Reflections of a Filipino LGBT Activist and SOGI Rights Defender

Joint statements and resolutions on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) have been delivered at the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council since the early 2000s. But it wasn’t until 2010, and under UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, that SOGI and the human rights of sexual minorities were given the due attention they deserve in the UN system. We remember that at the vote for amending the UN Resolution on Extra-judicial Executions, the resulting 79-70 vote managed to remove a “10-year old provision” stating that no one should be summarily executed or arbitrarily killed because of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. UN Sec-Gen thus declared in September 2010 in Geneva, “Laws criminalizing people on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity violate the principle of non-discrimination. They also fuel violence, help to legitimize homophobia and contribute to a climate of hate…Social attitudes run deep and take time to change. But cultural considerations should not stand in the way of basic human rights.” Fortunately, in December 2010, the United States proposed an amendment retaining the “sexual orientation” provision and it was adopted by a vote of 93-55, with 27 abstentions. Once again, Ban Ki Moon declared in New York, “As men and women of conscience, we reject discrimination in general, and in particular discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. When individuals are attacked, abused, or imprisoned because of their sexual orientation, we must speak out..Where there is tension between cultural attitudes and universal human rights, universal human rights must carry the day..” At the vote of the above-mentioned controversial resolution, my home country was one of those States which unfortunately abstained. But this was expected since the Philippine Government has yet to adopt a clear human rights framework that is inclusive of sexual minorities and explicitly addresses human rights violations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Even with the absence of laws criminalizing homosexuality, Philippine society has adhered to a patriarchal and deeply embedded influence of Catholicism in the social and political sphere. The State has perpetuated gender-defined social norms that promote stereotypes, prejudice and the stigmatization of LGBT persons. Thus, such representations by the Philippines at the UN have been a big disappointment for the whole Filipino LGBT Community who know all too well the discrimination and violence one can be subjected to, including the risk of being killed in a hate crime. In a report titled “The Status of LGBT Rights in the Philippines, Submission to the Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review 13th Session,” the groups Rainbow Rights Project (R-Rights) and the Philippine LGBT Hate Crime Watch (HCW) submitted a long list of violations of human rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity. To date, many of us still do not get equal opportunity in employment and are deprived of the right to earn a decent living. Even with the proper education, training and experience, some LGBTs are not hired, promoted or given the opportunity for professional advancement in the workplace. LGBT youth are also deprived of their right to education when their schools expel them or subject them disciplinary sanctions because of their actual, or perceived, homosexual tendencies. Instead of proper guidance and healthy advise to become stable and productive adults, our young LGBTs are driven to self-hate and destructive behaviour, and worse, even suicide. In the area of public services, LGBTs only ask that they are not denied entry from business establishments and facilities that are open to the general public, that they also have equal access to medical and health services, and that should they not be subjected to harassment, extortion or insensitive treatment from law enforcement personnel. According to the Philippine LGBT Hate Crime Watch research on violence against the LGBT population in the Philippines, as of the end of 2011, around 164 deaths of LGBTs with varying elements of motives of hate or bias, extrajudicial killing, and/or discrimination-related violence related to sexual orientation and gender identity have been documented in mass media reports and oral testimonies since 1996. As I reported here early in March this year, during the first quarter of 2012 alone, there was more than a dozen gay killings in the Philippines already. Recently, a video of the actual murder of a homosexual doctor recorded on the cellphone by one of the 2 young men he welcomed into his home was released in the media and was used by authorities as evidence in the commission of the crime. * * * * In December 2011, the first UN report on Discriminatory Laws and Practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity was submitted by the High Commissioner on HR, and in March (2012) this year, the first UN panel discussion ending human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity was held. The High Commissioner Navy Pillay’s report acknowledged that in all regions, people experience violence and discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In many cases, even the perception of homosexuality or transgender identity puts people at risk. While not addressing all violations perpetrated in relation to sexual orientation or gender identity, the groundbreaking report highlights critical human rights concerns that States have an obligation to address, and highlights emerging responses. Sexual orientation, like gender and race, relates to the fundamental aspects of human identity. While formally defined as the pattern or direction of sexual and emotional attraction and conduct, sexual orientation relates to the “deepest affairs of the heart, the innermost desires of the mind, and the most intimate expressions of the body”. In other words, it goes into the very core of what it means to be human. Consequently, Human Rights are founded on the concept of respect for the inherent dignity and worth of a human being. The right to freely determine one’s sexual orientation and the right to express it without fear are human rights in the fullest sense. As such, lesbian and gay rights and issues belong to the human rights agenda because the nature and scale of the abuses that LGBT people regularly suffer undermines the whole protective framework of human rights by taking away its very foundation - equal rights and dignity of all human beings. Human rights, therefore, include the right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as the right to equality and fair treatment before the law. And to live “in dignity” means being entitled to freedom, security and decent standards of living in a concurrent and indivisible sense. Therefore, gay and lesbian issues and problems as part of the human rights agenda crosses into both categories of human rights; those that are “liberty-oriented” and those which are “security-oriented”. They seek to ensure the Civil and Political Rights or “liberty rights” such as the right to life, liberty and security, freedom of expression, and freedom of association and assembly. They also ensure Social and Economic Rights or “security rights“ such as the right to work, education, food, shelter, and a decent standard of living. * * * * The Filipino LGBT Community does not ask for “special” rights; we only ask that the Constitutional provision of equal protection of the laws likewise be applied to us and that our basic human rights are protected. As human rights defenders, we believe that Filipino LGBTs deserve the same opportunities for self-determination and development, and that includes giving our LGBT youth proper access to education, and our qualified and eligible LGBT workforce equal chances of finding employment. We strongly enjoin the Philippine Government to finally have a national policy for protecting the rights of Filipino LGBTs and to pass appropriate legislations that will address our unique concerns. In fact, with the Philippines’ reputation of abiding by international human rights standards and complying with our obligations under human rights conventions, adopting such a national policy tackling sexual orientation and gender identity would not be contrary to any international human rights principle or our Constitution. Currently, there are two pending bills in the Lower House and Senate that explicitly mention “sexual orientation” as a criteria for non-discrimination, and some legislators are intent with doing away with it as a basis for an anti-discrimination legislation. With the UN system and other Member States help, it is imperative that this present Philippine Congress finally passes an appropriate Anti-Discrimination law that will promote the welfare of Filipino LGBTs, and ensure the protection of their human rights.

