Global Arc of Justice, DAY 3

Joel Simpson

So for me day 3 started with the concurrent session in which I was presenting; it was the Global Track on “Repealing Sodomy Laws in Former British Colonies." After a healthy debate the day before with Daniel from Jamaica, when I expressed central disagreement with his thesis that there is growing “estrangement” between human rights and sexuality based organizations in the region, I ended up missing the concurrent session he was in which was the Latin-American track titled “The Caribbean, Cuba and Puerto Rico.” I heard the Washington University law student who presented on “Coming Out of the People’s Closet: The Rhetoric and Response of Socialist Regimes Confronting Gay Rights” came in for a chiding from a Canadian guy in the audience. In the Q&A session after, I heard he told him that he found the presentation ‘very shallow, and quite frankly, inaccurate.’ He asked the presenting law student who he talked to in Cuba and when he couldn’t really say who, he said something like ‘oh, so you have never been to Cuba then’ and at some point told him that he thought what he was saying was ‘nonsense.’ Latoya was telling me all of this just before the same Canadian guy came to our ‘sodomy law’ panel and sat in the front row next to retired Justice Michael Kirby.

Our panel was moderated by Stefano Fabeni, Director of the LGBTI Initiative at Global Rights. The first panelist was Alok Gupta, a lawyer from India involved in the case to “read down” section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes ‘acts against the order of nature’ and author of the recently-released Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on “This Alien Legacy: The Origins of “Sodomy” Laws in the British Colonialism”. Alok, both brilliant and humorous, presented on the still-to-be-decided India case and findings of his research. Phouline Kimani, who is a sexual and reproductive health rights consultant to the Kenya Human Rights Commission and a member of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya, presented on how anti-sodomy laws are used to foster other rights violations in the African context. Then, Latoya Lazarus from Jamaica, a PhD student at York University, presented on shifts in the discourse to decriminalize same-sex activity in the Caribbean, Jamaica and Barbados in particular, looking at how the discussion has taken on a public health dimension with calls by leaders in the field like Dr. Peter Figueroa from Jamaica and Sir George Allen from Barbados. Then I presented on strategies for repealing laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy in the Commonwealth Caribbean, focusing on Guyana and Belize. Live-wire Professor Douglas Sanders closed off the presentations by looking at experiences in Asian countries like Singapore and Malaysia. He could wake up any panel with his very colourful style… the day before he described himself as an “outrageous queen at the podium” (LOL).

We had limited time for Q&A but a very good discussion in the time though. Justice Kirby said he thought there was a missing dimension to the panel; he wanted to hear some more anthropological arguments about how really foreign sodomy laws were before colonization. He indicated that he was presenting on sodomy laws at the Commonwealth Law Conference in a few months and hoped that we would have said something “anthropological” that he could take with him to that conference to cause a buzz in the minds of the judges there. He also said that while the public health and human rights arguments were useful, that they did not respond to the moral arguments against decriminalization and that we need to respond to the moral arguments as well. A South African lawyer from INTERIGHTS in the UK asked about the considerations that go into determining that a country has a suitable socio-cultural context for this kind of litigation. In response, I spoke about the public education work of UNIBAM that has ‘prepared the ground’ for litigation in Belize. Akim asked about countries which have deepened criminalization, some now including lesbian sex, post-Independence and the strategies for repeal in those countries. I used Trinidad and Tobago as an example of how activist groups like TTAVP have begun to locate their struggle as part of the larger struggle for sexual rights and gender justice. This fed into fromer IGLHRC executive director Paula Ettlebrick’s question about whether a sexual rights approach was more strategic than a LGBT human rights approach. I gave examples from Guyana like the work we are doing as part of the Sex Work Coalition – Guyana (SWCG) and the added value of building alliances with other groups working on sexuality and gender issues. The Canadian guy who was critical of the earlier presentation on Cuba was writing profusely during Latoya’s presentation but he didn’t ask any questions. After the panel, he came up to her to ask about Andil Gosine’s upcoming book on The Work of Sex: Heteronationalism In A Developing World” (Phew!)

