Will Obama’s State Department Respond to LGBT Persecution Abroad?

Mark Bromley

In Brussels last Friday, Secretary Clinton assured an audience at the European Parliament that "persecution and discrimination against gays and lesbians is something we take very seriously." It's time to turn those words into actions.

Late last month, the State Department
released its annual report to Congress examining human rights trends
around the world.   The U.S. government doesn’t critique
our own country’s human rights record, but we do assess the human
rights landscape in every other country.  Once again, the State
Department’s documentation portrays an ongoing international crisis
of abuse against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities
in every region of the world.  After years of waiting, we hope
the Obama Administration, under Secretary Hillary Clinton’s leadership at
the State Department, will respond to this pattern of human rights abuse
as a serious global concern. 

President Obama stated during the Presidential
campaign that "treatment of gays, lesbians and transgender persons
is part of this broader human-rights discussion," and that it needs
to be "part and parcel of any conversations we have about human rights." 
My organization, the Council for Global Equality, earnestly hopes that
Secretary Clinton will follow this lead and respond to the daunting
challenges confronting LGBT human rights leaders by offering them very
practical support from our U.S. embassies as they stand up to defend
their rights, and in so doing defend the universality of all human rights. 
Fortunately, in Brussels last Friday, Secretary Clinton assured an audience
at the European Parliament that "human rights is and always will be
one of the pillars of our foreign policy. In particular, persecution
and discrimination against gays and lesbians is something we take very
seriously."  It’s time to turn those words into actions.   

The State Department’s human rights
report this year is the most comprehensive to date on sexual orientation
and gender identity issues, referencing LGBT concerns in approximately
190 countries.  LGBT-related incidents cited include arbitrary
arrest and detention, police abuse, rape and murder.  Many of the
most egregious abuses have been committed in countries considered to
be friends and allies of the United States, including those that receive
sizeable U.S. development or security assistance.  In many cases,
there is evidence of police or other government involvement in the crimes,
or in their cover-up.  But this is nothing new.  The State
Department has been reporting on similar human rights abuses affecting
LGBT communities for 19 years.  An appropriate U.S. response to
these abuses is long overdue. 

In theory, the State Department’s
annual human rights report should guides our diplomatic interactions
and official U.S. foreign assistance priorities by highlighting countries
where a U.S.-driven human rights dialogue or U.S. support for local
human rights organizations should receive priority attention. 
Unfortunately, the State Department has largely disregarded its own
findings in recent years, and the reports too often fall on deaf ears. 
This year, in response to the State Department’s findings, the Council
for Global Equality has released a list focusing on the "Top Ten Opportunities
for the U.S. to Respond" to LGBT-related human rights incidents that
are highlighted in the report.   

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The Council’s "top ten" list
provides examples of how the U.S. could use its political, diplomatic
and financial influence to make a critical contribution to human rights
by reacting assertively to LGBT abuses cited by the State Department
in ten focus countries.  They are not necessarily the countries
with the worst human rights records.  Rather, they are countries
where U.S. engagement could help turn the corner on an alarming pattern
of human rights abuse.  The list includes Egypt, Gambia, Honduras,
India, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, Nigeria, and Uganda.   

Drawing on our "top ten" list,
Egypt provides a difficult but important case study on the opportunities
– and the limitations – that exist for an effective U.S. response. 
In Egypt last year, individuals suspected of being HIV-positive were
arrested, abused, chained to hospital beds, subjected to forced HIV
testing and then to brutal "anal exams" to support criminal prosecutions
for debauchery, a criminal charge that state prosecutors have regularly
used to jail suspected homosexuals. Despite a very troubling human rights
record involving these and a range of other issues, Egypt was our third
largest recipient of foreign aid from USAID and the State Department
last year.  I would not suggest cutting off U.S. assistance in
a country like Egypt, but I am convinced that our funding should give
us more leverage to speak out forcefully against the HIV arrests documented
in the report.  And within such a large foreign aid pot, we must
continue to search for creative ways to channel support to organizations
that are promoting sexual and reproductive rights in Egypt.  That
does not mean offering immediate support to some underground gay rights
group in Egypt, a move that would be both impossible and irresponsible
under the current climate of repression, but it does mean that the U.S.
Embassy should work harder to balance our substantial political and
financial commitment to the Middle East peace process with an equally
principled commitment to tolerance and support for those Egyptians whose
rights have been violated because of their HIV status, or because of
their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.   

