Home Blog Page 10

Building the Evidence Base for Protecting and Promoting the Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI) children in Nepal: An assessment

This report presents the findings from a study conducted on the rights and wellbeing of LGBTI children under the age of 18 in Nepal. The report opens by highlighting the contrast between the positive legal and political recognition of the rights of LGBTI people in Nepal with the continued widespread human rights violations, stigma, discrimination and sexual exploitation faced by the LGBTI community.

The study conducted in-depth interviews with 20 LGBTI children, focus group discussions and key-informant interviews across four districts in Nepal: Bara/Parsa, Sunsari and Kathmandu. The findings from the interviews with LGBTI children are structured by theme and examine the experiences of LGBTI children, their knowledge on rights and protections and their experiences in relation to their rights to liberty, education, protection and health. The findings from the key informant interviews focus on the interviewees understanding of LGBTI issues and government views on opportunities and policy options. The study found a low level of knowledge of LGBTI identities and specific needs among the key-informants.

The report concludes with a series of recommendations for governments, NGOs and CSOs to implement to address the challenges faced by LGBTI children in Nepal.

Issues of Gender and Sexual Orientation in Humanitarian Emergencies: Risks and Risk Reduction

This edited book includes seven chapters which examine how gender and sexual orientation impact people’s experiences in humanitarian emergencies. The book argues that the humanitarian sector must understand the particular needs of women and LGBTI people and take their needs into account in the development and implementation of humanitarian initiatives. The book demonstrates through examples from crises across the globe that this approach is necessary to prevent the abuse and marginalisation of women and LGBTI people. Each chapter addresses this challenge from a different angle.

Chapter one examines how gender influences the risks faced by youth in humanitarian disaster settings. The chapter looks at the current literature and provides recommendations related to preparedness, disaster response and recovery from the perspective of gender in family structures and economic inequality.

Chapter two presents research conducted on social network structures and gendered-wellbeing in disaster and relocation settings. The research is informed by interviews conducted in Ecuador and Mexico following natural disasters.

Chapter three provides a detailed account of the challenges faced by people of diverse gender and sexual orientation in humanitarian emergencies. The chapter outlines how stigma and marginalisation faced by LGBTI people prior to disaster is exacerbated in post-disaster scenarios, particularly when humanitarian response initiatives are not sensitive to the particular needs of LGBTI people. The chapter focuses on challenges in temporary shelters, refugee camps, sanitation facilities, and centralised distribution areas of food, information and health services. Structural issues relating to documentation, loss of support networks and informal economies are highlighted as unique obstacles for LGBTI people. The chapter offers detailed case studies and provides recommendations for how emergency programmes can be more sensitive to the needs of LGBTI people.

Chapter four discusses how the increased vulnerabilities and unequal power relations that women face, in comparison to men, prior to disasters shape their different roles, responsibilities and experiences after disasters. The chapter considers how gender theory can be used to create a “gender-hazard disaster framework” that could improve planning and preparedness by predicting gendered outcomes following disasters.

Chapter five looks at both quantitative and qualitative data from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA on women’s experiences of domestic violence during and after natural disasters.The literature review highlights how domestic violence increased in the developed nations studied in the aftermath of natural disasters. The chapter also outlines the current gaps in the research literature. Chapter five provides context for chapters six and seven.

Chapter six and seven present findings from research undertaken at the University of New South Wales in Australia on domestic violence in the aftermath of natural disasters. Chapter six focuses on disaster relief workers’ accounts of their clients’ experiences in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi in Queensland in 2011. Chapter seven focuses on the experiences of relief workers and the organisations that provided domestic violence related services following the disaster. Chapter seven also highlights implications of the research and offers recommendations for service providers to address women’s vulnerability to domestic violence in disaster settings.

School-related gender-based violence in the Asia-Pacific region

This report provides a detailed account of the causes, types, scope and implications of school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV) in the Asia-Pacific region. The report examines the current data on school-related bullying, physical and psychological violence, sexual violence and corporal punishment the region. The report suggests that school-related violence is caused by multiple factors beyond the school environment, including a students family life, societal norms on the acceptance of violence, gender inequalities and gender expectations. The report, however, highlights that there is still a lack of knowledge and data on SRGBV.

The report further examines policy and programme responses to this issue across the region. Successful case studies are highlighted. Based on a review of the current research the report then outlines the conditions and approaches which aid in the development of effective responses and offers recommendations that the education sector could implement to address this challenge.

