia-men-pro secuted-homosexuality. Accessed 17 August 2019. Hunt, R. (2016, October 25). When LGBT Asylum Seekers Escape Persecution… Britain Locks Them Up. Politics.co.uk. https://www.politics.co. uk/comment-analysis/2016/10/25/lgbt-asylum-seekers-are-facing-discrimin ation-in-our-d. Accessed 18 August 2019. Jansen, S., & Spijkerboer, T. (2011). Fleeing Homophobia: Asylum Claims Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Europe. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ebba7852.html. Accessed 17 August 2019.

240

M. FARMER

Justice for Gay Africans. (n.d.). Lobbying the Commonwealth on Decriminalization. http://www.jfga.org.uk/?p=304. Accessed 17 June 2014. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2015a, October 14). LGBTI Rights in the Commonwealth. http://kaleidoscopetrust.com/events/31. Accessed 12 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2015b, December 4). 2015 CHOGM Communiqué Includes Language That Can Advance the Rights of LGBT People. http://kaleidoscope trust.com/news/98. Accessed 12 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2016, April 14). Kaleidoscope Trust Welcomes All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights Report. http://kaleidoscope trust.com/news/109. Accessed 12 August 2019. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kestler-D’Amours, J. (2016, May 17). Canada Denies Visa to Tunisian LGBT Activist. Middle East Eye. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/canada-den ies-visa-tunisian-lgbt-activist. Accessed 18 August 2019. Kingsley, P. (2015, November 24). Canada’s Exclusion of Single Male Refugees May Exacerbate Syrian Conflict. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. com/world/2015/nov/24/canada-exclusion-refugees-single-syrian-menassad-isis. Accessed 18 August 2019. Kirby, D. (2015, November 15). Robert Kityo: Ugandan Man Faces Deportation After “Failing to Prove He’s Gay.” The Independent. https://www. independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/robert-kityo-ugandan-man-to-bedeported-after-failing-to-prove-he-s-gay-a6735341.html. Accessed 15 August 2019. Kirby, M. (2013). The Sodomy Offence: England’s Least Lovely Criminal Law Export?’. In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 61–82). London: University of London. Leftly, M. (2015, November 28). Baroness Scotland Uses New Role as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to Call for LGBT Rights. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bar oness-scotland-uses-new-role-as-secretary-general-of-the-commonwealth-tocall-for-lgbt-rights-a6752966.html. Accessed 11 August 2019. Lennox, C., & Waites, M. (2013a). Comparative Analysis of Decriminalisation and Change Across the Commonwealth: Understanding Contexts and Discerning Strategies. In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 507–547). London: Human Rights Consortium, University of London. Lennox, C., & Waites, M. (2013b). Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: From History and Law to Developing Activism and Transnational Dialogues. In C. Lennox & M. Waites (Eds.),

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

241

Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change (pp. 1–59). London: University of London. Long, S. (2016, June 22). Cairo, and Our Comprador Gay Movements: A Talk. a paper bird. https://paper-bird.net/2016/06/22/cairo-compradorgay-movements/. Accessed 18 August 2019. McCormick, J. P. (2016, August 4). Pride Uganda Raided by Police as LGBT Activists Arrested. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/08/04/ pride-uganda-raided-by-police-as-lgbt-activists-arrested/. Accessed 11 August 2019. McKinney, C. (2019, August 15). Asylum Seeker Not “Effeminate” Enough to Be Gay, Immigration Judge Says. Free Movement. https://www.freemovem ent.org.uk/asylum-seeker-not-effeminate-enough-to-be-gay/. Accessed 15 August 2019. McVeigh, T. (2015, October 17). Asylum Seekers Face Eviction Four Weeks After Being Allowed to Stay in Britain. The Observer. https://www.the guardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/17/asylum-seekers-eviction-four-weeks. Accessed 17 August 2019. Micro Rainbow International. (2013). Poverty, Sexual Orientation and Refugees in the UK. London: Micro Rainbow International. https://microrainbow. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/MR_REPORT_UK_digital-final-forthe-web-Reduced.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2019. Miles, N. (2010). No Going Back: Lesbian and Gay People and the Asylum System. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/no-going-back2010. Accessed 12 August 2019. Morgan, J. (2016, September 12). UK Tells GAY Ugandan Asylum Seeker He Can Skype His Boyfriend After He Is Deported. Gay Star News. https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/uk-tells-gay-ugandan-asy lum-seeker-can-skype-boyfriend-deported/. Accessed 15 August 2019. Ndashe, S. (2013). The Single Story of “African Homophobia” Is Dangerous for LGBTI Activism. In S. Ekine & H. Abbas (Eds.), Queer African Reader (pp. 155–164). Oxford: Pambazuka Press. Ohtani, E., & Phelps, J. (2016). Without Detention: Opportunities for Alternatives. London: Detention Action. https://detentionaction.org.uk/wp/ wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Without-Detention.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2019. Onwuchekwa, G. (2014, August 13). Video call interview. Co-founder and Chair, Justice for Gay Africans Society. O’Toole, M. (2015, November 27). Protesters Demand That the Commonwealth Decriminalises Homosexuality. Pink News. http://www.pinknews.co. uk/2015/11/27/protesters-demand-that-the-commonwealth-decriminaliseshomosexuality/. Accessed 10 August 2019.

242

M. FARMER

Penny, P. (2014, August 5). Personal interview. Co-founder and Chair, Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund. Persio, S. L. (2018, September 21). Gay Sex Laws in Trinidad and Tobago Change, But Not Struck Down. Pink News. https://www.pinknews. co.uk/2018/09/21/gay-sex-law-trinidad-and-tobago-change/. Accessed 24 January 2020. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2013, November 13). London Protest Against Commonwealth Homophobia. http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/lon don-protest-against-commonwealth-homophobia/. Accessed 12 August 2019. Peter Tatchell Foundation. (2018, April 11). Commonwealth Chiefs Receive LGBT Petition with 104,000 Signatures. https://www.petertatchellfound ation.org/commonwealth-chiefs-receive-lgbt-petition-with-104000-signat ures/. Accessed 12 August 2019. Phelps, J. (2015, December 14). After the Fast Track: What Next for the Detention of Asylum Seekers? openDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy. net/en/5050/after-fast-track-what-next-for-detention-of-asylum-seekers/. Accessed 17 August 2019. Polson, J. (2015, September 15). Attitude’s Newest Columnist Jemal Polson on Racism Within the Gay Scene. Attitude Magazine. https://attitude.co.uk/ article/attitudes-newest-columnist-jemal-polson-on-racism-within-the-gayscene/7611/. Accessed 18 August 2019. Porter, T. (2016, January 26). Germany: Gay Asylum Seekers Attacked by Fellow Refugees. International Business Times. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ germany-gay-asylum-seekers-attacked-by-fellow-refugees-affronted-by-theirsexuality-1540088. Accessed 17 August 2019. Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press. Rao, R. (2012, January 1). On “Gay Conditionality”, Imperial Power and Queer Liberation. KAFILA. https://kafila.online/2012/01/01/on-gayconditionality-imperial-power-and-queer-liberation-rahul-rao/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Roberts, S. (2013, March 11). Justice for Gay Africans: “Queen’s Commonwealth Charter Is Silent on Sexuality.” Pink News. https://www.pinknews. co.uk/2013/03/11/justice-for-gay-africans-queens-commonwealth-charteris-silent-on-sexuality/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Robinson, C. (2012, April). Decolonising Sexual Citizenship: Who Will Effect Change in the South of the Commonwealth? London: Commonwealth Advisory Bureau. https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4836/1/04_12_Opinion_v6a.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2020. Schleicher, T., et al. (2016, September 11). New Immigration Detention Policy for “Adults at Risk” Needs Urgent Review. The Guardian. https://www.the

