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.
Now is the time for the larger progressive movement to connect the struggles for LGBTQ and reproductive rights more deeply, especially for those who are transgender, gender non-conforming and non-binary.
Trans people get pregnant. Trans people need abortions. Trans people deserve access to culturally competent medical care. Trans people must have the freedom to live, something that is currently under unprecedented direct attack through hundreds of pieces of legislation across the country. Despite all of this, trans people have been marginalized in the mainstream fight over body autonomy. That must end. The reasons why are right in front of us.
Take Idaho as a recent and obvious example. Headlines there within two days of each other make the point: “Idaho House passes Texas-style abortion ban” and “An Idaho bill would criminalize medical treatments for trans youths. It echoes abortion bans.” These links are undeniable.
As is often the case, the forces opposed to body autonomy for cisgender women also oppose it for trans people. It is clear that this is one fight, but for decades, there has been an over-emphasis on cisgender women in the reproductive rights movement and transgender people have been left out and left behind. Restricting a women’s right to choose, curtailing sexual freedom, homophobia and transphobia are all inextricably linked with common roots.
The right wing mainstays of the anti-abortion movement, including The Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Liberty Council are at the forefront of the anti-trans movement, especially the ability for trans people–including children–to have equal access to health care.
TransLash’s investigative series last year, the Anti-Trans Hate Machine: A Plot Against Equality discussed how these very organizations, many of whom have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, are targeting the trans community as the next wave in the war over who gets to control our bodies.https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gh3rPqhWLXo?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1
For these organizations, the fight against abortion and the fight against trans rights are increasingly one and the same. And as was detailed in a recent Time Magazine piece, anti-trans forces are borrowing tactics from the anti-abortion movement in targeting doctors who provide gender-affirming healthcare.
By missing these obvious connections and denying a broader civil and human rights frame, the mainstream reproductive rights movement is playing into the hands of the right wing.
At the December 1, 2021 protests outside the Supreme Court hearing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Task Force witnessed hundreds of protesters but the ones hoping to see Roe v. Wade overturned were not just holding anti-choice signs, but also anti-LGBTQ placards. They clearly get the connection.
Each of us who wishes to decide what we do with our body is in the crosshairs. As individuals, we know that our humanity is larger than the physical forms we are born into. A coalition of people with this understanding, in addition to a deep commitment to racial, disability and economic justice, would create a powerful force for human rights grounded in body autonomy. And that force is needed now to preserve and extend hard fought gains made over the past fifty years.https://www.youtube.com/embed/2oDMaQ0Wwqg?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1
But there is a solution. Visibility. Conversation. Education. Advocacy. The need for us to end this erasure is why Translash created the “Trans Bodies, Trans Choices” short-film series. Putting transgender people and their stories at the center of the discussion is essential if we are going to create the understanding necessary to bring people together both cis and trans. This is about transgender people rather than “transgender issues”.
“Trans Bodies Trans Choices” tells powerful stories of trans people whose lives were changed forever because they had access not only to abortion but also reproductive services and trans-affirming medical care. These are stories that tens of millions of people can relate to, and they bind us all together in a common cause.
Telling our truths and leveraging our collective power is how we will create the change required for us all to live whole and with dignity. Storytelling is the first step in creating a common bond but there are so many other steps that must follow.
The only way we will make progress is if we are in it together.
Imara Jones is an Emmy and Peabody award-winning journalist, intersectional-news producer, and creator of TransLash. Kierra Johnson is the Executive Director of the National LGBGTQ Task Force.
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.
Ben Holmstrom, a minor league professional hockey player with New York’s Rochester Americans team, has received an eight-game suspension from the American Hockey League (AHL) for using homophobic language. Some online commenters have said the punishment isn’t enough.
The 34-year-old player was heard using anti-gay language against Comets forward Chase De Leo at the end of the first period in their March 30 game. The exact language Holmstrom used is unclear, but his team’s general manager, Jason Karmonos, acknowledged the incident in a statement.
