As I grew up, I started to realize that I wasn’t attracted to girls, but to guys. This was somewhere around third grade. At around the same time, I had seniors come and ask me if I was gay. Naturally, I said ‘no,’ but they didn’t believe me. So, as a child I ended up being completely unsocial and without friends, just because I wasn’t ‘normal.’

I made my first friend (who was a girl, because guys were still pretty hostile towards me) in fifth grade. I told her everything: that was the first time I actually admitted out loud to being homosexual. Eventually, word got around, and a few days later everybody knew I was gay. I still didn’t admit to it when asked. I was scared.

I remember that my games teacher didn’t like me for my ‘abnormal’ behaviour. He told me that I walked and talked ‘like a girl’ and that I should ‘fix myself.’ When I refused to listen to him, he ended up hating me and not letting me play football or basketball, or do anything the other guys would do.

When I came out publicly, it really wasn’t a shock. My classmates somehow learned to accept me; however, the bullying never stopped. The seniors and the juniors started calling me names and some of the seniors even went physical on me. People used to steal my copies, stationery, and pencil-bags; all because I was gay. Of course, when I came out to my mom, she didn’t support it: she gave me a long lecture about how it’s unnatural and wrong.

I’m in ninth grade now. The bullying hasn’t stopped; people got tired but I still get the occasional snide remark from a senior. The games teacher still doesn’t let me play and manages to insult me every time I see him. I’ve learned to ignore that. I have a bunch of wonderful, accepting friends who don’t really care what my sexual orientation is.

I guess I just got lucky: if this were some other school, I would have had to face way worse than what I faced here. Some people still choose to tell me that homosexuality is an ‘abomination’ and that I’ll go to hell for being gay. I wouldn’t say that it doesn’t hurt, but I just choose to ignore it.

Homophobia ruined my childhood. As a child, I wasn’t strong enough to bear the insults and the punches all the other kids threw at me. I used to come home and cry every day, and the worst part was that I couldn’t tell anybody else. If only the society was a bit more tolerant, and parents taught their children that it is okay to be different, I could have had a nice childhood.”

This is the anonymous story of a ninth-grader, posted on one of the various online groups for gay men and lesbian women in Bangladesh. He is not alone. In Bangladesh, like everywhere else in the world, some men love men and some women love women, and their stories often sadly resemble the story of the anonymous ninth-grader. Homophobia is endemic, but things are slowly changing, and Bangladesh’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens need our support in their struggle against bullying and discrimination.

Since 2001, when the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to legally recognize same-sex marriages, more than a dozen other nations have followed the Dutch example, most recently and just a few days ago France. In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a historic resolution in which the inter-governmental body expressed “grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.” United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had urged the Council to respond to the “widespread bias at jobs, schools and hospitals, and appalling violent attacks, including sexual assault,” referring to the fact that gay men and lesbian women have been imprisoned, tortured and killed as “a monumental tragedy for those affected, … a stain on our collective conscience,” and a violation of international law.

In Bangladesh, people who are attracted to members of the same sex not only suffer the social stigma of “being different,” like the anonymous ninth-grader, but are also discriminated against as a matter of law. Bangladesh belongs to a minority of states that not only refuse to recognize same-sex unions, but also criminalize same-sex sexual relationships.

What many people do not know is that the LGBT rights movement in Bangladesh has gained considerable momentum in recent years. A number of small, yet tangible victories have been achieved. Just a few months ago, for example, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Chairman Dr. Mizanur Rahman announced that his team, in collaboration with the National Law Commission, is drafting an anti-discrimination law which would also prohibit discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity. Earlier, Dr. Muhammad Yunus and three other Nobel Peace Prize laureates released a statement in which they called for the legalization of same-sex sexual relationships.

