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.
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.
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.
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.
This month, lawmakers in Indiana voted to advance a bill that would prohibit transgender girls from playing sports with other girls. This discriminatory and harmful bill quickly gained traction even though there doesn’t seem to be any issue in Indiana with transgender girls participating in athletics.
Efforts to bar transgender girls from participating in school sports are profoundly misguided. Proponents of these bills narrowly fixate on the possibility that some transgender girl might potentially outperform her cisgender peers. To avoid that scenario, they cruelly prevent transgender kids from participating at all.
This marks transgender children as different from a young age and deprives them of the physical and social benefits that athletics in schools are meant to provide. The result can be devastating, particularly for children who might already struggle with exclusion and isolation in school.
Yet bullying and harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) young people in Indiana is a real problem – and Indiana hasn’t taken meaningful steps to address it. Lawmakers haven’t even scheduled a hearing for a pending bill that would prohibit discrimination in education based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and protect children from being punished for who they are.
This winter, I’ve spoken to LGBT students in Indiana who described how difficult school environments can be. One young woman told me that she regularly heard anti-LGBT slurs at her high school, and never heard positive messaging about LGBT issues in the classroom. Even though her school had a gay-straight alliance, she didn’t join because she feared the repercussions of coming out at school.
Now in college, she said that being able to come out to others had “a huge impact on my mental health, just being able to be fully myself to everyone around me.”
But lawmakers in Indiana and elsewhere are stifling, not encouraging, that sense of safety and self-worth. Dozens of states are advancing restrictions on transgender children in schools – limiting which bathrooms they can use, what sports they can play, and whether they can learn about themselves in class.
These attacks take an enormous toll on the mental health of LGBT youth, even when they don’t become law. Young transgender people take notice when lawmakers attack and demonize them in public, and understandably lose faith in the adults who are supposed to protect them when those adults fail to stand up for their rights.
Other states have adopted laws to address the mistreatment that LGBT students face. In 17 states, legislation expressly prohibits discrimination against LGBT students in schools, and 21 states expressly prohibit bullying on those grounds. Other states have adopted regulations or teacher codes addressing discrimination and bullying. Indiana has done neither.
Supporting young people shouldn’t be controversial. If lawmakers in Indiana genuinely care about student well-being, they should take meaningful steps to address bullying, discrimination, and mental health challenges for LGBT students – and should abandon legislation that would make those things worse.
Let me just start with a question. How many friends outside of your generation do you have? I mean honest-to-god friends. In my friend group, as large and fungible as that can be in the District and in the age of social media, it’s sort of me and a few other Gen Xers, and then just loads of Millennials. They do look to me to pass down some knowledge, but it’s mainly to do with the ins and outs of mortgages and things like that.
But is it me? Or are gays just really, really terrible at having intergenerational friends? It’s striking. I’ve recently developed a friendship with — let’s call him — Bill. He’s almost 80. Maybe it’s the historian in me, but I just love the stories. But more on that later. For now, to ask another question, just why are gays bad at having friends removed from their respective generations?
On social media this week I posted an obituary from a Houston paper dating from 1978. It was obviously from a gay man. You can tell from the coded language, “long time resident of this city despite stays on the West Coast.” And if that didn’t give it away, it ended with this rather heartbreaking language, “his parents requested that his friends not attend the memorial services!” Bill told me these sorts of obituaries — terribly vague but also cruelly pointed — were quite common in the dark days of AIDS. And this is succinctly why I think gays are so bad at having intergenerational friends, we’ve simply lost an entire generation of elders. And what was exactly lost with that generation is far more than can be enumerated in this column.
Back to Bill’s stories for a second. There is a real value in oral histories, the telling and passing down of shared experiences make our culture certainly more valuable and rich, at the very least far more interesting. And again, this is nothing new, as cultures across the globe seek to capture personal stories and first-hand viewpoints of history unfolding. But it’s not just the story itself that’s important. It’s also the perspective and opinions. These remain nuanced between generations. Again, that’s really not saying anything new. But these varied opinions and outlooks, if not shared and debated risk isolating gay men into rigid and unchanging views crafted in echo chambers.
Also, gays place a large premium on youth. And this, again, is nothing new, nor particularly gay. We just like what we like. But as Bill told me, he’s rather annoyed that any interest he expresses in a younger man is automatically filed under lecherous behavior. Let me just deal with this right here: We all, no matter the age, display to varying degrees lecherous behavior. Just get us a little dehydrated, a little tipsy, and throw us on the sand of Poodle Beach and watch the unwanted flirting unfold. So. But still we have to do better than mistaking anyone displaying interested in us as a simple sexual advance. That seems rather juvenile.