Vibrant Yet Under-Resourced: The State of Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer Movements

This year-long study investigated the experiences and work of lesbian, bisexual and queer (LBQ) groups around the world. 378 LBQ groups and 67 donors were surveyed as part of the project. The research asked the following questions: 1. what is the current infrastructure of LBQ groups? 2. How do donors resource LBQ groups? 3. How much alignment is there between the needs and visions of LBQ groups and donor resourcing for LBQ activism? The research draws on two perspectives: those of LBQ groups and those of institutional donors that directly or indirectly fund LBQ activists.

The report opens with a brief introduction to LBQ activism and an overview of the methodology before delving into the history and current context of LBQ activism around the world. The emergence of LBQ groups and the transnational LBQ movement are discussed, as are methods of intersectional and cross-movement organising. A background on LBQ human rights violations, focusing on criminalisation, violence, and discrimination follows. The first case study, of reaching LBQ women in Roma communities in Serbia, is presented.

The characteristics of LBQ groups are then discussed. Overall, this section discusses the ‘newness’ of LBQ groups, the types of issues they work on, and staffing. The second case study, of lesbian feminist work in Paraguay, is then presented. Section four interrogates the financial situation of LBQ groups, highlighting that 25% of all LBQ groups have an annual budget of $0, and 4% have a budget of more than $500,000. This sections discusses the geographical disparities in funding and the types of funding LBQ groups receive. The third case study, of Talita Kum, an LBTQ group in Indonesia, is then presented.

The fifth section considers how donors are supporting LBQ groups. Of the $260.7 million USD funding focused on LGBTI issues outside of the US, $20.6 –or less than 10%–specifically targets LBQ women (of the $560 million available worldwide, including in the US, for LGBTI issues, only $26 million is directed towards LBQ groups). 38% of all funding for LBQ groups goes to Europe and Central Asia, and 35% to North America. This section considers availability, types, accessibility and practicality of available funding.

The final case study, of Mesahat Foundation for Sexual and Gender Diversity in the Nile Valley (Egypt and Sudan), is presented. Conclusions and recommendations for donors follow the case study, and close the report. A variety of detailed annexes are available.

From insult to inclusion: Asia-Pacific report on school bullying, violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

This 96-page report examines the issue of bullying, violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools in the Asia Pacific. The report highlights the associated negative health, educational, employment and economic impacts on students. The report outlines the historical, legal, religious, cultural and youth aspects of the issue. The current research is analysed by region with research from East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific discussed separately. The report then assesses the responses to this issue in national laws, school policies, curricula and learning materials, teacher training and student support programmes involving schools and families across the region.

The report argues that while current research reveals that SOGIE-based bullying, violence and discrimination in educations settings in the Asia Pacific is a prevalent issue with serious long-lasting impacts on both students and the broader community that further research is required to better understand the scope and nature of the issue. It is argued that nations should first aim to adjust existing data collection systems or create online surveys to better understand the nature of the issue in the local context.

Following an appraisal of the current context the report offers six recommendations for the education sector, including federal policy-makers, to follow: (1) analyse the situation, (2) develop a policy framework that supports inclusion, (3) mainstream diversity and inclusion in curricula and learning materials, (4) support teachers to deliver inclusive education and effective responses to bullying, violence and discrimination, (5) promote safe and inclusive school cultures and environments and (6) build a stronger evidence base on what works.

We can do better, and we can be better: Interview with Real Life Hero Irish Inoceto

One of our diverse SOGIESC #RealLifeHeroes is Irish Inoceto, an LGBTIQ+ activist from the Western Visayas, Philippines. Irish (she/her) is the chairperson of Iloilo Pride Team, a network that brings together LGBTIQ+ people in Iloilo city. Irish’s work includes advocacy, pushing for legislative reform, engaging queer youth, COVID-19 assistance and more.

Tell us about your activism. What do you do?

I am the Chairperson of Iloilo Pride Team, a five years old network of Ilonggo LGBTIQ+ at Iloilo city that aims to put attention to LGBTIQ+ issues through social conversations and storytelling to pave our ways towards visibility, involvement, empowerment and equality. We initiated the Pride march and we have different programs for the communities such as a critical writing workshop to raise queer youth narratives. We also do advocacy and push for legislative reform through the inclusion of SOGIESC and other marginalized sectors in the comprehensive anti-discrimination ordinance.