In Jamaica, where anti-LGBT hate music
has become disturbingly popular, the State Department report this year
cites grave violations directed against the country’s LGBT community,
"including arbitrary detention, mob attacks, stabbings, harassment
of homosexual patients by hospital and prison staff, and targeted shootings
of homosexuals."  The report notes that the "[p]olice often
did not investigate such incidents," and that two members of a Jamaican
LGBT rights group had their home fire bombed, with one of them suffering
burns to over 60 percent of his body.  The U.S. government’s
diplomatic response to these abuses must be strong and unconditional,
and it should also be tied to our financial commitments in the country. 
Jamaica is a country where carefully-targeted U.S. support to gay rights
or human rights groups could be effective in improving both the legal
and community responses to LGBT violence.  In addition, we should
use the foreign assistance funding that we have allocated over the past
several years to professionalize the Jamaican police force to help respond
to these attacks.  Indeed, the current foreign affairs budget for
2009 that is being debated in the U.S. Congress this week includes funding
that is intended to support community policing in Jamaica.  Given
ongoing reports of the complicit involvement of the police in LGBT attacks,
or at least their lack of prosecutorial interest in LGBT cases, the
U.S. Embassy in Jamaica should do more to ensure that our police support
is used to bring the perpetrators of the attacks cited in this year’s
report to justice, and that it includes a strong training component
aimed at promoting tolerance within the force itself.  Above all,
we must ensure that support for community policing does not unwittingly
encourage vigilante persecution, and that the police do not turn the
other way when mobs attack those who transgress sexual or gender stereotypes.       

A summary of all LGBT-related human
rights abuses from this year’s State Department report, together with
ideas for appropriate U.S.-led responses in each of the ten focus countries,
can be found at www.globalequality.org. We don’t have all of the answers, but
the list is intended to encourage some heightened level of response
to the abuses cited in the ten countries, and to spark more creative
thinking about the appropriate use of U.S. diplomatic and financial
resources to address patterns of abuse and to protect LGBT individuals,
particularly in countries where the U.S. government otherwise maintains
a close bilateral relationship. 

The official State Department release
of the annual human rights report last week also frames a larger and
ongoing debate over how the United States can best reclaim its credibility
and leadership on human rights in this new Administration.  Indeed,
the release comes just as the human rights advocacy community in the
United States is taking stock of Secretary Clinton’s outspoken decision
last month to downplay human rights during her first visit to China
as Secretary of State.  Her position on China made sense from a
purely practical standpoint.  Our human rights dialogue with China
is overly scripted, agonizingly stilted and undeniably tedious. 
But in setting it aside to proclaim a new era of practical cooperation,
Secretary Clinton’s approach was alarming.  It was certainly
a departure from the Hillary Clinton who stood up so memorably for human
rights at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995.   

Although some of Secretary Clinton’s
human rights talking points may have ended up on the cutting room floor
in Beijing, many foreign policy commentators have defended her approach. 
They argue that as we define the contours of a new foreign policy agenda
in a politically and economically distressed era, and at a time when
the U.S. has lost much of its credibility on human rights and democracy
promotion, our actions, not words, are all that truly matter. 
Our protests over grave human rights conditions in Tibet have done little. 
We need to look for new diplomatic steps that go beyond rhetoric to
give our human rights concerns impact.  In Tibet, we are still
searching for those action-oriented responses.  But the human rights
pragmatists insist that the world has long ceased believing our human
rights platitudes, and that few are even listening to them.  To
reclaim our human rights leadership in this jaded and economically troubled
time, we need to think of new, action-oriented approaches.  We
also need newfound candor about our own human rights record. 

