Open letter to WHO: Including LGBTIQ Communities in World Health Organization’s Covid-19 Response


“Rest assured that we have heard your important message, and as we update our guidance and approach to COVID-19, we will ensure that the specific challenges of LGBTQI communities will be recognized and addressed“. – Dr. Ghebreyesus

On 24 September 2020, twenty networks and organizations across Asia–including APCOM, Asia Pacific Transgender Network (APTN), the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies (CSBR), ILGA Asia, ASEAN SOGIE Caucus, Youth Voices Count, Intersex Asia, and International Women’s Rights Action Watch–wrote a letter to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), to advocate for inclusion of LGBTIQ communities in global responses to COVID-19.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the WHO

On 8 October 2020, Dr. Ghebreyesus responded, affiriming that:

“WHO is committed to strengthening collaboration with the broad spectrum of civil society and community organizations, including those representing LGBTQI populations….We need to ensure all voices on how to best respond to the pandemic and deliver needed services are heard…Rest assured that we have heard your important message, and as we update our guidance and approach to COVID-19, we will ensure that the specific challenges of LGBTQI communities will be recognized and addressed“.

Read the original open letter and download the PDF here:

Read the response from Dr. Ghebreyesus here:


24 August 2020

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Director General
World Health Organization
Avenue Appia 201202 Geneva, Switzerland

Re: An Open Letter to World Health Organization to integrate effects of COVID-19 on the LGBTQI communities and for SOGIESC Inclusive strategies and response to COVID-19

Dear Dr. Ghebreyesus,

We, the undersigned, represent civil society organizations working to advance the rights of LGBTQI communities in Asia and the Pacific. And we write to urge you to include aspects of sexual orientations, gender identities, expressions and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) into your polices, programs and response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has highlighted, and in many instances exacerbated the discrimination and lack of legal protections faced by LGBTQI people, communities and their families.

While the COVID-19 pandemic affects the general population, it disproportionately affects vulnerable sectors, including LGBTQI communities, due to SOGIESC-related stigma and discrimination.

In a joint statement issued by human rights experts on May 14, 2020, this disproportionate effect was highlighted as: “In all latitudes, LGBT persons are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the poor, people experiencing homelessness, and those without healthcare, meaning that they may be particularly affected as a result of the pandemic[..]” The statement also highlighted how COVID-19 and the responses to address it have contributed to existing inequalities and discrimination. In relation to the LGBTQI communities, the statement outlined that criminal laws add to the vulnerability of LGBTQI because of police abuse and arbitrary arrest and detention in relation to the restriction of movements. Also, LGBTQI people who are required to stay at home experience prolonged exposure to unaccepting family members, and this exacerbates rates of domestic violence and physical and emotional abuse. Without a doubt, this affects their physical and mental health.[1]

The UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights also outlined the effects of COVID-19 to LGBTQI people and communities in its guidance document on COVID-19 and the human rights of LGBTQI people. The document highlighted that the existing stigma and discrimination based on SOGIESC while seeking health services, laws which criminalize same-sex relationships and those which target transgender and gender diverse persons due to their gender identities and expression “can elevate the risk for LGBTI people from COVID-19.” The same document also highlighted the possibility of interruption and de-prioritization of health services in the context of overload on healthcare systems as a result of COVID-19.[2]

These scenarios, together with present and possible effects of COVID-19 on LGBTQI people and communities, have been identified in various surveys conducted by organizations working on LGBTQI rights and health issues. For example, a survey conducted by APCOM[3], a regional organization based in Bangkok representing and working with a network of individuals and community-based organizations across Asia-Pacific, indicated that organizations and communities were concerned about the effects of COVID-19 on the delivery of health services, including HIV-related services. Access of LGBTQI people to mental health services, for those who need them, has been affected by the pandemic. These issues are in addition to the stigma and discrimination experienced by service users during normal times.

The effect of COVID-19 to the livelihood of LGBTQI people has also been identified in an OutRight Action International paper, which stated that LGBTIQ people are predominantly engaged in the informal sector, reliant on daily wages and without the safety nets of protections in many countries, they are especially susceptible to the effects of economic slowdowns and limitations on movement.[4]

There are also narratives where LGBTQI couples and families are not able to access programs and responses which aim to alleviate the effects of the pandemic as these programs and responses are designed with heteronormative assumptions about what constitutes families. A survey conducted by Marriage For All Japan [5] suggested fear of same sex-couples about not being able to participate in making medical decisions in cases related to COVID-19 due to the absence of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. This illustrates worries among LGBTQI couples where they will be denied the ability to care for and make decisions for each other in times of emergencies. Trans and gender diverse people can also experience exclusion in state-sponsored health programs due to requirements of legal identification documents.[6]

We are also cognizant that LGBTQI communities and organizations bring with them a wealth of knowledge about their situations and experiences which can be instrumental in crafting inclusive responses to the pandemic.

It is in this context, we, the undersigned individual activists; organizations; and networks working on LGBTQI and health issues, ask the World Health Organization to:

• Ensure that the challenges being faced by LGBTQI, MSM and people and communities of diverse SOGIESC during the COVID-19 pandemic will be given due attention, and policies, programs, and responses are inclusive and do not add to the exclusion and discrimination experienced by LGBTQI people, communities and families.