I am also the Secretary-General of Gabriela Panay-Guimaras and I represent the LGBTIQ+ community at Gabriela. As a national democratic mass-organization that composes of women, we focus on issues faced by women and we are also critical of the government projects, to assure it is inclusive towards women. We also push for projects towards sustainable income for women and we are also finding means to provide healthy alternatives such as herbal medicines and healthy foods to our community. We partner with different organizations on this.

What inspires you to advocate for social change?

The idea that we can do better, we can be better, there is something much better for everybody, not just for those who have privilege but everybody. There is also so much oppression that we have to do something about it, and not doing something about it makes us more depressed. So, for inspiration, it’s really about getting those who are marginalized a better chance, a better kind of lives than how we are all suffering, and however we are suffering, some suffer more than us.

What is your experience with humanitarian disasters?

Covid19 pandemic is a humanitarian crisis for everybody, for those who are in lockdown. I was involved to provide services, food and everything else to students in Visayas dormitories. They were locked down and they did not have much food and they were scared of contracting the virus, so we responded to that. There is also care-packages for LGBTIQ+ community at Iloilo city.

As of Gabriela Panay-Guimaras, we were engaged in community cases for those in lockdown in the communities. The Philippines has the longest lockdown in the world. Many communities still suffering and right now, Iloilo city is under general community quarantine, so a lot of people will be suffering from the loss of jobs and lack of economic opportunities.

We are also limiting the chances of contracting the virus. We are coordinating different community-based organizations to deliver services, so we don’t have to go there as transportation and travel is limited. We move resources around; we coordinate donations for people affected and involved the community in the delivery of the services.

For Iloilo Pride Team, we focus on delivering services to the LGBTIQ+ communities who are not considered as those who receive care packages, food and allowances from the government. Mainly the LGBTIQ+ community are not part of any financial aid as they are not counted as families, not counted as part of the household, not counted as one unit. Usually, they are relying on their short-terms jobs like beauty parlours, hairdressers, makeup artist. Because of that they lost a lot of work and income opportunities and they were not given aid or cash assistance, so we reach out to them as a network of LGBTIQ+ organizations, so we were able to reach out to the community and provide assistance.

Aside of that, Iloilo Pride Team and Youth Voices Count also reached out to the local government and they decided to provide financial assistance for members of the LGBITQ+ community (2,500 PHP or 70 AUD per person). We reached out to around 250 people for the financial assistance and almost 200 people for the care packages. What’s unique about the care packages, it’s not only food and canned food, it also contains hygiene packages like toothbrushes, condoms, underwear, and sanitary packs.

How did you become involved in supporting LGBTIQ+ people in humanitarian contexts?

When it comes to LGBTIQ+ organizations, there are no organizations that existed in our part of the city before the Iloilo Pride Team. There were other LGBTIQ+ organizations but they are gay, bisexual, transwomen organizations and they focused on organizing their community through meetups and pageants. We are now looking at the wider picture of the community.

Covid-19 pandemic also made us realized that there are so many of us who cannot have economic opportunities because of the lockdown. We use our network to reach out to those who need help from our organization. ASEAN SOGIE Caucus also donated cash to sew our pockets, so it’s not just Iloilo Pride Team but we also work in collaboration with other organizations and local governments for various initiatives and assistances.

How long have you been involved in this work?

Before that, we did some work and we grew over the past 2 years. The humanitarian issues that we are facing now are one of the things that further grow us forward. Before Iloilo Pride Team, I helped in Yolanda response where we donated food and money for those affected by the super typhoon. We also donated relief goods and clothing for urban poor communities who were affected by fires.

What are some of the challenges you face in advocating for more inclusion in the humanitarian system?

Usually, the head of the family accepts the donation. When we talk about family it consists of a man, a woman, and their children. There is a case when one a household has an LGBTIQ+ person who is not married and they were funded as part of the heterosexual household, so they had to divide food-aid amongst so many people in one household. It’s important to understand that a family and a household does not only compose of male and female.

It is good in our city because our Mayor and the local government recognizes that LGBTIQ+ also need food aid. The situation in other cities is not the same due to lack of legislation that assures equality of persons of diverse SOGIESC, so the community were not given the same opportunity as in our city, so they lost their jobs and they can’t eat. The situation is very challenging for persons of diverse SOGIESC in different parts of the country.