I, for one, hope the Secretary of State
is a human rights pragmatist, and that she will take bold steps to promote
an action-oriented human rights agenda as an element of that pragmatism. 
If so, her actions need to live up to her introduction in this year’s
human rights report. "The promotion of human rights is an essential
piece of our foreign policy," she wrote in the introduction. 
"Not only will we seek to live up to our ideals on American soil,
we will pursue greater respect for human rights as we engage other nations
and people around the world. Some of our work will be conducted in government
meetings and official dialogues, which is important to advancing this
cause. But we will not rely on a single approach to overcome tyranny
and subjugation that weaken the human spirit, limit human possibility,
and undermine human progress."  

The Council for Global Equality interprets
that "work" as part of a "protection agenda" that seeks to redress
serious and ongoing human rights violations through diplomatic representations,
partnerships with other countries, renewed engagements with human rights
institutions and human rights funding commitments.  Committing
to a "protection agenda" will help move us beyond our previous "reporting
agenda," where for many years we have simply focused on documenting
abuses after they occur, and then perhaps denouncing them in certain
contexts, although rarely in the case of LGBT human rights violations.   

By actively supporting a protection
agenda that responds to LGBT human rights concerns internationally,
the U.S. government also has the opportunity to send an important-and
to many other nations a startling-message about America’s renewed
commitment to human rights and global diversity in a more general sense. 
The United States was virtually the only country in the Western Group
at the United Nations last December that refused to sign a very simple
statement recognizing basic human rights in the context of sexual orientation
and gender identity.  Many European and Latin American allies were
not at all surprised by such intolerance from the Bush Administration. 
Given such a stark leadership failure in the previous Administration,
it is time to show the world that our official foreign policy outlook
has indeed changed, that the Obama Administration understands LGBT rights
as human rights concerns, and that it values diversity in all of its
many forms, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity. There have already been some hopeful signs that such a shift
is taking place, thanks to constructive positions on LGBT-related human
rights debates that the new Obama Administration has taken at the United
Nations in New York and Geneva over the past two months.   

While calling on the Obama Administration
to stand up for LGBT rights on the international stage, and to respond
to the well documented pattern of LGBT human rights abuse in this year’s
annual human rights report from the State Department, the Council for
Global Equality added an "honorable mention" to its "top ten"
list, which is perhaps really a dishonorable mention.  Recognizing
that U.S. credibility on the international stage will depend largely
on our own progress and commitment to LGBT rights here at home, our
"top ten" list also calls on the United States to do more to honor
the principles of equality, justice and human rights at home. 
The Council calls for Congress to pass legislation banning hate crimes
and employment discrimination, to offer fair benefits to the families
of gay and lesbian federal employees, to support same-sex immigration
rights, repeal "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and the Defense of
Marriage Act, and include LGBT organizations among the civil society
groups that America sustains abroad.  It is a "call for consistency
and fairness in our foreign policy, and for renewed American integrity and
leadership in the fight for human rights." 

News Sexual Health

State with Nation’s Highest Chlamydia Rate Enacts New Restrictions on Sex Ed

Nicole Knight Shine

By requiring sexual education instructors to be certified teachers, the Alaska legislature is targeting Planned Parenthood, which is the largest nonprofit provider of such educational services in the state.

Alaska is imposing a new hurdle on comprehensive sexual health education with a law restricting schools to only hiring certificated school teachers to teach or supervise sex ed classes.

The broad and controversial education bill, HB 156, became law Thursday night without the signature of Gov. Bill Walker, a former Republican who switched his party affiliation to Independent in 2014. HB 156 requires school boards to vet and approve sex ed materials and instructors, making sex ed the “most scrutinized subject in the state,” according to reproductive health advocates.

Republicans hold large majorities in both chambers of Alaska’s legislature.

