I am always surprised when I hear someone proudly say “after two years Pride is back!” If you are ‘out’ and didn’t have Pride in yourself and your community for the past two years there is a real problem and it’s not about missing the parades and parties.
Pride needs to be about having Pride in who you are, being comfortable in your own skin, with a willingness to be open and ‘out’ sharing with others who you are. Even today, that’s not always easy everywhere. Clearly it is easier than when I was young back in the dark ages. I knew I was gay, not knowing the term, but knew I was attracted to boys. When going through puberty in the early 1960s I felt as if I was the only one who felt that way and it embarrassed me. I managed to hide it from myself, often convincing myself it was phase, most of the time until I left New York City and moved to D.C. Even then it took me a few years to come out.
I was 34 going to my first Pride event and hid behind a tree in Dupont Circle, afraid someone would take my picture. Today I think Pride parades are most important for people who are still struggling with their identity to enable them to see there are many others like themselves and being LGBTQ is OK. In June 2021, friends participated in a walk from Dupont Circle to Freedom plaza and told me how great it was to celebrate Pride in a simpler way without all the parades and parties just walking together in sisterhood and brotherhood. I missed that walk as it was the day of my friend Clark Ray’s memorial service. Clark lived a life we all admired with his husband Aubrey and their four adopted children. No one was a better role model for younger members of the community everywhere, for what it meant to be ‘out and proud,’ compassionate and successful.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not opposed to parades and parties. When I was younger, I fully participated and still think it’s great to see all the people who do. I was even honored as a Pride Hero in 2016, riding in a convertible at the front of the parade — a long way from hiding behind a tree in 1981.
But in these difficult times parades and parties must have a purpose. They should focus on the next generations and show them what it’s like to be part of a strong, successful community. It is the reason I fought so hard for marriage equality. At the time I was asked if I would marry and answered “most likely no, I don’t even have a boyfriend.” Yet to me it was important every young boy and girl who realized they were gay or lesbian knew they could be married and live a full and open life like all their straight friends.
Pride month is about celebrating how far we have come, and also recognizing how far we still have to go. Today we must understand if the Supreme Court can overturn Roe v. Wade, it can overturn marriage equality and even interracial marriage. All things a pig like Alito and his co-signers of the leaked draft opinion on Roe v. Wade can claim are not explicitly written into the Constitution.
The slogan for all Pride parades in the United States this year should be “Show your Pride by voting!” I hope each Pride event across the nation has that as a focus. Each Pride event needs multiple opportunities for people to register to vote.
I consider myself lucky to live in D.C. with politicians who support me and a large open and welcoming community. Yet I am well aware not everyone has that luxury. It means those of us who do must lead the way and be examples for what it means to support each other and support every minority community. We are all in this together. Women may not be a minority but too many in the world still treat them as such and we must support them.
Maybe this year we ask every participating float, in every parade, to have a sign saying ‘Show your Pride by voting!’ If we stand shoulder to shoulder, committing to each other to work at it and vote, we can continue to move forward making progress toward what the Constitution calls “A more perfect union.”
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
For people who are not LGBTQ, it can be difficult to understand what being a straight ally means. Some might think that allies just need to be supporters and nothing more, but there’s actually a lot more that goes into being an ally.
In this post, we’ll break down what it means to be a straight ally and explain why they’re so important in the fight for equality.
What Is A ‘Straight Ally’? Meaning Of The Term
“Ally” describes a person who is “not a member of a marginalized or mistreated group but who expresses or gives support to that group.”
Thus, to be an LGBTQ ally – meaning someone who does not identify as LGBTQ but recognizes the unique challenges faced by members of the community – is to be a straight and/or cisgender person who speaks up for and stands with LGBTQ people against discrimination, oppression, and violence.
Shutterstock
What Does Being A Straight Ally Entail?
According to the education organization GLSEN, there is more to being an ally than simply identifying as one. Being a fierce and proud ally, which involves taking on the responsibility to continue growing and learning about the LGBTQ community, entails a lot of hard work – especially today, as LGBTQ people continue to face pushback from conservative groups and legislators.
So, what does “straight ally” mean in the context of 2022?
It’s true that significant progress has been made toward achieving equality for LGBTQ people around the world. Today, same-sex marriage is legal in 31 countries. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In many countries, it is still legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sex and gender.
In the US, transgender and gender non-conforming people, in particular, continue to face significant discrimination in employment, medicine, and housing. Thus, they are far more likely to experience unemployment, houselessness, mental illness, substance abuse, as well as have insufficient access to gender-affirming healthcare. Today, transgender athletes are also facing bans from girls’ and women’s sports programs in 10 states.
Part of the problem that LGBTQ people face in fighting discriminatory policies and legislation is the lack of representation in the legal system. This is why it’s so important for the LGBTQ community to have straight allies in positions of power who can use their voice and privilege to help enact change.
Shutterstock
How Can You Be A Better Straight Ally?
There is a lot of debate on what good allyship looks like. Individuals and corporations have co-opted the LGBTQ movement to lift themselves up and paint themselves as progressive to gain sympathy and bank on “pink money” or the purchasing power of the LGBTQ community.
Take, for example, the dozens of corporations that decorate their company logos with rainbows and project empty messages of equality and support come Pride month – all without doing much else for the community. Another example is celebrities who use LGBTQ imagery in their work, queerbaiting fans by hinting they could be gay without explicitly saying so, and making vague sentiments about acceptance.
Taylor Swift was famously criticized back in 2019 for her music video “You Need to Calm Down”, which features an explosion of rainbows and dozens of LGBTQ celebrity cameos. Critics have panned the video as an act of “performed allyship”. New York Times pop music critic Wesley Morris wrote of “the riot of auxiliary personalities – gay personalities – [being] in the service of her brand and persona.”
As Vox puts it, “There are two kinds of “allies”: those who lift up the queer community, and those who seem most concerned with lifting up themselves.” So, how do you become part of the former group? Here are four tips for becoming a better ally:
1. Be Curious And Open-Minded
If you already know the basic concepts of what it means to be gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, asexual, etc., that’s great! But you should also recognize that there is no one way to be any of those things. LGBTQ people have different experiences and perspectives, and things like class, race, sex, gender, disability, and nationality can put can compound one’s experience of discrimination and oppression.
The LGBTQ movement is also relatively new, and many people are only beginning to find the terms and concepts to describe themselves. So, always be willing to learn about new identities and experiences.
Shutterstock
2. Learn To ‘Pass The Mic’
Or as GLSEN puts it, “speak up, not over”. As an ally, it’s important to speak up for the marginalized and oppressed, especially if people in positions of power are trying to silence them.
However, it’s also important to let LGBTQ people advocate for themselves and tell their own stories. Thus, the idea of “passing the mic” to LGBTQ people who may feel afraid to speak or who aren’t given the opportunity to do so. Uplift the voices of activists and advocates and give way to them in discussions that concern them.
3. Recognize Your Privilege
As a straight and/or cisgender person, you are inherently more privileged than someone who isn’t. That means you may not know what it means to be denied certain rights, you may have certain safety nets that others do not, and blind spots that you can’t even recognize immediately.
Understanding this allows you to better empathize with others and helps you figure out how to uplift marginalized people without centering yourself in the conversation.
Shutterstock
4. Take Action
You can’t just identify as an ally and call it a day. Being nice to LGBTQ people is great and all, but it’s the bare minimum of allyship.
Put your privilege into action by:
Speaking up against discriminatory remarks or oppressive policies at school, work, or in social situations;
Calling out your friends for making offensive jokes, even when there are no LGBTQ people around
Showing up to protests and Pride events. Remember, there is strength in numbers.
The Bottomline
So, what does it mean to be a straight ally? It means standing up for your LGBTQ friends and family members, even when it’s not easy. It means using your privilege to help others, and speaking out against discrimination and hate. And it means being there for your queer friends, always.
If you want to be a better straight ally, start by educating yourself on the issues that affect LGBTQ people.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and other asylum seekers fleeing persecution in their home countries experience abusive and dangerous conditions in Mexicowhen not allowed to cross the border to seek asylum, Human Rights Watch said today.