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

243

guardian.com/society/2016/sep/11/new-immigration-detention-policy-foradults-at-risk-needs-urgent-review. Accessed 17 August 2019. Scottish Refugee Council. (2014). Asylum in the UK: Information for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) People. http://www. scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0000/8499/LGBTI_info_LoRes.pdf. Accessed 18 August 2019. Sharma, K. (2013, February 28). Commonwealth Secretary-General Addresses UN Human Rights Council. The Commonwealth. http://thecommonwealth. org/media/news/commonwealth-secretary-general-addresses-un-human-rig hts-council-0. Accessed 11 August 2019. Sharma, K. (2014, January 30). Secretary-General Calls for Respect on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. The Commonwealth. http://thecommon wealth.org/media/news/secretary-general-calls-respect-sexual-orientationand-gender-identity. Accessed 11 August 2019. Singer, D. (2015, November 24). How Do You Prove You Are Gay? A Culture of Disbelief Is Traumatising Asylum Seekers. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/24/gay-asylum-seekers-sexual ity-home-office. Accessed 15 August 2019. Smith, E. K. (2015, August 5). Say That You Are Gay to Get To the UK: Posters Tell Migrants They Can Lie About Their Sexuality to Claim Asylum. Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185508/Say-gay-UKPosters-tell-migrants-lie-sexuality-claim-asylum.html (accessed 06/08/15). Speaking Out: The Rights of LGBTI Citizens from Across the Commonwealth. (2013). London: Kaleidoscope Trust. http://kaleidoscopetrust.com/usr/lib rary/documents/main/speaking-out-lgbti-rights-in-the-cw.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Speaking Out 2015: The Rights of LGBTI People Across the Commonwealth. (2015). London: Kaleidoscope Trust. http://kaleidoscopetrust.com/usr/ library/documents/main/2015_speakingout_241115_web.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Staples, L. (2019, May 16). Inside the Fight for LGBT + Rights Across the Commonwealth. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ long_reads/lgbt-gay-rights-commonwealth-mauritius-homosexuality-britishempire-a8912641.html. Accessed 24 January 2020. Stewart, C. (2016, March 15). LGBTI Africans Urge Commonwealth Focus on Human Rights. Erasing 76 Crimes. https://76crimes.com/2016/03/ 15/lgbti-africans-urge-commonwealth-focus-on-human-rights/. Accessed 12 August 2019. Stonewall (2016). Stonewall Top 100 Employers: The Definitive Guide to the Most Inclusive Employers in Britain, 2016. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resour ces/top-100-employers-2016. Accessed 12 August 2019.

244

M. FARMER

Stuart, A. (2012). Over Not Out Refreshed 2012. Metropolitan. https://www. metropolitan.org.uk/images/Metropolitan-MF-LGBT-Over-Not-Out2012final1.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2019. Tatchell, P. (2010, May 18). Evils of Colonialism Still Wrecking Lives. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/ peter-tatchell-evils-of-colonialism-still-wrecking-lives-1976405.html. Accessed 10 August 2019. Tatchell, P. (2011, May 17). The Commonwealth Is a Bastion of Homophobia. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/ 17/commonwealth-homophobia-anti-gay-discrimination. Accessed 12 August 2019. Tatchell, P. (2014, September 20). Personal interview. Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation. Tatchell, P. (2018, April 16). Commonwealth: Theresa May Urged to Apologise for Anti-gay Laws. Peter Tatchell Foundation. https://www.petertatchellfo undation.org/commonwealth-uk-prime-minister-urged-to-apologise-for-antigay-laws/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Taylor, D., & Townsend, M. (2014, February 8). Gay Asylum Seekers Face “Humiliation.” The Observer. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ 2014/feb/08/gay-asylum-seekers-humiliation-home-office. Accessed 12 August 2019. Teik, P. K. (2019, April 5). How Selective Liberal Outrage Against Brunei Is Missing the Point. Queer Lapis. https://www.queerlapis.com/how-selectiveliberal-outrage-against-brunei-is-missing-the-point/. Accessed 23 November 2019. The Commonwealth Equality Network. (2015, November 25). Historic Inclusion of LGBTI Rights in Commonwealth Discussions. http://www.commonwealth equality.org/news/12/. Accessed 12 August 2019. The Commonwealth Equality Network. (2017, June 20). Big Step Forward for Human Rights as Commonwealth Officially Accredits First LGBTI Organisation. https://www.commonwealthequality.org/news/19/. Accessed 22 February 2020. The Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom: A Joint Inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees & the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration. (2015). https://detentioninquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/imm igration-detention-inquiry-report.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2019. Thoreson, R. R. (2014). Troubling the Waters of a “Wave of Homophobia”: Political Economies of Anti-Queer Animus in sub-Saharan Africa. Sexualities, 17, 23–42. Townsend, M., & Taylor, D. (2014, February 8). Home Office Wouldn’t Believe I Was Gay: How Do You Prove It? The Observer. https://www.the

