regressive legislation
-
BOTSWANA: ‘We must strategise so that we don’t merely react to crises and anti-rights action’
CIVICUS speaks about the struggle for LGBTQI+ rights in Botswana with Dumiso Gatsha, an LGBTQI+ activist and founder of Success Capital.Success Capital is a youth and feminist-led organisation working to strengthen youth agency and autonomy in human rights and sustainable development while challenging power, privilege and patriarchy through intersectionality. Its approaches include participatory research, peer-to-peer knowledge sharing and advocacy.
Has the 2019 High Courtruling that decriminalised same-sex relations led to improvements?
The 2019 ruling had structural effects: by declaring the criminalisation of same-sex intimacy unconstitutional, it eliminated not only the possibility of prosecution but also the excuse that was often used to exclude LGBTQI+ people from service delivery. It affirmed our existence as Batswana, Africans and people and heralded a new field of untapped opportunities for improving the lives of all people in Botswana, not only LGBTQI+ people.
Documented instances of violence against queer people in social settings, hate speech and intolerance online have increased. This doesn’t mean violence itself has increased – only that it is now more visible. Decriminalisation has improved the environment to report on and seek redress for human rights violations, injustices and inequities.
However, there has also been backlash, and violence may be on the rise as a result of the higher visibility, agency and advocacy by LGBTQI+ people.
It’s true that in Botswana there weren’t any immediate negative reactions to the High Court ruling, unlike in countries such as Kenya or Namibia, where progressive judgements elicited immediate protest action. But, reflective of wider and broader anti-gender ideology influences, earlier this year there have been protest marches led by churches, a whole four years after the High Court ruling. This means that for those opposed to LGBTQI+ rights, the matter is far from settled.
The anti-rights reaction was triggered by a member of parliament’s request to consult with churches on the procedural steps parliament needed to take to amend the Penal Code in line with the 2021 ruling by the Court of Appeal that upheld the High Court’s decision. From what we understand, this ruling was needed to finally put the matter of decriminalisation to rest, having ensured that all processes had been exhausted within Botswana’s jurisdiction.
Representatives of churches and members of parliament questioned the very essence of our democracy. They publicly threatened politicians in a pre-election year, bringing confusion about the democratic process and denouncing our existence as citizens who have rights.
The strength of the backlash despite the time that has passed shows that decriminalisation is only the beginning. It is not the solution or end point in fulfilling human rights, but it serves as a basis for much-needed interventions in social, cultural, institutional and public participation spaces.
How has civil society, and your organisation in particular, responded?
Fighting back has been a slow and protracted process because of limited resources. Botswana’s higher middle income country status and narrow avenues for civil society engagement have meant that the gains made from decriminalisation could not be strategically amplified across the human rights, sexual and reproductive rights and democratic landscape.
Success Capital has less than five per cent of the resources that more prominent civil society organisations have. This means grassroots, hidden and hard-to-reach communities and constituents are left behind – notably in more rural, climate-affected and impoverished areas, where queerness, migrant status, disability, sex work status and being an ethnic minority are all second to socioeconomic status and the need to secure a livelihood.
Our constituents didn’t feel threatened by the anti-LGBTQI+ protests, which is reflective of their resilience and agency. But this was a moment to gauge how unprepared philanthropy is to respond to backlash and regressive attempts. I was shocked when a funder asked me what I was doing about it while knowing full well that they had delayed disbursing funds aimed at removing human rights barriers for LGBTQI+ people.
Still, we commemorated Pride and helped host the Changing Faces Changing Spaces conference organised by the East African Sexual Health and Rights Initiative, for which we helped secure visas and provided advice to LGBTQI+ people and sex workers from across Africa. We worked in solidarity with East African groups in the context of increasing anti-LGBTQI+ sentiments, engaged in strategic policy-oriented dialogue with other civil society leaders, made a solidarity visit to Namibia and networked to ensure that we would be prepared for whatever came next. None of this was externally funded – it was pure feminist decolonial action underpinning our belief in our own freedom, with or without decriminalisation.
Has there been any change in the state of public opinion in Botswana on LGBTQI+ rights?
