14
Telling Our Stories: Envisioning participatory documentary
Nancy Nicol
For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.
Paulo Freire (1970)
Participatory documentary was a key part of the output and methodology of Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights (Envisioning), working together with community partners and human rights defenders who are engaged in efforts to transform society and advance lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights in Africa, the Caribbean and India. In the spirit of Freire, this method of documentary-making involves participants in the process of telling their stories, to engage community, advocate for social justice and transform their lives. It is a powerful and accessible way of investigating human rights violations, and of documenting and celebrating stories of resistance.
Freire’s classic text continues to be relevant and increasingly urgent as capitalist crisis and neoliberal policies degrade living standards, deepening exploitation, impoverishment, oppression and conflict. In the Global South this process is often fuelled by neo-colonialist and religious right interventions with particularly negative impacts on sexual minorities. At the same time, LGBTI rights organisations, which have grown significantly in the Global South, are challenging these dehumanising impacts and are engaged in efforts to transform their communities and advance sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) rights.
On 9 November 2016, the morning following the election of Donald Trump, I attended a hearing of a US Federal Court case in Springfield, Massachusetts. Together with activists from Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and their legal representatives from the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City, we were attending the proceedings of a precedent-setting case, Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Scott Lively. Prominent US anti-gay evangelical extremist Scott Lively was present at the hearing, which was being held in his home state. He sat with his legal counsel and supporters on the opposite side of the court. SMUG and their legal counsel asserted in the case that Lively, through his anti-gay activism in Uganda, bore responsibility for depriving LGBTI Ugandans of their fundamental human rights, based solely on their identity – the definition of persecution under international law. Lawyers for SMUG argued that this effort led to the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (AHB), which Lively, in collaboration with Ugandan government officials and religious leaders, helped engineer. SMUG was able to sue Lively under a US law in which a US citizen can be charged for serious human rights violations in other countries. This hearing followed a groundbreaking ruling three years prior, in August 2013, where Judge Michael Ponsor held that, ‘Widespread, systematic persecution of LGBTI people constitutes a crime against humanity that unquestionably violates international norms’.1 The case had significant implications for US-based religious right extremists who have sought to prevent decriminalisation of same-sex intimacy and fostered hatred against sexual minorities in the Global South.
In support of SMUG’s case, video interviews gathered by SMUG and Envisioning for the documentary And Still We Rise (2015), were submitted as evidence in the case. The material recorded the impact of the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), through interviews with service providers, community members, leaders and human rights defenders in Uganda that spoke to the escalation of human rights violations, arrests and closure of services following parliament passing the AHA in December 2013 and its enactment into law in March 2014.
The impact of Western-based religious right actors, neoliberal policies and local opportunistic political forces on LGBT rights and on civil rights in the Global South is a theme explored by a number of contributions to this anthology,2 and is examined in the Ugandan context in And Still We Rise. Ugandan lawyer Nicholas Opiyo argues in the documentary,3 that politicians have used the assault on homosexuals as part of a deepening assault on civil liberties and political opposition:
I think for me the defining moment for civil liberties, not just in Uganda but around the world, is 9/11. The unholy alliance between states allegedly to fight terrorism, has provided, in my view, a fertile excuse for the limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms. So, all around the world states are now ‘coming together’ to fight terrorism; and in doing so have found an excuse for limitation of fundamental liberties and rights. In Uganda, that has been expressed in the enactment of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, in the enactment of the Public Order Management Act, in the enactment of the Phone Tapping Law, the Interception of Communications Act. So there is an onslaught on civil liberties across the world.
And Still We Rise and the interview material from it submitted to the court, is one example of the way in which participatory documentary contributed to the goals of the Envisioning partnership’s research, documentation and knowledge mobilisation. This chapter gives an overview and synopsis of the work created through Envisioning, and outlines how the documentaries were made. I hope that Envisioning’s experience provides a useful template for others interested in using this type of filming to strengthen and support struggles for social justice and equality.
Research/Creation
Envisioning’s methodology sought to synthesise creative practice with participatory action research using participatory documentary. According to Nichols (2010), this mode of documentary is characterised by engagement between the filmmaker and film participants through interviews; and/or where the filmmaker is or becomes part of the events being documented. Such work articulates a ‘point of view’ rather than a neutral or objective stance as in conventional journalism. Point-of-view documentary is one approach taken by Envisioning; however, participatory documentary may also involve the participant or subject in the filmmaking process itself. Such an approach,pioneered by the Challenge for Change/Société nouvelle documentary programme in Canada in 1967, sought to place the tools of production into the hands of those who were the subject of the film.4
In developing Envisioning’s approach to participatory documentary, I drew on 30 years’ experience of creating documentaries with diverse communities and organisations. As an early member of video-art collectives5 in Canada, my work was influenced by, and contributed to, creative developments in video art characterised by experimentation, as well as by community-based video that sought to create new approaches to film/video-making and to expose issues and foster social change. Programmes such as the Challenge for Change/Société nouvelle in Canada, as well as efforts to democratise broadcast media, as with Paper Tiger Television’s6 work in the United States, resonated with the social movement politics of the time which sought to challenge corporate control. Feminist, Black feminist, Marxist, new left, and postcolonial perspectives, as well as involvement in struggles for social justice and civil and human rights shaped my formative years, and deepened my understanding of the forces that shape contemporary conflicts and struggles. These influences informed my documentary practice: a commitment to social justice and a participatory approach have remained at the centre of my work. From the mid 1990s to 2005, my research and documentary work increasingly focused on LGBT history and organising. It includes directing a body of work (2002−9) which examines social and legal developments on SOGI issues in Canada spanning 40 years, and examinations through the documentary One Summer in New Paltz, a Cautionary Tale (2008) and an article (Nicol and Smith, 2008) of relationship recognition and the campaign for equal marriage in the US and Canada. This work integrated creative practice with extensive research drawing on sociology, legal consciousness literature and sociolegal studies to document and analyse the social movement histories under investigation.
Envisioning brought together community-based researchers, activists, videographers, creative artists, professional legal and human rights experts and academic researchers. It required an open reading of research that was alive to different possible interpretations, rather than a fixed one, and could respond to challenges and change. Envisioning appreciated that communities which are engaged in struggles for human rights or social justice are uniquely positioned to contribute experience, expertise and analysis. It sought to bring people’s experience to life, by documenting and examining stories of injustice, resistance and movements for social change from the perspectives of those directly involved – through their voices. Trust, dialogue, exchange, openness, caring and willingness to experiment and to challenge perceived ideas were all part of this process.
