By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Oct 27 2023 – In response to lawsuits brought by LGBTQI+ activists, the Mauritius Supreme Court has issued two landmark judgments striking down the criminalisation of consensual sex between adult men as unconstitutional. Its reasoning turned upside down the argument used by anti-rights forces to attack LGBTQI+ activists in many African countries: it acknowledged that criminalisation is the foreign import rather than gay sex, and a relic of colonialism it’s high time to shake off.

A damning colonial legacy

As in so many other Commonwealth states, criminalisation of consensual sex between men in Mauritius dated back to the British colonial era. Former colonies inherited criminal provisions targeted at LGBTQI+ people and typically retained them on independence and through subsequent criminal law reforms long after the UK had changed its laws.

That’s exactly what happened in Mauritius, which declared independence in 1968 but retained Criminal Code provisions criminalising homosexuality dating from 1838. Section 250 of this law punished ‘sodomy’ with penalties of up to five years in prison.

Around the Commonwealth, same-sex sexual acts remain a criminal offence in 31 out of 56 states, often punishable with harsh jail sentences, and in three cases – Brunei, north Nigeria and Uganda – potentially with the death penalty.

Even if extreme punishments are unlikely to be applied, as was the case in Mauritius, they have a chilling effect. Legal prohibitions stigmatise LGBTQI+ people, legitimise social prejudice and hate speech, enable violence, obstruct access to key services, notably healthcare, and deny them the full protection of the law. As a result, LGBTQI+ lives remain shrouded in uncertainty and fear.

Conflicting trends

Only in two Commonwealth states – Rwanda and Vanuatu – were same-sex relations never criminalised. In others, decriminalisation has come over time. A few – Australia, Canada, Malta and the UK – began processes leading to decriminalisation in the 1960s and 1970s, followed by New Zealand in the 1980s and the Bahamas, Cyprus and South Africa in the 1990s.

As some of these states went on to make further progress, notably in equal marriage rights, civil society activism continued to fuel the decriminalisation trend in the 2010s, starting in Fiji, with nine countries following over the next decade. Four more – Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Singapore and St Kitts and Nevis – followed suit in 2022.

The visible backlash against LGBTQI+ rights in Commonwealth states such as Ghana, Kenya and Uganda, where small gains in rights and visibility are bringing a disproportionate anti-rights response, tend to grab the headlines. The struggles of LGBTQI+ people in these countries are vital. But this shouldn’t obscure an overall trend of progress.

There are conflicting processes at play, with a tug of war between forces struggling for the realisation of rights and those resisting advances in the name of tradition and a supposedly natural order. In this struggle setbacks are inevitable – but in the long term, the side of rights is winning.

A rights-ward trajectory

Things started to change in Mauritius in the mid-1990s, when the issue of healthcare for LGBTQI+ people was first raised in the National Assembly in relation to HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment. The country’s first public Pride event was held in 2005, and soon afterwards, in 2008, the Employment Rights Act banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2012, the Equal Opportunities Act came into force, mandating protections in employment, education, housing and the provision of goods or services.

In October 2019 LGBTQI+ rights activist Abdool Ridwan Firaas Ah Seek, backed by his LGBTQI+ organisation Collectif Arc-en-Ciel (Rainbow Collective), filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 250. Two similar challenges had been filed the previous month, including one by Najeeb Ahmad Fokeerbux of the Young Queer Alliance, alongside three other plaintiffs.

On 4 October 2023, the Supreme Court delivered its historic decisions. In the Ah Seek case, it ruled that the constitution’s ban of discrimination based on sex includes sexual orientation, and that the prohibition of sex between consenting adult men was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. In the Fokeerbux case, it sustained the plaintiffs’ argument that the sodomy provision treated gay men as criminals and their sexuality as a crime and disrespected their relationships.

Legal and social change

Having decriminalised same-sex relations, Mauritius now places 54 out of 197 countries on Equaldex’s Equality Index, which ranks countries on their LGBTQI+-friendliness. The island nation scores 58 out of 100 points, a measure of all that remains to be done, even though it ranks far above the African region as a whole, which averages 28 points.

Outstanding issues in Mauritius include full protections against discrimination, marriage equality and adoption rights and recognition and protections for transgender people.

Mauritius scores higher for its legal situation than it does for public attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people. A recent survey showed that tolerance towards LGBTQI+ people has increased but there’s still work to be done. For the LGBTQI+ rights movement, it’s clear that while legal advances help normalise the existence of LGBTQI+ people, changing laws and policies is not enough.

A welcome opportunity for visibility came three weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, when the Pride march returned to the streets of Mauritius after a two-year absence. But the opportunity was also seized by an anti-rights group to stage a demonstration against advances in LGBTQI+ rights.