The Afrobarometer survey has noted some improvements in public opinion, but intolerance and hate speech remain prevalent. National-level data is not always reflective of the situation in local and grassroots communities. Language, socioeconomic status and the availability of services all contribute to how people in Botswana participate and perceive different issues.
For example, in our own community engagements in rural locations we have noted that abortion is mostly accepted on the basis of an understanding of the challenges experienced by many who end up pregnant. However, more than one abortion is frowned upon. And we see similar nuances across sexual orientation, sex characteristics and gender identity issues. For instance, feminine queer men tend to be tolerated more than trans women, as are masculine lesbian women giving birth, while bisexual men are emasculated online. Social parameters are too wide to be readily captured without meaningful resources and political will to ensure all LGBTQI+ people are included in state policy and programming.
Have you experienced any negative repercussions from your work?
Yes. Invitations have been rescinded and scrutiny increased. We are policed on who can be invited to take part in social participation mechanisms that include government officials. We are denied an audience despite fulfilling all the necessary steps in writing invitations, submitting proposals and following up through the hierarchy. For instance, we applied for approval for civil society participation in the 2023 World Bank-International Monetary Fund Spring meetings, and despite receiving permission from parliamentary caucuses, a ministry interrogated us on what we wanted to do and why we wanted to attend.
We had our email address blocked to prevent us submitting future statements to the United Nations. We have been denied funding for being too radical, and calling out funders has not really worked for us.
I’ve had several encounters with law enforcement. The first happened when a fellow volunteer was strangled and I recorded audio of the incident before police confiscated my phone. We are exploring a case on this at the moment. The second happened when a trans colleague was questioned because how she presented was not the same as the gender stated on her identity card. And more recently, we were told of plainclothes police in non-branded cars patrolling and possibly shooting people who don’t stop on highways when instructed to in the middle of nowhere. This kind of policing is harmful, unlawful and abusive, and is being used to target LGBTQI+ people without any accountability.
Where do these restrictions come from?
Some restrictions we’ve faced reflect a regional landscape in which LGBTQI+ networks have shut down, limiting representation, and a global trend in which eligibility, visa and logistical support have only worsened, limiting civil society participation in advocacy and governance mechanisms.
Civil society in Botswana is not immune from these trends. Even within the Global Fund mechanism, the most prominent enabler of those fighting for sexual health rights, delays have taken up most of the current financial year, compromising eight months of service provision.
I think we are underestimating the reach of anti-rights groups. Although global anti-rights influences have existed for decades, domestic counterparts have recently grown emboldened and are increasingly well resourced. Botswana’s higher middle income country status reflects a skewed and unequal income distribution and hides the fact that the few with capital and wealth side with the conservative, morally driven powerholders and are not afraid to deploy their influence against human rights activists. Criminalisation is good business for the politicians that also run corporations. Inequality is good news for those with means and power to subjugate those left behind.
How do you connect with LGBTQI+ rights movements abroad and internationally? What international support do you receive, and what further support do you need?
LGBTQI+ activists are dynamic and diverse. Success Capital has always engaged in collaborative knowledge sharing, linking with other initiatives and sharing the space in advocacy sessions, side events and mobilising actions. We take pride in unearthing young, emergent and nascent activists and movements that operate in the margins and sharing our platform with them. This helps us continue and challenge conversations in rooms we can’t access or engage in.
Since decriminalisation, international support has been quite high. It has, however, been skewed. It has followed a hierarchy that’s reflective of wider trends, with more institutionalised groups having easier access to funding and benefitting from the development industrial complex the most. Grassroots organisations continue to be left behind, lacking institutional or long-term funding.
Solidarity is like sunshine – everyone deserves some. That’s why the ecosystem needs to be steered towards collaboration. And it must focus on strategising so that we don’t merely react to crises and anti-rights action, but we take the initiative in the struggle for our rights.
Civic space in Botswana is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Success Capital through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@ProSuccessBW on Twitter.