“We were made aware of an inappropriate comment made by one of our players in a recent game. Once aware, we took immediate action through numerous conversations with the player, team, and league,” Karmonos wrote. “To be clear, we have no tolerance for any form of hate and regret any harm his comment inflicted. We strive to maintain an inclusive environment in which our differences are celebrated. We have sought counseling and awareness resources for the player.”
The “awareness resources” will include “diversity and inclusion education” for Holmstrom, the AHL wrote in a statement.
While some web commenters expressed appreciation for the AHL’s swift action, others noted that San Jose Barracuda forward Krystof Hrabik received a 30-game suspension for allegedly directing racism towards Tuscon Roadrunners forward Boko Imama. Imama is Black.
“Hrabik got 30 games for a racist gesture. Holmstrom gets eight games for a homophobic slur,” wrote Twitter user @SeanOBrien81. “Not exactly holding everyone to the same standard, are we? To be clear, Holmstrom should not be getting a significantly lighter suspension here.”
Holmstrom has already sat out from five games, according to the Los Angeles Blade. He will remain suspended from the ice until April 19, when the Americans face the Springfield Thunderbirds.
A 2021 study of LGBTQ athletes found that 70 percent of 820 out queer student-athletes had heard anti-LGBTQ language from teammates before coming out. However, the same study found that 82 percent reported positive experiences after coming out, including acceptance and support from their teammates.
As such, the study suggests that sports teams may actually be accepting of LGBTQ players, even if their teammates have used anti-queer language.
In July 2021, the Nashville Predators defenseman Luke Prokop made history by becoming the first active National Hockey League (NHL) player to come out as gay. While that’s a big deal for a major league, he’s definitely in the minority.
Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has finally been attracting some attention for her ultra-conservative views. Mostly, the focus has been on the extraordinary conflict of interest she represents for her husband, and she hands out awards to people appearing before the court and advocates for issues her husband will be deciding on.
But this week, Thomas surprised even her fiercest critics by engaging in what can only be called treason. In a series of emails released to the House committee studying the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol, Thomas called for the overturning of the election results with a religious fervor second only to Trump himself.
“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!,” Thomas wrote to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”
At another point, Thomas took a swan dive into the deep end of the conspiracy pool. “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition,” she told Meadows.
Thomas also floated a favorite Q-Anon theory that Trump-inspired watermarked ballots were part of a “white hat sting operation in 12 key battleground states.” Such ballots exist only in fever swamp fantasies.
Thomas had previously admitted to attending the pro-Trump rally on January 6, but said she had “no role” in planning it and left before attendees stormed the Capitol.
But that bland admission wildly minimized just how involved Thomas was in pushing the lie that the election was stolen. Within days of the election, she was telling Meadows “Do not concede. It takes time for the army who is gathering for his back.”
Thomas was also promoting Sidney Powell, the loose cannon attorney who along with Rudy Giuliani led Trump’s legal team brigade and became a punchline for her “release the Kraken” shenanigans.
The texts are disturbing, all the more so because there are undoubtedly more than the 29 that the committee has. (Meadows has since stopped cooperating with the committee.) But what is especially disturbing is the worldview that Thomas and Meadows display.
It’s not just that Thomas is a far-right agitator. She’s advocating for a special kind of ultra-right philosophy: Christian nationalism.
Overturning a legitimate election was not a political cause for Thomas and people like her. It was a theological one.
“This is a fight of good versus evil,” Meadows wrote to Thomas. “Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues.” (Meadows is a fervent evangelical.)
Thomas responded, “Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now… I will try to keep holding on. America is worth it!”
The fact that someone embedded at the very heart of the political establishment–the wife of a Supreme Court justice–not only believes in bizarre conspiracies but actually advocated for undermining a free and fair election is mind-boggling. It also indicates just how far the GOP political establishment has veered from any sense of normalcy and ethics.
Speaking of ethics, Justice Thomas has besmirched the entire Supreme Court by refusing to recuse himself from everything his wife has touched. That includes Trump’s challenge to the election, which Justice Thomas was the only justice willing to consider.
In any other job, Thomas would be facing a reprimand at a minimum and perhaps a pink slip. Of course, the Supreme Court is immune to normal HR policy, including conflict of interest policies. It’s all up to the individual justices. Justice Thomas insists that Mrs. Thomas’ beliefs don’t influence him, and we’re supposed to take his word for it. After this latest revelation, that’s a pretty big pill to swallow.