While these developments give hope, the struggle for LGBT equality is still in its early stages and LGBT activists in Bangladesh try to use every opportunity to bring attention to their cause. One such opportunity is only days away: On April 29, Bangladesh will be subject to Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR is a UNHRC mechanism that will examine Bangladesh’s human rights performance. It will be the second time that Bangladesh is evaluated by other UN member states, following the first time in 2009.

The UPR aims at improving the human rights situation on the ground in each of the 193 UN member states. Each UN member state is subjected to this review every four and a half years. A notable characteristic of the UPR process is that it allows for civil society participation at almost every stage. Most importantly, stakeholders (including NGOs and other civil society actors) are invited to submit their own reports along with the one from the government. The UPR hence gives a voice to those neglected by their respective governments and has proved to be a powerful tool in upholding the human rights of marginalized and disenfranchised groups.

Bangladesh’s LGBT community, too, has discovered the UPR process as a way to raise awareness for the violations of their human rights on national and international platforms. During the first cycle in 2009, based on reports prepared by Bangladeshi rights groups, Chile and the Czech Republic made recommendations to the Government of Bangladesh that, if implemented, would improve the legal status of LGBT persons in Bangladesh. Both Chile and the Czech Republic recommended that Bangladesh consider abolishing Section 377 of the Bangladesh Penal Code, a remainder of British colonialism which criminalizes sexuality against “the order of nature”. The Czech Republic further recommended that Bangladesh provide “human rights training to law enforcement and judicial officers, with a specific focus on the protection of the rights of […] persons of minority sexual orientation or gender identity and adopt further measures to ensure protection of these persons against violence and abuse.”

While the Government of Bangladesh accepted the recommendation with regard to the human rights training of law enforcers and judicial officers, it refused to abolish Section 377, arguing that “Bangladesh is a society with strong traditional and cultural values. Same-sex activity is not an acceptable norm to any community in the country. Indeed, sexual orientation is not an issue in Bangladesh. There has been no concern expressed by any quarter in the country on this.”

When Bangladesh comes under review for the second time in a few days, we expect that UN member states will again address the legal discrimination against LGBT people in Bangladesh, and ask the government to take decisive steps toward LGBT equality. But, given the country’s current political climate, the issue may be buried beneath a pile of other issues. That is why it is important that the media, civil society and the community at large speak up and draw attention to the plight of LGBT people in Bangladesh.

Boys of Bangladesh (BoB), Bangladesh’s largest platform for self-identified gay men, has put forward a number of recommendations from the LGBT community in the stakeholders’ report this year. One of the main recommendations is that the government conducts a survey of human rights violations victimizing LGBT people in the country. Such a survey is necessary to learn more about the discrimination, stigma, and violence LGBT people face in Bangladesh, and to develop effective strategies to address these issues.

Given that the government already runs an extensive HIV/AIDS programme which also includes men who have sex with men (MSM), their claim that “sexual orientation is not an issue in Bangladesh” is disingenuous. It is their way to brush aside the realities on the ground and to avoid acknowledging that the human rights of LGBT people in Bangladesh are continuously violated. It is time for the government to acknowledge the existence of that clandestine but significant part of the population, and to take appropriate measures to ensure their safety and dignity. LGBT people are our brothers and sisters, our children, our friends and our colleagues, and they deserve to be treated with the same respect as heterosexuals.

Of course, LGBT equality cannot be achieved through legal processes alone. After all, prejudice and misinformation, rather than legal norms, are to blame for most of the de facto anti-gay discrimination. A number of organizations, including the Bangladesh Liberal Forum and BoB, seek to remedy this deficit and started an educational campaign to inform the public about issues of sexual orientation. They published a brochure that contains valuable information about these issues, and made it available to the public at the following URL:

What you should know about homosexuality

Representatives of Bangladesh’s LGBT community, along with other Bangladeshi human rights activists, are in Geneva right now to participate in a UNHRC session that will address Bangladesh’s human rights record. They will try their best to draw the world’s attention to the situation of LGBT people in Bangladesh, and we all should support their noble cause. LGBT equality is not a matter of culture or religion, but a matter of basic human rights.