With contact between our generations low, we are in danger of passing down a culture to future queer Americans that might seem a little lopsided and even a bit, well, shallow. But what’s to be done? I’ve commented in past columns on how we’re failing older LGBTQ Americans, especially in the District. To remedy this, we should use what I call the Chicago model and what is being done at the Center on Halsted, the city’s LGBTQ community center. The Center offers numerous programs geared to the city’s LGBTQ senior population. But one that sticks out is a sort of a buddy program, pairing seniors, even those in care facilities, with younger friends. This would certainly help us here in the District better care for our LGBTQ seniors, and would also of course help with the bridging of our considerable generational divide. So perhaps we could reproduce this here in the District.
For now, I’ll continue to buddy up and enjoy my time with Bill.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) spent Thursday plunging a metaphorical knife into President Biden’s back, even as he was on his way to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Democrats in an attempt to salvage pro-voting rights legislation. Having betrayed her president and her party — to say nothing of the LGBTQ community — Sinema is ripe for a primary challenge when she comes up for re-election in 2024.
Infuriated Democrats in Arizona are already beginning to line up behind a replacement for Sinema. The frontrunner by far: Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).
Gallego is hardly shying away from the challenge. Shortly after Sinema’s speech, Gallego took the House floor to deliver his own, with a not-so-veiled swipe at the senator.
“Today the House showed where it stands. We won’t shrink from protecting our democracy and the voting rights of all Americans,” Gallego said. “It’s past time for the U.S. Senate and Sen. Sinema to do the same.”
Since the race is more than two years away, Gallego hasn’t officially declared his candidacy, but there’s no shortage of frustrated Democrats happy to do so for him. A Run Ruben Rundraft political action committee (PAC) is raising money with the aim of getting him into the race.
Another PAC, called Primary Sinema, hasn’t picked a candidate, but has already raised a quarter of a million dollars to oust the incumbent in favor of practically anyone else.
Gallego would certainly represent a strong challenger to Sinema. A first-generation American raised by a single mother, he attended Harvard and joined the Marines after graduation. Although he could have qualified to become a desk jockey, Gallego served in the infantry, partaking in combat duty in Iraq and seeing his best friend killed in action.
His military background came in handy during the January 6 insurrection, as he instructed his colleagues in the House how to put on gas masks.
In Congress, Gallego has become a favorite of progressives who admired his willingness to mix it up with the opposition. While a lot of Democrats might have had the thought, only Gallego tweeted to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene that she should “shut your seditious, Qanon loving mouth.” When a Russian politician called for his kidnapping last month, Gallego quickly responded, “Fuck around and find out.”
Sinema has a lot of money in her favor, largely because she is being courted by lobbyists. What she doesn’t have are poll numbers. A survey last fall found that in a head-to-head primary with Gallego, the out Senator and incumbent would get a meager 23 percent, compared to Gallego’s 62 percent. That was before Sinema’s latest betrayal and without the Congressman even announcing his candidacy yet.
But after the past week, it’s clear that Sinema is so despised by so many Arizona Democrats that a primary challenge is inevitable. If it turns out to be Gallego — as seems likely — Sinema will be in a lot of trouble.
Whoever President Biden picks to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court will have to prepare herself for being on the losing side of a lot of cases for the foreseeable future. With conservatives holding the majority of seats on the Court, John Roberts and (heaven help us) Brett Kavanaugh now are looked on as relative moderates compared to Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas.
One of those battles will be over religious liberty. The Court has been dancing around the issue for several sessions now, mostly issuing very narrow rulings, most notably in the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling in 2019.
The Court stuck to a narrow issue in that decision, regarding the process by which the Colorado Human Rights Commission had ruled against a baker who had refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.
The religious liberty argument is almost always framed as a LGBTQ issue, largely because of the parade of homophobic bakers and florists who complain about their rights being violated when they defy local nondiscrimination laws to deny services to same-sex couples. It sometimes gets framed as a health care issue, around access to contraceptive care, as was the issue in the Hobby Lobby case.
In fact, there is hardly anything that the religious liberty argument doesn’t touch these days. The “sincerely held belief” shield that the religious right likes to wave can apply to virtually anything and anyone.
The couple isn’t gay or lesbian — they are Jewish — but the agency says that it is “committed to Christian biblical principles” and only “places children with families that agree with our statement of faith.” Tennessee has a law that allows state-funded agencies to refuse any action that ‘would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.”