7

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTIONS OF COLONIAL …

245

guardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/08/home-office-gay-asylum-seekers-que stioning. Accessed 12 August 2019. UKLGIG. (2015a, August 5). UKLGIG Statement on “False” LGBT Asylum Claims: No Significant Evidence People Are Lying About Sexuality to Claim asylum. https://uklgig.org.uk/?p=1954. Accessed 18 August 2019. UKLGIG. (2015b, September 18). UKLGIG Submission to All Part Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Global LGBT Rights: Inquiry into the United Kingdom’s Stance on International Breaches of LGBT Rights. http://uklgig. org.uk/?page_id=1225. Accessed 14 August 2019. UKLGIG. (2018, November 29). Home Office Recognising Fewer Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Refugees. https://uklgig.org.uk/?p=2751. Accessed 15 August 2019. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2012, October 23). Guidelines on International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status Based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or Its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. http://www.unhcr.org/509136ca9.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2019. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2015). Protecting Persons with Diverse Sexual Orientations and Gender Identities: A Global Report on UNHCR’s Efforts to Protect Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex AsylumSeekers and Refugees. http://refworld.org/docid/566140454.html. Accessed 14 August 2019. Vine, J. (2014). An Investigation into the Home Office’s Handling of Asylum Claims Made on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation, March–June 2014. London: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-report-on-asylum-claimson-the-grounds-of-sexual-orientation-october-2014. Accessed 12 August 2019. Waites, M. (2014, July 23). The Commonwealth Can Play a Role in the Worldwide Struggle for Lgbti Human Rights. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-commonwealth-can-play-a-role-inthe-worldwide-struggle-for-lgbti-human-rights-29373. Accessed 12 August 2019. Waites, M. (2015a). Claiming LGBTI Human Rights in the Commonwealth After Empire. Discover Society, 16. https://discoversociety.org/2015/ 01/03/claiming-lgbti-human-rights-in-the-commonwealth-after-empire/. Accessed 12 August 2019. Waites, M. (2015b). The New Trans-national Politics of LGBT Human Rights in the Commonwealth. In F. Stella, Y. Taylor, T. Reynolds, & A. Rogers (Eds.), Sexuality, Citizenship and Belonging: Trans-national and Intersectional Perspectives (pp. 73–92). New York: Routledge.

246

M. FARMER

Waites, M. (2017). LGBTI Organizations Navigating Imperial Contexts: The Kaleidoscope Trust, the Commonwealth and the Need for a Decolonizing, Intersectional Politics. The Sociological Review, 65(4), 644–662. Walker, P. (2016, January 6). Refugees Unable to Open UK Bank Accounts Facing Debt and Destitution. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. com/world/2016/jan/06/refugees-unable-to-open-uk-bank-accounts-fac ing-debt-and-destitution. Accessed 17 August 2019. Weiss, M. L., & Bosia, M. J. (Eds.). (2013). Global Homophobia: States, Movements, and the Politics of Oppression. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. White, M. A. (2013). Ambivalent Homonationalism: Transnational Queer Intimacies and Territorialized Belongings. Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 15(1), 37–54. Williams, J. (2016, February 3). Two More Men Jailed for Being Gay in Morocco. Pink News. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/03/twomore-men-jailed-for-being-gay-in-morocco/. Accessed 17 August 2019. Xtra. (2014, June 17). Ugandan Gay Rights Activist on Being Denied Canadian Visa. YouTube [video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuNzSRtHivg. Accessed 18 August 2019. Yoshida, K. (2013). Missing the Mark: Decision Making on Lesbian, Gay (Bisexual, Trans and Intersex) Asylum Claims. London: UKLGIG. https://uklgig. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Missing-the-Mark.pdf. Accessed 12 August 2019. Zadeh, L. (2019, July 9). The UK Must Stop Persecuting People Who Seek Asylum Based on Sexuality. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/lgbt-asylum-seekers-detention. Accessed 15 August 2019.

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion

Since 2011, UK-based engagements in transnational LGBT activism have continued to evolve, with the emergence of UK-based NGOs dedicated to improving LGBT rights globally playing a significant role. UK-based NGOs have continued to refine their strategic engagements in transnational LGBT activism, with the range of NGO strategies ensuring that the UK space offers multiple approaches to supporting LGBT rights globally. Whilst the NGO space has lacked strategic coherency at times, efforts have been made to build UK-based networks, from the Doughty Street Group to the new UK Alliance for Global Equality, and formalise transnational networks, evidenced by TCEN. Although NGOs declare a shared commitment to the importance of ‘working with local actors’, it is evident that solidarity has sometimes been selectively enacted, whilst the prioritisation of LGBT rights risks obscuring broader challenges that LGBT people face beyond their sexual orientation and gender identity. This highlights that there remains scope for UK-based NGOs to demonstrate a more thorough commitment to intersectional and decolonial approaches to supporting LGBT people globally, in a way that is responsibly reflective of the complex impact that British colonial legacies have on the contemporary realities of LGBT people’s lives globally. Examining UK-based NGO engagements reveals a range of strategies, from protest actions, to lobbying the UK Government, to supporting LGBT activists in different countries with financial assistance or strategy © The Author(s) 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0_8

247

248

M. FARMER

sharing. UK-based NGOs also play an important role in raising awareness of contemporary challenges for LGBT people globally, with public lectures and conferences providing forums for information sharing, usually bringing international voices together to discuss issues affecting LGBT communities and transnational activism. Whilst there is some overlap in NGO strategies, with a common emphasis on decriminalisation and the Commonwealth, NGOs tend to specialise in certain areas of transnational LGBT activism, such as development, litigation or LGBT asylum. One common theme amongst UK-based NGOs is their insistence on the need to ‘work (in solidarity) with local actors’ when engaging in transnational activism. Whilst a mantra of ‘being led by local actors’ may inform NGO strategies, it has not always been realised in consistently effective ways. This is demonstrated in the mixed responses to developments in Brunei, suggesting that Western outrage is sometimes prioritised over transnational solidarity and coordination with local activists. This suggests that there is scope for improvement in how UKbased NGOs actualise their commitments to working with Southern activists, requiring more nuance when framing global issues in ways that go beyond simplistic appeals to LGBT rights, to enacting solidarities that recognise the complexity of the lived experience of LGBT people globally. Although NGOs are always vulnerable to ensuring continued public and institutional support for their activism strategies, NGOs are also in a good position to educate UK constituencies on the complexities of transnational LGBT activism through the ways in which they choose to frame campaigns. If greater coherency is achieved using domestic networks, such as the UK Alliance for Global Equality, then UK-based NGOs will have a large degree of power in defining the dominant UK approaches to transnational LGBT activism. Consequently, it remains to be seen whether such approaches are informed by effective engagement with Southern activist strategies, how such strategies are chosen, and whether they contribute to an intersectional and decolonial approach to global LGBT equality (Waites 2019). The participation of Southern activists in UK-based conferences concerned with global LGBT rights provides a visible example of engaging with particular Southern voices and strategies (e.g. Glasgow Human Rights Network 2014; Kaleidoscope Trust 2014; Overseas Development Institute 2014). However, there remains scope for UK-based NGOs to articulate thoroughly intersectional strategies that demonstrate appreciation for the complexities of the lived experiences of LGBT people globally, noting that the limits of