If there was one change that you would like to see for LGBTIQ+ people, what would that change be?

If I want something to change, it is the passage on laws and legislation to assure that we are not invisible anymore. How can we be recognized if we are invisible in the law? There is still no national LGBTIQ+ organizations to lobby for changes at the national government, policy and legislation. We are one organization who is part of a larger national network and we focus our work for our city and our Province. If we can establish more LGBTIQ+ organizations in different parts of the country, train more individuals to be advocates/ activists, then we can be more visible and we push for more changes in the country, including pushing for legislative reform.

What are ways can humanitarian and development organisations support LGBTIQ+ inclusion?

Humanitarian/ development organizations need to recognize that persons of diverse SOGIESC have different needs, not just food or cash. We have different needs, such as lack of acceptance. Aside from that, there is a lot of issues on Gender-based violence and discrimination faced by the community but they are not visible because they are not asked about their identity & SOGIESC, so we don’t know. We need to start asking for their SOGIESC.

Whether you ask for the data or not, persons of diverse SOGIESC continue to face violence and discrimination. Humanitarian/ development organizations will not know it happens unless they ask. If you have no data, you should ask, at least you know the data. You know the community that you are working with.

For example, the recent siege at Marawi. They were cases of violence against transwomen and LGBTIQ+ at Mindanao, but we don’t know this violence because they are transwomen. There are security risks related to the SOGIES data and information, and humanitarian/ development organizations should have better judgements of this.

The bottom line, humanitarian/ development organisations needs us, it needs to go hand in hand, it needs to go together.

Engage, Empower, and Create Opportunities: Interview with Real Life Hero Matcha Phorn-In

One of our diverse SOGIESC #RealLifeHeroes is Matcha Phorn-In, a lesbian feminist women human rights defender in Thailand. Matcha (she/her) lives in Mae Hong Son Province, Thailand, and is the founder of Sangsan Anakot Yawachon Development Project, which supports ethnic minority children–many of whom do not have citizenship in Thailand–through educational programs, identity exploration, and scholarships. Matcha is a lesbian feminist human rights defender.

Tell us about you and the work that you do.

I am a Lesbian Feminist Women Human Right Defender, committed with a strong passion to build peoples’ movements to advance human right, Gender and SOGIESC justice. I have 15 years experiences of working to empower youth and the people from the most marginalised community including LGBTIQ+, indigenous people, ethnic minority, young women and girls, stateless, undocumented refugee, sex workers, persons with disability and migrant workers. I also advocate for family equality for LGBTIQ parents. I founded an organisation that I am leading at the moment, Sangsan Anakot Yawachon Development Project. I am also the Regional Council Members of the Asia-Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD), the Board Member of International Family Equality Day (a network that advocates for LGBTIQ+ family equality), and the former Board Member of ILGA Asia (an LGBTIQ+ rights network for Asia region).

15 years ago, I was a university student and I did research in schools. I learned how the education system was oppressive towards indigenous students, and how society discriminated indigenous people. The young people that I worked with faced many challenges. Their village is located at Thailand-Myanmar (Karen-state-border), an ongoing armed conflict area that is highly controlled by military and authorities.

Their village also faces regular disasters. It gets very dry during the dry season and it gets flooded during the rainy season. Landslides also happen regularly. On top of that, the people from both sides are not considered as indigenous or people who own the land, but stateless. They did not get much support and protection from the Government. The oppression, discrimination and exclusion continue until this very day.

My organisation worked on the empowerment of more than 3,000 young indigenous people through human rights education. We also provide scholarship supports for more than a thousand indigenous students where nearly 60 have graduated from different universities and slowly returning home as a change maker. We use gender & SOGIESC justice and the intersectionality approach.

How did you connect with Edge Effect?

I met Lana and Emily at the Pride in the Humanitarian System (PiTHS) Asia Pacific Regional Consultation in 2018. Prior to that, I met Lana at the Asia Pacific Rainbow Family Forum that is pushing to advance LGBTIQ rights to family, and last year, we met again at the Global LBQ+ Women Conference at Cape Town. Now, I am one of the members of the Regional Advisory Group for one of Edge Effect’s project to follow up the PiTHS consultation.

We don’t just engage in humanitarian issues; we also engage in development and LGBTIQ+ rights. Our feminism deeply connected us, and we often discussed how we can use the intersectionality approach to address the barriers that we are facing.