—————————————-
Shakhawat Hossain is a human rights activist and a volunteer at Boys of Bangladesh, a non-registered, non-funded, informal network of self-identified gay men in Bangladesh.

Rainer Ebert is a graduate student of philosophy at Rice University, a founding member of the Bangladesh Liberal Forum, and an Associate Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.

Photo: bdnews24.com

The right to express one’s opinion freely is maybe the most important democratic right, and it is currently under assault in Bangladesh. Hifazat-e-Islam demands the introduction of strict blasphemy laws, and the government, instead of defending freedom, resorts to an ill-advised and imprudent appeasement strategy that hinders the press in its duty to inform the public, threatens the futures of young bloggers who were, and continue to be, arrested, and puts in peril the future of the democracy of the country.

Why is freedom of expression important? John Stuart Mill, the famous and influential 19th-century British philosopher of freedom, to whom many nations have every reason to owe a debt of gratitude, argued that restricting speech hinders the pursuit of truth. First, no human being is infallible. Neither Hifazat-e-Islam, nor members of the Government of Bangladesh, nor I, nor anybody else can claim privileged access to the absolute truth. Of course, part of the problem is that Islamist groups nevertheless often make exactly that claim, especially for their own, often highly subjective interpretations of the writings of earlier teachers and Islamic authorities. But, for all we know for certain, any opinion that is being oppressed might in fact be true. Second, Mill continues, even if a silenced opinion is an error, “it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” Finally, even patently false ideas deserve protection because, only if the truth continues to be challenged, it will remain alive and does not dwindle into mere dogma.

Besides its essential importance for the pursuit of truth, freedom of expression also plays a central role in a good life. Human beings do not fare best when they are forced into a life they did not choose, but when they are sovereigns over their own lives. In order to govern their lives successfully, people must be able to make informed choices, which in turn requires a free exchange of ideas. Human beings hence have a strong interest in being free to express their opinions. Free-speech restrictions frustrate this interest and have a negative impact on human well-being.

Photo: bdnews24.com

A free exchange of ideas is also essential to democracy and human development. Bangladesh should be a country where ideas can be openly disseminated and debated. Political and social progress is possible only if all ideas are considered, from whatever source, and if received convictions are tested against opposing views. Few would challenge the proposition that human civilization has evolved over the millennia, for the most part to the greater comfort and safety of humanity. Such evolution has, throughout history, been often criticized, at best, and very often challenged and punished. One has only to think of the treatment by the Roman Catholic Church of Galileo to appreciate this simple truth. Repression of speech and debate fits authoritarian governments such as those in Saudi Arabia and North Korea, but not a free Bangladesh. In a democracy, every opinion should have equal access to the marketplace of ideas. Denying the right to speak their minds to some people – typically those whose opinions are unpopular – is treating them with less respect than other citizens.

Finally, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Given the great value that attaches to freedom of expression, those daring to demand the suppression of a particular type of speech, namely blasphemous speech, better have good reasons for their demand. I believe they don’t.

Blasphemy is the act of mocking, insulting, or defaming things that others hold sacred, such as human prophets or religious scriptures. From an Islamic perspective, for example, insulting Allah violates the right of Allah. That, of course, gives Muslim believers a strong reason not insult Allah. But it is equally obvious that religious norms do not give a reason to abide by them to those who are not religious, such as atheists (not a dirty word, by the way), who believe that there is no god. Religious beliefs as such also must not serve as a basis for any law in a secular state.

Blasphemous speech should be criminalized, one might object, not because it is the proper role of a state to force religion upon its citizens – it is not –, but because it is offensive to religious folks, and hurts their feelings. This suggestion is worth considering, as it is uncontroversial that psychological pain matters and, all else being equal, should be avoided. We rightly expect the government to protect us from physical assault, so why shouldn’t we also expect the government to protect us from the kind of psychological harm that results from offensive speech? Why not have the government ban offensive speech?