Who’s next?

The Mauritius Supreme Court ruling was welcomed by United Nations human rights experts and agencies, which encouraged the state to continue along the reform path and called on the 66 countries that still criminalise gay sex – almost half of them in Africa – to follow suit.

The landmark Mauritius court ruling is part of a global trend that’s likely to continue. Civil society’s successes should offer further inspiration for advocacy efforts elsewhere. But given the potential for backlash, there’s also a need to protect and defend rights and take violations of LGBTQI+ people’s rights seriously wherever they occur.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Oct 27 2023 – This year – 2023 – started with a commemoration of one year of war in, and on Ukraine, which has dramatically impacted the price of basic needs for the world’s populations in every corner of the world. It is an ongoing calamity for a world already living its worst collective food, public health and conflict-based insecurities.

Despite the peace agreement allowing access to Tigray, the humanitarian crisis following the conflict in Ethiopia has not abated, nor has the civil conflict in the Sudan. As fighting raged on in Somalia, the country faced its worst drought in forty years, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.

The UN warned in June, that 400,000 of the 6.6 million Somalis in need of aid are facing famine-like conditions, and 1.8 million children are at risk of acute malnutrition in 2023. To add to the disaster, the World Food Programme has been forced to drastically cut its services in the country, due to lack of funding.

While there are more conflicts brewing in Africa, we have to take note of the fact that Asia also has its painful shares thereof, with ongoing Turkish government attacks against Kurdish groups as we write this. While talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia in April 2023 (mediated by China), raised hopes of a political settlement to end the conflict in Yemen, hostility between the two warring sides remains.

Further East, the civil conflict in Myanmar is resulting in more civil strife and untold misery also for minority communities. In Iran, a uniquely women-led uprising, continues to be brutally repressed, even as the country remains heavily vested in regional conflicts.

Another continent, Latin America, is host to serious political and economic instability – as in Venezuela – sometimes compounded by violence – as in Haiti – with significant humanitarian consequences. The continent also has its fair share of rising criminal gang violence, suspected to be closely aligned with certain political, arms and drugs’ interests, which are on the rise in several countries.

On October 7, 2023 the world witnessed atrocities committed by a religiously inspired (although by no means faith-justified) group, Hamas (self-designated as the Islamic resistance movement), on Israeli land, with ongoing mourning for the deaths, the trauma, and the fate of hundreds of hostages taken.

All of which appears to be used by some (largely western) governments to justify retaliatory actions which are resulting in millions of Palestinians (in Gaza) now living even without water, thousands already killed, many of whom are women and children, and over a million of them are being pushed, by a state actor, to become forcibly displaced.

In relatively (much) more peaceful countries, the rise of those advocating right-wing xenophobic actions and hate – some of whom are elected, by millions, to serve positions of senior most executive authority – is not unusual.

So, our world is not in a good place right now.

In each of these conflicts most of the key decision makers, are – perhaps coincidentally – male leaders. In all of these contexts, the ones paying the highest price in terms of loss of life, limb, deteriorating mental health, traumas, and denial of basic dignity – let alone access to basic needs – are women, children and those living with disabilities (which includes all genders, social classes, and age groups).

Yet in very few of any of those contexts, do we hear from the women leaders who are serving humanitarian needs, struggling to keep communities surviving, still speaking with one another and helping one another across the painful chasms and divides, and speaking out against the calls, and the murderous rationales, of war.

While there is data which implicates some women leaders in conflicts and violence – from suicide bombings to mainstream army and navy leaders and officers, members of right-wing extremist groups, non-state actors and gangs – these are not the norm. In fact, there is no comparative scope. As long as the majority of world’s senior-most political and military leaders are male, one cannot compare them to the legacies of the far fewer, and much more recent, women, in similar positions of power.

Women’s organisations tend to be among the most vocal and numerous, in their rejection of any and all forms of war and violence. The women who uphold this simple, and profoundly life changing and life affirming stances, of not choosing war, are often seasoned veterans of serving their communities and their nations. Many do not only speak from a place of aspiration, but from where they are rooted in taking collective actions for the common good.

Many women human rights defenders, and veterans of peacebuilding efforts in their communities and nations, tend to put into effect, the most pragmatic rationale of all: that my safety and welfare depends on yours. That you are part of me as I am of you. That in your annihilation, is mine own. That our collective resilience, is necessary, for this very precious planet, on which we are but (seriously disrespectful) guests, graciously hosted.