8

CONCLUSION

249

our participation in emancipatory struggles should not end at the borders of a Western-prescribed LGBT identity. The emergence of LGBT diaspora-led organisations in the UK should be encouraged and supported by existing NGOs, as they add a valuable voice to UK-based approaches to transnational LGBT activism given their first-hand experiences of LGBT discrimination and violence in various contexts, be it in their country of origin or in the UK asylum system. There is evidence of UK-based NGOs actively engaging with LGBT diaspora in the UK, either through campaigning and activism, or supporting diaspora-led organisations in the work that they do. UK-based NGOs should continue to draw upon LGBT diaspora experiences and encourage the UK Government to do more to recognise and support their contributions to transnational LGBT activism. That being said, engagement with LGBT diaspora in the UK should not be a substitute for continued engagement with LGBT communities internationally (Onwuchekwa 2014). Indeed, at the heart of this is the need to acknowledge how collective engagement at multiple levels can contribute to the development of effective transnational strategies that draw on a range of LGBT experiences. To do so allows for an intersectional and decolonial approach of drawing on a range of perspectives to understand the nuances and complexities of transnational LGBT activism and to devise strategies that challenge the perpetuation of coloniality and politics of oppression. Examining the contributions of UK governmental actors to international LGBT rights reveals the ways in which UK-based NGOs engage with and attempt to influence government strategies. This is most evident in the involvement of UK-based NGOs in the founding of the APPG on Global LGBT Rights. The influence of NGOs is apparent in the APPG LGBT’s first report, which echoed the main arguments and ethos of NGOs, including an emphasis on ‘working with local actors’. Whilst it remains to be seen how much impact the APPG LGBT will have on government policy, it has the potential to influence improvements in the ways in which governmental actors engage with and respond to international LGBT issues. How it does this will likely be shaped by the influence that NGOs such as Kaleidoscope, HDT and Stonewall continue to have amongst parliamentarians, governmental actors and elite networks. NGOs and activists should continue to hold the UK Government to account to ensure greater clarity and coherency in governmental strategies, and that professed support for LGBT rights is enacted effectively. For example, whilst the FCO is involved in discussing and supporting LGBT rights at

250

M. FARMER

multiple levels internationally and has developed good working relationships with states and NGOs in this area, it will be important to ensure that commitment to LGBT rights is not lost as a post-Brexit UK renegotiates its place in the world. This book has sought to highlight how coloniality and legacies of British colonialism influence and shape contemporary international relations and the ways in which UK-based approaches have failed to fully engage with the broader complexities of these historical legacies. For example, whilst the legacies of sodomy laws are broadly recognised by UK-based actors, there is little to suggest that UK-based NGOs have developed effective strategies to engage with coloniality of power in international relations, that is the ways in which the broader legacies of colonialism, such as the structural, economic and political inequalities of the international system are perpetuated by Western states. The UK Government’s deployment of LGBT aid conditionality narratives was illustrative of the ways in which Western governments and international institutions attempt to appease domestic audiences at the cost of effective international progress. The failure of UK-based NGOs to effectively respond to the LGBT aid conditionality discourse reflects a common problem in the UK space of prioritising LGBT rights, missing the broader complexities and intersectional implications of Western development and foreign policies on the lives of LGBT people globally (Anguita 2012). UK-based NGOs failed to recognise the irony of advocating a ‘redirect aid’ narrative as a counter to LGBT aid conditionality that revealed an ignorance of aid relations in the context of coloniality. UK governmental actors, such as Cameron, failed to appreciate or take responsibility for the UK’s central role as an imperial state, thereby appearing to enact a neocolonial approach to ensuring LGBT rights that provided homophobic elites in the Global South with a clear framework with which to delegitimise local LGBT civil society (Penny 2014). The threat of LGBT aid conditionality, or other threats to impose LGBT rights from the West, is now an ever-present strawman that homophobic elites can invoke at will. It remains to be seen how UK-based actors will contribute to mitigating the effects of this incitement to discourse of LGBT aid conditionality, or the broader challenges that coloniality has created for Southern activist allies. Whilst this book has emphasised the importance of highlighting the influence of colonial legacies on contemporary international relations, the focus of UK-based actors on British responsibility for sodomy laws is

8

CONCLUSION

251

problematic, particularly when it suggests ‘justification for British action’ (APPG 2016, pp. 12–13). Though the UK should accept responsibility for the implementation of sodomy laws, this should be part of a broader recognition of the myriad harmful legacies of empire. Although Theresa May’s expression of ‘deep regret’ for British implementation of sodomy laws was a noteworthy moment of the 2018 CHOGM, public regret for one aspect of colonialism is unlikely to produce any major shift in antiLGBT politics across the Global South (Edozien 2018). Singular focus on sodomy laws detracts from the responsibility of states to have maintained or enhanced such laws and ignores the complex influences and manifestations of homophobia and transphobia globally. Recognising British responsibility for colonial legacies should inform contemporary strategies to act reflectively on the influence of coloniality on contemporary international relations. For example, the UK should work with and support allies in the Global South to lead improvements on LGBT rights globally, rather than attempting to levy economic and political power to coerce states as though it has the superiority to do so. Relatedly, although it may be a significant step in many contexts, there is a need to recognise that decriminalisation is not the single panacea for global LGBT liberation that is implied by the repeated emphasis on how many states continue to criminalise their LGBT populations from Western activists and NGOs. Even if the remaining jurisdictions that criminalise their LGBT populations were to remove such legislation (and it’s worth reiterating that not all jurisdictions criminalise their LGBT populations in the same way), LGBT people can still face state oppression under different oppressive mechanisms, such as restrictions on freedom of expression. LGBT people also face challenges in the form of local homophobias or transphobias, even in contexts with legislative protections for LGBT populations. As highlighted in Chapter 3, countries such as Brazil and South Africa are examples of states with LGBT protections but in which violence against LGBT people remains a problem, intimately linked to local contexts of homophobic and transphobic violence, race and class. Whilst the UK might like to project an image of LGBT acceptance that accords with a pinkwashed modernity/coloniality, LGBT people in the UK still face a problem of homophobic violence and discrimination (Stonewall 2017), LGBT youth disproportionately experience homelessness and face obstacles accessing education and work (Bradlow et al. 2020; The Albert Kennedy Trust 2015), and racism and ableism remain