The core goals of this work were to put on record human rights violations and the experiences of LGBT people, as well as to document community experiences and organising histories – all needs that Envisioning partners had clearly identified. However, while documentation is an important resource for community mobilising and public education, it can be challenging for grassroots groups that are often under pressure just to respond to immediate conditions. Envisioning sought to fill the gap by providing resources, mentorship and support for documentation by means of participatory documentary. In practice, depending on the priorities and needs of the community partners, the extent and type of participation varied across the work carried out by Envisioning. I adjusted my approach as necessary, acting as an educator, facilitator, mentor, collaborator, editor or co-editor, and director or co-director, depending on the priorities and needs of the partners. As the project developed, collaboration across the team deepened, resulting in a number of co-directed and/or co-edited projects, such as the aforementioned And Still We Rise, co-directed by Richard Lusimbo and me, and The Time Has Come (2013), which was shot by community partners from Africa and the Caribbean under the direction of Envisioning partner, ARC International.
Working with community partners, I directed or co-directed three feature-length documentaries: No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014), And Still We Rise (2015) and Sangini (2016). These films are characterised by a multiplicity of voices woven together to create a layered, complex, collective story that probes into shifting societal attitudes, social movement politics, conflicts, challenges, issues and history – a method I have developed in my past works on histories of organising. The contributions made by partners and interviewees were essential to undertaking these documentaries. Partners assisted with research development, facilitated connections with those interviewed, provided outreach to marginalised communities, supported translation, conducted research; and, depending on the partner’s priorities and needs, interviewed participants and directed or co-directed documentary outcomes. Dialogue and exchange informed the researchers’ and videographers’ understanding of local and national histories and issues.
Creating documentaries on social movements is fraught with challenges, including a need for sensitivity to the internal debates characterising such movements. This was particularly challenging, given the complexities of culture, religion and politics in the context of economic ‘development’ and globalisation and their impact on the diverse and complex societies that made up the Envisioning partnership. The contribution of community partners who were directly involved in organising efforts and community building was essential to the work. No Easy Walk to Freedom drew on the experience and advice of these partners, and of participants at the forefront of the struggle to advance LGBT rights in India, and on 55 interviews in four major urban centres in India. Those interviewed included queer community leaders, members and activists; scholars in queer theory and same-sex love in Indian history; HIV/AIDS prevention outreach workers; and lawyers at the forefront of the constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The interviewees contributed first-hand knowledge, expertise and varied experiences in relation to the issues, communities and histories investigated in the documentary.
Methodologically this ‘bottom-up’ approach enables content to precipitate from a rich and varied data set. Such flexibility is key when exploring social issues and histories of social movements and using ethnographic data. It facilitates a nuanced intersectional perspective that seeks to bring out internal contradictions and complexities, while maintaining coherence. A similar methodology is used in Sangini, created in partnership with the Sangini Trust, an LBT shelter located in Delhi. The documentary is based on interviews I did with Betu Singh7 and Maya Shankar, who together ran the shelter, as well as with lesbians and transgender people who sought shelter there, Sangini’s legal counsel, Shivangi Rai (Lawyers Collective) and two leading activists and feminists, Maya Sharma and Pramada Menon, who address issues facing lesbians and female-to-male (FTM) transgender people. Sangini probes into issues of patriarchal dominance, women’s oppression, class, rural/urban differences and challenges, family pressures, forced marriage, sexual violence and Sangini’s work to educate women on understanding their rights.
A similar approach was taken for And Still We Rise, filmed by the SMUG participatory documentary team, which draws on 42 interviews carried out by Richard Lusimbo. The documentary built on three years of collaboration with SMUG and represents a transformative process of creation and learning from each other. I will discuss the content of and the contribution made by And Still We Rise, No Easy Walk to Freedom and The Time Has Come later in this chapter.
Participatory documentary teams
Working with community partners, Envisioning established documentary teams in seven countries in the Caribbean and Africa.8 They comprised three persons, a researcher and two videographers, positions either designated to existing staff or to people hired by the community partner. Envisioning sought to support capacity enhancement in research methodology and participatory documentary-making for individual team members, and to strengthen the capacity of the community partner.
Envisioning provided equipment, resources and funding to support all aspects of the work, including travel for the purposes of conducting research, documentation and outreach nationally. Using small-format HD cameras, computer-based editing software and dissemination over the internet, the project sought to make the process of creating documentary accessible and useful. The video equipment package was selected to balance ease of use with capacity enhancement, having the dual goals of keeping technical aspects accessible for first-time videographers, while enhancing their skills and experience.9
Together with York University research assistants, we ran research and participatory video workshops for the abovementioned teams at the community partners’ offices. Workshops covered such technical, creative and research aspects as production planning, camera techniques, sound recording, lighting, location shooting. They also ranged across interview techniques, informed consent, participatory action research and ethical considerations to take into account when making participatory documentary. The workshops were coordinated with local or regional Envisioning research team meetings and often set up to coincide with events that provided an opportunity for community researchers and videographers to develop their video skills, with mentorship and support on hand. For example, in February 2012, the first workshops were held at United and Strong in Saint Lucia in conjunction with the event, International Dialogue: Focus on Strengthening the Caribbean Response.10 Following the workshop, United and Strong videographers recorded the conference. In May 2012, we did workshops with African partners, starting with Lesbians and Gays of Botswana (LeGaBiBo) in Botswana, and later that month with SMUG, and the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK) at the GALCK centre in Nairobi, Kenya. Following that workshop, participants filmed Nairobi’s International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) organised by GALCK.
Following production workshops, Envisioning provided video-editing equipment and software,11 and Kaija Siirala12 and I led video-editing workshops. We created technical manuals for the documentary teams, and provided ongoing mentorship and support. Seeking ways to enhance connections across the project, Envisioning also developed peer-to-peer training by supporting the travel costs of researchers and videographers who had completed the workshops and gained experience in the field, to enable them to pass on their skills and experience to other partners. This process facilitated exchange on research and participatory documentary, fostered collaboration across differently located partners, and enhanced the teams’ skills and confidence.
Figure 16. LeGaBiBo participatory documentary team workshop, Gaborone, Botswana, 1 May 2012. Left to right: Terra Long (MFA, York University), Yoon Jin Jung (MFA), Tuna Mabuza, Phyllis Waugh, and seated in front: Tebogo Motshwane and Nancy Nicol. Photo credit: LeGaBiBo and Envisioning.
Creative practice and research: tensions
The Envisioning community partners were grassroots LGBT organisations, working under conditions of criminality. Gathering documentation on issues affecting LGBT persons as well as recording work being done to advance rights based on SOGI were significant needs identified by these partners, which Envisioning sought to address. But in addition to outcomes, process was equally important to the project goals. Participatory documentary involves community members and partners in research, including discussions about content, goals and questions of voice, audience, safety and security and ethical considerations. This collaborative process contributed to knowledge and capacity in research methodology, community building/outreach, skills exchange and knowledge mobilisation. We sought to place politics, ethics and creative response at the centre of the work.