Yet these very same women, and their organisations, all of which are legacy builders, have to struggle to have their voices heard in the existing diversity and cacophony of media channels. Their absence from the seats of global decision making – because they are busy serving communities who have long lost their connection to today’s multilateral elitist spaces – affords them little to no opportunity to be part of the voices mainstream media prioritises. Indeed, media sometimes makes, select leaders, who appear to speak to the angry masses – or make the masses angry – but rarely showcases the work of the women building peace.

“We would not choose war” is not a temporary motto of convenience. It is a state of mind, and a state of being, which is struggled for, often at high personal, and professional cost. Its minimal threshold is the art of compromise. Its maximal achievement is peaceful coexistence. Both of which are sorely needed. It is also what most women’s organisations, and women-led efforts in all corners of the world, would say, and mean.

Given the state of our world, we need to make sure the track record of women’s peaceful leadership is actively and systematically supported, specifically when and where such efforts revolve around partnerships, and build on grassroots multilateral engagements. Such women-led peace initiatives should be a strategic developmental priority, within nations and between them. At the same time, this support should diligently avoid the all too frequent trap of creating new, parallel , duplicative, and replicative efforts, and/or focusing on supporting the already privileged elites.

We (should) have learned after decades of international development, that effective partnerships – advocated for in the 17th Sustainable Development Goal – are not optional. Partnerships in conceptualising, addressing, planning, delivery, and all forms of service, are a sine qua non, of social inclusion, social cohesion and peaceful coexistence. Not because they are easy to effect.

Perhaps precisely because they are challenging. But the challenge of partnerships around social cohesion are far more tolerable than the destructions of war. Away from the spaces of media, pomp and ceremony, media frenzy around temporal events, and elitist noise, women-led grassroots and international efforts are already providing alternatives to the current madness.

Dr Azza Karam, Professor of Religion and Development at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, and President and CEO of the Women’s Learning Partnership, based in Washington, and working with women’s human rights organisations in the southern hemisphere. She has decades of experience serving women-led multi stakeholder coalitions for democracy, peace and security.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 27 2023 – Last August, 91 UN member states, “in a demonstration of solidarity and commitment”, signed a U.S.-Led Joint Communiqué condemning the Use of Food as a Weapon of War.

Roughly 345 million people – in 79 countries – face acute food insecurity, often caused or exacerbated by armed conflicts, the US said, pointing out that the joint communiqué was born out of the United States’ resolve to once again use its UN Security Council presidency to draw attention to conflict-induced food insecurity.

But paradoxically, one of America’s strongest political and military allies, is now “using starvation as a weapon of war against Gaza civilians”, says Oxfam, as it renewed its call for food, water, fuel, and other essentials to be allowed to enter Gaza.

The global humanitarian organization analyzed UN data and found that “just 2 percent of food that would have been delivered has entered Gaza since the total siege—which tightened the existing blockade—was imposed on October 9 following the atrocious attacks by Hamas and the taking of Israeli civilian hostages.”

While a small amount of food aid has been allowed in, no commercial food imports have been delivered, Oxfam said.

Asked if the use of food as a weapon of war was rare– or common — in military conflicts, Scott Paul, Oxfam America’s Associate Director of Peace and Security, told IPS unfortunately, we’ve observed a marked increase in the deprivation of food and other necessities in conflicts over the past few years.

“What is happening in Gaza is inhumane, illegal, and unacceptable”, he said.

“We must see more aid reach civilians in Gaza, but more importantly we need to see an end to the violence that is destroying bakeries and other key infrastructure and an end to the siege keeping out food and other vital goods,” he declared.

In 2018, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 2417, which unanimously condemned the use of starvation against civilians as a method of warfare and declared any denial of humanitarian access a violation of international law.

Providing or withholding food during times of conflict has been described “just as potent a weapon as the guns, bombs, and explosives of opposing armies”.

As the escalation of the conflict extended to its 19th day, said Oxfam, a staggering 2.2 million people are now in urgent need of food. Prior to the hostilities, 104 trucks a day would deliver food to the besieged Gaza Strip—one truck every 14 minutes.

Despite 62 trucks of aid being allowed to enter southern Gaza via the Rafah crossing since the weekend, only 30 contained food and in some cases, not exclusively so. This amounts to just one truck every three hours and 12 minutes since Saturday.

Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam’s Regional Middle East Director said: “The situation is nothing short of horrific—where is humanity?”

“Millions of civilians are being collectively punished in full view of the world. There can be no justification for using starvation as a weapon of war. World leaders cannot continue to sit back and watch, they have an obligation to act and to act now,” said Khalil.

“Every day the situation worsens. Children are experiencing severe trauma from the constant bombardment. Their drinking water is polluted or rationed and soon families may not be able to feed them too. How much more are the Gazans expected to endure?”