252

M. FARMER

a problem in LGBT communities (Bachmann and Gooch 2018; Haggas 2015). UK-based NGOs appear to lack a common, articulated, concrete vision of the end-goal of UK-based strategies to improve global LGBT rights, particularly regarding how the outcomes of such strategies work towards the intersectional benefits of LGBT people (Alimi 2014). Nevertheless, there appears to be a broadly positive outlook that more states will move towards decriminalisation and support for LGBT rights in the next few decades, whilst recognising that some states and regions will take longer than others to improve LGBT equality (Assistant Director 2014; Cooper 2015; Tatchell 2014). The Assistant Director (2014) of Kaleidoscope has highlighted that Southern states, such as Latin American states, can play an important role in leading on the issue of LGBT rights internationally, noting that Northern governments should do more to support Southern states to lead debates internationally. The next CHOGM meeting will be held in Rwanda in 2020 and there is optimism from LGBT activists from across TCEN that they can keep up the momentum of LGBT rights in the Commonwealth (Staples 2019). UK-based NGOs have demonstrated a collective evolution over the past decade, refining strategies and strengthening their participation in transnational networks. Whilst there have been some challenges to effective transnational activism, such as failing to properly engage with and be led by Southern activists in some cases, or how the connections to elite networks of power in the UK highlight power inequalities within transnational networks, there remains scope for optimism in how UKbased NGOs might continue to contribute to global LGBT equality. It is easy to forget that the NGOs examined here are made up of relatively few people that are connected to transnational networks and that small changes in personnel can influence NGO strategies. Kaleidoscope’s turnover of Executive Directors is an interesting example of this, with the most recent addition of Phyll Opoku-Gyimah suggesting the potential for an effective intersectional engagement in transnational LGBT activism (Staples 2019). If UK-based NGOs can embrace an intersectional and decolonial engagement in transnational networks, challenging the ways in which LGBT rights are deployed by Western states as pinkwashing modernity/coloniality, and being led by Southern strategies that connect LGBT equality to broader struggles for liberation, then they will contribute to a transformative global LGBT movement.

8

CONCLUSION

253

References Alimi, B. (2014, August 19). Personal interview. Nigerian LGBT Activist. All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights: The UK’s Stance on International Breaches of LGBT Rights. (2016). http://media.wix.com/ ugd/cf74d6_9aef960a172749b6ae9da560b09e8e61.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2019. Anguita, L. A. (2012). Aid Conditionality and Respect for LGBT People Rights (SPW Working Paper 7). The Global Context: Sexuality and Geopolitics, 9–15. http://www.sxpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spw-wp7the-global-context-sexuality-and-politics.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2019. Assistant Director. (2014, July 29). Personal interview. Kaleidoscope Trust. Bachmann, C. L., & Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT in Britain: Home and Communities. London: Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/ lgbt_in_britain_home_and_communities.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2020. Bradlow, J., Guasp, A., Cooke, V., Wicks, H., Bush, L., Douglas, R., et al. (2020). Shut Out: The Experiences of LGBT Young People Not in Education, Training or Work. London: Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/ system/files/shut_out_2020.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2020. Cooper, J. (2015, July 23). Personal interview. Former Chief Executive, Human Dignity Trust. Edozien, F. (2018, April 25). Britain Apologized for Its Colonial-era Anti-gay Laws But It Won’t Help African LGBT Communities. Quartz Africa. https://qz.com/africa/1261482/theresa-may-sorry-for-colonial-anti-gaylaws-in-commonwealth-africa-but-it-wont-help-lgbt-community/. Accessed 11 August 2019. Glasgow Human Rights Network. (2014, July 19). LGBTI Human Rights in the Commonwealth Conference 2014. University of Glasgow. Conference. https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/az/glasgowhumanrightsnetwork/eve nts/pastevents/conferences/lgbtihrc/. Accessed 18 August 2019. Haggas, S. (2015, June 3). Racism and the Gay Scene. FS Magazine 148. https://www.gmfa.org.uk/fs148-racism-and-the-gay-scene. Accessed 18 August 2019. Kaleidoscope Trust. (2014, September 5). Inspiring Seminar Explored Advocacy Options to Tackle LGBTI Persecuted Globally. https://kaleidoscopetrust.com/ news/72. Accessed 18 August 2019. Onwuchekwa, G. (2014, August 13). Video call interview. Co-founder and Chair, Justice for Gay Africans Society. Overseas Development Institute. (2014, July 7). Can Aid Donors Help Support LGBT Rights in Developing Countries? Conference. https://www.odi.org/ events/3968-can-aid-donors-help-support-lgbt-rights-developing-countries. Accessed 18 August 2019.

254

M. FARMER

Penny, P. (2014, August 5). Personal interview. Co-founder and Chair, Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund. Staples, L. (2019, May 16). Inside the Fight for LGBT + Rights Across the Commonwealth. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ long_reads/lgbt-gay-rights-commonwealth-mauritius-homosexuality-britishempire-a8912641.html. Accessed 24 January 2020. Stonewall. (2017). LGBT in Britain: Hate Crime and Discrimination. London. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_hate_c rime.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2020. Tatchell, P. (2014, September 20). Personal interview. Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation. The Albert Kennedy Trust. (2015). LGBT Youth Homelessness: A UK National Scoping of Cause, Prevalence, Response, and Outcome. https://www.akt. org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=c0f29272-512a-45e8-9f9b-0b76e4 77baf1. Accessed 26 February 2020. Waites, M. (2019). Decolonizing the Boomerang Effect in Global Queer Politics: A New Critical Framework for Sociological Analysis of Human Rights Contestation. International Sociology, 34(4), 382–401.

Appendix: Methodology

The research presented in this book is based on my Ph.D. research that analysed the role of UK-based NGOs engaged in contemporary transnational LGBT activism, completed in 2017 at Lancaster University, UK. The research aim was developed from the observation that there remained scope for a critical examination of UK-based NGO participation in transnational LGBT activism, particularly following the emergence of several such NGOs at around the same time in 2011. Examining how the UK-based NGO space navigated the complexities of British colonial legacies, given their impact on the landscape of contemporary global LGBT rights, was of particular interest. Given that the research aim focused on an analysis of UK-based NGOs, the primary focus of the research design centred on identifying a core sample of relevant UK-based NGOs that would feature in the analysis. Whilst a number of NGOs intersect or operate within the boundaries of transnational LGBT activism or contribute to supporting LGBT people globally, sampling of NGOs focused on identifying those organisations that were founded or based in the UK. NGOs also needed to have a primary interest and strategic vision aimed towards supporting LGBT rights globally. Sampling included the dominant, London-based NGOs, particularly Kaleidoscope Trust, Stonewall, Human Dignity Trust and the Peter Tatchell Foundation. In seeking to contribute a broader analysis to

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0

255

256

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY

existing research, sampling of NGOs led to the inclusion of both diaspora organisations and other, smaller NGOs in the UK with a primary interest in global LGBT rights, such as Out and Proud African LGBTI and Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund. Interviews were chosen as a key method of data collection to gain detailed, targeted information about NGO activists, strategies and intentions beyond what could be found in available published materials, such as NGO publications and websites. A semi-structured approach to interviewing was adopted as it allowed for common issues relative to the central research aims to be addressed across all interviews, whilst allowing for flexibility in responses and opportunities to discuss issues that were particularly important for each participant. This was relevant given the different strategies and approaches employed by different NGOs, which would have been more difficult to capture with a rigidly structured interview style. Ethics approval for the design and implementation of the research interviews was granted by Lancaster University Research Ethics Committee. Requests to participate in a research interview targeted individuals with leadership roles within selected NGOs, such as founders or executives, because of their positionality to speak confidently for the activities, strategies and visions of each organisation. A snowballing approach to interview sampling led to the inclusion of interviews with Bisi Alimi (at the time an independent activist, but who now is executive director of his own Bisi Alimi Foundation) and a member of the Equality and Non-Discrimination Team within the Human Rights and Democracy Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All interview participants were given the option of personal anonymity, with the agreement that their responses would only be related to their organisational role or position within each NGO. Given the focus of the research aim on the role of NGOs, it was relevant to link interview participant responses to particular NGOs, allowing for a comparative analysis of the ways in which different NGOs engage in transnational LGBT activism. Generally, most participants were unconcerned with anonymity and so their names have been used where permission was granted. Whilst these interviews were conducted as part of my Ph.D. research, participants were given the option to consent to their data being used in future publications. Data from participants that consented to this has been used in this book. It is important to highlight the subjectivities of interview participants, particularly that whilst they may have some authority ‘speaking for’ their