Figure 17. GALCK and SMUG participatory documentary team workshop, GALCK Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, 16 May 2012. Back left to right: Yoon Jin Jung (MFA, York University), Nancy Nicol (Envisioning PI), Terra Long (MFA) and front left to right: Caroline Kaara (GALCK, videographer), Junic Wambya and Nkyooyo Brian (SMUG, videographers) and Jim Muthuri (GALCK, videographer). Photo credit: Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
Participatory documentary is based on an active engagement with the world and with others that builds context and interpretation through a creative process of interaction and collaboration over time. Creative practice takes a different approach to research and knowledge than conventional approaches to research do. Participatory documentary is not subject to a tightly designed methodology: it must be open-ended and highly creative to respond to the lived experiences of those taking part and the challenges they face. Similar to the intuitive response valued in creative practice, participatory documentary foregrounds experience as a kind of knowledge, one that supports and values a more intuitive approach to research, prioritising the voices of participants who are directly involved in the issues, the struggles or campaign histories being investigated. To be effective, the process must be inclusive and collaborative, engage communities, and respect their leadership and knowledge.
This approach was particularly necessary in the context of documenting the lives and experiences of sexual and gender minorities – experiences that are often denied and repressed, but at the same time are characterised by profoundly creative and courageous acts of resilience in the face of societal exclusion. As one example of this dual aspect of silence and resilience, Maya Sharma,13 recounts her work with tribal Adivasi14 groups in rural India:
Even in places where there are very few amenities or facilities, people have carved out their niche. I know nearly five to six women who have had breast surgery. They are very poor people. How they must have saved money! I know two couples very closely who had operations, got married, and have a child through IVF.15 It’s not as if they belong to the same caste or religion. They are interreligious and intercaste couples. Regardless, there’s a lot of tolerance in their families and work places. It’s very difficult for such people to live their lives. They’ve faced countless hardships and violence. But after all this, it’s clear that people find a way. They live with courage.
Alongside each team’s contributions, participatory documentary also values those who give their time, knowledge and experiences through interviews and focus groups. The documentary teams were often moved, at times to tears, by the resilience and courage demonstrated in the stories the participants shared. I was also greatly moved by the courage of the teams themselves, as they negotiated their way through extremely difficult circumstances with profound care and compassion in order to document the voices of the community.
Given the sensitive nature of working with vulnerable populations, grassroots partners were best placed to know and understand local conditions and to safeguard the security of those taking part. In practice this was fraught with challenges. For example, participants were given the option of being anonymous or on camera.16 In all of our locations, community leaders who were already publicly identified with SOGI issues were confident about being on screen. From their perspective, their on-camera presence and public voice was an essential part of movement building, generalising the lessons of the struggle to advance LGBT rights and furthering public education on SOGI issues. However, the teams sought to minimise the risk to those who had not previously been publicly identified with SOGI issues by encouraging them to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, many interviewees opted to waive their right to anonymity. Telling their story on camera was an act of courage in the face of societal exclusion and marginalisation, one that contributed to their sense of self and the importance of their account. To do so represented an act of embodiment and defiance, a way of speaking back, challenging erasure and negation. Being on camera heightened their enthusiasm and connected the project with a spirit of activism. These interconnected tensions and complexities involved in safeguarding participants, while at the same time supporting self-determination, activism and community building, were highly important to the teams’ capacity enhancement. They addressed these dilemmas by allowing for different levels of disclosure − from public screenings in local festivals or on community websites, to organising in-house screenings where participants could share their stories in a safe space as part of a community event. Whether the participants opted to be on camera or remain anonymous, their being part of the project helped to overcome isolation and stigma. This connected them to the organisation and to other LGBT people, sometimes for the first time.
Community engagement
The participatory documentary teams in each country videotaped solo interviews and small focus groups as well as documenting community events. By this means partners extended their outreach to involve sections of their community they had not previously accessed, enhancing engagement. The material was edited into documentaries and video portraits for community use and outreach. The video interviews were transcribed to support analysis of the research, development of papers and reports, and publication of the findings. The collected documentation of human rights violations contributed to reports on human rights in different countries, and supported Envisioning and community partner advocacy efforts and public education.
Following editing workshops in Nairobi in November 2012, the LeGaBiBo, GALCK and SMUG teams premiered their first documentaries at a community forum at the GALCK centre in Nairobi. These were: The Law, Discrimination and the Future (2012), A Short Film on Kenyan LGBTI Stories (2012), and Life Experience of LGBTI in Botswana (2013). The room was packed with an engaged audience of community activists and leaders and the challenging and insightful discussion facilitated the connection between the project and the community, and fuelled the teams’ commitment and resolve.
Life Experience (2013) documents LeGaBiBo’s vision of creating an inclusive environment that protects the rights of LGBT people in terms of health, law and social policy through the voices of members and leaders from four organisations in Botswana: LeGaBiBo, Botswana Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS, Ditshwanelo (a human rights non-governmental organisation (NGO) based in Gaborone) and Rainbow Identities. A few months later, in February 2013, LeGaBiBo coordinated the first LGBT film festival in Botswana, Batho Ba Lorato (People of Love), which received significant local media coverage. Following that, the LeGaBiBo team toured the country, screening their work to promote outreach and public education opportunities. A second short done with LeGaBiBo, Botho: LGBT Lives in Botswana (2013), explores the legal challenge mounted against the colonial-era law of Botswana which criminalises same-sex intimacy. Litigant Caine Kaene Youngman and lawyer Monica Tabengwa speak about LeGaBiBo’s constitutional challenge while Alice Mogwe, Ditshwanelo’s director, contrasts the colonial-era criminal law with the concept of botho, an understanding of human rights that has been part of African tradition for millennia. On the importance of botho in addressing debates on tradition and culture, and issues of homophobia and exclusion, Mogwe notes,17
Starting from the discussion of human rights as a concept, we’ve focused our attention on our Botswana concept called botho. Botho, [and] the South Africa ubuntu concept [is] the idea that, I am because you are, or I am human because you are human, and what I do to dehumanise you effectively dehumanises me as well. And if one uses botho as the basis of the work which we do, we’re able to explain to people that human rights did not come in a package on a ship, which came from Europe and docked in Cape Town and then came on horseback or donkeyback to Botswana. It is a concept which has existed amongst peoples from time immemorial.