Photo: bdnews24.com

For one thing, almost all kinds of speech are offensive to somebody. Hifazat-e-Islam’s demand to repeal laws asserting the equal rights of women, for example, must offend everybody who wants to see women as equals in society, just as their public proclamations that Ahmadiyyas are “non-Muslims” are an insult to Ahmadiyya Muslims. Christian sermons might be offensive to some Muslims, communist speeches might be offensive to some capitalists, and some people might be offended by literature about homosexuality, or by my inter-racial marriage and the love I express for my Bangladeshi wife. Yet, we would all think that much of this, though offensive to some, must be protected.

For another thing, there is no need to ban an entire category of speech as people can easily defend themselves against speech they find annoying or offensive. Compared to the value of free speech, the cost of avoiding offensive speech is trivial: If you don’t like what you hear, simply walk away. If you don’t like what you read on a blog, relief is just one click away. Interestingly, the Qur’an seems to suggest the same reaction: “[…] when they [the Muslims] hear ill speech, they turn away from it and say, ‘For us are our deeds, and for you are your deeds. Peace will be upon you; we seek not the ignorant.’” (Qur’an 28:55)

If the concern of Hifazat-e-Islam and other Islamists is for their own religious feelings, why do they read blasphemous blogs? If they don’t want that religious feelings are being hurt, why do they draw the attention of other believers to these blogs, or sometimes even reproduce blasphemous material in their publications? Searching for blasphemous writings and then complaining about hurt feelings is much like running into a stretched fist with open eyes and then crying “Assault!” While it is virtually impossible to ban all blasphemous speech, especially on the internet, and attempting to do so is very costly, ignoring blasphemous speech is easy and the costs of doing so are trivial, especially in a predominantly Muslim country where taboo ensures that blasphemous speech is rare.

But isn’t the real issue that blasphemous speech leads to violence, rather than that it offends? Well, does it really? Surely everybody remembers the violence that followed the release of “Innocence of Muslims,” a poorly made 14-minute video clip uploaded on YouTube in July last year. But some will also remember what happened in the first two months after the release: nothing. This is not surprising, as blasphemous speech does not cause violence directly. If there is a causal relationship between blasphemous speech and violence at all, the effect is indirect. The link between the two is people who choose to react with violence after being subjected to blasphemous speech, and typically also hate-mongers who make sure that blasphemous speech reaches those who are willing to resort to violence. One of these hate-mongers in the case of “Innocence of Muslims” was the Egyptian television host Khaled Abdallah. He reported on the video on September 8, and thereby sparked outrage across the globe.

The case of supposedly blasphemous blogs in Bangladesh is similar. For years, most people did not even know that these blogs exist. Until recently, the blasphemous content they are said to contain did not “cause” or “incite” any violence. The problem is not blasphemy. The problem is political groups with an intolerant and bigoted agenda that are using the writings of free-thinking Bangladeshis to bring about violence, and to force their idea of a medieval Bangladesh upon the rest of the nation.

Also, in fact, there is no guarantee that blasphemy laws would reduce violence. One has only to look at Pakistan to see the simple truth of that observation! A more promising response to the kind of violence we saw in the wake of the release of “Innocence of Muslims” or the debate about the so-called blasphemous bloggers in Bangladesh is to insist that, whether or not people like what they hear or read, they must not resort to violence. Prohibiting speech promotes intolerance, and will hence likely not result in less violence, but more violence.

Blasphemy laws hinder the pursuit of truth, are bad for people and human development, are undemocratic and violate the fundamental freedom of expression; they have been misused to repress vulnerable minorities and political opponents, and to settle personal disputes (again, for example, in Pakistan); and they are an inadequate means to promote tolerance and protect the religious feelings of believers.

———————————
Rainer Ebert is a student of philosophy at Rice University, a founding member of the Bangladesh Liberal Forum, and an Associate Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.