Independence Day @Ecopark

i.With just my wandering thoughts leading me My steps brought me here To the greenery and the flowing waters To where it all began ii. Here underneath tall trees and gentle breezes We began an adventure meant only for the strong of heart You took to this journey w/ all the gusto and enthusiasm That you rode the zipline with across the stream iii. I remember the boatride, All the effort I put into rowing that little dingy As you cheered on others who took the plunge Love overflowing, your emotions echoed through the watershed iv. but it had to come to this like trees felled after the passing of storms some relationships break in the midst of troubles creeks once driven by rushing waters can dry up and become as barren and empty as a feeling devoid of affection v. and we find out that flowers lose their bloom with the passing of every summer the rains come and we are left hiding indoors in the misery of our loss vi. yet we know that soon the deluge of tears will eventually cease and we shall venture out again to a completely different world vii. thicker vegetation, a variety of plants promising to bloom and bear fruit, where colourful flowers will once again line the walkways and paint the scenery with happiness viii. as I turn to leave, imprinting in my memory the beauty of this place, like the passing of the seasons, I know this heart too will endure.. GPL 6/12/2012

R-Rights Asks PNoy to Improve LGBT Rights

MANILA - LESBIAN, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) advocates led by the Rainbow Rights Project (R-Rights) are reminding the Aquino administration of the pending review before the United Nations of its record in respecting human rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity. On May 28, 2012, the UN Human Rights Council is set to cross-examine all the compliance by the Philippine government of international human rights conventions, including those that apply to LGBT sectors in the process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Both the government and civil society organizations have submitted separate reports. In its report titled “The Status of LGBT Rights in the Philippines, Submission to the Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review 13th Session,” the groups Rainbow Rights Project (R-Rights) and the Philippine LGBT Hate Crime Watch (HCW) submitted a long list of violations of human rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In March 2012, the Rainbow Rights Project, represented by policy advocacy officer Germaine Trittle Leonin, has made several representations with the UN Human Rights Council based in Geneva and worked with the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) while seeking to engage the Philippines official representative to act on the reports. The R-Rights-HCW joint report scored the failure of government to enact and Antidiscrimination Law, which has remained pending in Congress for over 12 years. The report also noted the Supreme Court ruling against the rights of transgenders to have their identities changed in birth and travel documents. Leonin said the R-Rights report also highlighted the lack of basic health care for LGBTs and certain medical abuses inflicted on transgender clients. “Sadly, despite efforts by civil society groups, the government representative in Geneva has not made significant efforts to incorporate our recommendations in the discussions for this month,” Leonin said. In a related development, during Adoption Consciousness Week in March, officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) have already declared that while single gays are not prohibited from adopting, same-sex couples are not permitted to jointly adopt children, as the right is provided only for legally married partners. Some DSWD officials have also expressed support for LGBTs being adoptive parents reasoning that there is no proof that LGBTs cannot be good parents. However, the community is still requesting for a more definite policy that would protect the rights of adoptive gay parents. R-Rights is also organizing a dialogue with the Office of the President this month after a massive raid on a gay sauna in Pasay City left many gay male clients traumatized. R-Rights said it has been providing legal aid to hundreds of gay men who are brutalized by police in bar raids and street sweeps. R-Rights is calling on the Philippine National Police to work with the community in preventing abusive behavior, extortion, and harassment in these instances. The UPR is a process where the Council examines each member state for its implementation of human rights treaties. The review this month is the second time the Philippines will come under the examination of the Council. R-Rights will continue to engage the Philippine government until the Aquino administration and Congress will finally comply with the UPR process and issue the necessary laws and policies recommended for the LGBT sector