What inspires you to advocate for social change?

My experience as a woman and an LGBTIQ+ person. As a poor, young woman coming from an ethnic minority who was raised by a single mother, I faced a lot of bullying at school. I almost dropped out of school because my mum couldn’t pay for my school fee. I worked as child labour over the weekend when I was 9. I was lucky to win a scholarship so I could pursue my university degree. Yet, I continue to face a lot of discrimination at school and university for being an Ethnic minority Lesbian.

At university, I learned about oppressions, engage with different activists and organised human rights training for university student activists. After university, I started working in border areas for stateless-child-beggars. Then I took a one-year graduate volunteer program, at the Thammasat University and that’s how I started my research and my organisation. Throughout the years I learned that a lot of LGBTIQ+ face similar issues as me. So, it’s crucial for young LGBTIQ+ to advance their rights as a citizen, to fight for their own future.

What is your experience with humanitarian disasters?

The early years of my work at the village, around 14 years ago. Some of my students told me that they lost their homes to a landslide. I was wondering if they could get any support from the Government, and of course, they couldn’t as they are holding stateless status and they not recognized as a Thai citizen. Some people died from that landslide, but the government still did not support them. I felt something was wrong, but we couldn’t do much. Now, the landslides have repeatedly happened, and the government still don’t do anything about it.

Our Government seems to not consider Thailand as a country at risk of disaster. They are not learning from the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. They don’t prepare us about this, so there are a lot of casualties every time a disaster strike. When the 2014 Mae Lao earthquake occurred in Northern Thailand, the Government couldn’t respond, and the people did not know what to do. It was shaking for days. Last year, millions of people in the province I was born at, Ubonrachathni at the North-East of Thailand, had a month-long flood. The Government did not respond or provide support for the people during that crisis.

How long have you been involved in this work?

I’ve been doing this for over 15 years.

What are some of the challenges you face in advocating for more inclusion in the humanitarian system?

First, we don’t talk enough about the community and the intersectionality. For example, the people that I work with are indigenous, they are situated in an armed-conflict area and they are stateless. They are very far behind in accessing any government support. We need to build this understanding at local, national, regional and international levels.  

The second barrier that humanitarian actors do not understand the concept of colonisation. The indigenous people in Thailand are internally colonised. The indigenous people are acknowledged by the community as someone else in their own land. So, the socio-economic-cultural barriers are not recognised, and these people are not involved in any policy development process where they are impacted the most. They stay in a forest, later it established as a national park and their movements are restricted by the national part act. When any disaster strikes, they get the blame. Many people still blame them for global warming. At the same time, the Government and the Private Sectors (big development players) continue to extract national resources and took control of lands from the indigenous people. The community do not have access to spaces to speak up and to participate in the development, so they are victims of development as the government do not consider them as owns of their motherlands.

There are also SOGIESC specific barriers. First, the community that I work with believe that there is only men and women. So, a lot of LGBTIQ+ face violations from their community and family. When there is someone not conforming to gender norms, they are not getting any protection.

Second, when the community face disasters, they need to blame something/ because they cannot deal with it. There are incidents when they blamed communities who break gender-sexuality norms, and that LGBTIQ+ brings bad luck to the community.

After PiTHS Consultation, I started to conduct a feminist Participatory Action Research (PAR, supported by APWLD) to empower women LBQT to lead the research, to advance their land rights and SOGIESC rights. The PAR process allowed mothers and young LGBTIQ+ to work together to address the challenges that they face such as stateless people who cannot own the land, indigenous people who lost their land, landslide and flood and the role of the Government, LGBTIQ+ protection during a crisis, etc. That is how we promote the inclusion of gender and SOGIESC. When Covid-19 started, the youth LBQT participants of the PAR organised Covid-19 PAR processes in their community to respond to the crisis.

If there was one change that you would like to see for LGBTIQ+ people, what would that change be?

There is one family we work with. Their mother is one of the woman researchers. She has two children, one of them is a bisexual and the other one is a transgender. Two years ago, the mum said that she did not accept her child and she did not agree if her child change genders. The two youths were involved as change-makers. They advocated at the national level with us, they also advocated for their community, and of course, their mum. Now, their mum has accepted them. Two weeks ago, they spoke to 50 people on the challenges they faced for being LGBTIQ+, they also spoke out on their social media, their family is now out & lout that they support their LGBTIQ+ children.