A Short Film on Kenyan LGBTI Stories (2012) includes interviews with leading LGBT activists in the country. Drawing on 25 interviews done in 2012, the video explores cases of human rights violations, including: suspension from school, imprisonment, family-based violence, workplace harassment. It also examines examples of community building including: lesbian parenting, relationships and same-sex marriage. Participants discuss strategies to decriminalise same-sex intimacy in Kenya and examine the Criminal Code law in light of the provisions of the Kenyan Constitution which guarantee every Kenyan equal rights.
In 2013, at the second Uganda Pride, SMUG premiered their first documentaries: The Law, Discrimination and The Future (2012), Hope for the Future (2013) and First Uganda Pride (2013), a 45-minute video about the first Pride held in the country in 2012. The political, legal and social context and conditions were particularly challenging in Uganda. The introduction of the AHB in parliament in 2009 had forced SMUG to turn much of their time and resources to opposing it. Yet, in the face of opposition and violence, SMUG continued to organise: opening Uganda’s first and only LGBT clinic (at Icebreakers Uganda), doing outreach to smaller communities and rural areas, and holding and filming the above-mentioned Pride. The films sought to speak directly to fellow Ugandans, to build allies and work together for a better future. They tracked the progress of the AHB from its beginning in 2009, the campaign of media hatred and public outings of LGBTI people unleashed by the Ugandan tabloid Rolling Stone, and the murder of SMUG founder, David Kato.
In the Caribbean, Envisioning partners from Belize, Guyana, Jamaica and Saint Lucia met again in Kingston, Jamaica in 2013. The conference focused on development of the research and included a participatory video workshop led by videographers from Guyana and Saint Lucia, who shared their experience with participants from Jamaica and Belize. A community screening was hosted by Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG), which premiered three documentaries: Our Saint Lucian Experience by United and Strong, Saint Lucia; Sade’s Story (2013) by Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), Guyana; and The Time Has Come (2013),which was filmed by Envisioning videographers from Africa and the Caribbean, and directed by project partner, ARC International.
Figure 18. Kendale Trapp (UNIBAM) and Avellina Stacy Nelson (United and Strong), Caribbean team participatory documentary workshop, Kingston, Jamaica, 9 July 2013. Photo credit: Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
In addition to these works, SASOD created three other video shorts in 2013: Homophobia in Guyana, Selina’s Voice and Jessica’s Journey – the latter two, together with Sade’s Story, constituted a series of portraits of transgender people in Guyana. Giving first-hand accounts of profound transphobic violence in public spaces, by police and in healthcare institutions, their voices were particularly significant in the context of the legal challenge to the cross-dressing law in Guyana.18 The videos were screened at SASOD’s LGBT film festival, Painting the Spectrum 10, held in Guyana in June 2014 with Jessica’s Journey being featured at its opening night. The Caribbean participatory documentaries have been used to build awareness, generate discussion and support outreach.19
Video interviews with litigants in criminal code challenges in India, Botswana, Guyana and Jamaica provided a window into their experiences and often exposed how the existence of a law that criminalises consensual same sex-acts contributes to denial of access to justice. For example, in February 2013, a young outreach worker at J-FLAG acted as a litigant in a domestic challenge against the sodomy law of Jamaica, after he was evicted from his home due to his sexual orientation. As an outreach worker, he also testified to the daily reports of violence he heard from poor gay men and transgender persons. According to documentation by J-FLAG at the time, the organisation had received 36 reports of mob violence due to sexual orientation including two murders within the last year. In a video interview with the J-FLAG/Envisioning team, the litigant20 shared his reasons for stepping forward as a litigant in the case:
I recognise that violence is a pretty effective mechanism to keep people silent and invisible ... that if I don’t challenge them and challenge their authority to impose silence upon me then they get to win, right? But I do think I have something important to say and I do want to see change in my country because I don’t want to feel like a stranger here for the rest of my life … With regards to my family … I came out to them years before I actually became a public figure.
In August 2014 the litigant withdrew his case because of threats of violence against him and his family.
Establishing the Envisioning documentary teams in the Caribbean and Africa also provided a unique opportunity for international collaboration across the partnership. ARC International harnessed this capacity to create The Time Has Come, documenting a significant juncture in SOGI issues at the United Nations. Under ARC International’s direction, Envisioning videographers from Africa and the Caribbean filmed a series of six state-led and civil society regional seminars held between January and June of 2013 in Paris, Brasilia, New York, Nairobi, Kathmandu and Oslo in the lead up to that year’s United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session in Geneva. The seminars were designed to raise awareness and promote dialogue on SOGI issues. Filming the sessions provided Envisioning videographers with an opportunity to enhance their video skills as well as their knowledge and understanding of UN processes related to SOGI issues.
The Time Has Come captures a critical time in the advancement of SOGI issues at the UN.21 In 2011, a historic resolution recognising sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited grounds for discrimination was passed. In March 2012, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon delivered a speech asking countries around the world to end discrimination against LGBT people. Anticipating a possible follow-up resolution in the 2013 session, ARC sought to document these developments and capture key discussions and experiences of LGBT people, and the aspirations, hopes and strategies of LGBT leaders internationally. The documentary features LGBT human rights defenders from around the world discussing ways of strengthening protections for LGBT people. Subsections of the film address: universality and non-discrimination, security of the person and freedom of association.
Figure 19. GALCK videographer, Caroline Kaara, International Day Against Homophobia, 17 May 2012, Nairobi, Kenya. Photo credit: Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
Its participants also speak about the challenge to the concept of universal human rights at the UN by the introduction of a resolution on traditional values that would exclude SOGI issues from human rights provisions. Approaching the concept of tradition through a critical lens, the film explores the legacy of colonialism, the repression of sexual and gender diversity and expression, and its impact on indigenous societies worldwide. Elizabeth Kerekere22 from Tiwhanawhana Trust for Takatapui, New Zealand, says,
As Maori, we are a colonised people. We share the experience of indigenous people around the world, of loss of land, systematic erosion of our language and our culture – not to mention the suppression of our more fluid forms of sexuality and gender expression. As LGBTIQ we experience the generational trauma of the strict gender roles, homophobia and transphobia, brought to us courtesy of the British Empire, imposed on Maori culture and instilled into the fabric of New Zealand society.
Bolivian speaker and founder of Fundación Diversencia, Ronald Céspedes23 notes,
We can’t make progress in a lot of countries, especially in Latin America, for these two factors: the first, that it invokes a discourse of traditional values in relation to indigenous people; and the second, which equates traditional values with the Judeo-Christian tradition. And not even Judeo-Christian but secular societies perpetuate ethics and morality that originate from the morals and ethics of Judeo-Christianity.
The Time Has Come concludes with a discussion of next steps at the UN to advance SOGI issues and protect the human rights of LGBT people across the world. The film premiered at a special UNHRC session in Geneva, organised by ARC International in June 2013, and was subsequently screened at the UN in September of that year.