The MiriamQ Effect: When We Teach Kids to Hate

Last night, the word "LGBT hate crime" hit closest to home: the kind and generous gay man who befriended my bedridden gay brother was mugged by a group of drunken teens in our own subdivision. The security guards were not able to help him. And when early this morning the baragay authorities came to question these young men, these "guardians" of Sunny Villas were too afraid to reveal who these suspects are. Historically-speaking, these youth in their early 20s are notorious for their noisy, whole-night drinking sprees at the village basketball court. Too often have they bullied many fellow residents, but they always seem to get off. They had badgered Joseph on previous occasions, taunting him with shouts of "pahindot, pahindot" because they knew he was an openly gay man. So this attack was no ordinary "napag-tripan lang". They targetted him, assaulted him by ganging up on him, and even when Joseph didn't fight back, they kept punching and hitting him, kicking him while on the ground. They didn't even stop when the guards approached. As a result, Joseph has a cut forehead, bruises on his face and a dislocated jaw that needs therapy. His right arm and wrist have fractures that necessitate a cast. He cannot write or sign his name, and he is a BIR Examiner who needs the use of his hand. Joseph was attacked because he was deemed to be "vulnerable", an easy target because he is gay. They do not know how generous he is that he sponsors Xmas parties for the poor children in the community just outside our subdivision. He even takes some of these kids on summer outings when he has extra resources. He willingly lends cash to the poor housewives who need a little something to tide their families over. And he consoled and entertained my PWD gay brother with his stories and escapades, sharing with him his special Sunday lunches and giving him food when the caregiver is out. Joseph is a good man, and that is more that I can say for those jerks that beat him up. I also heard that another good friend was traumatized by an incident a few weeks ago. Ryan is a college professor and LGBT activist, who happens to be walking by with another gay friend when they passed by a teenager who was urinating against a public wall. Instantly, they were accused of "peeping" at the guy's genitals and he pulled a knife on them. This act of violence has severly affected Ryan who is also a child rights advocate. Because he is gay, he was automatically presumed to be a "sexual predator". They do not know that Ryan teaches because he values the importance of education in molding young minds. They do not know that Ryan specializes in human rights, particularly on child rights protection because he believes children should be spared the violence and hate perpetuated by adults. People like Miriam Quiambao spout discriminatory statements against LGBTs, and her ideas only serve to reinforce the prevailing homophobia that has damaged so many lives. Too often gays are victimized and people just turn a blind eye, as if gays deserve the ill treatment they get. And by doing nothing against these acts of violence, people continue to perpetuate the idea that it's okay to hurt other people especially if they are so different from you. No less than the Supreme Court censured the COMELEC when it considered LADLAD undeserving of partylist accreditation because it had labeled Pinoy LGBTs as "threat to the youth". As someone working at the DSWD, I took this as a personal affront. Apparently, after years of working for the passage of child-friendly laws and policies, I had been a "threat" simply because I am a lesbian. So why the heck did I work on the Anti-Violence against women and Children Act, the Anti-Trafficking Act, the Anti-Child Pornography Act, and the Anti-Corporal Punishment/Positive Disciplining bill..so, I could harm kids? Maybe it is about time Philippine society rethinks what values it is actually teaching kids. Judging gay people as "evil" and "sinners" outrightly, without even knowing the amount of good they do for others is the height of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. I ask you again, Ms. MiriamQ and the rest of the homophobic population...which one of us speaks the greater "truth" of God's teachings now?