Rainbow flags could be taken from fans at the World Cup in Qatar to protect them from being attacked for promoting gay rights, a senior leader overseeing security for the tournament told The Associated Press.
Major General Abdulaziz Abdullah Al Ansari insisted that LGBTQ couples would be welcomed and accepted in Qatar for the Nov. 21-Dec. 18 FIFA showpiece despite same-sex relations remaining criminalized in the conservative Gulf nation.
But Al Ansari is against the overt promotion of LGBTQ freedoms as symbolized by the rainbow flag that FIFA and World Cup organizers had previously said would be welcome across Qatar’s eight stadiums.
“If he (a fan) raised the rainbow flag and I took it from him, it’s not because I really want to, really, take it, to really insult him, but to protect him,” Al Ansari told the AP. “Because if it’s not me, somebody else around him might attack (him) … I cannot guarantee the behavior of the whole people. And I will tell him: ‘Please, no need to really raise that flag at this point.’”
Al Ansari is director of the Department of International Cooperation and Chairman of the National Counterterrorism Committee at the Ministry of Interior where he discussed World Cup planning for an hour with the AP.
“You want to demonstrate your view about the (LGBTQ) situation, demonstrate it in a society where it will be accepted,” he said. “We realize that this man got the ticket, comes here to watch the game, not to demonstrate, a political (act) or something which is in his mind.
“Watch the game. That’s good. But don’t really come in and insult the whole society because of this.”
FIFA President Gianni Infantino said this week in Doha that “everyone will see that everyone is welcome here in Qatar, even if we speak about LGBTQ.”
Al Ansari said he is not telling LGBTQ fans to stay away from Qatar or warning them of facing prosecution.
“Reserve the room together, sleep together — this is something that’s not in our concern,” he said. “We are here to manage the tournament. Let’s not go beyond, the individual personal things which might be happening between these people … this is actually the concept.
Get the Morning Rundown
Get a head start on the morning’s top stories.SIGN UPTHIS SITE IS PROTECTED BY RECAPTCHA PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF SERVICE
“Here we cannot change the laws. You cannot change the religion for 28 days of World Cup.”
When it was pointed out that visiting fans and teams could take offense to the comments, Al Ansari said he did not view himself as being discriminatory.
“I am risking … a minority view against a majority,” he said. “We have to be close to the problem before it erupts and gets out of control. … If somebody attacks you, then I have to get involved and it will be too late.”
FIFA chief social responsibility and education officer Joyce Cook told the AP in 2020 that “rainbow flags, T-shirts will all be welcome in the stadium — that’s a given. They understand very well that is our stance.” World Cup chief executive Nasser Al-Khater also said “we will respect” FIFA guidelines on allowing rainbow flags.
But Al Ansari’s comments about the confiscation of fans’ rainbow flags have created confusion for activists, including Chris Paouros, a member of the English Football Association’s inclusion advisory board and trustee with the anti-discrimination group, Kick It Out, which want a safe and inclusive tournament.
“This inconsistency and the continued lack of detail in terms of how that will be provided beyond the rhetoric of ‘everyone is welcome’ is concerning to say the least,” Paouros said.
The FARE network, which monitors games for discrimination, called for the freedoms of fans to be respected at the World Cup.
“The idea that the flag, which is now a recognized universal symbol of diversity and equality, will be removed from people to protect them will not be considered acceptable, and will be seen as a pretext,” FARE executive director Piara Powar said. “I have been to Qatar on numerous occasions and do not expect the local Qatari population or fans visiting for the World Cup to be attacked for wearing the rainbow flag. The bigger danger comes from state actions.”
Proponents of restrictions on how U.S. public schools address sexual orientation and gender identity say their ultimate goal is to allow parents more involvement in their children’s education and ensure classroom materials are age-appropriate.
But in heated debates at school board meetings and in statehouses across the country, the argument they repeatedly put forth is that they are trying to prevent children from being “groomed” — the same term commonly used to describe how sex offenders initiate contact with their victims.