Championing the restrictions was state Sen. Mike Dunleavy (R-Wasilla), who called sexuality a “new concept” during a Senate Education Committee meeting in April. Dunleavy added the restrictions to HB 156 after the failure of an earlier measure that barred abortion providers—meaning Planned Parenthood—from teaching sex ed.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Dunleavy has long targeted Planned Parenthood, the state’s largest nonprofit provider of sexual health education, calling its instruction “indoctrination.”

Meanwhile, advocates argue that evidence-based health education is sorely needed in a state that reported 787.5 cases of chlamydia per 100,000 people in 2014—the nation’s highest rate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Surveillance Survey for that year.

Alaska’s teen pregnancy rate is higher than the national average.

The governor in a statement described his decision as a “very close call.”

“Given that this bill will have a broad and wide-ranging effect on education statewide, I have decided to allow HB 156 to become law without my signature,” Walker said.

Teachers, parents, and advocates had urged Walker to veto HB 156. Alaska’s 2016 Teacher of the Year, Amy Jo Meiners, took to Twitter following Walker’s announcement, writing, as reported by Juneau Empire, “This will cause such a burden on teachers [and] our partners in health education, including parents [and] health [professionals].”

An Anchorage parent and grandparent described her opposition to the bill in an op-ed, writing, “There is no doubt that HB 156 is designed to make it harder to access real sexual health education …. Although our state faces its largest budget crisis in history, certain members of the Legislature spent a lot of time worrying that teenagers are receiving information about their own bodies.”

Jessica Cler, Alaska public affairs manager with Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii, called Walker’s decision a “crushing blow for comprehensive and medically accurate sexual health education” in a statement.

She added that Walker’s “lack of action today has put the education of thousands of teens in Alaska at risk. This is designed to do one thing: Block students from accessing the sex education they need on safe sex and healthy relationships.”

The law follows the 2016 Legislative Round-up released this week by advocacy group Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. The report found that 63 percent of bills this year sought to improve sex ed, but more than a quarter undermined student rights or the quality of instruction by various means, including “promoting misinformation and an anti-abortion agenda.”

News Law and Policy

Court Blocks North Carolina’s ‘Discriminatory’ Voter ID Law

Imani Gandy

“[T]he new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision," Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the court, describing the North Carolina GOP's voter ID law.

A unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down North Carolina’s elections law, holding that the Republican-held legislature had enacted the law with discriminatory intent to burden Black voters and that it therefore violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The ruling marks the latest defeat of voter ID laws passed by GOP-majority legislatures across the country.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the court.

HB 589 required in-person voters to show certain types of photo ID beginning in 2016, and either curtailed or reduced registration and voting access tools that Black voters disproportionately used, including an early voting period. Black voters also disproportionately lack photo IDs.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Republicans claimed that the law was intended to protect against voter fraud, which has proven exceedingly rare in Republican-led investigations. But voting rights advocates argue that the law was intended to disenfranchise Black and Latino voters.

The ruling marks a dramatic reversal of fortune for the U.S. Justice Department, the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters, which had asked the Fourth Circuit to review a lower court ruling against them.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder in April ruled that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the law hindered Black voters’ ability to exercise political power.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed.

“In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees,” Motz wrote. “This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”

The Fourth Circuit noted that the Republican-dominated legislature passed the law in 2013, immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby v. Holder, which struck a key provision in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 4 is the coverage formula used to determine which states must get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice or the District Court for the District of Columbia before making any changes to election laws.

The day after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Shelby, the Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee announced the North Carolina legislature’s intention to enact an “omnibus” election law, the appeals court noted. Before enacting the law, however, the Republican-dominated legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.

After receipt of the race data, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration, all of which disproportionately burdened Black voters.

“In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its actions, the State offered only meager justifications,” Motz continued. “[T]he new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

The ruling comes a day after the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP and one of the primary organizers of Moral Mondays, gave a rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention that brought convention goers to their feet.

During a protest on the first day of the trial, Barber told a crowd of about 3,500 people, “this is our Selma.”