What Access to Justice Means to PWDs and Women

There are a lot of discussions on the rights of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) recently.It is evident that the issue of disability has many intersectionalities with other vulnerabilities. Cross-cutting issues involve disability, minority, gender and sexuality, class or financial status, and educational background, and how this affects their civil and political rights, particularly Acces to Justice. A couple of months ago, I came upon a case which was raised to the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) under the mechanism of the Optional Protocol. The author/petitioner was not only an ordinary victim of gender-based violence. Besides being a female, she is a deaf-mute and was a minor when she was raped. At the heart of this case was an in-depth discussion on the status of implementation of our Anti-Rape law. The problems highlighted in the communication to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights exemplified the gaps and flaws in Republic Act No. 8353, and makes the current initiatives in Congress to amend the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 even more relevant. While the case was primarily “mishandled” by the court, there were other aspects in the enforcement of the law where its express provisions were not only NOT followed, but were actually “violated”. Republic Act No. 8505 explicitly requires a FEMALE police officer to conduct the initial interview, but it was a male police officer who interviewed the victim. At the outset, during the initial investigation of the case, there was already great difficulty communicating with the authorities because the victim was a deaf-mute and sign language interpreters are not readily available at police stations. Only her own sister translated for the victim. This seeming insensitivity to the victim’s disability, continued until the actual prosecution of the case in court. There is no “official”, government sign language interpreter provided, and courts have to engage the services of translators from NGOs. This clearly shows the State’s inability to fully address the issues and concerns of PWDs when it comes to their right to access to justice. Hence, this is likewise not in compliance with our obligations under the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Much of the issues herein are matters of policy review and legislative reform. The court glaringly failed to appreciate the evidence presented and instead, relied on gender-based myths and stereotypes. By insisting that the “victim must have done all conceivable means to evade or resist the perpetrator’s advances”, the court effectively demanded that she respond according to what the court deemed to be “reasonable standard of human conduct” and discounted the wide range of behavioral responses that can be exhibited by victims. By characterizing a “Filipina rape victim” as a woman who “summons every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to besmirch her honor and blemish her purity”, the victim’s testimony was deemed incredible because she did not conform to such a stereotype. She was even effectively blamed for not employing sufficient or adequate means to avoid the rape. Such perspective lends to the old categorization of rape as a “crime against chastity”, instead of a “crime against person”, where the operative word is the person, and not her reputation or credibility. Note that rape is no longer considered a “private” crime, but a “public” crime which the State must pursue. It is apparent that the victim experienced layers of vulnerability which exposed her to greater risk of being subjected to abuse and violence. Most evident of all is the failure of the court to consider her disability of being deaf-mute. Using the above-mentioned framework, she was required to show proof that she struggled or made some noise because “her mouth was not covered nor stuffed by any object.” The court insisted that “she could have reached for plates of the table” where she was laid, when she already said she had cleared the table earlier and there was nothing she could use to hit her attacker with. This is the very essence of the current amendment pending before Congress – to change the language of the law that puts a premium on proof of violence, coercion and intimidation instead of the simple lack of consent, on evidence of torn clothing, threats of actual bodily hard or injury, or the victim’s showing that she screamed or shouted for help. Such technicalities thereby restrict the appreciation of the case by prosecutors and judges. In spite of all the provisions in the anti-rape law favoring the testimony of a victim, judges’ decisions are still limited by the way they appreciate the evidence using this logical framework. Nowhere is the gender-sensitivity and awareness trainings reflected in their rationalizations because they fall back on negative stereotypes and gender myths. The recommendations made in the communication are worthy of consideration by the Philippine Government. It is by no means a “source of shame” for the Philippines, should the proper officials and authorities choose to do something about it by instituting legal and policy reforms that will address these problems in implementation. It is with this clarity that our DFA must think when it makes representations in international fora like the United Nations bodies. It is with this gender-sensitivity and rights-based approach that other government agencies must act when it formulates policies, when it proposes legislative measures, and when it lays down court decisions.