The LGBTIQ+ youths also took part in our lobby efforts at the parliament last month. Our community were desperate for food and support due to the Covid19 pandemic. We submitted a report to UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People. Our advocacy finally gained positive results. We got financial support from the government for 50 stateless families and 180 families received care packages. Over the next 2 months, we aim to bring the members of the parliament for a dialogue with the community on all the issues that they are facing. They need to experience it because, at the end of the day, they must provide regular support for the ±1,300 individuals (±200 households). They cannot

To sum up, my desired change is acceptance, acceptance from families and communities. In order to get there, our needs must be addressed, our voices must be heard, and dialogue is the key. We will continue to claim our spaces at local, national, regional, and international levels.

What are ways can humanitarian and development organisations support LGBTIQ+ inclusion?

First, many humanitarian/ development actors do not understand the community. They sometimes even have homo/trans/bi-phobia. For example, if you don’t understand about gender inequality, you will always give the money to the husband, the head of the household which never considers women. The problem is, most of the time, the husbands will not respond to the needs of women and children. The husbands will buy something that they think is important for them. Humanitarian/ development actors need to start giving money directly to women because their needs are different, what is important to them is different. Most humanitarian/ development do not acknowledge it, and this is a big problem. Secondly, when they invite community members, LGBTIQ+ are often not acknowledged as part of the community. They don’t get protection or help because they are excluded from their family and community.

So, it’s time for everyone to learn from each other about SOGIESC inclusion and equality. Understand it, practice it, and show results that what you do has positive impacts on LGBTIQ+ and women. Humanitarian/ development actors need to fully accept diverse gender and SOGIESC inclusion.

Finally, inclusion is not just about gender and diverse SOGIESC, youth voices also count. We must engage, empower, and create opportunities for youth, young women, young LGBTIQ+ as they are the heart of the future, the heart of development and humanitarian works.

ICE’s Rejection of Its Own Rules Is Placing LGBT Immigrants at Severe Risk of Sexual Abuse

This 2018 article from the Center for American Progress discusses the ways in which the United States’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is contributing to an environment of violence and insecurity for queer asylum seekers on the Mexico/US border. The article opens with a case study on a queer asylum seeker who reported sexual assault at the hands of a detention centre guard, and the way in which the case was handled. The article then provides an overview of the high levels of sexual assault perpetrated against LGBT immigrants in detention, and specifically looks at the case for trans immigrants.

The article points out that ICE is violating its own rules: trans immigrants have the right to individualised placement determination, but ICE continues to place trans immigrants in solitary confinement, and places trans women in all-male facilities. The article then discusses the importance of ending this type of prolonged solitary confinement and overall detention.

The article concludes by pointing to the ways the Trump administration’s indefinite detention policy has led to ‘horrifically high rates of sexual abuse and solitary confinement of LGBT immigrants.’

To Live Free: Interview with Real Life Hero Beth Delaibatiki

One of our diverse SOGIESC #RealLifeHeroes is Beth Delaibatiki (Illi). Illi is an activist with Rainbow Pride Foundation (Fiji) and a member of Edge Effect’s Regional Advisory Group. Illi specialises in research, and was one of the Rainbow Pride researchers on Edge Effect’s Down By the River report. Illi is involved in DRR work in Fiji, and is a strong advocate for the diverse SOGIESC community in DRR planning and response.

Tell me a bit about yourself

I am a a Community Engagement liaison Assistant for Rainbow Pride Foundation (Fiji). In 2017, I was one of the local researchers in the ‘Down by the River’ project. At the time, Rainbow Pride Foundation was working in partnership with Edge Effect to carry out the first ever research for LGBTIQ people in the DRR in Fiji. I currently sit on the Regional Advisory Group for Edge Effect, advising on research stemming from the recommendations of the Pride in Humanitarian System.

What inspires you to advocate for Social Change?

I am a victim and survivor of sexual, domestic & verbal abuse, as well as discrimination and stigma from my own family, relatives, community, and church.  I went through a lot during my younger days. I managed to face those challenges and life experiences and build peace with on my personal journey.

What is your experience with humanitarian disasters?

I am a trained and a registered Red Cross Volunteer. And I have a passion to serve my community during and after any kind of disaster in Fiji. I am so fortunate to learn a lot from Fiji Red Cross.

How did you become involved in supporting LGBTIQ+ people in Humanitarian contexts?