Following our concurrent session was the plenary of the day on “What National Governments Are Doing to Advance LGBT Rights”. The panel was moderated by Brad Sears, Executive Director of The Williams on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLAW School of Law, which hosted the conference. The first panelist was Paulo Biagi, Director of the “Brazil Without Homophobia” programme and Secretary of State for Human Rights in Brazil. Boris Dittrich, former Netherlands MP and Advocacy Director at HRW spoke about what the Dutch government is doing to promote LGBT rights at home and abroad. Maria Libertino, who is the President of the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, presented on the work the government in Argentina is doing to counter homophobia. Michael Guest, former US Ambassador to Romania and Senior Advisor at the Council for Global Equality, spoke about why he left the US Foreign Service over partner benefits, his work on the Obama campaign and transition team, and why he thinks an Obama administration will make a difference on this issue.

Then we went directly from the Freud Playhouse to the law library for the Williams Institute Annual Gala Reception and Awards Ceremony where the winners of the moot court competition were announced, the conference organizing team was thanked and the Institute’s donors, who were mostly individuals in their private capacity, were honoured. Caribbean people who were not accustomed to unidentified creams and meats on crackers were craving some fish fingers, chicken wings, etc, as we drank wine and worked the room. We were shuttled back to the hotel and then I met up with Suresh from Guyana for dinner and we talked about the LGBT situation in Guyana, the role the diaspora can play in fundraising and supporting work on LGBT issues, etc. He is eager to do what he can to contribute to community work on these issues, as he does to support similar work on HIV care in India. I invited him to come home again during the film festival. Suresh took me on a mini-survey the local club scene in WeHo and we spent a few minutes at about 4 to 5 clubs. Every body I met kept telling me that I looked tired as I was yawning all the time so we called it a night at about 1 am and left. I was sound asleep by 1:15 am which was probably a good idea as the plan was only to stay for the morning half of the conference the next day Saturday, which was the last day, and then take off for the afternoon…

Latoya Lazarus

In my last blog, I stated that Thursday was the first full day of the conference. Naturally, I have much more to say, so I will continue. The lunch plenary of that day was on "Human Rights & Global Health: LGBT Equality & the Fight Against HIV/AIDS". The speakers in this plenary session included: Scott Long from Human Rights Watch, Stefan Baral and Dr. Jorge Saavedra from Mexico.

Scott Long looked at Egypt as a case study. He focused on how law was used in this country to track down HIV positive men who have sex with men. This was possible because in many Subsaharan Africa many laws exist to criminalize HIV /AIDS (example Chad) and these work to increase penalities for homosexuality. This case study and the existence of laws that criminalize HIV and AIDS demonstrate the power of the state over health and people's sex and body. Moreover, Scott noted that to prevent the emergence of a regime of equality, laws were created that create differential categories and divide citizenship. Interestingly, Scott argued that what we see in these places is a form of neo-colonialism, in that, there is a return to the old ways of how the state operated. The creation of categories to divide citizenship.

While I enjoyed Scott's talk and the others I must say that I enjoyed and learnt alot from Dr. Saavedra's talk, partly because this was the first time I was hearing about how these issues unfold in Mexico. He looked in at the intersection between HIV and AIDS, Human Rights work and LGBT in Mexico. Dr. Saavedra, who has won many awards for the recognition of his work , including one at this conference, mentioned that AIDS became a real priority for Mexico when it began appearing among heterosexuals, like many places, and also, when gays began pressuring the government. In addition, he noted that though gays have always been involved in the fight against the disease, it was not until 2008, when msm became addressed in a plenary at a HIV and AIDS conference. To close, this speaker mentioned that homophobia was the main force embedding the efforts to effectively deal better with the disease and all those infected with it, as such, it is clear that there is still much that needs to be done by him and others in regards to the HIV and AIDS epidemic, human rights and the impact of these things for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender and transsexual people in Mexico.

Unfortunately, this panel, like a few others, was cut short because of an initial late start.

2nd Update, from Latoya

Today is the second and the last full day of the conference.. There are several scheduled presentations, including ours. The session I attended today was at 9 am and it was the "Latin America Track- The Caribbean, Cuba, & Puerto Rico". The speakers of this panel were: Daniel Townsend (from Jamaica), Olga Orraceo (from Puerto Rico) and Mattew (who presented on Cuba, this ended up being the most controversial paper,at least of all the ones I heard). The panel was facilitated by Saul Sarabia, who lectures in Critical Race and the Law at UCLA law school.