Telling Our Stories
In preparation for World Pride, held in Toronto, Canada in June 2014, Envisioning partners − with editing support from Kaija Siirala − created Telling Our Stories, a collection of 30 five-minute video portraits of LGBT activists and community members filmed in India, Africa and the Caribbean.24 It premiered at the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives as part of the 2014 World Pride events. The exhibition brought together work by the Envisioning participatory documentary teams, and a photo-and-text essay by the project’s Guyanese photographer, Ulelli Verbeke, composed of images of Caribbean LGBT people who have sought asylum in Canada due to discrimination on the basis of SOGI. The event raised significant questions about the meaning of home in a world of homophobic and racist oppression.
The participants in the series speak directly about what continuing with the struggle for LGBT rights means, despite violence and risk. Their stories speak to profound discrimination, violence and loss: random violence in public places; violence and hate by police, church and state; loss of employment, education, friends, family and community. But there are also tales of resistance: stories of family, friends, neighbours and strangers who have acted as allies; organisations developing security plans to protect LGBT persons; positive media opening up discussion; community mobilising; and LGBT people joining legal challenges. Some examples from this collection include the following portraits:
Figure 20. Photo credit: Telling Our Stories, Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
Stosh Jovan Mugisha, a trans man who was then executive director of Kuchus Living with HIV/AIDS (KULHAS) in Uganda, speaks about stigma, sexual violence and rape in relation to being HIV positive, a trans man and gender non-conforming − what he refers to as a sense of ‘triple-stigmatisation’.
Kenita Placide, then executive director of United and Strong in Saint Lucia, talks about some of the challenges of highlighting abuse and discrimination. She argues that what is needed in Saint Lucia is for society to see beyond ignorance, and that this will only happen through advocacy and action, not through waiting for society to bestow acceptance and rights.
Maya Sharma, a leading feminist scholar in India, activist and author of Loving Women: Being Lesbian in Unprivileged India (2006), speaks about the liberty and freedom she felt when she first began to identify as a woman who loves women at a time when there was no queer movement in India. Her reflections on how silence can speak links her own experience with that of the queer people she works with in rural tribal areas in India.
Tanya Stephens is a Jamaican reggae artist whose repertoire features social commentary hits such as ‘What a Day’ and ‘Turn the Other Cheek’. She speaks about using her talent as a singer and writer to raise awareness about social justice. Her experiences in meeting gay people changed her childhood assumptions that queerness was ‘wrong’.
Veena, a Dalit trans woman and a peer support educator with Sangama in Bangalore, speaks about her experiences of discrimination from an early age and how her experience at Sangama became empowering. ‘We are all one’, Veena says, as she describes a movement that fights for the rights of all minorities and victims of discrimination.
Tshepo Riqu Cosadu, then advocacy officer for Rainbow Identity Association in Botswana, works as an advocate for transgender and intersex rights on health issues, HIV/AIDS prevention, prenatal and postnatal care, transgender parenting, and legal recognition and rights for transgender and intersex people. Tshepo speaks about the strong, culturally embedded gender roles in Botswana, based on a female/male binary, and the issues that this creates for transgender and transsexual individuals.
Every time I wake up in the morning, pray for a better tomorrow.
Pray to God to really help change things from what they are.
Hoping every morning, hoping every evening, hoping every time.
I’m keeping this hope alive. I’m keeping this hope alive.25
Nkyooyo Brian, composer, ‘Hope Alive’ (2014)
From 2009 to December 2013, SMUG and the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law (Coalition), combined with international pressure, successfully managed to prevent the AHB from being passed.26 When the AHA was passed in December 2013 and enacted into law in March 2014, SMUG faced a crisis. The act’s passage led to increasing violence towards LGBTI people and many groups and organisations that had supported LGBTI rights were forced to close or suspend their work. Many LGBTI people were thrown out of their apartments by landlords, and subjected to arrest, media outings and mob violence. Several of those affected fled to neighbouring Kenya where many remain to this day in overcrowded and dangerous conditions.
The violence directly impacted members of SMUG and the participatory documentary team based in Uganda. The day after the AHA was passed in December 2013, Richard Lusimbo (Envisioning researcher and SMUG documentation manager) and Junic Wambya (the project’s videographer and the then executive director of Freedom and Roam Uganda) were both outed in the Ugandan media. Junic Wambya faced mounting threats and was forced to flee the country.27
In this urgent and difficult context, the team discussed the need to document human rights violations as a result of the AHA, while minimising risk in the context of escalating violence. It is a testament to the courage of the SMUG documentary team that they decided to continue the work and to create a film that would focus on the impact of and resistance to the AHA. The result was And Still We Rise. I worked closely with the SMUG team and co-directed the film with Richard Lusimbo. Caroline Kaara, an Envisioning videographer in Kenya, replaced Junic as camera operator. Nkyooyo Brian, executive director of Icebreakers Uganda, composed an inspiring music track for the film. And Junic, having relocated to Toronto, was able to work closely with me on editing the documentary.
I asked Caroline to capture their process including filming Richard as he met with and interviewed the participants. But it was only as I was editing that I realised that the stories of the SMUG documentary team − and how the AHA affected them − would form a core narrative alongside the story of the AHA, as examined through the interviews they had filmed. Caroline’s footage following Richard provided the visual thread for this self-reflexive approach, which incorporated the filmmakers’ journey into the film narrative.
Tracing the history from 2009, And Still We Rise weaves together personal accounts of individuals caught up in the widespread repression that followed passage of the act: media hate, clinic closures, arrests, human rights violations and mob violence. It includes the impact on the filmmakers and activists themselves. In a moving nighttime sequence of a drive through the streets of Kampala, the narrator, Junic Wambya, describes how her landlord forced her out of her apartment because he saw her picture in the newspaper. This is followed by a sequence where the team drove in a heavy rainstorm to Richard’s hometown. There they interviewed Richard’s cousin and a childhood friend as they grappled with the media outing of Richard as a gay rights activist, and expressed their love and ongoing support for Richard in the face of negative reactions to the news in the town.
The documentary provides an analysis of intersecting domestic and international forces underlying the AHA, and an in-depth look at the resistance to it, led by SMUG and the Coalition, which brought together some 50 civil society organisations to oppose the AHA and other laws that undermine civil liberties in Uganda. Richard’s interviews with local legal, academic and community leaders together provide an in-depth analysis of the neocolonial religious right’s role in Uganda in fomenting hate, situating the AHA within a broader assault on civil liberties, a context used by opportunistic local politicians to secure and retain power. The executive director of Chapter Four Uganda, Nicholas Opiyo, a lawyer in the constitutional case against the AHA, analyses the act in the context of the post 9/11 assaults on civil liberties under an ageing regime headed by President Museveni. Dr Frank Mugisha, SMUG’s executive director, Adrian Jjuuko, executive director of the Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum, Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera, founder of Freedom and Roam Uganda, Sam Ganafa, Spectrum Uganda’s executive director and others describe personal and organisational impacts of the act’s passage. Dr Sylvia Tamale, dean of Makerere University’s law faculty, deconstructs the myth that homosexuality is ‘un-African’,28 citing examples of same-sex practices and diverse gender expression across Africa. She also draws out connections to women’s oppression, arguing that, ‘those same arguments of “un-African” are used to justify women’s subordination, especially when we try to assert our rights to sexual autonomy. Then you will hear the same mantra.’