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY

257

NGOs, often providing greater detail and insight into the strategies of the NGO than is available in published materials, responses should always be understood as subjective to the participant. This is particularly relevant given that, at the time of publication, several of the interview participants no longer hold positions in their respective NGOs. Interviews were conducted between July 2014 and August 2015 and so participant responses should be understood within the context of the time that they took place. In total, interview data from nine interviews has been used in this book, with representatives from: Human Dignity Trust; Justice for Gay Africans Society; Kaleidoscope Trust; No Going Back; Peter Tatchell Foundation; Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund and UKLGIG; including interviews with Bisi Alimi, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office official. Whilst a larger range of NGOs were sampled in the research design, some NGOs that were approached for interview were unable or unwilling to participate in an interview. In some cases, NGOs that were contacted failed to reply to requests, whilst others declined because of constraints on their time or resources, or because they did not want to participate in the research. For example, representatives from diaspora organisations that were approached noted the lack of time that they could dedicate to participating in research. As an alternative, email-based interviews were attempted, but organisations either failed to respond or explained that they did not have the time or resources to respond. Although this meant a lack of representation for diaspora organisations in the interview data, data collection from sources other than interviews, such as news media and online content created by diaspora organisations, allowed for diasporaled NGO perspectives and strategies to be included, represented and examined in the data analysis. In addition to data collection from interviews with representatives from UK-based NGOs, a variety of other sources were sampled, including NGO and government publications, website materials and other online content created by NGOs, media sources, blogs and contemporary academic and activist publications and reports. Several NGOs have published research related to their interests and engagements with LGBT issues, which allows further detailed insight into their strategies and participation in transnational LGBT activism. Most NGOs have an active online presence, with a lot of material being freely available on their websites. This can include press releases about their activities as well as information relating to the structure of an organisation and its staff. When

258

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY

examining NGO strategies in the data analysis, this allowed interview data to be supplemented with references to NGO websites and publications, enhancing a critical analysis of NGO engagements by drawing on a range of data. Given the contemporary nature of many of the case studies explored in the research, sampling of news media and other online sources allowed for an analysis of contemporary data underexplored in academic research. LGBT news media, such as Pink News, were particularly useful given that they can act as a platform for UK-based actors and NGOs. This was useful to capture the perspectives of organisations and their representatives that were not fully captured in the research interviews, such as diaspora-led organisations. The use of online sources also allowed for the inclusion of Southern NGO and activist perspectives, which would otherwise not be captured within the UK-focus of the research interview data collection. Data collection was also drawn from UK governmental publications, including from the APPG LGBT, Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as interviews with governmental representatives in news media. Data collection of sources other than interviews, including publications, reports, press releases, websites and other online materials, were gathered between 2012 and 2020. A thematic approach to data analysis was adopted, identifying common themes across the data collected from interviews, documents and other online sources, informed by the interests and theoretical considerations of the central research aim, such as solidarity, intersectionality and legacies of colonialism. This allowed for relevant themes to emerge from the empirical data, rather than seeking to fit data within a rigid, pre-determined theoretical framework. For example, some common themes emerged organically across the collected interview data with little prompting from the interviewer, such as LGBT aid conditionality, or tensions between accessible and effective activism strategies. Being led by the themes that emerged across the data highlighted the strength of these issues as they related to the central research aim and allowed for examination of themes that were previously underemphasised in research. Once common themes were identified across the collected data, interview transcripts were revisited to identify specific points of data, including relevant quotations, that contributed to analysing each theme in greater detail. Subsequently, the themes were ordered to construct the analytical narrative of the book, contributing to ordering the data analysis under

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY

259

grouped themes of the UK-based NGO landscape, UK governmental interventions and the intersections of international strategies with legacies of colonialism. Within each group, the data analysis was ordered by the common themes that emerged from the thematic analysis of the data, using case studies to further explore these themes. With the data collection focus on interviewing people in leadership positions within UK-based NGOs came the challenge of representing impressive and powerful movement leaders, particularly considering my own subjectivity as a young researcher. Whilst there is a sense when conducting interviews that the researcher is indebted to interview participants, particularly given the notable work they have done in the UK LGBT space, it is important for the research to remain fair and critical in its approach to the research subject. The data analysis seeks to fairly represent and critique the views and contributions of all interview participants, as well as figures who are represented in other non-interview sources used in the analysis. It does so by using direct quotations where relevant when representing the contributions of interview participants and draws on secondary sources to ensure detailed referencing of arguments.

Index

A Abbas, Hakima, 5, 24, 54, 76, 117, 174, 176, 181 accessible versus effective activism, 122, 125, 132, 258 African Rainbow Family (ARF), 91, 106, 109, 126, 127, 152, 207, 210, 214, 232 Commonwealth, 214 LGBT asylum, 108, 109, 223, 227, 228, 232 aid conditionality, 58, 72, 73, 75, 147, 165–186, 188, 208, 250, 258 African social justice activists’ statement, 176, 178–181 definition of, 165 Alimi, Bisi, 8, 109, 115, 125, 127, 133, 173, 252, 256, 257 on aid conditionality, 171, 177, 179, 185 on Kaleidoscope Trust, 113, 115 on litigation, 118

on online petitions, 124 on racism in LGBT community, 231 All Out, 74, 107, 114, 124–126, 229 All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights (APPG LGBT), 7, 103, 112, 147–154, 157–159, 161–163, 179, 182– 185, 187, 208, 215, 220, 224, 226, 228, 232, 249, 258 Argentina, 65, 69 asylum, 91, 95, 98, 108, 109, 121, 123, 218–235. See also LGBT asylum

B Belize, 113, 119, 155, 212 Botswana, 74 boycott, 122, 129–132 Brazil, 64, 67, 153, 251 British Empire, 49, 52, 55, 57, 206, 209, 211 civilising mission, 50, 51, 57

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 M. Farmer, Transnational LGBT Activism and UK-Based NGOs, Global Queer Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45377-0