Two policies implemented by the administration of former President Donald J. Trump – the Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly known as “Remain in Mexico,” and the Title 42 summary expulsion policy – continue to be used under the Biden administration to block access to the asylum system for most people who try to cross into the US to seek safety. This includes people at a greater risk of harm in Mexico because of their particular conditions or identities, including gender identity or expression, disability, and age who should be entitled to an exception from expulsion. US authorities should stop sending asylum seekers to Mexico or expelling them to their countries of origin and should quickly process people waiting at the border to seek asylum who are at particular risk of abuse.
“The United States should restore access to asylum for all, but so long as Biden is blocked from doing so, he should at the very least immediately use existing exceptions for at-risk asylum seekers, including LGBT people,” said Ari Sawyer, US border researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Continuing to summarily expel LGBT and HIV-positive asylum seekers to Mexico or their country of origin places their lives at serious risk.”
US government protocols include exceptions for asylum seekers at a greater risk, and President Joe Biden has promised US agents will apply them. But border agents have broad discretion to grant or deny exceptions, and there are no clear consequences for agents who fail to do so or checks to ensure that exceptions are being handled properly, Human Rights Watch found.
Despite a recognition by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that LGBT people may face “increased risk of harm in Mexico due to their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Human Rights Watch documented cases in which border officials returned LGBT asylum seekers, including those with HIV, to Mexico under both abusive anti-asylum policies.
Human Rights Watch conducted 29 interviews with asylum seekers, migrants’ rights groups, and United Nations agency officials in April and May 2022, in person and by phone, in Ciudad Juárez and Mexico City, and in El Paso, Texas. Human Rights Watch undertook research in coordination with Casa de Colores, a US-Mexican organization working to provide shelter and legal services to LGBT asylum seekers.
LGBT asylum seekers told Human Rights Watch they had been expelled even after expressing their fear of returning and telling border agents they identified as LGBT, had HIV, or had experienced abuse related to their gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. They also described serious abuse during their journeys to the border, including by Mexican officials.
One woman interviewed fled to the United States from Honduras, where she previously faced targeted violence for living openly as a lesbian woman, including one incident when someone cut her face, leaving a large scar. Near the US border, people she believed to be members of a Mexican cartel kidnapped her and forcibly took nude photos of her.
She said that when she explained to US border officials that she was a lesbian seeking asylum from Honduras and that she had also experienced abuse in Mexico, agents laughed at her. She said one agent told her, “I don’t care what’s happening to you.” She was expelled to Honduras, and immediately fled again to the US border, this time afraid to seek asylum for fear of being returned to Honduras again.
Previous Human Rights Watch research has highlighted the risk of illegal and arbitrary arrest, torture, extrajudicial execution, sexual assault, and enforced disappearance for LGBT people in Central America.
Although the Biden administration has moved to terminate both Title 42 and Remain in Mexico, several US state officials have filed suits in federal court, resulting in orders to keep the programs in place during the litigation.
A federal district court judge has temporarily blocked the Biden administration from ending the expulsion policy, which was first issued at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic against the recommendation of top public health experts. There is no evidence that people seeking asylum pose a public health threat to the United States, and the expulsion policy cannot be justified on public health grounds.
Though the initial Title 42 was issued without “notice and comment” procedures, allowing a period for the public to comment, the judge found that the Biden administration should have gone through these administrative consultation processes to end Title 42. Some US lawmakers have proposed legislationthat would keep summary expulsions in place until pandemic public health measures are terminated.
Asylum seekers and other migrants sent to Mexico are often unable to support themselves or access basic services such as shelter, food, water, safe transportation, or health care, and have no meaningful recourse for abuses from criminal cartels or Mexican authorities. In the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, Human Rights Watch found that asylum seekers and other migrants are systematically targeted for kidnapping, extortion, rape, and other violence, by both government officials and criminals.
LGBT people constitute one particularly at-risk group of asylum seekers, among others, including people with disabilities and chronic health conditions, Black and Indigenous asylum seekers, asylum seekers who do not speak Spanish as a first language, and families traveling with children.
LGBT asylum seekers and asylum seekers with HIV described additional discrimination and abuse as well as barriers to accessing essential services, including life-saving antiretroviral therapy and gender-affirming health care, services that include medical and mental health services, continuation of hormonal treatment, and other services for transgender and nonbinary people that are crucial to their health and well-being.
Human Rights Watch asked Mexico’s National Migration Institute for more information on allegations made against immigration agents. The agency responded on May 31 and said they were unaware of any reports of such abuses, were not able to investigate them, and that the Mexican constitution prohibits such behavior.
The United States has an obligation to protect refugees from returning to a threat of persecution, ill-treatment, and threats to life and safety, Human Rights Watch said. President Biden should ensure that the United States complies with its domestic and international legal obligations to respect the right to seek asylum.
“LGBTQ+ and HIV-positive asylum seekers face grave risks to their health and safety from the time they flee their countries, often after years of targeted abuse, to when they arrive at the US border,” said Susana Coreas, director of Casa de Colores. “Biden has rightly committed to protecting LGBTQ+ refugees. He should follow through on that promise and ensure all asylum seekers are welcomed with dignity at the border.”
Abuse at the US Border
Human Rights Watch spoke with 20 LGBT asylum seekers in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, who hoped to cross into the United States and be allowed to seek protection. Nearly all reported they were not approaching the border or trying to ask US officials for asylum because they feared they would be expelled to Mexico or their country of origin. They said they preferred to wait for the Biden administration to restore access to asylum or for legal aid to make a request for exemption from the expulsion policy. Four asylum seekers reported that they had previously been expelled to Mexico or their country of origin without an asylum screening.
When Adolfo H. and Gerardo C., a gay couple fleeing Cuba and El Salvador, respectively, who like others interviewed are not identified by their real names for their protection, tried to seek asylum at the US border in February 2022, they were expelled by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to Mexico. They had previously experienced extortion several times by Mexican immigration agents, who stopped them at various points along their journey and demanded payment to continue. At the time, they were not yet married. US officials told the couple that Adolfo could stay and seek asylum in the United States because he is from Cuba but that his partner would be expelled, even though border officials had the authority to allow both men in. Instead, they gave them the option of being separated or of being expelled together. They said that while they were in custody, US officials told them to stop holding hands or touching one another. Faced with the prospect of being separated again, they got married in Mexico, hoping that given another chance, they would be allowed to seek asylum together.
José M., a gay man who fled death threats in Honduras based on his sexual orientation, said he had tried to cross the border in March 2021. He was afraid to stay in Mexico, where he said he has experienced extortion and violence at the hands of Mexican police and discrimination at shelters. On his way to the border, Mexican immigration agents stopped the bus he was on and made everyone get off, he said, forcing each migrant to pay a bribe of about US$25 each or be expelled from the country. He also said that because of his gender expression and sexual orientation, some shelters did not allow him to stay there, leaving him to sleep on the streets. In Ciudad Juarez, the shelter operators told him it was a sin to be gay and said that if he and other LGBT asylum seekers didn’t go to religious service, they would be forced to leave. He said he had told US border officials that he is gay and that he was afraid to be sent to Mexico, but hours later CBP agents sent him to Mexico. Before expelling him, US officials made him throw away everything he had, including the few clothes he had. US border agents typically throw away migrants’ possessions, including items such as medicine, baby blankets, important identity documents, documents needed to prove an asylum claim, and memorabilia that hold sentimental value, claiming the practice is for health and safety reasons.
The Biden administration has also recently placed some LGBT people in the Remain in Mexico program, officials with the International Organization of Migration (IOM) told Human Rights Watch, sending them to Ciudad Juárez despite the exemption for LGBT people and others at particular risk of abuse. IOM operates a shelter for newly expelled or returned asylum seekers to test them for Covid-19 and provide quarantine before they move on to other shelters. IOM officials said LGBT asylum seekers had been sent to Mexico even after they explicitly told US border agents about their gender identity or sexual orientation.
Abuses in Country of Origin
LGBT asylum seekers interviewed reported serious abuses in their countries of origin, including rape, assault, death threats, extortion, and forced disappearances or killings of romantic partners and friends.