Shockingly, the Supreme Court has given a kind of green light to this very approach. Last year the Court ruled unanimously that the city of Philadelphia could not refuse to contract with a Catholic agency for foster care services although the agency violates the city’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections.
So far the Court has fashioned fairly narrow rulings, designed to chip away at nondiscrimination laws without blowing them up altogether. But it’s not hard to see the conservative wing of the Court finally foregoing that discretion and going full-on, hard-core right-wing. The justices have already signaled as much in the case of two Christian schools in Maine they heard last month.
In rural areas of the state, Maine will pay parents to send their students to private schools, but not religious ones. Two parents sued the state, seeking funding to send their children there. The two schools in question are, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “proudly discriminatory” when it comes to LGBTQ students.
That doesn’t bother the conservative Justices at all. They think taxpayer dollars are well spent educating students in anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, and this could be a case of the state actually subsidizing a religious belief that violates the state’s human rights law.
That’s okay with the justices, because they are so focused on LGBTQ rights. The problem is that some religious convictions that they are granting immunity to may not be, by societal standards, all that moral. Some fringe believers think that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. Others believe that interracial marriages are an offense before God or that women shouldn’t work. Many believe that non-believers are heading straight to hell. Where does the line end?
In fact, it’s impossible to say. The conservative majority clearly believes that LGBTQ people don’t deserve protections and that conservative Christians should be able to circumvent any laws that provide such protections.
But in granting that right, the justices will be opening the door to a whole range of other discriminatory behavior. Maybe they don’t care, because it’s behavior by people they favor against everyone else — but that wouldn’t be the mark of jurists.
Sometimes, when the news comes on your screen, you think: this must be from Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update. Until, a few seconds in, you realize: this isn’t satire, it’s all too real.
That’s how I felt when I heard about the Stop W.O.K.E Act. I’m not making this up or satirizing the news. I wouldn’t even try to be like the fabulous Samantha Bee.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has introduced the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act (a.k.a. the Stop W.O.K.E Act) to the Florida Legislature.
DeSantis, like many Republican politicos nationwide, including Virginia’s new governor Glenn Youngkin, is a good culture warrior.
Months ago, Florida, like some other states, banned the teaching of critical race theory. Earlier this month, for instance, Virginia Gov. Youngkin in his first week in office issued an executive order prohibiting the teaching of “inherently divisive concepts, including Critical Race Theory.”
Never mind that critical race theory hasn’t been taught in our country’s elementary, middle, or high schools. It’s a theory taught to graduate students. It says that historically laws and policies have created systemic racism.
But that wasn’t not good enough for DeSantis. The Stop W.O.K.E. Act would take things even further. If passed, the legislation, “will give businesses, employees, children and families tools to fight back against woke indoctrination,” said a DeSantis office press release.
“The Stop W.O.K.E. Act will be the strongest legislation of its kind in the nation,” the press release said, “and will take on both corporate wokeness and Critical Race Theory.”
DeSantis wants us to believe that he’s on the side of the angels – that he wants to make the world more just. To prove how righteous he is, DeSantis talked about the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Washington Post reported. “You think about what MILK stood for,” he told an audience in Wildwood, Fla. “He said he didn’t want people judged on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.”
“You listen to some of these people nowadays,” DeSantis said, “they don’t talk about that.”
It’s horrifying and enraging to hear DeSantis quote the words of King, a civil rights icon who inspired many to work for racial justice. DeSantis was using King’s work as part of a culture war against everything King stood for.
“I was right about ‘The Politics of the English Language,’” George Orwell, the author of “1984” who taught us about “Newspeak,” is saying to himself, “this is more Orwellian than even I would have imagined.”
Unfortunately, if passed, the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, would have even more draconian consequences than polluting the language. DeSantis has decided to follow the example of the Texas abortion law, which allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion.
If enacted into law, the Stop W.O.K.E. Act would give parents or other private citizens the right to sue if they think critical race theory is being taught in schools or workplaces.
This should set off alarm bells for everyone, Black, white, hetero, LGBTQ+ — from parents to teachers to authors to students.
It’s fine for parents to complain to teachers or school boards. Or for employees to seek redress from their supervisors or human resources departments.
But do we want private citizens to enforce the law? What would it be like to have to worry whether about your neighbor or co-worker would sue you if they felt you were espousing critical race theory?
If you’re LGBTQ, you should be especially concerned.
In plain, non-Orwellian English: Republican politicos know that some folks don’t want to learn about our country’s history of racism or about LGBTQ sexuality, gender identity, culture and history.
We can’t afford to throw up our hands on this.
Let’s do all we can to prevent the erasure of racism and LGBTQ culture from the teaching of our country’s history.