261

262

INDEX

legacies, 4, 18, 54, 70, 151, 205, 207, 208, 211, 234, 247, 250, 251 Commonwealth, 173, 212, 234 sedition laws, 131, 211. See also sodomy laws Brunei, 1, 7, 90, 117, 129–132, 248 Burton, Richard Francis, 48–50, 56

C Cameron, David, 75, 165, 167–176, 178, 179, 182, 186, 188, 214, 250 Canada, 19, 66, 69, 216, 234 Chile, 67, 153 Christian Right, 73, 74, 103 ‘Exposing the Homosexual Agenda’ conference, 73 colonialism, 5, 13, 18–21, 41, 42, 49–54, 56–58, 75, 173, 186, 205, 206, 208, 210–212, 217, 235, 250, 251, 258, 259 definition of, 18 coloniality, 4, 5, 17, 20–22, 31, 32, 57, 58, 118, 148, 165, 173, 174, 176, 185, 186, 188, 205, 210, 217, 218, 234, 235, 249, 250 Commonwealth, 7, 93, 95, 106, 107, 112, 129, 171, 173, 205, 210, 212–218, 234, 252 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), 106, 171, 173, 213–215, 218 London (2018), 214, 217, 218, 251 Malta (2015), 162, 213–217 Perth (2011), 165, 176 David Cameron’s aid conditionality statement, 165, 167–173, 178, 182, 188 Rwanda (2020), 252

cooperation, 6, 67, 90, 106, 125–128, 132

D death penalty, 129, 132 decoloniality, 18, 20, 21, 31, 128, 132, 188, 217, 247–249, 252 definition of, 20, 21 Department for International Development (DFID), 7, 95, 112, 147, 160–169, 172, 178, 180, 182, 186–188, 258 LGBT health care, 162, 163 UK Aid Connect fund, 161, 164, 187 diaspora, 91, 106, 109, 230, 256, 257 LGBT diaspora, 91, 109, 120, 149, 214, 232, 233, 249 protest action, 106, 214 Doughty Street Group, 125–127, 148, 247

E Egypt, 69, 72, 158 Ekine, Sokari, 3, 5, 24, 54, 65, 76 Epprecht, Marc, 5, 26, 28, 49, 54, 56, 75, 207 Equality and Justice Alliance, 92 Europe, 20, 27, 42, 55, 66, 76, 93, 124, 174, 228 European Union (EU), 66, 124, 153, 169, 170

F Fanon, Frantz, 25, 26, 55–57 feminism, 29 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), 7, 95, 112, 117, 127, 131, 147, 153–162, 172, 187, 188, 215, 249, 256–258

INDEX

being led by local activists, 156, 157 changing priorities under successive governments, 157 Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy, 154, 155 perception that human rights had been deprioritised, 158–160 private versus public diplomacy, 155, 156 Foucault, Michel, 20, 22, 23, 47, 48 freedom of expression, 2, 131, 132, 211, 235, 251 fundraising, 96, 99–101, 123 G Gay International, 23 Germany, 76, 169, 228 Global Equality Caucus, 187 Gosine, Andil, 25 Gupta, Alok, 52–55, 173, 206 H heteronationalism, 13, 25, 26, 31, 57, 63, 71 and postcolonialism, 25, 26, 55, 56 in response to aid conditionality, 173–175, 186 heteronormativity, 24–26, 76, 223 HIV/AIDS, 25, 66, 69, 70, 150, 162, 163, 184 Home Office, 220–226 homonationalism, 26–28, 31, 63, 75–77, 216 aid conditionality, 171, 188 homonormativity, 13, 26 homophobia, 3, 27, 28, 56, 63, 73–75, 77, 103, 110, 114, 123, 151, 169, 171–173, 175, 185, 186, 206–209, 211, 219, 221,

263

222, 227, 228, 231, 233, 250, 251 as export/import, 185, 206 Human Dignity Trust (HDT), 3, 6, 91–93, 96, 107, 118, 119, 125, 126, 129, 131, 215, 249, 255, 257 All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, 148, 151 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 158, 159 funding and resources, 99, 101, 102 institutional advocacy, 187 litigation, 91, 118, 119 working with local actors, 118

I India, 19, 49, 50, 52, 69, 76 intersectionality, 4, 28, 30, 32, 69, 77, 217, 218, 231, 234, 235, 247–249, 252, 258 Islamophobia, 27, 76, 77

J Justice for Gay Africans (JfGA), 93, 94, 100, 110, 148, 178, 213, 257 Commonwealth, 93, 213 working with diaspora communities, 110

K Kaleidoscope Trust (‘Kaleidoscope’), 3, 6, 94, 96, 107, 109, 113, 115, 123, 126, 128, 129, 131, 164, 177, 215, 216, 218, 252, 255, 257 aid conditionality, 177, 178

264

INDEX

All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, 112, 148–150, 152 capacity building strategies, 113 connections to political establishment, 94, 112, 148, 188, 249 Department for International Development, 161–165 focus on the Commonwealth, 94, 112, 113, 127, 214, 215, 217 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 154 funding and resources, 100, 101 institutional advocacy, 112, 117, 131, 187, 188 involvement in The Commonwealth Equality Network, 95, 112, 113, 215 public lectures, 107 working with local actors, 113, 117 Keck, Margaret E., 15–17, 22, 89, 103, 116–118, 120, 122, 124, 125, 207 Kenya, 19, 53, 72, 96, 111, 114, 164 Kertbeny, Karl Maria, 46 Kraft-Ebbing, Richard, 46, 47

L Labouchère’s amendment, 44 Latin America, 66, 67, 216, 252 LGBT asylum, 7, 58, 91, 95, 98, 108, 109, 113, 127, 148, 149, 152, 206, 209, 218–235, 248 challenge of credibility, 220, 221, 223 detention centres, 91, 222, 227–229, 233 discretion test, 219–222 homophobia, 27, 221, 222, 227, 228, 230

stereotyping LGBT identity, 220, 221, 223, 224, 226 Vine report, 224, 225 litigation, 91, 92, 102, 118, 248 Lively, Scott, 73, 74 Long, Scott, 2, 29, 77, 106, 117, 129, 132, 180, 181, 184, 185, 188, 234 M Malawi, 1, 74, 111, 169, 171 aid conditionality, 168, 169, 172, 180 May, Theresa, 214, 224 media, 15, 65, 76, 94, 113, 119, 123, 127, 157, 224, 226, 233, 258 aid conditionality, 168, 169, 177, 178, 184 protest action, 104–106 celebrity influence, 105, 106 men who have sex with men (MSM), 25, 150 Micro Rainbow, 229, 230, 232. See also Micro Rainbow International (MRI) Micro Rainbow International (MRI), 228–230 Mignolo, Walter D., 4, 20, 21, 58 modernity/coloniality, 5, 6, 13, 20–22, 31, 58, 75–77, 133, 171, 175, 233, 251, 252 definition of, 20, 21. See also coloniality Mohanty, Chandra T., 4, 29, 30 Mugabe, Robert, 175 Museveni, Yoweri, 70, 71, 156, 173, 183 N Nigeria, 53, 96, 104, 114, 115, 124, 155, 164, 171, 176