According to Frank Mugisha, And Still We Rise captured SMUG’s work and the story of resilience and resistance to the AHA for the first time. Despite the forces of hatred arrayed against SMUG, the AHA met its match in the Coalition and SMUG, who succeeded in getting the law struck down. On 1 August 2014, the Constitutional Court of Uganda nullified the AHA, on the grounds that the Parliament of Uganda had passed the law without quorum.
No Easy Walk to Freedom
This 2014 documentary follows the case against Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises same-sex acts. It probes into contemporary queer organising and the broader social and political context in relation to LGBT rights in India. The research and development for it began in 2009–10 when I travelled to India to develop partnerships. These three key organisations joined Envisioning: Naz Foundation (India) Trust (Naz India), an HIV/AIDS education and prevention NGO based in Delhi; Naz Foundation International (NFI) in conjunction with the Maan AIDS Foundation, an HIV/AIDS education and prevention NGO based in Lucknow; and Sangini, an LBT shelter in Delhi. Naz India and NFI played a key role in the Section 377 struggle. The former, with the Lawyers Collective in Delhi, filed the case against Section 377 in 2001. Also in 2001, Maan’s predecessor, Bharosa Trust, was raided and its health workers were arrested in an incident that was a turning point in the development of the case. In addition to these partners, I also drew on the expertise of the Lawyers Collective in Delhi, the Humsafar Trust in Mumbai, the Alternative Law Forum (ALF) and Sangama in Bangalore, and the coalition Voices Against 377 (Voices). These organisations contributed additional expertise and facilitated networking and access to interview participants.
Figure 21. No Easy Walk to Freedom production team, Delhi, India, 31 October 2011. Left to right: Phyllis Waugh (research), Nancy Nicol (director), Shakeb Ahmed (cinematography), Pratik Biswas (location sound), Pearl Sandhu (line producer), Rhaesh Rajbhar (lighting). Photo credit: Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
The approach taken in the documentary is highly intersectional: a reflection of the organising strategies of the movement, queer politics in India, and the intersecting issues at stake in the Section 377 case. Challenging viewers’ expectations, No Easy Walk to Freedom opens with a sequence of children in an orphanage. Its significance in relation to a narrative on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code becomes apparent as the film unfolds. The orphanage is run by Naz India, which was founded by Anjali Gopalan, through whose compassionate leadership an orphanage was started for HIV positive children. Naz India did pioneering work in HIV and AIDS prevention and education, sending outreach workers into Delhi’s slums to access at-risk populations, including sexual and gender minorities. Naz India also provided meeting space for them, through the Milan Centre, a programme which supported marginalised queer communities. In the documentary, Milan Centre staff member, Shashi Bhushan,29 speaks about the experiences of transgender people, unpacking intersecting issues of modernisation, loss of traditional practices, employment discrimination and poverty:
They are not into the traditional jobs, assigned to the transgender people, which is dancing on some auspicious occasions; because now they have very little opportunity to do that as well. On top of that, if they’re not given any jobs, they are jobless. So that’s why they go to prostitution. Most of them, they don’t want to do that, and so that’s why we are having these programmes so that we can help them somehow to become economically independent.
Through their pioneering work with at-risk populations in Delhi’s slums, Naz India ran afoul of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Police would harass and arrest Naz outreach workers for ‘promoting an illegal activity’30 by distributing condoms to men who have sex with men (MSM). Motivated by a sense of injustice born out of witnessing discrimination against homosexuals as well as the jeopardy to Naz India’s HIV/AIDS prevention work – and weary of midnight trips to police headquarters to get Naz outreach workers out of custody – Gopalan approached the Lawyers Collective, and together they filed a case challenging the constitutionality of Section 377.31 There were tensions at the outset of the case. Naz India and the Lawyers Collective came under criticism from activists on various grounds including filing the case without consultation.32 The result of these debates ultimately strengthened the movement against Section 377 and queer mobilising in India. In response to community concern, regular consultations were held starting in 2003, to discuss all aspects of the case and organising strategy. Queer organising, including within feminist organisations as well as transgender, lesbian, gay and MSM groups, had existed well before the Section 377 case. The documentary probes into some of this work through interviews with leading Indian feminists and with queer and HIV/AIDS activists. As the case went on, the struggle drew in more sectors from across Indian society, which in turn better reflected the diversity and intersections of the issues at stake.
Figure 22. Milan Centre, Naz Foundation (India) Trust outreach workers: Prince, Kiran and Bobby, with client, Delhi, India, 29 October 2011. Photo credit: No Easy Walk to Freedom, Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
By the 1990s health workers and NGOs recognised that HIV/AIDS prevention was impeded by the presence of Section 377. There were growing numbers of MSM and gay men impacted by HIV who started coming to the Lawyers Collective offices because they were being harassed and blackmailed by police.33 Lawyers with the Lawyers Collective HIV unit would become key players in the legal challenge to Section 377. In July 2001, police raided the offices of the HIV/AIDS prevention NGOs, Bharosa Trust and NFI, which work with marginalised populations of MSM, hijras, kothis and others34 in Lucknow, in the province of Uttar Pradesh. Police seized condoms and lubricants and a dildo used for condom demonstrations, labelling these items as ‘obscene materials’ and ‘sex toys’; and seized books and videos, labelling them as ‘pornography’.They arrested the Bharosa Trust’s manager and three outreach workers, charging them under Section 377 for promoting and engaging in ‘unnatural practices’, obscenity and more. In the media, police characterised the Bharosa Trust as a brothel, and justified the raid as necessary to break up a ‘sex racket’ and stop the ‘vice of homosexuality’. In the documentary, three of the men arrested recount their experience. Imprisoned for 47 days, they were subjected to extreme abuse and humiliation by prison authorities.35
News of the arrests in Lucknow reached Delhi and galvanised activists who organised protests against the arrests. Indira Jaisingh and Anand Grover, co-founders of the Lawyers Collective, travelled to Lucknow to support the accused and argue for their release. Organisations in the city working in the field of social issues, human rights and women’s rights started holding demonstrations outside the jail. Due to this pressure, the men were eventually released and the charges under Section 377 dropped (although the charges for obscenity were not dropped).36 The Lucknow incident acted as a further catalyst for launching the constitutional challenge to Section 377.37
While the colonial roots of Section 377 and the Victorian language of the law − ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ − provide the connecting narrative line of the documentary, various speakers address the colonial legacy in far-reaching and subtle ways. They speak to the racist assumptions of the British lawmakers; the interconnections between repression of indigenous societies and diverse forms of sexual and gender expression in precolonial India; and the implications of the Section 377 case for constitutional protections of all minorities in India. Saleem Kidwai38 addresses the suppression of pre-colonial traditions:
Prior to the introduction of Section 377 there is enough evidence to show that homosexuality was prevalent in India … The idea of the modern family, the Victorian family, with defined roles − not just defined roles, defined behaviour − which is in direct contrast to what the precolonial family and the precolonial traditions were, immediately gets the reformers, who are by definition modernist, seeing themselves as people who need to reform that and get rid of all this old baggage … Suddenly all this is deemed traditional and therefore seen to be abandoned for Victorian values. It’s also a similar thing happening in Europe. It’s not as if Victorianism spared anyone. But in India the contrast was far, far greater.