Juan C., a transgender man, fled Honduras after he received death threats related to his gender identity and activism in an LGBT rights organization. He said that several LGBT people he has known have been killed or disappeared there. He said that the police detained him without charges on several occasions. In 2021, two men raped him and his girlfriend after saying, “Who is the man and who is the woman in the relationship?” and saying that the couple were transgender and lesbian only because they had not had sex with a man. “They said, ‘We are going to make you women,’” Juan said.
Eduardo O., a gay man from Honduras, said he fled the country shortly after gang members beat his romantic partner to death. Gang members had previously threatened to kill Eduardo. Then in June 2021, the same gang members attacked him and his partner while they were together. While Eduardo was able to escape, he said, his partner could not. He said he reported his partner’s murder to the police, who did not investigate.
Kayla R., a transgender woman from Guatemala, said she had to flee and seek asylum after the gangs who were extorting the business where she worked beat her when she and the store owner couldn’t pay, leaving prominent scars on her face. On another occasion, gang members beat her in the street while using anti-LGBT slurs. They left a large gash and scar on her head.
Discrimination and Abuse in Mexico
Human Rights Watch also documented serious abuse and discrimination against LGBT asylum seekers in Mexico. Several LGBT asylum seekers said that Mexican immigration agents, police, and National Guard soldiers targeted them for extortion. Other asylum seekers experienced kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and other physical violence by both Mexican government officials and criminals.
Brenda F., a transgender woman, fled El Salvador in 2017 after gang members who wanted her to sell drugs beat and threatened to kill her. After applying for protection and living for a few years in Mexico, she said she was riding a bus from Monterrey to Matamoros in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas in May 2020 when, at a checkpoint, immigration agents pulled her off the bus and took her into an office about 25 meters away. While another immigration agent stood watch outside the office, the agent questioned her about her destination and reason for traveling, she showed him an order from a doctor for laboratory tests. He accused her of lying and of wanting to cross into the United States and grabbed his genitalia, saying if she wouldn’t “give me what I want,” he could have two police officers expel her to Guatemala. Afterward, he told her that if she reported him, he had already taken a photo of her identification and would come after her. She said she knows other trans women who have experienced sexual assault at the hands of Mexican immigration agents.
Mariana L., a lesbian woman who fled Honduras in 2021, said she was kidnapped for ransom in January 2021 and held for over a week near the US-Mexico border by people she believed to be cartel members. They took her to a house in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, where she saw several other kidnapped migrants. She said they stole her passport and forcibly photographed her naked until her sister managed to pay a ransom of US$3,000. Her kidnappers would hit her to make her cry when they called her sister for the ransom money.
When Erika L., a lesbian woman, and Samuel B. and Martin G., gay brothers from El Salvador, arrived at the Mexico-Guatemala border in January 2022, a group of men kidnapped them. On the Mexican side of the border, the men raped Erika while beating her friends and forcing them to watch. They went to the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR), Mexico’s refugee authority, in Tapachula, Chiapas, where they applied for asylum in Mexico. COMAR gave them a document confirming that they were in the process of seeking asylum in Mexico, giving them legal status in Mexico. An immigration agent apprehended them outside the COMAR office as they left. When he saw their application documents, he tore them up, saying they were meaningless and sent them to a detention center. They were released and then took a bus to the US-Mexico border. They said Mexican immigration agents periodically stopped the bus and boarded it to extort them and other migrants, saying they had to pay if they wanted to continue their journey to the US border.
Kayla R., the transgender woman who fled Guatemala, said that in July 2021 Mexican state police in Piedras Negras robbed her and beat her with batons so badly that she was ultimately hospitalized and vomited blood. The police detained her and another transgender woman she was traveling with for two days without food and water and then turned them over to immigration agents, who sent them to an immigration detention facility. There, she said, a Mexican immigration agent told her she should report the crime, which would make her eligible for a one-year humanitarian visa, giving her legal status in Mexico. She said she would like to do so, and that the agent took down her information but never gave her any paperwork or began any immigration process. Instead, after she reported the crime, Mexican immigration agents returned her to Guatemala, where she had experienced brutal violence. She immediately fled again. While she was making her way back to the US border in March 2022, criminals threatened her with a machete and robbed her.
Six asylum seekers and migrant rights workers reported that some of the shelters in Ciudad Juárez that accepted LGBT asylum seekers subjected them to discriminatory treatment, including the shelter where LGBT asylum seekers were forced to go to Christian religious services. Shelters in Ciudad Juárez are at capacity, meaning they would be homeless if they did not agree to go to the service. Some migrant shelters in Ciudad Juárez would not accept LGBT asylum seekers at all, migrant rights workers there said.
Accessing lifesaving health care for asylum seekers with HIV or other chronic illnesses was also difficult, asylum seekers said. All five HIV-positive asylum seekers interviewed, and one asylum seeker with diabetes and hypertension, said they had gone periods ranging from a few weeks to four months, without their necessary medication because they did not have any money or support.
Mari R., a transgender woman who is HIV positive and who fled Honduras after she refused to sell drugs for a gang whose members had raped and threatened to kill her, went without her antiretroviral medication in Mexico for four months. In April, with the support of Derechos Humanos Integrales en Acción (DHIA), a local migrant rights organization, she was finally able to see a doctor, who told her that her condition had significantly worsened. The day after Human Rights Watch spoke to her, she was hospitalized.
Four transgender asylum seekers, as well as IOM officials and a local trans rights organization called Red Solidaria Trans, said that transgender asylum seekers have not had access to gender-affirming health care in Ciudad Juárez.
Brenda F., a transgender woman who fled after facing an attempted gang recruitment and death threats in El Salvador, said she had previously been taking hormones but that in Ciudad Juárez, she has not been able to access to gender-affirming hormone care, though she has repeatedly tried. “They always say they don’t offer that care, they can’t, or they don’t know how,” she said. Transgender people who take hormones to develop secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender identity and expression experience a reversal of these physical traits when hormone therapy is stopped, which can cause distress among other symptoms. Brenda said she hasn’t had access to hormone care since October 2021 and that she is suffering from depression as a result. “I have asked for help getting my hormones and they have said they don’t offer that kind of support here [in Ciudad Juárez],” she said. “We are suffering marginalization in that way – hormone treatment is necessary, and they are denying us.”
Recommendations
To the Biden Administration
Continue and redouble efforts to end the Remain in Mexico program and Title 42 summary expulsions, including by initiating a “notice and comment” rulemaking process to end Title 42.
While these abusive policies remain in place, ensure that border agents do not to return at-risk asylum seekers under the Remain in Mexico program or expel them under the Title 42 summary expulsion policy. People at particular risk of harm include LGBT asylum seekers; those with HIV, disabilities, and chronic health conditions; Black and Indigenous asylum seekers; those who do not speak Spanish as a first language; and families traveling with children.
Take immediate steps to parole into the United States all LGBT asylum seekers and other asylum seekers at particular risk of harm who have previously been subjected to the Remain in Mexico program or the Title 42 summary expulsion policy.
Review regulations, Board of Immigration Appeals and Attorney General decisions, and policies and other guidance, rescinding or amending as appropriate to ensure consistency with the right to seek asylum and the right to protection from return to harm or threat of harm as defined in the Refugee Convention, the Convention against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Continue to increase the number of appropriately trained personnel – asylum officers, doctors, child-care specialists, mental health services professionals and other first responders – at the border using funds currently allocated toward immigration enforcement and detention.
Beyond initial screening of migrants, transfer humanitarian reception, including migrant processing and asylum functions, from CBP to a separate government agency, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or groups with trauma-informed training and whose mission is to perform humanitarian services.
Take steps to ensure that LGBT asylum seekers and asylum seekers with HIV feel safe enough to self-identify while in the custody of CBP, including by ensuring that US officials affirmatively explain a policy of nondiscrimination and ask each migrant if they would like to share their gender identity and sexual orientation.
Investigate and discipline US border agents who wrongfully send LGBT asylum seekers and other particularly at-risk asylum seekers to Mexico or their countries of origin.