INDEX

No Going Back, 108, 223, 224, 232, 257 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) at the United Nations, 66, 68, 69 definition of, 14 funding and resources, 6, 90, 99–104, 181 austerity, 101 charitable status, 93, 95, 97, 100 competition, 102, 103, 132 consequences of limited access to, 103 global disparities of, 31, 103, 120 governments limiting the activities of, 14, 15, 66, 71, 72, 154 O online activism and social media, 106, 121, 122, 124 online petitions, 124, 125 Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 66, 67 Out and Proud African LGBTI (OPAL), 3, 6, 95–97, 105, 109, 127, 256 Commonwealth, 214 LGBT asylum, 109, 232 protest action, 104, 106, 127, 214. See also Out and Proud Diamond Group (OPDG) Out and Proud Diamond Group (OPDG), 105 OutRage!, 96, 106, 115 P Peter Tatchell Foundation (PTF), 3, 6, 95–97, 113, 115, 123, 124, 127, 148, 214, 217, 255, 257

265

boycott action, 129–131 Commonwealth, 214 funding and resources, 99–101 protest action, 106, 127, 131 pinkwashing, 75, 76 political opportunity structure, 89, 187 postcolonialism, 18–20, 115 criticism of the term, 19, 20 definition of, 19 used as homophobic resistance, 156, 172–175, 186, 211. See also Fanon, Frantz protest action, 104–106, 121, 123, 127, 131, 214, 247 media attention, 104–106 Puar, Jasbir, 3, 25–27, 75, 211 public engagement, 72, 104, 121, 123, 125, 132 education, 122, 123, 130, 132 Q Quijano, Aníbal, 4, 20, 21, 50 R racism, 27, 51, 55, 210, 231, 251 Rainbow International LGBT Activist Solidarity Fund (‘Rainbow International’), 95–97, 111, 127, 256, 257 funding and resources, 100–102 grant giving, 110, 111 protest action, 104, 106 solidarity, 119, 120 Rao, Rahul, 2, 3, 23, 27, 75–77, 89, 116, 181, 188, 210 Russia, 1, 66, 67, 72, 104, 122, 155, 171 S Saudi Arabia, 67, 68, 158, 159, 171

266

INDEX

sexology, 47, 48, 56 Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), 70, 74, 117, 184 Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI), 69 Sigrid Rausing Trust, 99, 101, 102 Sikkink, Kathryn, 15–17, 22, 89, 103, 116–118, 120, 122, 124, 125, 207 sodomy laws, 7, 41, 205–212, 214, 217, 218, 234, 250, 251 as a legacy of the British Empire, 54, 173, 206, 210, 211, 251 British apology for, 210, 211, 214, 251 in the British Empire, 52–55, 57 in the UK, 44, 45 post-colonial retention of, 54, 55, 57, 70, 207, 208 solidarity, 13, 28–32, 97, 112, 127, 132, 177, 188, 231, 235, 247, 248, 258 as more than just shared identity, 4, 29, 30, 32, 132, 188, 212, 235, 249, 252 common context of struggle, 30, 32 Brunei boycott, 129–131 claims to ‘work with local actors’, 6, 114–116, 118–120, 128–132, 149, 150, 248 definition of, 28, 30 funding as, 110, 111, 181 litigation, 118 local rivalries, 115, 116 South Africa, 64, 68, 69, 74, 251 sovereignty, 66, 67, 73, 173–175, 209, 211 Stonewall, 3, 6, 94, 97, 109, 110, 113, 114, 126, 128–131, 178, 186, 215, 222, 223, 255

All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, 148, 149, 152 connections to political establishment, 112, 188, 249 Department for International Development, 161, 162, 164, 165 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 154, 156, 159 funding and resources, 99–101 institutional advocacy, 112, 164, 187, 188 LGBT asylum, 109, 219, 222, 223 response to Brunei boycott, 129–131 training activists, 97, 114 Universal Periodic Review, 97, 112 structural adjustment, 166, 180, 186 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), 163 T Tatchell, Peter, 8, 27, 94, 96, 100, 103, 105, 106, 111–113, 115, 116, 123, 128, 129, 156, 178, 179, 213 on aid conditionality, 175, 179, 180 on media attention and celebrity, 105 on protest action, 105 on sodomy laws, 207, 210 on solidarity, 114, 179 challenges of local rivalries, 115, 116 on using transnational connections, 111 The Commonwealth Equality Network (TCEN), 3, 95, 112, 215, 216, 218, 247, 252 on Brunei, 131

INDEX

The Netherlands, 76, 182, 183, 228 transnational advocacy networks, 13–16, 31, 89, 122 boomerang pattern, 16, 17, 22, 31, 125 communication technologies, 124 framing, 17, 31, 117, 119, 122, 129, 130, 180, 216, 248 power inequalities within, 17, 31, 116, 117, 235, 252 Trinidad and Tobago, 113, 154, 212

U Uganda, 1, 49, 53, 54, 70–74, 92, 96, 97, 104, 109, 111, 113–115, 122, 123, 150, 155, 156, 171–177, 182–185, 211 Anti-Homosexuality Act (2014), 63, 69, 70, 72, 117, 123, 150, 183–185, 211 Anti-Homosexuality Bill (2009), 70–74, 89, 92, 122, 156, 172–175, 182 UK Alliance for Global Equality, 126–128, 247, 248 UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG), 3, 6, 98, 108, 109, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 225, 257 All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, 148, 149 funding and resources, 99, 101 institutional advocacy, 112, 187, 229, 232

267

LGBT asylum, 98, 108, 219, 220, 224–226, 229, 231, 232, 234 Ulrichs, Karl Heinrich, 46 United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), 1, 67–69, 74, 97, 153, 158, 159, 186, 216 United Nations Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 1, 67–69, 74 United Nations (UN), 1, 6, 65–67, 147, 153, 170, 186, 216 and non-governmental organisations, 66, 68, 69 United States (US), 19, 20, 26, 66, 67, 73, 74, 77, 124, 129, 130, 177, 182 Uruguay, 67, 186 W Waites, Matthew, 2–5, 16, 17, 21, 65, 89, 90, 94, 95, 97, 107, 112, 119, 127, 133, 161, 180, 187, 188, 213–218 Weeks, Jeffrey, 23, 42–47, 49, 50 Wilde, Oscar, 45, 221 World Bank, 167, 169, 183–185 Y Yogyakarta Principles, 2, 5, 65, 150 Young, Robert J.C., 5, 18–20, 58 Z Zimbabwe, 104, 175