• Integrate a SOGIESC-inclusive approach in their COVID-19 related guidance documents, situation reports, briefs, strategies and response.

• Work closely with LGBTQI organizations and communities towards a more inclusive responses to the pandemic.

Integrating a SOGIESC framework will contribute to our collective goal of addressing impacts of COVID-19 on vulnerable populations and take us closer towards the goal of “leaving no one behind” as envisioned by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Sincerely,

NamePositionOrganizationTerritory
Midnight PoonkasetwattanaExecutive DirectorAPCOMAsia Pacific
Ryan SilverioRegional CoordinatorASEAN SOGIE CaucusSoutheast Asia
Joe WongExecutive DirectorAsia Pacific Transgender NetworkAsia and the Pacific
Shale AhmedExecutive DirectorBandhu Social Welfare SocietyBangladesh
Suben Dhakal (Manisha)Executive DirectorBlue Diamond SocietyNepal
Esan RegmiExecutive DirectorCampaign for ChangeNepal
Rima AtharCoordinatorCoalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim SocietiesAsia and North Africa
Lieu Anh VuExecutive DirectorILGA AsiaAsia
Ishita DuttaProgram ManagerInternational Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia PacificAsia Pacific
Prashant SinghCoordinatorIntersex AsiaAsia
Gopi Shankar MaduraiCoordinatorIntersex India ForumSrishti Madurai LGBTQIA Student Volunteer MovementIndia
Jeff CagandahanOfficer in ChargeIntersex PhilippinesPhilippines
Hiker ChiuFounderOII ChineseTaiwan
Isabelita B. SolamoExecutive DirectorPILIPINA Legal Resources CenterPhilippines
Jerome YauChief ExecutivePink AllianceHong Kong
Evelynne GomezProgram OfficerThe Asia Pacific Resource & Research Center for Women (ARROW)Asia Pacific
Rafiul Alom RahmanFounderThe Queer Muslim ProjectIndia
Tahir KhiljiBoard MemberVISIONPakistan
Naila AwwadGeneral DirectorWomen Against ViolencePalestine
Justin Francis BionatExecutive DirectorYouth Voices Count, Inc.Asia Pacific

[1] COVID-19: The suffering and resilience of LGBT persons must be visible and inform the actions of States. Statement by human rights experts on the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. Accessed from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25884&LangID=E

[2] COVID-19 and the human rights of LGBTI people. UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. Accessed from https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/LGBT/LGBTIpeople.pdf

[3] The COVID-19 Effects Series, APCOM. Accessed from https://www.apcom.org/the-covid-19-effect-series-part-1/

[4] Vulnerability Amplified: The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on LGBTIQ Persons. OutRight International. Accessed from https://outrightinternational.org/sites/default/files/COVIDsReportDesign_FINAL_LR_0.pdf

[5] ‘I want them to be treated as the same family: The difficulty that LGBT faces with the new Corona. Accessed from https://www.buzzfeed.com/jp/saoriibuki/marriage-for-all-corona

[6] Recognize the need of trans and gender diverse communities during Covid-19 pandemic. Asia Pacific Transgender Network. Accessed from https://www.weareaptn.org/2020/03/31/see-us-support-us-recognise-the-needs-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-communities-during-covid-19-pandemic

Befriending the Quran Community Course – Surah Maryam

CSBR has opened the call for application for the third in our series of “Befriending the Quran” community courses for queer Muslims, this time on Surah Maryam ✨?

Apply by 16 October here: http://bit.ly/QQ3_SurahMaryam

????? ??? ?????: This course is offered for all queer Muslims, regardless of where they fall on the faith and practice spectrum. All points of view are respected and honoured. The main aim of the space is to open up the possibility for participants to befriend the Quran.

???? ??’?? ?????: The course will focus on a close textual study of Surah 19, Maryam, and other passages of the Quran where Maryam is mentioned. ⁣⁣We’ll also read some academic articles written on Surah Maryam and the Mary passages in the New Testament. Our study of Surah Maryam will be supplemented by discussion of Sufi poetry: a tafsir / commentary on Quranic passages in the vernacular and culturally accessible form. ⁣⁣The intention of the course is to invoke and experience the spirit of Maryam as a lover of the Divine, inshallah.⁣

Read more about CSBR’s courses on offer here: https://csbronline.org/?page_id=2833

Why I Painted a Rainbow Flag on Israel’s Apartheid Wall

through_the_spectrum_2Khaled Jarrar’s rainbow mural “Through the Spectrum” painted on the Israeli separation wall near Qalandiya checkpoint in the occupied West Bank. (Khaled Jarrar)

Earlier this week, I painted a section of the Israeli apartheid wall near Qalandiya checkpoint in the occupied West Bank with the colors of the rainbow flag. Later that night, some people from the community painted it over.

As an artist, I usually prefer that my work speak for itself. But I feel that my intentions have been hijacked and manipulated, including by the Associated Press, whose report on the ensuing controversy was carried in publications all over the world, such as The Guardian and Haaretz.

