In 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron even put the idea forward to cut bilateral development aid to Commonwealth member states that do not acknowledge gay rights, such as Nigeria and Uganda.
Critical voices all around the Global South expressed their concern with this idea, some of them describing it as racist and a new form of imperialism. While these accusations may sound unjustified, Cameron’s statement is much more than an unfortunate choice of words. In fact, several critically acclaimed international NGOs concerned with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersexual (LGBTI) rights are putting pressure on Cameron to take a strong stance on the issue of homonegativity in the Global South, while using an essentialist and at times racist rhetoric. Therefore, Cameron’s statement has to be interpreted as part of a broader “us” versus “them” dichotomy (“them” often meaning the “global Muslim community”, regardless of whether such a community even exists or not).
Professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University describes these LGBTI activists as the “Gay International”: a collection of international LGBTI activists that took over the role of white, “western” feminist groups and aim to defend their gay rights worldwide. Typical of the “Gay International” is the fact that they carry on an essentialist and Orientalist discourse on homosexuality and impose a universalizing model of homosexuality on the Global South, causing a counterproductive effect: by forcing a “Western” model of gay rights onto the Global South with disregard to regional and local understandings and perceptions and trying to officially label certain homosexual behavior as such, local homosexuals tend to identify as heterosexual to avoid repressive measures. Instead of creating a “queer planet”, they are producing a “straight planet”.
One can easily make the link between the “Gay International” and a new form of imperialism, namely “gay imperialism”: white subjects take on a civilizing mission and claim the right to define and theorize sexual liberation. Typical of this is the “save the gays” rhetoric, which aims to create a universal homosexual identity. As a result, it becomes necessary to save “others” from any form of homonegativity. Sarah Ahmed, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths College, London, describes this tendency as “what we have, what we give them, what we must force them to have”. Homosexual Muslims are seen as the victims without a voice, waiting to be liberalized, while Muslims in general are portrayed as reluctant to assimilate with our values and norms.
One of Britain’s premier NGOs campaigning for gay rights worldwide is Outrage! and its frontman Peter Tatchell. Tatchell’s influence on state politics cannot be underestimated. Outrage! is the perfect example of an imperialistic NGO that seems leftist at first sight, but is essentially racist, neo-colonialist and imperialistic. According to Dr. Jin Haritaworn of the University of Helsinki, Tatchell is running an international human rights campaign and often presents himself as the spokesperson for homosexual demands. When Tatchell reacted sharply in 2006 to the Same-Sex Marriage Act in Nigeria, he called for activists worldwide to protest against this new, “draconic” initiative, predicting “the new Dark Ages”. Meanwhile, local Nigerian activists had been protesting against this issue for years, and actually expected that this act would have sunk into oblivion if media attention would decline. Instead, Human Rights Watch had to intervene to calm down Nigerian activists working in the field, which only proves Massad right: the “Gay International” has indeed a counterproductive effect.
But especially when Tatchell talks about the “international Muslim community”, traces of Islamophobia, racism and imperialism can be found in his choice of words, for instance “their multiculturalism and ours”. Sarah Ahmed argues that Tatchell’s work carries a racist and Islamophobic overtone because of “the proximity of words”. By talking of “Muslim homophobes”, Tatchell is creating a stereotyping image and intensifies the “us” versus “them” dichotomy. The more homonegativity is constructed as belonging to Islam, the harder it will be to increase tolerance and understanding amongst straight Muslims.
One can definitely notice the influence of Outrage! and other LGBTI activists on Cameron’s statement on gay rights and conditional bilateral aid. Instead of making the link between homonegativity and the capitalistic world system, socio-economic conditions, class struggles and the lack of development in general, Cameron takes a hard stance to address British LGBTI communities, hoping this will benefit his electoral popularity. Moreover, he interprets homonegativity as a cultural thing, making a clear difference between “us” and “them” and taking on the missionary role of civilizing the borderland.
“Britain is one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights. We are saying that is one of the things that determine our aid policy, and there have been particularly bad examples where we have taken action. (…) They are in a different place to us on this issue. I think these countries are all on a journey, and it is up to us to help them on that journey.
When it comes to gay rights, Cameron and certain civil society groups seem to embrace the widely criticized “Clash of Civilizations” theory, while not taking into account Edward Said’s main advice to avoid a “Clash of Ignorance”. Instead, several LGBTI activists and northern governments are guilty of running a universalizing human rights project, favoring a one-sided interpretation of human rights, including gay rights. The challenge that these activists need to embrace quickly, is to step out of their privileged framework in which static and hegemonic sexual constructions are used and where there is no room for sexual heterogeneity.
Mathieu Vervynckt is a graduate in conflict and development studies and is currently doing an internship at the United Nations Regional Information Centre (UNRIC).