By 2003, the coalition, Voices Against 377, had been formed. In an attempt to ensure that the struggle was not limited to the courts, Voices adopted a broad-based approach, arguing that Section 377 was a social issue ‘about all of us’.39 Its report Rights for All (2005) called on a range of organisations to have position statements, and formed alliances with human rights, women’s rights, children’s rights and labour organisations. Voices coordinated the One Million Voices Campaign to demonstrate to the government that many people were concerned about and affected by the law, and to open up public discussion about sexuality in a broader, political sense.40 At the core of their efforts was the perspective that engaging public discussion of the issues was essential to raising awareness and advancing greater liberty and freedom in relation to sexuality and gender identities, whatever the outcome of the legal challenge itself.
Others in the film speak to the ways in which LGBTQ people find a way to live their lives regardless of the laws. Deepa41 who self identifies as she-male, describes her wedding to her boyfriend conducted by a local Hindu priest in Delhi:
On my wedding day I went to Jhandewala temple. A policeman came up to me and said, ‘You’re not allowed stand here.’ I asked, ‘Why, sir? Am I assaulting or stealing? Tell me, sir.’ He replied, ‘You won’t go away? I’ll get a stick.’ He got a stick. When he hit me, I went straight to the police station. Then I returned and got married. The priest guided us through the pujas. We exchanged rings with each other. He gave me this bangle. I gave him a ring and a chain. Then we circled the fire.
Figure 23. Nancy Nicol (director) and Shakeb Ahmed (cinematography) filming No Easy Walk to Freedom in Delhi, India, 14 November 2011. Photo credit: Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
Another example, recounted by Alok Gupta,42 describes the ‘Bombay solution’. Apartments in Bombay (Mumbai) are governed by cooperative building society rules which, in an effort to prevent illegal subleasing, state clearly that people who are not related to each other cannot live in the same apartment. In effect the rules act as a barrier to a couple living together unless they are married. So Alok Gupta described a ‘Bombay solution’, which was to buy two adjacent flats and break down the middle wall. He suggested this solution to a gay couple − who loved the idea. About three years later they were able to buy the apartments, but, Alok noted, ‘they couldn’t find adjacent, they found a top and bottom (laughs). So one is on the top, the other is on the bottom’.43
Eventually, Voices also filed a petition against Section 377, represented by the ALF in Bangalore, and worked to gather affidavits − further mobilising participation in the case. Those involved included Sangama, an NGO based in Bangalore which, informed by a social and economic analysis of oppression, works to address issues of poverty, land rights and sex work, as well as discrimination and oppression on the basis of SOGI. It brings together groups such as Dalits,44 Adivasis, sex workers, hijras, kothis, and those who identify as third gender or trans, bisexual, lesbian or as gay men. Sangama founder Manohar Elavarthi45 describes Sangama’s politics thus:
Figure 24. Sangama demonstration, Bangalore, India, 19 November 2011. Photo credit: No Easy Walk to Freedom, Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights.
Injustice happens in the name of sexual orientation, gender identity, in the same way it happens in the name of class, caste, gender, disability. So we believe that we need to join hands, there should be solidarity. Only then can we build a society which is based on justice … Marginalised people get their rights as a collective, as a community. Dalits, women, adivasis − without having a strong organisation and being together, constantly demanding things − only then changes happen.
In the documentary, Sangama joins a demonstration for land rights of Dalit and rural Adivasi people, carrying a banner with an image of Dr Ambedkar, a leader of the Dalit movement and an architect of the Indian Constitution. Dr Ambedkar advanced the concept of constitutional morality, which the 2009 Delhi High Court drew on in its decision to read down Section 377.
In December 2013, the Supreme Court of India set aside the 2009 Delhi High Court ruling and upheld Section 377, recriminalising LGBT people in India. Angry demonstrations took place across the country. In a speech to the demonstrators,46 Voices activist Gautam Bhan declared, ‘We will take your law and we will tell you that criminal law never outweighs human truth.’ Activists resolved to continue the fight against the 2013 verdict, including filing curative petitions against it, which in April 2014, the Indian Supreme Court agreed to consider. In August 2017 in a separate case, a different Supreme Court bench declared that the 2013 Supreme Court had gravely erred in annulling the Delhi High Court verdict. Justice Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud, who authored the lead judgment, held that privacy is a fundamental right:
Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.47
As of the time of this writing, the Section 377 case is once again under consideration by the Supreme Court of India. Additional petitions have been filed to the court, including a petition from Arif Jaffar, who recounts in the documentary, the abuse he was subjected to when he was arrested in 2001 in Lucknow. The history of the struggle against Section 377 preserved in this documentary is a testament to the resilience of the movement to remove the legacy of the colonial law and advance human rights in India.
Conclusion
Envisioning partners have used the participatory documentaries for public education, legal interventions, community mobilising and as a catalyst for discussion. They have been shown at film festivals and conferences locally, regionally and internationally – and a large number of organisations internationally have used them to support outreach and education. Significantly, appreciation has been expressed by audiences from local, national and international contexts.
What stands out in all of this work is the tremendous resilience of the participants and the documentary teams, who have drawn on community mobilising and activism to document history in the making, and to shed light on the lives and experiences of LGBT people as they struggle to assert and express their identities in the face of persecution, exclusion and repressive laws.
The overall outcome of Envisioning’s documentary work is an extensive archive of LGBT experience and social movement histories as told by participants directly involved in these issues in each country involved in the research during the period between 2011 and 2015. The existence of this body of work stands as a testament to the endurance, courage and resilience of those who took part and provides a rich historical record of this period of conflict and change.