So I felt it was time for me to address what happened in my own words. I painted the mural — which I titled “Through the Spectrum” — in broad daylight. Israeli occupation forces were not far away and Palestinians crossing back and forth through the checkpoint were all around.

In other words, life was “normal” in occupied Palestine, and the painting was executed in full view of passersby and local residents. Later the same day, news of my mural blew up on social media, and several Palestinians including a journalist seized on my action to encourage others to, ironically, go and save the racist Israeli wall from the “shame” I had brought on it.

A posting on Facebook used a photograph I had taken of the mural accompanied by the words “This filth will not see daylight. Tonight it will be painted over.” Following this incitement, and in the dark of night, a small group of Palestinian men whitewashed the rainbow.

Icon of oppression

Let me tell you what inspired my mural. Like people all over the world, I followed the news about the recent Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage in the United States. Millions of people, including many of my Facebook friends from Palestine and all over the world, used the “celebrate pride” filter provided by Facebook, to add a semi-transparent rainbow overlay to their profile pictures.

Everywhere, images of rainbows went viral and even the White House was lit up in rainbow colors.

This got me thinking about all these international activists and ordinary citizens who were celebrating freedom for a group of people who have historically been oppressed, and the use of the rainbow as a symbol of freedom and equality and what it could represent for other oppressed groups.

It also made me think of our daily struggles for equality, freedom and justice here in Palestine. While people in the United States celebrated, and I celebrate with them for their victory, we in Palestine are still divided from our own communities and families because of the racist and bigoted policies of Israel.

The apartheid wall, built in violation of international law, cuts across our land and our water. It divides farmers from their trees and crops, villages from cities, the faithful from their places of worship, parents from their children, children from their schools, and partners from one another. It stops people from getting married and living together and it destroys the possibility of living peacefully in an undivided country.

For 67 years, we have struggled together against Israeli ethnic cleansing, occupation and apartheid and this wall is just one — albeit very significant — barrier to our freedom.

I wanted the world to see that our struggle still exists and I felt there could be no better place to have that dialogue than on the concrete slabs of the most visible icon of our oppression.

I was heartened that the majority of Palestinians who contacted me as the controversy unfolded supported my actions. As the days passed, more and more of these voices became public and I have met many new people in my community who share the same love for freedom and our right to exercise our voices through creative means.

I also understand that the rainbow flag is a distinctive symbol often used for LGBTQ communities and has its own history and specific context. I am not shying away from any debate that our society should have by using these colors, but I believe the colors of the rainbow represent love, humanity and freedom. And yes, there were a minority who were confused by, or against, my actions. This minority was very vocal.

Whitewashing and pinkwashing

The whitewashing of the wall immediately brought the attention of world media. On 30 June, I spoke to the Associated Press and told them my intentions as I’ve written them here. I was dismayed when their article the next day used my action to anchor a narrative that highlights the alleged tolerance of Israel toward LGBTQ people, including Palestinians.

I felt that the entire story was hijacked by a pro-Israeli narrative that executed a “pinkwash” — essentially censoring what transpired, including my intentions. Pinkwashing is a form of distraction, using Israel’s supposedly gay-friendly policies as a smokescreen for the larger crimes of the occupation.

There was no mention of the outpouring of Palestinian support my action received and the complexities and diverse opinions that exist in our society as in others all over the world.

It claimed that Israel, because of its supposed tolerance, is a safe place for Palestinians who engage in same-sex relations, even though there are no laws that offer any sort of asylum to Palestinians in Israel and they are frequently subjected to particularly abusive treatment by Israeli authorities precisely because they are Palestinian. As the Israeli LGBTQ academic and activist Aeyal Gross has pointed out, the Israeli government is quick to exploit LGBTQ issues in its international propaganda while doing nothing to actively promote them at home.

As one astute observer noted on Facebook: “While the world celebrates gay marriage victory: in Israel, you can marry anyone as long she/he [is] not Palestinian.” That is true. In 2003, Israel passed a law, renewed every year since, that forbids its citizens from living in Israel with Palestinian spouses from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, or from several Arab states.

When Israel’s high court upheld the law in 2012, Human Rights Watch condemned it for blatant discrimination.

“The law violates Israel’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which applies not only to race but also to national or ethnic origin and among enumerated rights protects ‘the right to marriage and choice of spouse,’” the human rights group said.

Misinformation

While painting Israel as exceptionally LGBTQ-friendly, the Associated Press does concede that that “Officially there is still no same-sex marriage in Israel, primarily because there is no civil marriage of any kind.” What this means is that not only can’t Israelis marry Palestinians, but they can’t even marry each other unless they are from the same religion.

The Associated Press goes on to perpetuate another myth, claiming that a “1951 Jordanian law banning homosexual acts remains in effect in the West Bank, as does a ban in Gaza passed by British authorities in 1936.”

But this is incorrect. The Jordanian Penal Code of 1951 (amended in 1960) does operate in the West Bank, but as the international LGBTQ group ILGA notes in its latest annual report, the law contains “no prohibition on sexual acts between persons of the same sex.”

It is true, nonetheless, that questions of sexual practice as an identity and sexual relations between people of the same sex as well as of different sexes are matters of controversy, contestation and social strictures in Palestinian society as well as in Israeli Jewish society and all over the world.

To ignore all this and bolster the narrative of Palestinians as “backward” and Israelis as “progressive” is the very essence of pinkwashing. I strongly object to my work being used to fuel this sort of pro-Israeli propaganda.

It boils down to this: Israeli officials have boasted that 100,000 people attended the recent gay pride parade in Tel Aviv. But even if 100,000 of us Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank or Gaza Strip wanted to join that parade, we would have found the Israeli apartheid wall blocking our way.

I believe my role as an artist who often works in public spaces is to instigate dialogue. I stand behind my work — the colors on the apartheid wall added layers to other discussions depicted there that connect peoples and their struggles against oppression throughout history.

By subverting a symbol of freedom and self-determination to apply in broader contexts that include our own plight as Palestinians, I wanted to use the rainbow colors to open a passionate dialogue. While the work is now whitewashed, the debate continues.

I’m grateful to the many Palestinian journalists, artists, friends and others who are now reporting on the topic and the wonderful, complex conversations they are starting. I take heart from our ability to tackle difficult subjects and engage in an internal and international dialogue that breaks stereotypes that outsiders and even we Palestinians might hold about our society.

Khaled Jarrar is an acclaimed international artist who was born in Palestine and continues to live and work there. Having graduated from the International Academy of Art Palestine in 2011, his artwork and films capture highly symbolic ideas through photographs, videos and site-specific performative interventions focused on the plight of Palestinians. 

Source: Electronic Intifada

In the Land Where Everyone’s God: Interview with Musdah Mulia

Professor Siti Musdah Mulia has taken part in many CSBR activities, including teaching at our Sexuality Institutes. Here’s an interview with her from August 2014, where she shares views on religious conservatism in Indonesia and the importance of critical thinking, education, and a rights-based democracy to counter it.

***

Musdah

In the Land Where Everyone’s God: Interview with Musdah Mulia

Muslim scholar Siti Musdah Mulia is a controversial figure, if being controversial means adhering to moderate religious teaching and relentlessly promoting pluralism and gender equality.

The Islamic jurisprudence professor has irked many conservative Muslims for her boldness in criticizing some aspects of Islam considered sacred. These include her view on hijab (“it’s just fashion, a personal decision, but there’s no directive demanding it”), although she herself wears it out of habit; her progressive view on gender role; and her LGBT-friendly perspective.

Born in Bone, South Sulawesi in 1958, Musdah is the first Indonesian woman to hold a PhD in the field of Islamic political thinking from Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University in Jakarta.

She has written a number of books on contemporary Islam, Islamic public policy, gender equality and polygamy. Musdah has received the prestigious Yap Thiam Hien Award for national human rights activist in 2008, thanks to her bravery in promoting Islam as a peaceful community that upholds dialog and inclusiveness.

The mother of three was the director of religious research and social affairs at the Ministry of Religious Affairs. She is currently the director of the Indonesian Conference on Religion and Peace (ICRP) and the director of Megawati Institute, former president Megawati Soekarnoputri’s think tank.

Magdalene recently sat down with her to talk about the growing religious conservatism in the country, and below is excerpts from the interview.


Magdalene: Forgive my ignorance, I didn’t even know that there was a Megawati Institute. What does it focus on?

Musdah Mulia: We have Sekolah Pemikiran Pendiri Bangsa (SPPB – School of the Thoughts of Nation’s Founders), which is aimed to sow the ideas of the nation’s founders that are still very relevant. For four months students are introduced to the ideas of Soekarno, Mohamad Hatta and Budi Utomo to Tan Malaka and Kartini.

I feel sad that people are not familiar with their thoughts and ideas. Tan Malaka is a brilliant thinker but he’s only known as a leftist. People refuse to read comprehensively. They only read in pieces and bits and sometimes see them outside the context. Often they consider the ideas dangerous, instead of getting the right message.

I want the students to really learn the ideas and be able to provide arguments, whether they agree or not, and they are encouraged to write. The course is for students aged 17 to 24. They come from universities across the country. The teachers are mostly historians, who really understand the ideas of the thinkers. This course is free.


Were you involved in (Presiden-elect) Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s team during the election?

Yes, I was in the team of experts, formulating the vision, mission, speeches, and materials for the presidential debates, etc. I give inputs about religion. When people found out I was in the team, I was bullied. People don’t seem to be fond of me (laugh). I was accused of legalizing communism, fighting for the elimination of religion status on ID card. The smear campaign was so evil. I think we need to write a book about the effectiveness of smear campaign. We have to make people aware to not be gullible with propaganda because it is not only blasphemy, but also character assassination.


People believed in the religious issues brought up in the widespread smear campaign. Why is that?

I really believe that most of us don’t really understand about religion. Most of people’s knowledge comes from verbal explanation. It is rare that people understand religion because they read the sources themselves.

I learned about religion systematically from authentic and authoritative sources. But most people only learned from their ustad (religious teachers), and they believe that the knowledge is absolute.