According to Oxfam, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) strictly prohibits the use of starvation as a method of warfare and as the occupying power in Gaza, Israel is bound by IHL obligations to provide for the needs and protection of the population of Gaza.

Oxfam said that it is becoming painfully clear that the unfolding humanitarian situation in Gaza squarely fits the prohibition condemned in the resolution.

Clean water has now virtually run out. It is estimated that only three liters of clean water are now available per person—the UN said that a minimum of 15 liters a day is essential for people in the most acute humanitarian emergencies as a bare minimum.

Bottled water stocks are running low and the cost of bottled water has already surged beyond the reach of an average Gaza family, with prices spiking fivefold in some places.

A spokesperson for the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) pointed out that some of the food aid allowed in—rice and lentils—is useless because people do not have clean water or fuel to prepare them.

A series of airstrikes have left several bakeries and supermarkets either destroyed or damaged. Those that are still functional can’t meet the local demand for fresh bread and are at risk of shutting down due to the shortage of essentials like flour and fuel.

Gaza’s only operative wheat mill is redundant due to the power outages. The Palestinian Water Authority says Gaza’s water production is now a mere 5 percent of its normal total, which is expected to reduce further, unless water and sanitation facilities are provided with electricity or fuel to resume its activity, Oxfam said.

“Notably, essential food items like flour, oil, and sugar are still stocked in warehouses that haven’t been destroyed. But as many of them are located in Gaza City, it is proving physically impossible to deliver items due to the lack of fuel, damaged roads, and risks from airstrikes”.

The electricity blackout has also disrupted food supplies by affecting refrigeration, crop irrigation, and crop incubation devices. Over 15,000 farmers have lost their crop production and 10,000 livestock breeders have little access to fodder, with many having lost their animals.

Oxfam said that the siege, combined with the airstrikes, has crippled the fishing industry with hundreds of people who rely on fishing losing access to the sea.

Oxfam is urging the UN Security Council and UN Member States to act immediately to prevent the situation from deteriorating even further. Oxfam is also calling for an immediate ceasefire, unfettered, equitable access to the entire Gaza Strip for humanitarian aid, and all necessary food, water, and medical and fuel supplies for the needs of the population to be met.

“We can deliver lifesaving aid to those in urgent need,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said during the UN Security Council High-Level Open Debate on Famine and Conflict-Induced Global Food Insecurity, last August.

“We can ensure that people around the globe are fed, now and for years to come. If we do that, if we build a healthier, more stable, more peaceful world for all, we will have at least begun to live up to the responsibility entrusted to us, entrusted to this Council, entrusted to this institution,” he pledged

U.S. Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said, “In a world abundant with food, no one should starve to death – ever. This is a humanitarian issue, this is a moral issue, and this is a security issue. And we must address the most insidious driver of famine and food insecurity: conflict.”

But two months later, reality has set in – this time in Gaza.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Marty Logan
KATHMANDU, Oct 27 2023 – If you’re like me, you’ve probably heard a lot of negative talk about the media in recent years. Much of it has focused on the integrity of the so-called mainstream or legacy media that has dominated the information landscape in recent decades, or longer. These attacks, which sometimes actually degenerate into physical assaults, call into question how honestly or fairly these outlets portray the world, including in politics and global issues such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

In response, the established media has often seemed on the defensive or facing renewed competition from platforms that claim to be righting the balance in providing coverage of all voices, often amplifying those on the so-called right wing of the political spectrum. But it has been rare to hear about innovative approaches emerging in response to the criticism.

Solutions journalism is one exception. It focuses on examining attempts to solve major issues facing societies and then analysing the success of those initiatives. It is, says today’s guest – Hugo Balta, publisher of the US-based Latino News Network – one way of going beyond a simple presentation of the day’s ‘bad news’, and then offering possible ways forward.

As I mention in this interview, I know from personal experience that watching the nightly news can be a recipe for frustration and cynicism. I gave it up years ago and instead sought out media that presented more in-depth coverage. That didn’t necessarily mean it was delivering solutions to the major problems of the day, but I somehow felt less detached watching a report that was minutes rather than seconds long. In my own journalism too – although I was initially sceptical about focusing on a single way forward rather than balancing various approaches to an issue – I believe I have naturally gravitated towards reporting about an issue and then exploring possible ways out of an impasse.

Balta, who has worked more than three decades as a journalist, says his former approach was very top-down – “It was ‘we know better than you, the public, what you need to know today’. Solutions journalism helped us to flip that, from a top-down to a bottom-up approach,” he adds. “It’s more about listening and getting direction from the audience that we’re working to reach. They’re telling us what they need from us.”