“They support injecting woke gender ideology into 2nd grade classrooms,” he added. “They support enabling schools to ‘transition students’ to a ‘different gender’ without the knowledge of the parent … without the parent’s consent.”
DeSantis never uttered the word “groom,” but his press secretary, Christina Pushaw, remarked on Twitter that the legislation dubbed by opponents as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill would be more accurately described as an “Anti-Grooming Bill.”
The use of the term is an attempt to distort the goal of teachers “who are being intentional about expressing their acceptance of LGBTQ people, or perhaps sharing their own stories … so that all students can know that they have representation within the school,” said Casey Pick, a senior fellow for advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides support services for LGBTQ youth.
Asked why she used it, Pushaw replied in an email to The Associated Press, “I have never stated that all groomers are LGBT, all LGBT people are groomers, or anything of that nature.” She did not elaborate.
In Tennessee, country music singer John Rich testified in front of lawmakers that school librarians who defend controversial books about gender identity and featuring LGBTQ characters “groom” children to become desensitized to sexual abuse and pornography.
“What’s the difference between a teacher, a librarian putting one of these books on the desk of a student, or a guy in a white van pulling up when school lets out, saying, ‘Come around kids, let me read you this book?’” Rich asked last month. “What’s the difference between those two scenarios? There is a difference. They can run away from the van.”
An Oklahoma school choice advocacy blog, Choice Remarks, shared an article on its Facebook page alleging that public schools are sexualizing children. “Groomers are gonna groom,” the group declared in comments accompanying the article. “The solution is educational choice.”
When the New York State Education Department tweeted a book recommendation of Maia Kobabe’s graphic novel “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” the agency was attacked online as providing “pornographic” material to children, as well as “grooming” and “preying” on them. The agency later deleted the tweet.
DeSantis and other conservative politicians and parents who have criticized schools’ use of books with sexually explicit material argue that parents, not teachers, should be broaching such subjects with their children.
The main point of the Florida law is that it “empowers parents to be engaged in their children’s lives,” said Republican Rep. Joe Harding, who sponsored the legislation. At Monday’s signing ceremony, a placard affixed to the speakers’ podium and signs held up by young children featured the slogan “Protect Children/Support Parents.”
But Catherine Oakley, state legislative director and senior counsel at Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., said conservative groups are capitalizing on the fear of unknown materials, books and discussion taking place inside classrooms to propel measures that would place more “surveillance” on teachers, librarians and other educators.
These groups “are really coming from this idea that sexual orientation (and) gender identity is something that’s being imposed upon kids,” Oakley said. “It comes from just a really fundamentally wrong position about where a person’s LGBTQ identity comes from.”
The current trend to limit the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity echoes similar campaigns of the 1970s in which far-right religious groups characterized people who identified as LGBTQ as trying to “convert children,” said Sophie Bjork-James, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University who researches the U.S.-based religious right and the white nationalist movement. The accusation helped stall the expansion of civil rights for sexual minorities, Bjork-James said.
Brittany McBride, associate director of sexuality education at Advocates for Youth, a nonprofit that promotes adolescent sexual health and rights, sees a coordinated effort to create discomfort in school districts across the country, the result of which is to limit the education that students can receive.
“Adult discomfort has always seemed to take the priority over the rights and responsibility as a society to provide our young people with the information that they deserve,” McBride said.
Waking up in a car parked on a muddy alleyway 30 minutes from the front lines of the Battle for Kharkiv was an inconceivable notion to me 3 days ago. Yet in the front seat of a beaten down Jeep Cherokee, I slept. Artillery blasts and other sounds of war created a cacophony of destruction throughout the night. However, in a world where a former US President is refusing to outright condemn the barbaric and terroristic actions unleashed by the tyrannical head of Russia against a steadfast ally, and an out transgender journalist is at the front lines of the major European land war in 2022, is anything truly inconceivable?
No.
More than six years ago, pre-transition, I embarked on an attempt to cover the “Syrian Refugee Crisis.” Beginning in Turkey, and then heading into the Balkans, I crossed Europe, ending my voyage on the shores of the English Channel by spending several days in Calais, France inside the sprawling migrant encampment known as “The Jungle.”