Secondly, our education system does not emphasize on critical thinking. Education must sharpen critical thinking. When learning, even about religion, one must use reason, otherwise it would be wasted. We would accept everything as dogma, instead of something that results from our critical understanding.

Religious teaching is based on fear, whereas God is the Most Loving, Most Merciful, Most Beneficent, as stated in the phrase Muslims say everyday, ‘Bismillaahirramanirrahim’. These characteristics cited should be rooted first in us, so there would be no stigma and prejudice. Before we become suspicious of other people, we should accept them for what they are. But religion seems to spread horror, fear, and sometimes they are baseless and unreasonable.


I know for a fact that during the election, a number of mosques asked their congregations not to vote for Jokowi, because if he’s elected as president, Jakarta would have a Chinese Christian governor.

In many places – I happen to oversee a religious school in Klender, East Jakarta – a group of people came and preached, asked them not to vote for Jokowi because he was a member of the Communist Party (the disbanded PKI). I sometimes ask, what do you think PKI is? They said, they didn’t know. Many people are confused as to what PKI really is.

I told people at the religious schools that many PKI members were Muslims and even ulemas. It had nothing to do with the organization or atheism.


But in Islam, what is the rule of being led by non-Muslims?

There is no such rule. I have an authoritative book written by Ibn Taymiyyah, a really well known Middle Eastern scholar back in 13th-14th century. He said, being led by a fair king even though he is non-Muslim is far better than being led by an unjust Muslim king.

There is no rule that a leader must be Muslim, but the belief (that Muslims should be led by a Muslim) is entrenched deeply. My concern is how many people still understand religion in a very conservative point of view. This issue should be addressed by the government. The government should push for the dissemination of moderate thoughts, not just in Islam but also in other religions, that are compatible with democracy values. That’s the job of the state. But there have been no serious efforts from the government on this.

The government should encourage religious point of views that are democratic, peaceful and that appreciate diversity. Narrow-minded understanding that creates conflict and horror can be gradually eliminated. Unfortunately, the government let it all happens. They should take a strong stand against efforts to desacralize the state ideology Pancasila, including religious teachings.

I’m often confused. Our society is not stupid, but when it comes to religion, they refuse to use reason. Even those intellectuals and professors, whose religious point of views, I think, are naïve. Religious knowledge should be treated the same way as any other knowledge – we must use our critical minds. Maybe because we understand religion as dogma, since we are little, while the teachings must also be criticized especially if there’s something unreasonable.


Why is our society becoming increasingly conservative?

First, it’s a global phenomenon, due to the injustice suffered by Islamic countries as the results of double standards imposed by democratic countries including the US. This is unfortunate for countries that are in transition to democracy.

Second, democracy should be identical with people’s prosperity and social justice. When there’s no justice and prosperity, in addition to gaps and prevailing corruption, people are questioning whether democracy is like that.


If it’s the question of prosperity, why has the middle class grown conservative as well?

The middle upper class only looks for safety. I don’t have any other explanation. They think it would be more harmful to be moderate, so they go with the flow. They should be in a position to say that there is no place for fundamentalism and radicalism anywhere, whatever the risk is.

Young people are conservative because conservative teaching has penetrated the education system since preschool. General school is now more conservative than religious school, through religious extracurricular (Rohis). They’re scarier than religious-based schools.

In Indonesia, Wahabi (radical religious movement) moves and grows freely. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono even officiated the first Wahabi school in Solo called Majelis Tafsir Al Quran (MTA). This Wahabi group from Saudi Arabia is smart. They wanted to establish university but didn’t open a new one. They formed a joint venture with local institutions whose growth is stagnant by offering big money. Who would refuse?

I don’t understand where domestic and foreign politics in the country are going. Various groups tend to choose Wahabi over Iran, for example. Because Iran follows Shiite school of thought while Wahabi is from Saudi. Saudi is a capitalistic, hedonistic country, and they keep Wahabi groups to avoid demonstration and democratic thoughts, to easily control the people. In Indonesia, what good is that for? Maybe for control as well.


What makes Indonesians so hostile against Shiite?

The Shia in Indonesia is the traditional kind. If we’re to be honest, Islam was brought to Indonesia by Gujjarat traders from India, and it’s from the Shiite school of thought. A lot of Islamic traditions held and celebrated in Indonesia came from the Shiite tradition, such as celebrating the Prophet’s birth (Maulid Nabi). The difference between the Shia in Indonesia and in Iran is that there is no political element of it in here. People don’t even understand Shiite tradition. Shia in Iran has the tradition of Imam, here there is none.

The hatred against Shiite is spread by Wahabi groups that hate Shia. From a number of researches in Indonesia, the growing existence of Wahabi in Indonesia created the anti-Shia, anti-Ahmadiyah and anti-liberal groups stances. The more the government protects Wahabi, the more intolerant we’ll become. I heard that the government allows this group to grow so that the society will not be too liberal, so that the government could easily “play” with people.


Fundamentally, is there any difference in terms of teaching between Shia and Sunni?

Essentially, there is no difference. They worship Allah and they have the same Prophet, Muhammad.

People easily accuse people of being Shiite, such as (ulema and Muslim scholar) Quraish Shihab. Many people are not familiar with his expertise, they don’t know Pak Quraish but they attack him. Some of the attackers just graduated from schools. That’s ridiculous.


Pak Quraish is one of the ulemas that are often attacked by conservative groups.

Yes, one of them is because of his views about hijab. He said, ‘I’ve never said that hijab is haram(forbidden), no. I just want to say that hijab is a tradition of Arabic culture.” It is a tradition. If you want to wear it, go ahead, if not, then don’t. Pak Quraish said that many ulemas were angered by his view, but he felt that he had to tell the truth.

For me, hijab is more of a habit, because I grew up in a religious school. I never force my daughters or sisters to wear it.

The government should champion a moderate perspective. We should look at other Islamic countries, and not making Saudi Arabia as a role model. In Turkey, imam and khatib (preacher) have to go to special schools. There are standards. The schools teach moderate point of views, so the society is moderate, even though the current president is a bit conservative.

Tunisia adopts the sharia, but it bans polygamy and it closes down media and mosques that teach radicalism.


Has religious conservatism turned women’s movement backward?

Very. The discussion on gender equality bill at the Parliament has not finished until now. I’m now reluctant to be asked about my opinion about it, because the discussion never moves forward, just wasting my time.

It seems that there is a movement to return women to domestic realm. It’s apparent from various conservative views. I found religious teachers who are women, and they said that women cannot be leaders, cannot be active in public domain. You work in public domain, how could you teach that? I asked.


What should we do then?

The government should take a strong stand and say that the only religious teachings accepted in this country are those that are compatible with the principles of democracy, Pancasila and the principle of Islam as rahmatan lil alamin – the blessing for all humankind. That’s it. Why so afraid?

Islam is very compatible with democracy. As a human rights activist, I never lose ground. I strongly believe that Quran and Hadith (the records of Prophet Muhammad’s saying and behavior) uphold human rights. Religion is there to humanize human. It’s very clear for me.

Countering (the radical teachings) is not easy, but if we allow it, Indonesia will become Taliban in 20 to 30 years. I’ve met the Taliban in Afghanistan. I was assigned by the UN to conduct a dialog with them. At first they refused to look at me, they were angry, but we kept going. I know Quran by heart, they didn’t and they finally showed some respect for me and were willing to talk.

They said, “Don’t blame us. We’ve never heard those kind of (moderate) views.” So, dialog is necessary. It’s certainly not easy, it takes time and a lot of patience.


You are also known for your gay-friendly point of view. We have published an interesting article about being gay and Muslim, which the writer realizes it’s a paradox and conflicting.

He shouldn’t feel conflicted. When we talk about LGBT, first we talk about sexual orientation, which, according to many researches, is something given. If people are attracted to people of the same sex, there’s nothing wrong with that. There is no rule about that actually.

Second, about sexual behavior. There are heterosexual people who are into sexual perversion, while there are LGBT people who are sexually inactive because they feel that they are sinners. What are haram is sexual behaviors that are irresponsible, that hurt people and make people sick or tortured, regardless of the sexual orientation.

Islam speaks in details about sexual behaviors. Much of it is targeted for husbands, because in Arab society, the active ones are the husbands. So, the verses in Quran and the hadiths always ask husbands not to treat their wives like animal, that sexual intercourse should also include foreplay, sweet kisses and sweet words.

If gay people have sexual intercourse and do it with love and responsibility, what is wrong with that? Quran mostly emphasizes on behavior.


What about the story of Prophet Lot (of Sodom and Gomorrah)?

That story has always been used as the final conclusion. My understanding is that it’s about God’s warning to those who perpetrate sexual crimes. Anyone who does it – heterosexual or homosexual, anybody. There is no specific statement that homosexuality is forbidden.

Why is every religion against homosexuality? Because religions exist to propagate. At the end of the day, all religions are vying for devotees. They are threatened by homosexuals.

I have written about homosexuality and have repeatedly been invited to attend gay weddings in South Africa. I had a great time attending one of them. It was a wedding of an imam, a gay Muslim. I was invited along with Amina Wadud (American scholar of Islam with a progressive focus on Quran exegesis).

There is nothing wrong with being gay and Muslim. There is a group of lesbian Muslims in West Java – the members regularly hold mass prayers and donate to orphans. They are more Sufi than others. Only God has the right to rule whether people are wrong or not, faithful or not.

The problem with our society is that there are too many people who place themselves as God.

 

Source: Magdalene

Milestones for the LGBTI Movement in Indonesia

The Jakarta Post recently featured a list of milestones of the LGBTI movement inGN Triangle Indonesia, which included the founding of CSBR member and current coordinating office Gaya Nusantara! Read the article below.


Milestones for the LGBT Movement in Indonesia

Indonesia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocacy movement has come a long way since the 1960s, when then Jakarta governor Ali Sadikin first facilitated a transgender association in the city.

“The era after the 1998 reform was the dawn for more political LGBT organizations. […] Before 1998, the LGBT movement was accepted but controlled. After the reform era, LGBT organizations could get more political,” the director of LGBT rights group Suara Kita, Hartoyo, said on Monday.

Here we list the milestones of the Indonesian LGBT advocacy movement:

1960: Establishment of the Jakarta Transgender Association (Hiwad), with the support of then Jakarta governor Ali Sadikin. Other cities subsequently established similar organizations.

1982: Creation of the first public gay organization, Lambda Indonesia. Lambda members were mostly gay men, with little participation from lesbians or transgenders. The organization was disbanded in 1986.

1987: Creation of GAYa Nusantara, the oldest LGBT group still in existence.

1993: Indonesian Lesbian and Gay Congress (KLGI) held in Kaliurang, near Yogyakarta. Subsequent congresses were held in Lembang, West Java, in 1995, and in Denpasar, Bali, in 1997.

1998: Lesbian and bisexual women, as well as transgender men, participate in the Indonesian Women’s Congress in 1998.

2006: Signing of the Yogyakarta Principles, the first international principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.

2007: Establishment of the Gay, Transgender and Men Who Have Sex with Men Network (GWL INA), which aims to support the scale-up of HIV prevention and care programs for targeted communities.

2008: After the third International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) Conference in Thailand, six LGBT organizations from Jakarta, Surabaya and Yogyakarta team up to strengthen the movement, the forerunner of today’s LGBTIQ Forum.

2013: National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) sets LGBT rights as a topic for a plenary discussion for the first time in 10 years.

Source: The Jakarta Post

Resistance in the face of police violence at Istanbul Pride 2015

Police attacked the LGBTI Pride Parade with water cannon and tear gas to disperse the participants at Istanbul Pride on Sunday 28 June 2015.

onuryuruyusu15

The participants as well as journalists were exposed to violence, the disproportionate use of tear gas, and arbitrary detention by Turkey’s police forces. MPs from the CHP and HDP resisted together against the police attack. Despite of the police violence, rainbow flags were waived everywhere in Beyoğlu Street.

Turkish police fired water cannon and rubber pellets to disperse a crowd gathered around the LGBTI Pride Parade by using the month of Ramadan as an “excuse”.

A similar parade occurred peacefully in Istanbul without any incident last year during the month of Ramadan.

Pride Parade participants chanted slogans like “legs to shoulders against fascism”, “don’t keep silent, shout it out, gays exist”, “Police, prostitute yourself and live proudly” against police brutality.

onuryuruyusu15_13

Just before the Parade, Kaos GL and Bianet editors were about to be taken into custody while recording police violence.


Cyber attacks to KaosGL.org

When police was attacking to pride participants, KaosGL.org faced cyber attacks. Could not access the site long time, technical difficulties continued until late at night.

U.S. Consul General in Istanbul Charles F. Hunter, MPs Filiz Kerestecioğlu, Beyza Üstün and Sezai Temelli from the HDP and MPs Sezgin Tanrıkulu and Mahmut Tanal from the CHP and Beşiktaş Mayor Murat Hazinedar were also in Taksim. MPs from the HDP and CHP formed a human chain to prevent riot police from attacking the participant of the Parade. They resisted against homophobia together.

The 23rd Istanbul LGBTI Pride Committee released an announcement and urged the participants to remain in place!

The announcement is as follows:

The 13th Istanbul LGBTI Pride Parade scheduled to take place at 17:00 in Taksim has suddenly been banned by the Governorate, using the month of Ramadan as an excuse, without any announcement.

The police is attacking tens of thousands of people with pepper spray, plastic bullets, and water cannon.

All entrances and exits to and from Taksim and Istiklal Street have been shut down.

We call on the Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin to adhere to the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, to immediately cease the attacks, and to make a public statement.

All Pride Parade participants are urged to remain in place and not leave Beyoglu until the walk can be started as planned.

People who believe in a free world but could not make it to Taksim: we invite you to make some noise with pots & pans or whatever you find, whereever you are, at 6pm.

WE ARE HERE, GET USED TO IT, WE ARE NOT LEAVING!

Love wins!

#GelYanima #JoinUs

The police did not allow the Pride Parade participants to make a press release at first, and then the participants walked through the Tunnel Square and were able to make a press release in such unfair conditions.

onuryuruyusu15_22


Participants walked to the Tünel Square, Police didn’t allow for press statement

At 19:00, Pride Parade participants walked into a crowd of police barricades and police opened the Tünel Square. In a press statement; Committee highlighted police attack. Police didn’t allow the full press statement.

5 LGBT individuals were attacked by unidentified persons. Nose of one of LGBT activists and hip of one activist were broken.

Police also continued to attack the night after the party.

Despite the ongoing police attack rainbow flags waved in all the streets of Beyoğlu all day!


Photos: Barış Paksoy Docu News Agency

Reposted from: KAOS-GL

LGBTI People Gain Ground on Rights Advocacy in Turkish Parliamentary Elections

LGBTI Rights Turkey

June 10, 2015 (New York)- The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) welcomes the results of the June 7 parliamentary election in Turkey, which has seated an unprecedented 22 outspoken advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights. These new members of Parliament are allies of the LGBTI community who have signed a pledge to support LGBTI rights.

“The fact that Turkey’s population has elected 22 acknowledged advocates for LGBTI rights is a tremendous victory,” said Hossein Alizadeh, a program coordinator for IGLHRC, which works closely with LGBTI partner organizations in Turkey. “It is particularly important in a political landscape that recently has been quite conservative and where some high-level politicians have rejected even basic rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

While Turkey does not criminalize same-sex sexual relationships, and LGBTI groups are allowed to operate legally, social discrimination and rights violations against individuals suspected of being gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual, or who otherwise do not conform to prevailing gender norms, are a regular occurrence in the country. The authorities have so far ignored demands from international bodies, including the United Nations and the European Union, to recognize rights and protect LGBTI people against discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the months leading up to the election, LGBTI organizations and activists across Turkey came together to launch a national campaign entitled “LGBTI in the Parliament” (Mecliste LGBTİ), urging parliamentary candidates to sign a pledge to support LGBTI rights in Turkey. In total, 64 candidates signed the pledge in the days leading up to the June 7 election. Twenty-two of those who signed the pledge were elected as members of Parliament. Seven of those who publically committed to LGBTI rights are from the liberal Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) and 15 of them represent the secularist Republican’s People Party (CHP) from across the country.

“Despite former Prime Minister Davutoglu and current President Erdoğan’s public statements against the involvement of LGBTI organizations in the election campaign, including the candidacy of Baris Sulu, a LGBTI rights activist from the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the election results proved that homophobic and transphobic statements do not have any negative impacts on the voting behavior of the constituents.” said Volkan Yilmaz, the head of the Executive Board of the Social Policies, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association (SPoD), one of Turkey’s leading LGBTI organizations. Yilmaz added, “Thanks to the ‘LGBTI in the Parliament’ campaign as well as the efforts of LGBTI rights activists in different political parties, we have now at least 22 MPs in the new Parliament who have declared their commitment to LGBTI rights.”

Two days before the election at a campaign rally, for example, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said homosexuals were the “representatives of sedition.”

In Sunday’s election, the main opposition group, the secularist Republican’s People Party secured 132 votes in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (the Turkish Parliament), while in a landslide victory, the liberal Peoples’ Democratic Party succeeded in occupying 82 seats in the Parliament. HDP has a long history of supporting LGBTI rights in Turkey, with the leader of the party, Selahattin Demirtas, an open advocate for LGBT rights, both during this election and back in August 2014, when he ran as one of the three contenders for the Presidential election. In recent years, CHP has also been vocal in supporting equal rights and protections for the LGBTI community, with the leader of the party, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, recently supporting same-sex partnership, arguing that “nobody can interfere with anybody’s [private] life.”

Contact: Suzanne Trimel, 212-430-6018, strimel@iglhrc or
Hossein Alizadeh, 212-430-6016 halizadeh@iglhrc.org

Source: ILGHRC

In Solidarity Against India’s “Section 377” – No to the Criminalization of Non-Conforming Genders and Sexualities!

The Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies (CSBR) is deeply disappointed with the December 11 ruling of the Indian Supreme Court reversing the 2009 Delhi High Court verdict that recognized same sex relationships between consenting adults to be outside the purview of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This section criminalizes sexual acts “against the order of nature,” and has been used in the past to discriminate against those with non-conforming genders and sexualities. In dismissing the premise of the 2009 verdict and declaring it as “legally unsustainable,” the Supreme Court has contributed to the erasure of over two decades of organizing in India for the freedom of sexual and gender expression and protection from harassment and abuse on grounds of sexual difference.

We join our Indian colleagues in protesting the Court’s inability to recognize Section 377 as a colonial vestige that is not reflective of a homegrown culture. As contended in the Court, Section 377 was passed during the colonial period and reflects British values from the Victorian era. The Indian court’s torpor reflects its inability to disengage from colonial prejudices. We also protest the voices that have hailed the judgment as religiously and culturally appropriate. The multiple religious leaders uniting to express their dissent against homosexuality are in fact expressing hegemonic cultural values that surfaced during the colonial period, and are disregarding the role of sexual and gender minorities in shaping their own religions. Moreover, India is a multicultural country where no definition of “Indian” culture can represent the entire populace. India is also a secular country, where it is unconstitutional to allow hegemonies that originate from one or even several religions to shape legal proceedings.

We stand with our Indian colleagues in their continuing struggle against this and other denigrating laws that have been used to criminalize and discriminate against vulnerable communities on the basis of caste, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. Section 377, in declaring “carnal sex against the order of nature” to be unlawful, criminalizes all sexual acts except penile-vaginal penetration, and contrary to the claims made by the Supreme Court, infringes on the rights of large fractions of the Indian population.

We demand that the Indian government discuss Section 377 in the Parliament and in the spirit of inclusiveness promised in the Indian constitution repeal a law that has led to the marginalization and denial of the existence and expression of multiple forms of genders and sexualities.

This statement has been endorsed by the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslims Societies and the following organizations:

– AlQaws, for gender and sexual diversity in Palestinian Society (Palestine)
– GAYa NUSANTARA (Indonesia)
– Women’s Aid Organization (Malaysia)