-
UK: ‘The government continues to scapegoat migrants and fuel racist rhetoric to cover its policy failures’
CIVICUS speaks with Aria Danaparamita, Advocacy Director of theJoint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI),about the UK’s new migration treaty with Rwanda, aimed at sending asylum seekers arriving unlawfully in the UK to Rwanda for processing.The JCWI has been challenging policies that lead to discrimination, destitution and the denial of rights in the UK for more than 50 years. It provides legal and advice services to immigrants and asylum-seekers.
How different is the new treaty that the UK signed with Rwanda from its predecessor?
The new agreement is different from the previous one because it’s a treaty between the governments of the UK and Rwanda, while the previous one was only a memorandum of understanding. A treaty is legally binding under international law and requires scrutiny by the UK parliament, while the previous agreement was simply signed by the UK Home Secretary.
The new treaty is accompanied by draft ‘emergency legislation’ seeking to provide the legal basis for maintaining that Rwanda is a safe country, which is a prerequisite for the treaty to be implemented without the UK breaching its international obligations towards asylum seekers.
The treaty includes provisions aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the UK Supreme Court about the systemic risks of human rights violations if people were to be sent to Rwanda. However, these provisions – which are at this point just words on paper – will be wholly inadequate. The Supreme Court was unanimous and unequivocal in its evidence-based finding that Rwanda is not a safe country, and the risks are systemic and cannot be improved in a matter of months, despite the government’s wishes. Because of this, the treaty and the provisions in the Rwanda Bill are nothing more than an attempt to legislate the fiction that Rwanda is safe, despite overwhelming evidence on the contrary.
Many people across the UK and across civil society are united in their strong rejection of the Rwanda plan. We have told the government ever since the first Rwanda flight was planned that this is a cruel and inhumane plan, and that it risks breaching the UK’s obligations under international law as well as our moral duty to protect people in search of safety. We continue to resist the government’s failed and inhumane Rwanda plan because we should not be sending people to places where their lives are at risk – whether Rwanda or anywhere else.
Do you view this as part of a wider trend?
We are seeing more and more policies that are hostile towards people on the move, particularly in western, former colonial countries. It is both ironic and unjust that the countries that have historically benefited, and continue to benefit, most from migration are now turning people away at their borders, often with high levels of violence. Across European lands and seas, we have seen lives taken away by cruel border regimes that do not value migrants as people. We urge the UK government to stop making policies driven by hate and hostility, and instead protect the rights of everyone to move, work and live freely.
Migration is a fact of life. We as humans have always moved, whether to the next town or to another country across the world. In fact, the most recent immigration statistics show that the UK urgently needs migrant workers to increase its labour force.
But instead of recognising the genuine need to welcome migrants in this country, or acknowledging the ways people contribute to our communities, the government continues to scapegoat migrants and fuel racist rhetoric to cover its policy failures – to address the deepening cost-of-living crisis, to reform our crippled healthcare sector, or to provide adequate public services after years of austerity.
What would the impact if the Rwanda plan were to be implemented?
The Rwanda plan has always been cruel, inhumane and, as the Supreme Court’s judgement unequivocally shows, unlawful. We cannot send people away to places where their lives might be at risk. It is against international law, our domestic law and our moral compass as a society.
If the Rwanda Bill is passed, it will almost certainly breach international law. The Home Secretary himself has acknowledged that he cannot guarantee it will comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. It will also stand to breach numerous conventions, from the Refugee Convention to the Convention against Torture.
The human cost of this bill will be catastrophic. Even before it has passed, we have seen the prospect of being sent to Rwanda drive the people we support into extreme anxiety and mental distress, and we continue to see alarming rates of self-harm and suicides. We cannot let this bill pass or be implemented. By implementing it, the government will be forcing people to face certain and irreversible harm.
How is UK civil society, and your organisation in particular, working to help migrants?
JCWI support migrants in various ways, including by providing legal representation and high-quality legal advice. We also campaign alongside migrants and grassroots communities for migrant justice.
For doing this work, in recent years we have faced increasingly hostile and racist rhetoric led by those in power and enabled by the media. However, we will not let this stop us. We know that most people are kind and compassionate and believe that we all have the right to live safe, thriving lives regardless of where we are from. Together we can build the world we want to live in, free from harm and border violence.
Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the JCWI through itswebpage orFacebook page, and follow @JCWI_UK onTwitter andInstagram.
-
UK: ‘The Rwanda plan sets a worrying precedent for the future of migration and human rights’
CIVICUS speaks with Julia Tinsley-Kent, Policy and Strategic Communications Manager of the Migrants’ Rights Network, about the UK’s new migration treaty with Rwanda, aimed at sending asylum seekers arriving unlawfully in the UK to Rwanda for processing.
The Migrants’ Rights Network is a UK charity that stands in solidarity with migrants in their fight for rights and justice.
How different is the new treaty that the UK signed with Rwanda from its predecessor? Do you think it will be implemented?
The Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that the UK government’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda was unlawful on the basis that the country is unsafe and that there was a risk of refoulement – the forcible return of migrants to a country where they are likely to face persecution.
However, the UK government has not been deterred and has pressed ahead with new legislation that would declare Rwanda a safe country. The new Bill would give the government the power to disapply elements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and ignore European Court of Human Rights injunctions against deportation flights. It also puts a legal obligation on the courts to consider Rwanda a safe country when considering removal decisions, and to not entertain any claim based on the UK’s Human Rights Act or international law obligations.
The UK government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to outsourcing its protection obligations to other countries like Rwanda. Regardless of whether this policy is eventually implemented, it has already caused harm to migrant communities in Britain and demonstrated what lengths the government is prepared to go in deterring people from seeking safety and a new life in the UK.
What is concerning about the plan is the worrying precedent it sets for the future of migration and human rights. It shows the UK government is prepared to overhaul the judicial system to push through regressive and cruel policies.
Do you view this as part of a wider regional or global restrictive trend?
The Rwanda plan is one component of the UK’s increasingly hostile environment for migrants. This is reflective of a wider global trend. Across the world, but particularly in Europe and the USA, governments are pouring money into tightening already highly militarised borders.
In times of crisis or economic instability, governments will scapegoat excluded groups and migrants to distract from their own failings. It is the oldest trick in the book. At a time where the UK is in the midst of a chronic cost of living crisis where growing numbers of people are struggling to feed their families or pay their bills, the government is shifting the blame and attention on to migrants.
Contemporary attitudes and policies on migration draw on decades of restrictive racist immigration policies, aimed at keeping out particular groups of migrants. We must acknowledge the disparities between who is constructed as welcome in the west and who is not. For example, hostile borders and immigration policies have not been imposed on white people from Ukraine nor wealthy, western expats. Instead, it is people of colour and those from majority-Muslim countries who withstand the worst of them.
How does UK civil society and your organisation in particular work to help migrants?
At the Migrants’ Rights Network, we stand in solidarity with migrants in their fights for rights and justice. We are a charity mostly led by migrants and migratised people – people assumed to be migrants – that campaigns for transformational change to tackle oppression at its source. We are not a formal network but we work to establish and strengthen connections because we believe it is through building bonds between people that we have the greatest opportunity to achieve transformational change. We are led by the opinions, views and experiences of migrants and grassroots organisations and are willing to be challenged. In particular, we look at how racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and other systems of oppression shape immigration systems and how migrants are constructed in prevalent narratives.
Our work takes many forms. Among these, we use our platform to raise awareness of pressing issues amongst politicians and policy makers, and in the media; work with people and organisations to build campaigns and links with legal experts to pursue strategic litigation; build an evidence base for change by co-curating with affected migrants to better understand the issues and inform our work and the work of others; promote partnership and collaboration between different causes and campaigns, to enable information and resource sharing; inform migrant communities on their rights through our tailored resources and training; and develop alternative narratives to counter harmful rhetoric and narratives around migration through informative and creative campaigns.
British migration charities should focus on delivering much-needed support and campaigning for liberation, but must also ensure that they are held to account by migrants. Recommendations are often based on assumptions rather than experience, so we must ensure we remain accountable to those who have moved across borders.
Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Migrants’ Rights Network through itswebpage orFacebook page and follow @migrants_rights_network onTwitter andInstagram.
The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.