It was through my experiences with Fiji Lautoka Red Cross Branch. I was involved in conducting community assessments. I realised that many LGBTIQ people were earning money and supporting their families in non-disaster times, but not able to get any support or relief after the disasters. Many of the Red Cross volunteers were also LGBTIQ+, and I started to push the agenda of LGBTIQ+ inclusion in disaster recovery.

What are some of the challenges you face in advocating for more inclusion in the Humanitarian System?

One of my biggest challenges in this work is the discrimination and stigma from other stakeholders. I experienced discrimination when I was a part of the NDMO team that carried out the assessment and relief during TC Sarai in Kadavu. A representative from a different government department complained about me. They wanted to know why I was involved, why RPF was involved, why we need to focus on LGBTQI people. They accused me of doing a membership drive. They complained about the clothes I wore, and questioned why I am wearing a UN AIDS t-shirt, saying it is inappropriate for the assessment work in the field. We were there as a part of the national Community Engagement Cluster in Fiji. We managed to work it out and I got an apology, but I faced a lot of discrimination before that.

If there was one change that you would like to see for LGBTIQ+ people, what would that change be?

To live free from being discriminated against just for who we are and who we love.

What are ways can Humanitarian and development organizations support LGBTIQ+ Inclusion?

Work together in collaboration in any humanitarian activities or to form an alliance working together for the common goal that leaves no one behind.

Nothing About Us Without Us: Diverse SOGIESC Inclusion

There have been some positive changes for people with diverse Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Expression and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in laws and social acceptance throughout the world. Despite these advancements,  there are still 70+ countries that criminalise people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Acceptance of LGBTIQ+ people remains controversial and divided. Many sexual and gender minorities are thrown out of their homes, bullied at school, ostracised by their communities, terminated from employment, have insecure housing, and are dismissed from health care centres. This is all before a humanitarian crisis.

Increasingly research reports and LGBTIQ+ activists and diverse SOGIESC crisis affected people themselves are advocating for the right to participation in humanitarian decision making processes, and to some degree, humanitarian institutions are hearing this call to action: “commitments have been made to ‘new ways of working’ to meaningfully engage in a broad array of actors involved in and affected by humanitarian action.” However, people with diverse SOGIESC are often systematically excluded from humanitarian action.  Furthermore, when advocating for the inclusion of people with diverse SOGIESC, we must centre the voices of those that are most affected by the exclusion. They’ve lived through the humanitarian crises, are impacted by the recovery responses, and therefore many have much needed experience and expertise to contribute.  

Nothing About Us, Without Us

The mantra ‘nothing about us without us’ became well-known through the work of disability rights activist James I. Charlton in the 1990’s. The statement itself is rich in meaning: ‘about us’ reminds us of how often minorities (as in the sense of being of minor consequence, not numerical minority) are spoken for by those in positions of power who know ‘what’s best’. This silences minorities voices and can distort our understanding of their needs and strengths. ‘without us’ is a cry for inclusion – not through token representation, but direct participation, ‘nothing’ clarifies that minorities should always govern their own lives—without exception.

This exclusion has consequences; consequences that the humanitarian sector is only beginning to understand. The impacts of the exclusion of people with diverse SOGIESC, and the interaction between exclusion in the wake of disasters and pre-existing discrimination, is increasingly recorded. For instance, Pincha first recorded the exclusion of the Aravani community following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami; IGLHRC and SEROvie detailed the experiences of the diverse SOGIESC community following the catastrophic 2010 Haitian earth quake response in a briefing note, reporting that “in too many instances, commitments to even recognize marginalized groups turned out to be mainly rhetorical or were plagued by major challenges.” LGBTIQ+ people were reported to have a lack of access to housing, food and were targeted for arbitrary arrest and detention; similar experiences during the 2013 Super Typhoon Haiyan / Yolanda crisis have been documented by Oxfam and the Humanitarian country team  and Edge Effect explored the experiences (and exclusion) of sexual and gender minorities during and following 2016 Tropical Cyclone Winston in their Down By The River report. These experiences of exclusion are just the tip of the iceberg. 

The everyday pre-emergency marginalisation, violence and discrimination that LGBTIQ+ people experience impacts the ability of people with diverse SOGIESC to cope during emergencies and recover afterwards. For many LGBTIQ+ people, ‘build back better’ is just a pie-in-the-sky dream. The exclusion that people with diverse SOGIESC experience during emergencies reinforces the pre-existing discrimination and continues a vicious cycle of violence and exclusion—and violates humanitarian protection principals.