Black Lace

br />twirls and curls

intricately meshed

dark lattice

concealing a treasure within;

mere surface cover

for what it can reveal,

I see, knowing

something more lies beneath.

It holds my attention

as my fingers are caught,

my hands are met

by a pleasant surprise,

confirming my deepest hopes,

and obliging the best

of my imagination. GPL 10/10/11

Much Ado about "Real Women"

All this talk about the Ms. Universe contest and the Canadian transgender has got me riled up lately. This morning, my favorite morning show began a discussion on it and I heard comments like "they might get undue advantage", "they have their own beauty contests anyway", and "it will privilege cosmetic surgery-enhanced over natural beauty", etc. They also criticized Donald Trump and his crew for seemingly issuing a "too quick, and reactionary" retraction by allowing a transgender contestant. But they are totally missing the point: organizers of the Ms. Universe pageant understood it's all about equal chances, opening up opportunities to all who are qualified, to compete fair and square based on the agreed criteria of beauty, poise and intelligence.

A few years ago, our NGO was doing a research project on lesbian health. An interview with no less than the president of the professional association of obstetricians and gynecologists revealed that "they have no programs and services for lesbians because they are different from women". This, from a licensed medical doctor herself. Hello? Any second year high school student taking up basic biology would tell you lesbians have female reproductive organs. Yes, believe it or not, we still have the same equipment and can make it work if we choose to!

Recently, I was in Geneva attending the special session on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) at the United Nations Human Rights Council. A side event organized by the Holy See was an obvious objection to the SOGI initiative by the UN Secretary-General and UN High Commissioner on Human Rights herself. Speakers started talking about "traditional values" and the importance of "family" and "protecting children". What got to me was they kept emphasizing the alleged "role" of women in relation to men - that they are wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, etc.; that they have a "responsbility" to bear children and care for the family, as if this was how "gender equality" was supposed to be interpreted. Under this flawed perception, women are considered to have no autonomy whatsoever, no right to self-determination, and as such, no right to bodily intergrity as well. So, if you are not a wife or a mother, but a barrren or sterile woman, or simply a single woman, do you no longer have any relevance at all to society? What was more bothersome was the fact that their arguments and reasoning were all based on a woman's biology.

Which brings us to the issue of "what makes a woman"? Is being a woman all about one's biology - simple anatomy and physiology? Does that "biology" stem only from what you are "naturally" born with, or could it include what medical science and technology can give you after considerable pain and financial expense?

Is being a person just about your ability to procreate? Or is a person's Being about his/her various needs, wants, and desires? Isn't our Life a totality of our human experience - one's dreams and aspirations, his/her knowledge, skills, and talents, what we do and what we give to others? Isn't this what makes us human beings after all?

A woman to me is someone who can love a partner with such loyalty, commitment, and passion that comes with being a lifetime companion. A woman is someone who can love and care for a child with all her heart and selfless devotion regardless of whether the child is borne of her womb or not. A woman is someone who can handle trials and adversity with such strength and calm because she puts her family's needs first. A woman to me is someone who can face all this discrimination and negativity with such grace and poise, never stooping so low to a detractor's level.

This brings to mind an LGBT feature a long time ago. It was a TV interview of a young boy raised by a lesbian couple. When asked what he thought of not having a "male role model" in the household and missing his biological father, he answered: "My real father abandoned us when I was still a baby. He didn't want to marry my mother. It was my mom's subsequent lesbian partner who supported us financialy, raised me and sent me to school. What better example of being a responsible "man" should I have?"