In total, I went overland across 11 countries following the stories of these displaced peoples from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as several African nations, while also examining a European Union which was both unprepared and unwilling to fully integrate them into their societies. Ultimately, the book that came from it, Along the Tracks of Tears, was a woefully incomplete look into the lives of those whom I set out to report on, and this failure by me to dive fully into the deepest crevices of their torment is something that had haunted me ever since.
In 2015, I eagerly accepted the opportunity to go into Syria and speak directly with some of those fleeing from their home soil during the civil war there. Going so far as to cross the Bosphorus Strait and travel deep into the eastern part of Turkey, fear eventually swept over me. I caved to concerns of being kidnapped or killed and abruptly canceled my plans. Pangs of regret began to fill me from almost the moment of turning around, weighing heavily on my work.
Another aspect of that sojourn that gnawed at me was living as a male during my travels. At the time, pretending to be a guy wasn’t anything new. I’d lived as one for almost 40 years at that point, but guilt over the lie had begun to impede all of my undertakings, an impediment magnified by being given space among the majority Muslim male refugees who I presume would otherwise have shunned the true me. And so my publication, weighed down by those two burdens, fell far short of what it could have been.
Years passed.
An apartment building bombed in Kharkiv, Ukraine early overnight on March 16. Sarah Ashton-Cirillo
In the time since, much has happened to me personally and professionally. I published a novel, finally transitioned, and eventually became heavily involved in Nevada politics, the last area leading to the launch of a politics and news portal focused on the state.
Then in 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine and with that arose an opportunity to create a follow-up to my 2015-2016 coverage of the previous European refugee crisis – and this time attempt to do it right.
Beginning in Poland and then crossing into Ukraine, before eventually traversing the Ukrainian countryside, I arrived at the front, intent on learning about every aspect of what the victims of the invasion are enduring through photography, interviews, and personal observation. Along the way, I also realized the stories I uncovered, and the intertwined narratives which wove them together, were both much deeper and broader than I’d initially comprehended.
That first night we took cover in the darkness, camouflaged against a sky offering a canopy of infinite blackness because it was simply too dangerous to traverse the city streets after curfew. As soon as the light of morning peaked, we headed into the ravaged city, checkpoint after checkpoint lining the streets. While in many areas of Ukraine the blockaded streets are manned by volunteers from the Territorial Defense Forces, those asking for documents in Kharkiv are members of the professional, full-time, Ukrainian Armed Forces. Though we were stopped at an innumerable number of checkpoints on the more than 1,000 km drive through the nation’s heartland, the last search, the last flash of my credentials upon entering the city’s center, was truly the most poignant. It separated me from reading about war, and having listened to it, to witnessing it.
After being waved through into the downtown corridor, destruction enveloped me. Burnt out vehicles, blown out windows, decimated apartment buildings, and deep craters all pocked the landscape. Death too was present.
And yet residents of Kharkiv moved deftly around these reminders of war crimes and terrorism, lining up to get medicine, buy food, and withdraw money from banks, as life continued through 24 hours a day of enemy bombardment and Ukrainian counter-offensives.
The apartment I procured while at the frontlines promised to offer an expansive visage of the city. It didn’t disappoint, but as I quickly learned life at war changes hourly, and so I’ve spent a total of three hours in the accommodations since I arrived here.
Around 6 pm on my second evening, the group I’m embedded with decided to take cover for the evening in a restaurant, and the same on our third. Chairs, some blankets, a pillow, and contagious amounts of patriotic courage from my hosts have helped me find sleep during the explosive nights.
Operating as a hub of activity for various security services, the restaurant is now the location where I work, eat, sleep, and digest the toll that the Russian invasion has taken on the population of Ukraine and the global community as a whole.
Two weeks have gone by since I’ve arrived in Europe and 10 days since I entered a nation during the throes of war. In that short span, a realization settled in.
I’m not the same writer. I’m not the same photographer. I’m not the same person.
I came to Ukraine to cover a refugee crisis, I’m now reporting on a war.
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.