Matthew's paper on Cuba was entitled "Socialist Regimes, Confronting Gay Rights". In this paper he compared Cuba with 1980's East Germany. The intent was to investigate whether Cuba had an intergrationist or liberationalist Model or approach to gay rights. The former he associated with East Germany and argued that it was the model that best described the situation in present day Cuba. To summerize, he stated that the liberationalist model, which he identified with the "West", fosters the voice of the individual against the dominant morality. In other words, it creates space for marginalized groups within the society. In contrast, the integrationist model, which he problematically implied, or rather did not deny, was the socialist model, brings people into the society without challenging the dominant paradigms or strutures. In this model, homosexual people, as was done by the courts and state of East Germany, are framed as victims. He concluded, and I paraphrase, that real liberations are not happening in Cuba. Cuba has very much adopted or accepted an integrationist rhetoric. Based on this view, the speaker questioned whether this approach will silence voices of dissent.

Okay, so not nkowing much about Cuba and if you watch CNN and of course accept what you hear about Cuba, then you may easily believe that he did a very critical analysis, despite the obvious binary system that he was creating. However, one could not help but wonder if much of what he was saying about the integrationist approach could not also be applied to what he implied were more progressive nations. Of course, his argument met with harsh opposition. One older gentleman stated that it was shallow and incorrect. The word nonsense even came up. The presenter was asked if he ever went to Cuba and whom did he speak to for information. To these questions, the presenter stated: NO, he never visited Cuba and he spoke to some people who live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The other reactions to this speaker were of a similar critical nature. For example, it was called out that there was no 2008 arrest of individuals trying to hold a gay parade. This was just western propoganda, as in fact, Cuba has a very vibrant gay community.

Daniel Townsend's presentation, though good, did not garner as much emotional reaction as the previous speaker. In this case, that was a good thing. He spoke about obstacles to human rights, noting that human rights is a secondary perspective in much of the discussion on sexuality. One such obstacle, he noted, was the tendency to see rights as imported from the west. In addition, Townsend, questioned the effectiveness of connecting HIV and AIDS with sexuality, the dangers of framing sexuality in a health framework. This, he also noted, could affirm the idea of "Diseased Bodies". He was concerned with how do we proceed forward in advancing human rights. Concluding that he believes that the Caribbean and Jamaica in particular is in a "mid-life crisis" from colonialism to now (I papraphrase this question). This was a shorter presentation, one that lasted for the recommended 15 mins.

The last speaker of that panel was Olga, an self-identified lesbian from Puerto Rico. I must say, I found her talk quite interesting. She, for example, emphasized the uniqueness of Puerto Rico, in that, it was neither seen as Caribbean nor was it seen as really part of the United States.. In sharing her country's experience she argues that in Puerto Rico there is a seperation of church and state (though this does not mean that this is always the case, in fact she noted that this is violated all the time) and that social movements have a richness of community, social and political activism that comes from their latin American and Caribbean cultures. She notes also that in that country violence have a place in everyday life, for example, political legislation that speaks against differences (bigotry). Olga proceeded to describe the rise and transformation of the LGBT movement, which began in 1974. The movement has dozens of organizations, that organize around very specific subjects. She emphaseize that they have not adopted an external model in their country and have still managed to maintained the clarity of the movement in their country. Though the LGBT group was created in Puerto Rico with the aim of challenging the sodomy laws in the penal code, it was not until 2003, however, that the sodomy law was finally eliminated. To this, she noted that in her country many people would rather have a crook for a son and a prostitute for a daughter, rather than a homosexual. In more ways than one, Olga's talk highlighted many similarities between her country and others in the Anglo phone Caribbean, and perhaps in other regions of the world that have certain heteronormative values and investments.

From this panel and audience discussion a number of questions/suggestions were raised: 1) what lessons can the Anglo Caribbean learn from Latin America? 2) there was a need for cross-dialogue between Latin America and the Caribbean, 3)We should think of SEXUAL RIGHTS as not just LGBT'S RIGHTS, 4)There needs to be more than just a repeal of the buggery laws, 4) Could we also not think of western countries as using an integrationist model in their treatment of "race", gender, and sexuality?