Work with Mexico and other governments to implement a holistic regional plan for access to protection and safe and dignified migration.
To the US Congress
Reject proposed legislation introduced by Sens. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) to keep Title 42 in place until after the government’s Covid-19 emergency declaration is terminated.
Enact legislation to end the Title 42 summary expulsion and Remain in Mexico policies.
To the Mexican Government
End the practice of accepting non-Mexican nationals sent to Mexico by US authorities under the Remain in Mexico and Title 42 summary expulsion policies.
Investigate abuses by Mexican immigration agents, including reports of extortion at immigration checkpoints, and take disciplinary action against any found to have been involved in such conduct.
Ensure that Mexican immigration agents do not expel people who may need international protection without due process and screening for fear of return to potential harm.
Let’s face it, this year’s Pride comes at a time when many in our community are feeling a sense of doom. The passage of Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill this spring was a shock, not to mention the gut punch of the Supreme Court’s likely Roe vs. Wade decision and its deeply concerning implications for our rights and freedoms.
So if you’re feeling threatened, there’s good reason — and it’s not just because of what happened in Florida. This year, over 230 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced in state legislatures aimed at sports, libraries, and curricula, all with the aim of protecting children from what is seen as a growing LGBTQ menace. It feels like a new assault. But sadly we’ve been here before. For many of a certain generation, the present moment feels like deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra famously said.
During the 1970s, in the years after Stonewall as gay men and women started becoming loud, out, and proud there was a similar backlash. In 1977, after Florida’s Dade County passed a gay rights bill, born-again Christian and singer Anita Bryant launched a campaign called “Save Our Children.” The language she used and her faith-based appeal are similar to what we’re seeing today, all in a desperate attempt to save kids from exposure to the “evil of homosexuality,” “perversion,” and the newest fear-buzzword “grooming.”
Hearts And Minds
The massive difference between then and now is that this message of hate falls on many more deaf ears. Despite the latest assault on our hard-earned freedoms, the American public is overwhelmingly supportive of LGBTQ rights. Today, nearly 80 percent of Americans support laws that protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public accommodations. Almost 70 percent support same-sex marriage, up considerably from 54 percent in 2014.
And the most important part? This support is up from what was essentially zero in the 1970s.
Just remember the context back then: homosexuality was considered both a mental illness and a crime. During the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, being gay was equated with a deadly, physical illness — a modern day plague. The conservative Reagan-era politics pushed many people back into the closet and LGBTQ progress slowed.
But we owe everything to those who resisted — the ACT-UP protestors who paved the way for major progress in the 1990s by national organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and GLAAD. These were real victories on the battlefield of public opinion which ultimately created the context for acceptance, culminating in federal marriage equality in 2015.
At the time it seemed like a gay “end of history,” with many feeling the fight had been won. So what happened? How is it that in 2022 despite overwhelming changes in public opinion, and when coming out and living out is so much more common and accepted, we are back to the same old attacks of the ‘70s? There are a number of reasons.
First, the galvanization of the evangelical Christian right — a political juggernaut that has only gained momentum. Second, the “normalization” of hate facilitated by Donald Trump; there’s a permission structure for a vocal minority of haters to speak — inaccurately — for the majority of Americans. And, of course, 2022 is an election year. In many recent election cycles, LGBTQ rights have become weaponized by the right into a potent and useful wedge issue to drive their voters to the polls.
The Fight Isn’t Over
So what can we do? There are no silver bullets. That means we have to do what we’ve always done — fight back. If the voices of hate and fear are loud, then all of us have to speak up and be even louder. The only reason the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a diagnosis in 1973 was because of years of protests. (There’s an excellent film out now called “Cured” which explores this battle in depth.)
Activism works. Loud voices get heard. And protest sparks change: Anita Bryant, California’s Prop 8, and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell were all defeated by relentless activism and passionate protest.
Another major difference between now and the 1970s is representation. Across the country, there are now many members of the LGBTQ community serving on city councils, state legislatures, and even occupying the governor’s office. While there’s less representation in states like Tennessee, which not coincidentally has the highest number of these proposed anti-LGBTQ+ bills, there are certainly allies there who can make a difference even if it’s just by voting.
So, while it would be nice to sit back on our laurels, have a few margaritas, and watch this year’s gay Pride parade pass by, that’s not an option. The fight is not over. Sure, we can celebrate this month — after all, that is what Pride is all about. But let’s not forget Pride started as a protest and not a parade. It was a march; a march for visibility that had a vision for a future in which there was no stigma or shame in being gay.
We have arrived at that future in many respects. Now we need to take the next step forward, which is to live openly and advocate for ourselves so that those who are driven by fear can see the truth.
Mark Twain once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” I like to think that history actually can repeat itself and that’s not always a bad thing. In the same way that Anita Bryant’s campaign was ultimately a failure, I believe the current spate of hate-based legislation trying to save children from a threat that doesn’t exist will also falter. We’re sorry, haters: the gay genie is out of the bottle and the effort to try to reverse that is destined to fail because we’re not hiding anymore. Not only are we here and queer these days, but we are also aware and active and fighting for our very lives.
To those in our community who are maybe less vocal or more resigned, this moment is the wake-up call to speak up, fight back, and make the right kind of history repeat itself again.
Alex Slater is the founder and CEO of Clyde Group, a mid-sized PR and marketing firm based in Washington, DC.
When you study the field of politics, it is represented as “the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.” An accepted definition of a politician is “a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.”
Politics, if done well and honestly, should not be thought of as dirty and neither should the politician who practices politics. One can be an activist and practice politics without being a politician. But I find it amusing when a candidate running for office says they are not a politician. They may not have been one before they announced their candidacy, but once they have, they are a politician. I believe the majority of politicians in office, or running for office, are doing it for the right reasons.
It is because the term politician has become a dirty word that people are running for office declaring they are not really politicians. An example is the new Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The headline in the New York Times is “Alvin Bragg Says He’s Not a Politician, Is That the Root of His Trouble?” In fairness Bragg says he shouldn’t act like a politician, which indicates he thinks being a politician is a bad thing.
Bragg, who ran in a primary and then in a general election and now holds office, is by any definition a politician and there is nothing wrong with that. Decisions he makes will be both political in nature and have political ramifications. Whether it is to prosecute, or not prosecute, Donald Trump; or whether his office will cease to seek jail and prison time for all but the most serious crimes, those are in many ways political decisions. They can be political even if based on the facts as he sees them at the time. The reality is on what appeared to be his initial views on both of these issues, he is now vacillating based on the political winds he is facing. He is entitled to change his mind, as can any politician, as long as they don’t give up their principles.
I keep hearing U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland say he will decide what to do about Trump and his acolytes involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection without regard to any politics. Anyone who actually believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.
We often only hear about sleazy politics or sleazy politicians. They make for great click-bait journalism. But in reality, they are in the minority.
Just consider the politics of fighting for equal justice and economic equality, and the politicians fighting to make them both a reality. We have moved far from what the framers of our constitution wrote to make our country more equal for all. That was accomplished through war in one case, but it was also done through politics and by politicians. Do we have a long way to go? Of course. But we must take heart when we hear Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, now the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, talk about her family and saying, “My family went from segregation to the Supreme Court in one generation.” That, of course is a tribute to her family, but also to politics and politicians.
There have been many times I disagreed with the politics of some groups and the politicians who seem to represent them. But I must accept some people have legitimate views, in their own eyes, different from mine. While I nearly always disagree with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) it must be recognized they not only voted for Judge Jackson but made strong and resonating statements in support of her.
So it will be important, if we are to move our country back on the track many want to see it on, not to ascribe a negative implication to all politics and politicians we disagree with. We will never agree with all that is done in the name of politics or by every politician. However, we must accept decent people can disagree and the other side is not always being sleazy. We need to learn to respect each other and try to treat each other with dignity.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
When I was a student at Dartmouth, Laura Ingraham was my classmate. She used her platform at her notorious off-campus newspaper to call me and others like me “sodomites” and members of the “Dartmouth Bestiality Society.”