Dave, N. (2012) Queer Activism in India: A Story in the Anthropology of Ethics, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
Freire, Paulo (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London, Sydney, Delhi and New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press).
Narrain, A. and G. Bhan (eds.) (2005) Because I Have a Voice, Queer Politics in India, (New Delhi: Yoda Press).
Nichols, B. (2010) Introduction to Documentary, 2nd edn. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University).
Nicol, N. (2008) ‘Politics of the heart: recognition of homoparental families’, Florida Philosophical Review: Journal of the Florida Philosophical Association, University of Central Florida philosophy department, 8 (1).
Nicol, N. and M. Smith (2008) ‘Legal struggles and political resistance: same-sex marriage in Canada and the US’, Sexualities, 11 (6): 667−87.
Sharma, M. (2006) Loving Women: Being Lesbian in Unprivileged India (Yoda Press, New Delhi).
Vanita, R. and S. Kidwai (eds.) (2000) Same-sex Love in India: Readings in Indian Literature (Basingstoke and New York, NY: Palgrave).
Voices Against 377 (2005) Rights for All: Ending Discrimination Under Section 377 (Vikas Offset Press: New Delhi), available at: www.unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/HumanRights/01%20STATE%20DEMOCRACY%20AND%20LAW/38.%20Voices%20against%20Section%20377%20Rights%20for%20All%20-%20Ending%20Discrimination%20under%-20Section%20377,%20New%20Delh.pdf (accessed 15 Feb. 2018).
Waugh, T., M.B. Baker and E. Winton (2010) Challenge for Change, Activist Documentary at the National Film Board of Canada (Montréal-Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press).
Documentary films
And Still We Rise (2015) dir. R. Lusimbo and N. Nicol (Uganda and Canada: Sexual Minorities Uganda and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/178217397. Extracts are cited from interviews with: Dr Sylvia Tamale, Dr Frank Mugisha and Nicolas Opiyo.
A Short Film on Kenyan LGBTI Rights (2012) dir. I. Reid, C. Kaara and J. Muthuri (Canada and Kenya: Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/73786260.
Botho: LGBT Lives in Botswana (2013) dir. N. Nicol (Botswana and Canada: Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/69577157. Extract from interview with Alice Mogwe.
First Uganda Pride (2013) dir. R. Lusimbo, J. Wambya and B. Nkoyooyo (Uganda and Canada: Sexual Minorities Uganda and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights). No online access.
From Criminality to Equality film series (2002−9) dir. N. Nicol, comprising Stand Together (2002), Politics of the Heart (2005), The End of Second Class (2006) and The Queer Nineties (2009) (Canada: Intervention Productions). See: www.yorku.ca/nnicol/documentary.html; http://digitalcollections.clga.ca/exhibits/show/nancy-nicol/nn-collection.
Homophobia in Guyana (2013) dir. N.B. Henry, U. Verbeke and J. Grant (Guyana and Canada: Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights). No online access.
Hope for the Future (2013) dir. R. Lusimbo and P. Onziema (Uganda and Canada: Sexual Minorities Uganda with Voices of the Abasiyazzi and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/73786262.
Jessica’s Journey (2013) dir. N.B. Henry, U. Verbeke and J. Grant (Guyana and Canada: Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights). No online access.
Life Experience of LGBTI in Botswana (2013) dir. T. Motshwane, T. Mabuza and J. Molefe (Botswana and Canada: Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/75420906.
No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014) dir. N. Nicol (India and Canada: Naz Foundation (India) Trust and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/87912192. Extracts are cited from interviews with: Shashi Bhushan, Anjali Gopalan, Anand Grover, Vivek Divan, Gautam Bhan, Saleem Kidwai, Arif Jafar, Maya Sharma, Deepa, Manohar Elavarthi, Alok Gupta, Sudeesh, Shahid and Veena.
One Summer in New Paltz, a Cautionary Tale (2008) dir. N. Nicol (Canada and US: Intervention Productions). See: www.yorku.ca/nnicol/documentary.html; http://digitalcollections.clga.ca/exhibits/show/nancy-nicol/nn-collection.
Our Saint Lucian Experience (2013) dir. M. Fontenelle, K. Placide, M. Danton and S. Nelson (Saint Lucia and Canada: United and Strong and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights). No online access.
Sade’s Story (2013) dir. N.B. Henry, U. Verbeke and J. Grant (Guyana and Canada: Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/75422884.
Sangini (2016) dir. N. Nicol (India and Canada: Sangini Trust and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/164737117.
Selina’s Voice (2013) dir. N.B. Henry, U. Verbeke and J. Grant (Guyana and Canada: Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/88493864.
The Law, Discrimination and the Future (2012) dir. R. Lusimbo, J. Wambya and B. Nkoyooyo (Uganda and Canada: Sexual Minorities Uganda and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: https://vimeo.com/73786261.
The Time Has Come (2013) dir. K. Vance, J Fisher and S. Kara (France, Brazil, USA, Kenya, Nepal, Norway, Switzerland and Canada: ARC International and Envisioning Global LGBT Human Rights), available at: http://vimeo.com/67796115. Extracts are cited from statements by Elizabeth Kerekere and Ronald Céspedes.
______________
1 Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Scott Lively, 960 F. Supp. 2d 304, 316 (D. Mass. 2013). On 5 Jun. 2017, the court affirmed SMUG’s charges against Lively; however, it dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. For details see: https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/sexual-minorities-uganda-v-scott-lively (accessed 8 Feb. 2018).
2 See for example: Jjuuko and Tabengwa, ch. 2; Mbaru et al., ch. 6; Orozco, ch. 9; and Jjuuko and Mutesi, ch. 10.
3 Interviewed on 21 Nov. 2014 by Richard Lusimbo, SMUG and Envisioning. An excerpt is included in the documentary And Still We Rise (2015).
4 Challenge for Change/Société nouvelle was an initiative of the National Film Board (NFB) of Canada,which ran between 1967 and1980. For a history of the programme see: Waugh et al. (2010).
5 For example, Trinity Square Video, one of Canada’s first artist-run centres and its oldest media arts centre, founded in Toronto, 1971.
6 Paper Tiger Televison, a video collective based in New York City, produces public access television, community screenings and media literacy programmes.
7 An early activist in the Indian lesbian movement, Betu founded Sangini in 1997. Sadly, Betu passed away on 4 Oct. 2013 and Sangini was forced to close. The film is dedicated to Betu and Maya in appreciation of their courageous groundbreaking work.
8 The community partners were: Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), Guyana; United and Strong, Saint Lucia; Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG), Jamaica; United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM), Belize; Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LeGaBiBo), