Blog: Perspectives

My name is Otgoo (Otgonbaatar Tsedendemberel) and I am a gay rights activist from Mongolia. This blog entry shares my experiences during a recent trip to the United Nations in Geneva to advocate at the Human Rights Council on behalf of my organization, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Centre based in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

It took about three years to get our organization officially registered by the Mongolian authorities. Basically, the government argued that the name “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Centre” has a meaning that conflicts with Mongolian customs and traditions and has the potential to set a wrong example for youth and adolescents. Eventually, we were officially registered and handed our certificate in December 2009. We are now the first-ever Mongolian NGO mandated to uphold, protect and ensure the human rights of sexuality minorities. One of the highlights of our work since our official existence is that we submitted a sexuality minorities’ report as well as a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights report together with Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI) to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Mongolia in the Human Rights Council. I came to Geneva to do advocacy activities relating to both the UPR process as well as the Committee Against Torture, to attend the UPR 9th Session and, most important of all, to make sure the often suppressed voices of the Mongolian LGBT community heard at the United Nations.

One hundred and eighty six States, including Uganda which signed the CEDAW Convention in 1980, have committed to implementing this international human rights treaty that is sometimes described as a “bill of rights for women.” These states are required to submit regular reports on how they are implementing the rights in the CEDAW Convention to the CEDAW Committee - the committee made up of independent human rights experts from different countries monitors compliance, addresses concerns and offer recommendations to governments. Civil society also has the opportunity to inform the committee on how they see the human rights situation in their country in the form of ‘shadow’ or ‘alternative’ reports.

Given that CEDAW is referred to as a “bill of rights for women” how then is this relevant to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Kasha N. Jacqueline, the Executive Director of Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG), an organization that fights for the rights of lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Uganda, explains, what the CEDAW Convention means to her organization and why they decided to submit a report to the CEDAW Committee:

The following is a report on the observance of national LGBT day in Morocco, written by Karim Al-Samiti, an active member of the Moroccan LGBT group Kifkif and one of its founders. Karim is also on the editorial board of Mithly, a Moroccan LGBT monthly publication in Arabic and French (http://www.mithly.net/). The Arabic version of this report is posted on Kifkif’s website (http://www.gaymaroc.net/ar/national/5140--19-). As part of our ongoing effort to promote the work of our partners, IGLHRC presents an English translation of the report.

On October 23, 2010, LGBT Moroccans held a ceremony in the capital city, Rabat, to observe Moroccan national LGBT day, which is usually celebrated on October 19. This year’s ceremony was attended by Kifkif members from across the Kingdom, and several members of the group from overseas. The ceremony continued throughout Saturday evening and was packed with various activities. The highlight of the event was a panel discussion, open to all participants, to discuss problems and challenges individuals face because of their sexual orientation, which prevents them from living in peace and safety, free from fear of symbolic or actual violence. All participants also expressed hope that the government of Morocco would allow the Kifkif group to work on the ground, given that the group represents an important segment of the Moroccan population.

The findings and recommendations of the Advisory Council of Jurists presented to the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) during its August 2010 meeting in Bali, Indonesia were significant. As I shared in the first part of this review, it was a major achievement for this independent body of legal experts to conclude that at least 17 API governments have failed to provide protections for LGBT people because their national laws, policies and practices are inconsistent with international human rights law. In response the ACJ is recommending that national human rights institutions take on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity and ensure the compliance of national laws and policies with international human rights protections for LGBT people in a way that involves the participation of LGBT groups and individuals. For me, so much rides on the NHRIs effectively implementing the ACJ recommendations since the API region lacks a regional human rights monitoring entity (even the credibility of the newly-formed ASEAN Commission on Human Rights (ACHR) is uncertain). In addition, access to international human rights entities such as the United Nations is limited, not only because the UN is so far away, but also because people whose rights are being violated, have limited access to these avenues for redress – assuming redress is possible.

Since the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina, two different debates have emerged: one is interesting and it is unclear whether the other is a debate at all. The interesting debate is the question of marriage as an institution, as a way of life; even further, it is the question of partnership itself as the only way of experiencing love or sexual relations. With respect to marriage itself, there are many things to discuss. For centuries, has it not been the most brutal, silent, and everyday form of oppression for thousands of women—one might even say, their enslavement? Paraguay’s first feminist lawyer, Serafina Dávalos – who, incidentally, never married and lived with her “inseparable companion” – already made this argument in 1907.1 I will be told, of course, that she spoke with regards to heterosexual marriage - but can we really re-signify the institution?

On the other hand, don’t we go on selling the myth of eternal love, and marriage as the method of consolidating it, to the entire world? In other words, "true" love is life-long and it is perceived as more stable if the state recognizes it, and for some, even more so if God blesses it. That is why it is so difficult to escape in cases of domestic violence, because the myth of eternal love and marriage is never questioned, it is never challenged. We do not think it is a myth; rather, we think it is something that we personally cannot attain because we have failed at something.

As the Conference wound down, my nostalgia started kicking in almost immediately. I had met so many wonderful people; was able to share the work I was involved in with the world; and had met the leaders in the field of MSM and sexual-minorities HIV prevention, research and advocacy.

Points to Remember from Vienna 2010

There were some great sessions led by leaders in the field and names to watch out for in the future - Stefan Baral seems to be the researcher to watch. There was so much information presented that it seems impossible to provide a synopsis here. But one presenter at the MSMGF pre-conference clairvoyantly summarized the International AIDS conference before it even started.

In the IGLHRC morning session at the Be Heard! MSMGF pre-conference, Chivuli Ukwimi, Program Associate, moderated a panel with advocates Nikki Mawanda, Executive Director of Transgender Intersex and Transsexuals in Uganda,  Dunker Kamba, Centre for the Development of People in Malawi. The session was titled “Understanding and Deploying the Right to Health: A Tool for Achieving LGBT Human Rights”.

Nikki and Danker gave overviews of the situations that had been happening in their respective countries. The information they gave was what had been covered in the media and other outlets, so I won’t go over it all here.

Initially the session was supposed to involve group work and brainstorming to develop practical strategies to take back into our communities and organizations. That didn’t happen. The group work was set aside in favor of an open discussion on public health and human rights strategies. There were lively debates from the participants on the relative benefits of using the public health argument versus the human rights argument for including MSM in HIV AIDS policy and programming. Some say that using the term “vulnerable populations” weakens the LGBTI community and takes emphasis away from fundamental human rights that should be enjoyed by all people.