She disavowed her grotesque behavior of the early ‘80s, in a 1997 Washington Post article, in which she claimed she had changed her views on “homosexuality” after witnessing “the dignity, fidelity, and courage” with which her gay brother, Curtis and his partner coped, with the latter being diagnosed with AIDS and dying from it.
Many had these kinds of mea culpa in the ’90s after AIDS. Her catharsis would be a moving one if not for the decades of ridiculous behavior that followed; it led her brother Curtis to call her a “monster” in 2018.
Recently, she regularly platforms people who say LGBTQ students, school librarians, and staff where I teach in Virginia are “groomers,” “pedophiles,” and “child abusers.” Her frequent guests even attack local LGBTQ allies.
Leaders promoted by Ingraham have expressed a firm belief in some kind of racketeering theory, wherein numerous local adults are colluding to groom and sexually victimize children. For Ingraham and the voices she amplifies, LGBTQ people have gone from mere sinners in the ’80s to the most detestable of criminals, deserving of the worst fate, in her current iteration.
She frequently interviews and platforms people in the northern Virginia area who “out” and publicly berate transgender students and residents and individuals who support forcing teachers to out LGBTQ students to their parents.
A friend from my class recently said, “as a woman who went to Dartmouth when the student body was still about two-thirds men, I am always upset that Laura Ingraham is the public figure most people know as ‘woman who went to Dartmouth.’ I wish Kirstin Gillibrand or our classmate Laura Daughtry could fill that role.”
Many of us share this view. Ingraham’s first impact on my own life was devastating in ways that have affected me for years.
I was a closeted, queer student, and she was the editor of the Dartmouth Review, which was a new but well-connected off-campus student newspaper that fosters anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-LGBTQ, anti-Women, ableist and anti-Indigenous sentiment at Dartmouth College.
Unsurprisingly, Ingraham said when she arrived on campus “I came to Dartmouth to work at the Review.”
“Phew! This gift from Bill Buckley is Muckley! It’s Uckley! Bill, give it to Yale. O, please do!
In April of 1984, as editor of the paper, Ingraham sent a reporter into an LGBTQ student support group meeting. That reporter pretended to be “questioning her sexuality” but secretly recorded personal and private discussions in the group. She later stated she knew staying in the meeting was a positive affirmation that other people’s words would not be repeated.
Even though her reporter agreed to adhere to a privacy oath read at the beginning of each meeting, Ingraham published a partial transcript of the meeting, outing some students by name and others by implication, weaponizing the paper to shame everyone. She claimed that this act of journalistic terror was just an “investigation” into the use of college funds.
LGBTQ students and faculty, including me, were wounded in lasting ways. Dartmouth at that time already was not the easiest place to be queer.
Ingraham graduated and began her path to fame, wealth and influence as a syndicated shock jock on the radio, eventually landing on her prime time Fox News show, where her hateful reporting has had a lasting influence on me and people I care about for decades.
Ingraham’s show has recently featured a stream of harmful speakers attacking my Virginia school district and others nearby; persistently maligning students and families.
Her interviews spread the false idea that transgender girls lurk in bathrooms in order to rape because of affirming policies. It’s a deliberate twist on an actual terrible act in neighboring Loudoun County. Despite Ingraham’s misdirection, the case didn’t involve any transgender people and occurred before there was any consideration of a policy there.
Stop for a moment and think how this impacts the tens of thousands of queer students, staff, and families in the school district, not to mention BIPOC students and their parents.
One Fox News interviewee speculated that “members of the LGBTQ community” in Fairfax were following her in her car with her children on board.
This is inflammatory! It makes people fear LGBTQ people, and people in fear react poorly, often dangerously. I fear for all LGBTQ people in our county and well beyond, especially students. As her sphere of influence has expanded, so too has the wake of her destruction on young lives.
An educator who felt they needed to remain anonymous, said about Ingraham’s impact across the country now, “One of the trickiest things about working with queer youth is to let them know they’re safe without pushing them to come out before they’re ready. I’d love to be able to say, ‘just come out, then you won’t have to worry about who knows what, and you won’t have to live a lie.’ But thanks to people like Laura Ingraham, I can’t say that, because I might be advising a student to put themself in danger.”
From a young person in the district, “As a student in Fairfax County who can’t share my sexual identity with my parents because it would endanger my safety, it’s disappointing that Ms. Ingraham continues to amplify the voices who hurt so many LGBTQIA+ students. My LGBTQIA+ peers and I are simply trying to be students like everyone else, not political punching bags.”
Ingraham was able to terrorize me and my schoolmates when I was 20. She is no longer able to terrorize me, but her impact on LGBTQ students in our district is even worse than it was in 1984. Her platform has increased, so her ability to cause fear, pain, and danger has multiplied.
We see it vividly in Fairfax.
Robert N Rigby, Jr., is a public school teacher in Fairfax County, Virginia. He has advocated for LGBTQIA+ students, staff, and families in Virginia for twenty-five years, and is founder and co-president of FCPS Pride. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1985 with a bachelor’s degree in Classical Languages and a Masters in Education from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1988.
If you’ve ever felt like monogamy wasn’t for you, know that you’re not alone. In a study by the Kinsey Institute, 81 percent of respondents said they fantasized about open relationships at least once in their lives. And at least one in five Americans have entered some kind of consensual non-monogamous relationship.
Polyamory – or the practice of dating multiple partners at once – has, for the most part, been on the fringes of what most people consider as “normal” dating behavior. After all, the concept of monogamy has been reinforced for time immemorial by religion, government, films, TV shows, and music. So much so that most people do assume it to be the default, normal way to have romantic relationships.
But, in recent years, more and more people have begun to recognize non-monogamy as an option that’s just as real and valid as its counterpart. Even big celebrities like Willow Smith, Nico Tortorella, and Bella Thorne have opened up about their experiences with non-monogamy and how it’s worked out for them.
But how do you actually know if polyamory is right for you? How do you answer the question “Am I polyamorous?” without even having experienced it? Here, you’ll find four important questions to ask yourself before you begin testing the waters that will, hopefully, help you gain a better understanding of the practice and whether it’s something that could work for you.
The word “polyamory” comes from the Greek term “poly”, which means “many”, and the Latin word “amor”, which means “love.” So, a polyamorous person could be described as someone who is capable of falling in love and maintaining romantic relationships with more than one person at a time.
Polyamory is just one type of ethical non-monogamy – an umbrella term for dating practices and relationship structures where people date or have sex with multiple people with the consent of their partners. Essentially, ethically non-monogamous relationships are diametrically opposed to monogamous relationships, which emphasize that partners stay faithful to one and only one partner at a time.
One of the biggest misconceptions about ENM is that it’s an excuse for cheating. However, there is a key distinction between the two. Cheating involves one partner entering a romantic or sexual relationship with another person without their partner’s consent. In an ethically non-monogamous relationship, however, everyone involved needs to enthusiastically consent to the dynamic – hence, the term “ethical”. It’s a dynamic that gives partners the freedom to be involved with more than one person in a way that’s mutually satisfying and enjoyable.
Shutterstock
Am I Polyamorous Test: 4 Questions To Ask Yourself
So how do you know if polyamory is right for you? Based on what experts have said about the practice, these are some of the questions you should be asking yourself.
Take note: This isn’t exactly your typical “Am I polyamorous” quiz because there won’t be a grade or score by the end. What these questions are meant to do is help you recognize some of the signs that may be difficult to catch because of how much society normalizes monogamy. Some of these questions are also meant to prepare you for some of the more challenging realities of being in a polyamorous relationship.
1. Have you ever wrestled with commitment issues?
A lot of polyamorous people can tend to feel “trapped” in monogamous relationships, feeling like they’re being robbed of their chances to explore potential relationships with other people. So, they can end up resenting their partners and cheating.
Unfortunately, compulsory monogamy – or the idea that monogamy is the only option or the “endgame” in terms of romantic relationships – reinforces the idea that commitment issues are just something to get over, rather than a sign that perhaps monogamy isn’t the right fit for some people.
2. Have you experienced falling in love with or having crushes on multiple people at the same time?
This is perhaps the most obvious sign that you’re polyamorous. “Polyamorous people believe you can love multiple people”, says sex and relationship therapist Renee Divine. “They’re open to additional people in that way, and they want that emotional attachment. Plural love is the main focus.”
This is an important distinction to make between other types of non-monogamy because some people only seek out other partners for sexual variety. These types of people tend to have high sex drives and enjoy having different kinds of sexual relationships.
But polyamory is more than just sex – it involves emotional intimacy as well. If you don’t think you can be romantically involved with more than one person, then perhaps you’re better suited to consensual non-monogamy (like open relationships or swinger-type relationships) than polyamorous relationships.
Polyamorous people also tend to believe that one person cannot fulfill all of their needs. It’s not just about being attracted to multiple people, it’s also about acknowledging that you may have varied needs that you can’t necessarily get from just one partner – and that is okay.
Shutterstock
3. Are you okay with the idea of your partner seeing other people?
Depending on the kind of polyamorous relationship you enter – and there are many different types – you may have to share your partner with other people. Will this feel like a betrayal to you, or do you think it’s something that you can be comfortable with?
For polyamorous people (at least those who aren’t solo poly), it’s necessary to be able to get to a place where you can be okay with or even be happy for your partner when they date other people. That feeling has a name, and it’s called “compersion”. It can be described as “the happiness in knowing your partner is happy”. For some, seeing their partners date other people can even be a turn-on.
Of course, jealousy does still happen in polyamorous relationships. Polyamorous people just learn to communicate their feelings and find the root causes of their jealousy – otherwise, it could jeopardize their relationships.
“Jealousy can be broken down to determine what your real concerns are,” says social worker Stephanie M. Sullivan. And in many instances, jealousy has less to do with your partner’s feelings and behaviors and more to do with your own insecurities. According to researchers, jealousy can stem from factors like low self-esteem, feelings of insecurity in your relationship and possessiveness, and an anxious attachment style.
4. Are you comfortable communicating your fears, insecurities, boundaries, and limitations?
While you can be drawn to polyamory even if you’re not exactly the best communicator or the best at setting boundaries, there are some important aspects for maintaining healthy and successful polyamorous relationships:
Having the ability to be open and honest about your feelings
Being emotionally available
Knowing how to set, reinforce, and respect boundaries
Knowing how to regulate your emotions
“Whatever your personal buttons are, polyamory will almost certainly push them”, Ginny Brown writes for Everyday Feminism. Because of this, it’s good to start working on your personal issues before you try polyamory.
Shutterstock
Am I Ready For Polyamory?
Polyamory is not easy. Poly people face a lot of judgment and confusion because most of us have been raised to believe that monogamy is the one and only way to have romantic relationships. Maintaining poly relationships can also be time-consuming and emotionally taxing, considering all the variables you have to deal with.
Despite that, for some people, polyamory is the only option for a decent shot at being happy. And that shouldn’t be something to be ashamed of!
When QAnon burst on the scene a few years ago, the general feeling was that it was so deep in the fever swamps that it would never become anything more than a fringe conspiracy theory. After all, who could believe the premise that a cabal of Democratic politicians and Hollywood stars are engaged in Satanic practices that involve sex trafficking children and harvesting their blood to produce a psychoactive drug?
As it turns out, the Republican party believes it.
Or at least enough of the party’s leadership believes it that it has now embraced QAnon’s pedophilia claims and is now using it to slander all of the party’s opponents.
The two biggest targets of the party’s slur against its political enemies: newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the LGBTQ community.
Jackson’s confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee were an opportunity for Republicans to accuse her of being pro-child porn and sympathetic to pedophiles. According to the Washington Post, Jackson’s hearings featured some variation of the phrase child porn 165 times, and fifteen mention of “pedophile.” There were a mere dozen mentions of the Bill of Rights.
Ostensibly, the reason for the line of questioning was Jackson’s record of sentencing sex offenders, which was in line with other judges’. But the Republicans on the committee saw an opportunity to smear her as not just soft on crime but soft on pedophiles – exactly the way QAnon sees Democrats.
LGBTQ people are long used to this libel, which the GOP is now resurrecting with glee. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) press secretary, Christina Pushaw, said that anyone who disagrees with the states Don’t Say Gay law is a “groomer,” a synonym for a sexual predator. (Pushaw happily plays rabid Trumpist so that DeSantis can pass as merely feral.)
Pushaw then began calling the Don’t Say Gay bill the Anti-Groomer Bill, as if even mentioning the word “gay” or “transgender” was the same as luring a minor into an illegal sexual act.
Why would the Republican party decide to go all in now on a lie that that went the way of Anita Bryant? The reason is two-fold.
For one, their core followers believe it. As conservative evangelicals see politics as an extension of their religion, they see their cultural battles in apocalyptic terms. Trumpist rallies are now prayer rallies, complete with spiritual music.With Trump they had a taste of victory, and they are going to press that advantage. Many genuinely believe that anything non-heteronormative is a perversion, and teaching children otherwise corrupts their innocence.
The second part is more cynical and outright shameful. Republicans want votes, and midterm elections depend upon motivated voters. Christians saving children from pedophiles disguised as Democrats are motivated voters. Republicans are happy to play that lie up if it gets them more votes. If gaining power is your sole concern, there really is no depth to which you cannot stoop – as the GOP proves daily.
When FIFA convenes its 72nd Congress in Doha, Qatar, on March 31, 2022, in preparation for the World Cup, journalists, football associations, fans, and others should press both FIFA officials and Qatari authorities about human rights in the Gulf state, particularly the rights of migrant workers, women, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.
Since 2010, human rights organizations, trade unions, and media have consistently documented the rampant human rights abuses in the country, especially against migrant workers, including widespread wage theft, high recruitment fees, unexplained deaths, and passport confiscation, among others. While Qatar has introduced several reforms with much fanfare, they came too late, have proven to be woefully inadequate, and are poorly enforced. Similarly, the authorities have made no serious reforms to the severe discrimination in law and practice against women and LGBT people.
Despite repeated warnings and concrete evidence of rights violations, FIFA has not used its leverage or authority to pressure Qatar to follow through on its reform promises. Instead, FIFA has covered up for Qatar’s slow progress and championed the authorities’ reform narrative built around worker welfare that clearly does not reflect the reality for migrant workers.
FIFA has also failed to effectively push back on other repressive laws on press freedom, LGBT rights, and women’s rights. Not only has FIFA been a dismal steward for protecting and promoting human rights in Qatar, failing to use its leverage to truly push for football as a “force for good,” but it has also failed to fulfill its own human rights obligations under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the Guiding Principles) that were adopted in 2016. As per the Guiding Principles, FIFA should step up and make reparations to the thousands of migrant workers or their families who experienced abuses, including unexplained deaths, to make the World Cup 2022 possible.
The FIFA decision to award Qatar with hosting the 2022 World Cup has been itself mired in controversy, starting with US Department of Justice allegations that FIFA officials were bribed to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup. FIFA made the decision despite the country’s poor human rights record and its massive infrastructure deficit, knowing it would rest on vulnerable migrant workers to build.
In March 2022, Human Rights Watch reported that workers at Bin Omran Trading and Contracting (BOTC), a prominent Qatari trading and construction firm, had not received their salaries for up to five months. BOTC’s projects include landscaping and underground utility works for Al Bayt Stadium, where the opening match will be held.
Indeed, Human Rights Watch research reveals that wage theft remains a systemic failure in Qatar with many employers getting away with it. Workers are still forced to pay exorbitant recruitment fees to secure jobs in Qatar, between US$700 and $2,600. This means they are already in debt before they arrive in Qatar, making them vulnerable to abuse and debt bondage.
Companies often withhold contractually guaranteed overtime payments and end-of-service benefits, and they regularly violate their contracts with migrant workers with impunity. In the worst cases, workers said, employers have simply stopped paying their wages, and the workers have often struggled to buy food.
Such abuses persist despite several reforms that Qatar has introduced since 2015 to improve wage protection for migrant workers. The government’s Wage Protection System (WPS), designed to ensure that workers receive their salaries through direct bank transfer by the seventh day of every month, allows the government to monitor wage payments and to impose sanctions on employers for noncompliance.
The Worker’s Support and Insurance Fund, which became fully operational in 2020, was established specifically to ensure that workers are paid wages they are owed when companies fail to pay or go out of business.
However, Human Rights Watch found that the Wage Protection System does little to protect wages and can be better described as a wage monitoring system with significant gaps in its oversight capacity. The authorities have yet to fully dismantle the causes for wage theft, which lie with the kafala (sponsorship) system; deceptive recruitment practices including high recruitment fees; and business practices including the so-called “pay when paid” clause, which allows the subcontractor to delay payments to workers until the subcontractor is paid and leaves migrant workers vulnerable to payment delays in supply chain hierarchies.
Had Qatar addressed the real causes of wage theft and had its announced reforms been well enforced, the WPS would have flagged companies like BOTC, which would have faced sanction, while workers would have been paid in a timely manner using the Workers Support and Insurance Fund. Instead, unpaid workers have been protesting collectively despite the risks, given that Qatar prohibits worker strikes.
One of the most prominent rights issues since Qatar was awarded the World Cup hosting rights in 2010 is the unexplained deaths of thousands of migrant workers.
Despite the global attention and consistent pressure on Qatari authorities for transparency, they have failed to publicize sufficient data on worker deaths. The numbers in the public discourse therefore vary widely. Qatari authorities say that the number of non-Qatari deaths between 2010 and 2019 is 15,021 for all ages, occupations, and causes. But because the data is neither disaggregated nor comprehensive, it is difficult to do any meaningful analysis on migrant worker deaths.
A Guardian investigation shows that between 2010 to 2020, there were over 6,751 deaths in Qatar of people from just five South Asian countries, which were neither categorized by occupation nor place of work. According to a recently commissioned report by the International Labour Organization (ILO), there were 50 work-related deaths in Qatar in 2020, and these have been disaggregated by key characteristics such as places of injury and death and the underlying cause where available.
Despite the widespread criticism, the authorities have dragged their feet in making comprehensive data on deaths of migrant workers publicly available. FIFA, too, has not used its leverage to push for more transparency around migrant deaths, but instead made erroneous remarks about them. According to media reports, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has even suggested that there have been just three work-related deaths in FIFA stadiums in Qatar, an incredible claim that is lower than even what Qatari authorities have announced.
According to the Guardian investigation, 69 percent of the deaths of migrant workers from India, Nepal, and Bangladesh between 2010 and 2020 were attributed to “natural causes.” A fifth of the 50 work-related deaths from 2020 were attributed to “unknown causes,” the ILO reported. According to Qatar’s Supreme Committee’s Workers’ Welfare progress reports, 18 of the 33 fatalities recorded between October 2015 and October 2019 attribute the cause of death to “natural causes,” “cardiac arrest,” or “acute respiratory failure,” terms that obscure the underlying cause of deaths, such as heat stress, and make it impossible to determine whether they may be related to working conditions.
When deaths are attributed to “natural causes” and categorized as non-work-related, Qatar’s labor law denies families compensation, leaving many of them destitute in the absence of their often-sole income provider. For a country with a highly advanced healthcare system, it is unfathomable that transparent data on worker deaths is not available and meaningful investigations of deaths have not been conducted but are simply attributed to “unknown” or “natural causes.” This does not prevent future deaths nor provide any consolation to the grieving families who are left in the dark.
Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, FIFA too has the responsibility to provide reparations for abuses it caused or contributed to. As an entity that has immense resources, it has no excuse not to fulfill its obligations. In 2014, for example, the qualifying rounds and final tournament brought FIFA US$4.6 billion, with profits amounting to over $2 billion.
National football associations, which can be tarnished by association with rights abuses, also have leverage over FIFA that they can and should use. No player would want to be a complacent participant in a tournament that has caused such immense loss of migrant workers’ lives and livelihoods. It is encouraging that many national associations have started speaking up on the issue and should continue to push for tangible commitments including reparations to those who were subject to wage theft and to families who lost loved ones. This would ensure that thousands of families of migrants who lost their lives in Qatar while making the games possible are not left with nothing.
Human Rights Watch has obtained a circular from Qatar’s Public Works Authorities requesting companies to reduce their migrant labor workforce from September 21, 2022 to January 18, 2023. As per the circular, “All Contractors shall prepare a strategic plan for workers’ leave which maximizes the reduction in the number of workers in the country during the period. It should not adversely impact the migrant worker’s well-being and established RPD [Roads Project Department] projects’ targets and objectives.” According to Migrant Rights, construction companies – primarily subcontractors – also shared that the directive has been communicated to them informally.
Migrant workers hired for jobs in Qatar do not have the luxury to take unpaid leave for extended periods. A large majority of workers, especially the recently hired ones, have outstanding loans associated with their illegally imposed recruitment fees that will continue to pile up during the months they are back home if they are not paid. The wages in Qatar are also how workers and their families make ends meet on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis without any savings or support system to draw from. Workers who face early dismissal or whose contracts will not be renewed should be allowed time to find another employer in the country. All such workers should be paid all their outstanding payments due, including for any untaken vacation time, wages, overtime pay, end-of-service payments, and any severance pay.
It is important for Qatari authorities and companies to clearly communicate to workers the details of the arrangement, with strong systems in place to ensure that companies do not take undue advantage of the situation to cheat workers.
Just as the construction phase of the World Cup has rested almost entirely on the backs of migrant workers, who comprise over 95 percent of the Qatari workforce, the delivery of the World Cup will also be almost entirely dependent on migrant workers. They will serve players, fans, and other visitors as waiters, hotel workers, shop staff, housekeepers, stadium workers, security guards, and drivers. Recent evidence has shown that hotel workers and security guards have continued to pay high recruitment fees. Every worker that a fan or a player comes across could, therefore, potentially be a victim of some form of abuse, such as paying exorbitantly for the jobs.
The Worker Welfare Standards from the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, Qatar’s 2022 FIFA World Cup organizer, were originally developed for the construction sector, but have been extended to the hospitality sector. Stakeholders have come together to develop a guidance tool for fair recruitment and employment for the hospitality sector in Qatar that hotels are expected to follow.
Proper due diligence by national football associations is key to ensuring that they do not contribute to or are associated with the abuses. However, it is also important for news media to be aware that they should not have a narrow focus when covering how migrant workers are treated. Just as some coverage has focused on stadium workers who comprised only 1.5 percent of the migrant workforce, media focus should not be limited to service workers in companies serving elite visitors like players and coaches. Conditions for workers serving elite visitors will undoubtedly be under disproportionately higher scrutiny and standards, but they will be a tiny proportion of the total service sector workforce that will directly or indirectly cater to the 1.2 millionvisitors expected to visit Qatar for the tournament.
Migrant workers in Qatar are part of the estimated 3 billion viewers of the World Cup who, in addition, also were indispensable in making the World Cup in Qatar possible. A good illustration of the popularity of the game among migrant workers in Qatar is captured in the documentary The Worker’s Cup.
Now that fans are flocking in from all over the world, migrant workers’ freedom of movement should be respected. They should not be restricted to parts of the country or in cramped labor camps or worse, sent back to their home countries, out of the sight of visitors who would otherwise be appalled if they got a glimpse of their living conditions.
Football is often called “the beautiful game,” which means there should be no discrimination among fans, whether they are low-paid workers who built and serviced the stadiums and infrastructure for the World Cup or visitors who bought the most expensive tickets and flew in from afar. Migrant workers and visitors should be allowed to mingle with each other. Visitors, including journalists wanting to report on the migrant worker situation, fans, and stakeholders like national football associations, sponsors, and rights organizations should not be restricted from visiting labor camps.
Qatari authorities require women to obtain permission from their male guardians to marry, study abroad on government scholarships, work in many government jobs, travel abroad until certain ages, and receive some forms of reproductive health care. Some hotels require women to have a male guardian or be married to book and stay in a hotel room. Some events, such as concerts where alcohol is served, even ban Qatari women from attending. Such policies are discriminatory and facilitate violence against women.
Qatar moreover, has no domestic violence law and women who attempt to flee abuse can be returned to abusive families, arrested, or sent to psychiatric hospitals. A lack of transparency over discriminatory rules makes it difficult for women to challenge them. Women in Qatar have appealed to the authorities to repeal such laws. However, repressive laws limiting freedom of expression and association, government intimidation, and online harassment prevent women from challenging such rules or punish them when they do. There are no independent women’s rights organizations.
The authorities have made no serious reforms to the severe discrimination in law and practice they impose against women, affecting Qatari women and the many foreign women who live in the country. The authorities should eliminate all discriminatory male guardianship rules and practices, pass anti-discrimination law to end discrimination in practice, and repeal laws and practices that limit women’s civic participation to demand their own rights.
Qatari authorities criminalize extramarital sex, which disproportionately affects women, who can be prosecuted if they report rape and because pregnancy serves as evidence of the so-called crime. The penalties for these offenses are some of the harshest in the region, with up to seven years in prison, and floggings if they are Muslim. Police often do not believe women who report violence. Women are also required to show a marriage certificate to access certain forms of sexual and reproductive healthcare.
At major sporting events like the World Cup, the risk of sexual violence increases greatly, not just for fans, but particularly for migrant women in low-paid sectors. A Mexican woman who was a Supreme Committee official reported a physical assault by a man to the police in Qatar in June 2021. Instead of getting protection and justice, she found herself accused of the so-called crime of extramarital sex because the man claimed to be in a relationship with her, which she denied. Even though she managed to leave the country, the authorities proceeded to prosecute her on this charge and she remains on trial. Qatar should repeal legal provisions criminalizing extramarital sex, including article 281 of the Penal Code. The authorities should ensure support for survivors of sexual violence including medical, legal, and psychosocial – mental health assistance, and including emergency contraception, sexual health checks, and post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. The authorities should allow all women access to sexual and reproductive health care without requiring a marriage certificate and should ensure that police and prosecutors have gender-responsive training.
Qatar has assured prospective visitors that it will welcome lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) visitors and that fans will be free to fly the rainbow flag at the games. However, prospective visitors including LGBT fans have been deterred from attending the games, as shared by the English Football Association Manager, Gareth Southgate based on his discussion with English fans.
People who have experienced government repression have told Human Rights Watch that the Qatari government surveils and arrests LGBT people based on their online activity. The authorities also censor traditional media related to sexual orientation and gender identity, including people who show support for LGBT individuals. They have effectively excluded LGBT content from the public sphere.
Suggestions that Qatar should temporarily suspend domestic laws and state practices during the games would reinforce the idea that same-sex desire and gender variance are a peculiar preoccupation of outsiders. That leaves LGBT residents of Qatar struggling to navigate their sexuality and gender identity in a repressive environment that risks resuming in full after the World Cup.
As Qatar advances its surveillance capabilities, including inside football stadiums, the possibility of LGBT Qataris being persecuted for publicly supporting LGBT rights will remain long after the international fans leave. Physical and virtual spaces free from surveillance are vanishing in Qatar as its data protection law allows broad exemptions that undermine the right to privacy. Digital targeting is combined with laws that target people based on consensual sexual conduct outside of marriage.
Long-term legal reform should prioritize the realities of LGBT residents of Qatar, including by introducing legislation that protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, online and offline. The Qatari government should repeal article 285 and all other laws that criminalize consensual sexual relations outside of marriage.
Press freedom is curtailed in Qatar, which ranked 128 on the World Press Freedom list for 2021. Qatar also introduced an amendment to its penal code that imposes up to five years of prison for spreading rumors or false news with ill intent. It is not clear who determines what is a “rumor” or “fake news,” and what standards they will use in making such a determination.
In November 2021, two Norwegian journalists investigating migrant worker issues in Qatar were arrested and detained for 36 hours. Film showing evidence of the migrant worker situation in Qatar was destroyed. Separately, the same month, another Norwegian journalist was also held in solitary confinement for 24 hours. Such cases are common in Qatar, posing a credible threat to the narrative that the country is trying to build through its heavy public relations machinery.
Similarly, migrant workers who speak up about their realities and become important sources of information are also at great risk of immediate and arbitrary detention or deportation. Over the last year alone, Qatari authorities forcibly disappeared the Kenyan labor activist Malcolm Bidali before releasing him, and put Abdullah Ibhais, a Jordanian former employee of the Supreme Committee, on trial for bribery and misuse of funds, which some evidence suggests was in retaliation for his criticism of the poor conditions for migrant workers.
Qatar should have had every expectation of massive global media interest and coverage over the decade leading up to the World Cup and in the year of the tournament. It should not come as a surprise to Qatari authorities or FIFA that journalists who come to Qatar during the tournament will be interested in stories beyond the matches and who scores goals. They should be ensured that they will be safe and allowed to do their work with little interference. They should face no undue restrictions to report on social or economic issues should they wish to do so. Similarly, fans and other supporters should also not face any safety concerns for posting openly on social media platforms.
If Qatar and FIFA do indeed believe their own reform narrative, they should see the arrival of thousands of journalists and commentators from all over the world to the country as an important opportunity to bear witness to the positive transformation, not restrict their access or suppress their voices.
President Biden is a president who makes us proud. He clearly stepped up to the plate in difficult times. COVID, inflation, Ukraine are just a few of the volatile issues he is managing.
When it comes to international issues like Ukraine, the president represents the United States, not Democrats or Republicans. Yet today we are so divided there are Republicans willing to attack him trying to undermine our standing in the world. It was reported last week, “More than two dozen Senate Republicans demand Biden do more for Ukraine after voting against $13.6 billion for Ukraine.” One total jackass, Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), has managed to infuriate even some of the most evil members of his own party when he “called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a ‘thug’ and the Ukrainian government ‘incredibly evil’.”
It is one thing to attack the president on domestic issues. But today we have a Republican Party hoping to see Biden fail without regard to the fact it would hurt the American people they have been elected to serve. Some individual Republicans have stepped up to the plate on one issue or another. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) did so on the Jan. 6 committee. Yet most act like they are the dregs of society. Some so outrageous they manage to embarrass the party that has shown they are immune to being embarrassed, having stood by Trump. A new meme surfaced last week about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) suggesting she represents what happens when ‘the ventriloquist dies and the dummy keeps talking.’
President Biden is showing how his years of experience in government, from the Senate to the VP’s office, are enabling him to effectively lead when working with NATO and our other allies. He has surrounded himself with some of the brightest, including National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He is wisely choosing to get advice from experts like Fiona Hill, among others, an expert on Russia and Putin. In 2013, Hill wrote a well-respected book, “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin.” This week, Biden is in Brussels to meet with other NATO leaders for the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine. He will solidify the work that has been done and reinforce the close working relationships he has reestablished with our allies after four years of Trump working to tear them apart.
One of the things I most respect about our president is his willingness to speak truthfully to the American people. To talk about some of what we will face at home including rising gas prices and continued inflation, as we support the people of Ukraine in their fight for their country and democracy. Biden has been attacked by those who think he is doing too much and those who think he is doing too little. That is the divide in our country we can lay at the feet of Donald Trump. Thankfully our allies, and the overwhelming member nations of the United Nations, are supporting what we are doing.
All this will play out as Americans go to the polls in November 2022. Whatever the situation is at home, and around the world, at that time we will see if a majority of the country is willing to support the president and elect Democrats up and down the ballot. We will see if they give the president a Democratic Congress so he can move forward more of his agenda for America. I believe when it comes down to it, they will. They will understand America has reclaimed its position as a leader in the world and we can move a domestic agenda forward that will benefit all. An agenda to bring children out of poverty and provide all with good jobs, quality healthcare, and a good education. Most Americans understand we must do something to fight climate change and ensure equal justice and opportunity for all.
I am an optimist and believe that optimism in the American people is not misplaced. Since I first stood on a street corner in New York City at the age of nine handing out flyers for Adlai Stevenson for president; to running a local storefront after school in 1960 supporting JFK for president; after being in winning and losing campaigns, that optimism remains. Somehow the American people find it in them to do the right thing even if it takes much longer than I want it to.