Diverse SOGIESC Organisations and Activists on the Frontline

While research shows that humanitarian actors exclude LGBTIQ+ people during humanitarian response, we also see LGBTIQ+ people on the frontline as emergency responders with strength and resilience supporting their vulnerable and marginalised diverse communities. In humanitarian response, it is everyday LGBTIQ+ people who are #reallifeheroes.

During the Nepal Earthquake in 2015, LGBTIQ+ people were excluded from the camps, and Blue Diamond created their own LGBTIQ+ community camps, they also built community kitchens for food distribution. When TC Gita caused widespread destruction in 2018 throughout Tonga, it was the Tonga Leitis Association that found ways to distribute food, clothing, fresh water and find safe spaces for their community members to shelter. Lesgrip in the Philippines – a lesbian network collected canned good, candles, matches, clothes and fresh water and distributed these essentials to their communities.

But allowing people with diverse SOGIESC crisis affected communities to participate in humanitarian decision making processes isn’t just because they have shown that they are often response experts. It is also about right to dignity, to be treated with respect and to ‘have a say in the decisions that affect their lives’. This is a part of the Core Humanitarian Standards.  

There are a growing number of humanitarian organisations showing their commitment to engaging LGBTIQ+ Civil Society Organisations, and diverse SOGIESC inclusion in emergency response.  However, there has been little progress on enabling direct and meaningful participation by (rather than occasional token consultation of) diverse SOGIESC crisis affected communities in humanitarian response and recovery processes. Further, the many frameworks, processes, mechanisms, guidelines and initiatives have not dealt with the heteronormativity, cisnormativity, gender binarism and endosexism that is inherent in the many aid mechanisms, reinforcing the existing power dynamics and a top down approach favoured by the humanitarian system.

What’s Next?

To ensure accountability to LGBTIQ+ crisis affected communities, Humanitarian actors must:

Share the power: Power must be acknowledged before it can be shared.  Humanitarian actors and organisations ‘have the power’ when it comes to diverse SOGIESC inclusion and protection—humanitarian actors decide who gets resources, where resources go and how resources are distributed (and more!). Diverse SOGIESC people and communities must be centred in these decision-making processes to ensure they are able to safely and equitably access emergency relief. Diverse SOGIESC people and communities should be deeply involved in planning processes, and should be considered joint partners in planning and implementation.

Prioritise Relationships: Key humanitarian documents recognise the centrality of local responders including the 1991 General Assembly Resolution 146/82. The 1994 Red Cross Code of Conduct, the 2007 Principals of Partnership  – A Statement of Commitment, endorsed by the Global Humanitarian Platform.  But the inclusion and participation of people with diverse SOGIESC is not possible without relationships, social connections and trust amongst humanitarian actors and the local LGBTIQ+ CSOs. Solid relationships and trust pave the way for conversations where we can together confront the barriers to diverse SOGIESC participation and the challenges of the discrimination LGBTIQ+ communities face, to provide adequate response and relief to those LGBTIQ+ people who live with and through humanitarian crises.

Use Participatory Methods: Participatory approaches aren’t about relaying information, or giving presentations, or consulting ‘local’ partners in capital cities away from LGBTIQ+ crisis affected communities.Participatory approaches are about moving from a system of exclusion, to a system that partners with local diverse SOGIESC community membersto utilise the lived expertise of the LGBTIQ+ communities. Humanitarian actors and responders can learn a lot from the personal knowledge about the vulnerabilities and needs of the diverse SOGIEC communities through direct first-hand involvement in the everyday experiences of those communities.

Build Capacity and Capabilities: After a history of discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation,  and sometimes criminalisation,  many LGBTIQ+ crisis affected communities may require support and encouragement to adopt new ways of working with humanitarian actors and organisations. It may be the first time they have their voices heard. You can use shared principals of collaboration and co-operation while remembering everyone has something to teach and something to learn.

To ensure accountability to LGBTIQ+ crisis affected communities, creative participatory methods are necessary. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, nor a set of check boxes to tick. Instead, there are a series of principals that can be applied in different ways with different communities. The humanitarian system is being challenged to focus on meaningful and effective participation of LGBTIQ+ people in decision making processes, and to address the attitudinal and structural barriers to create a participation revolution.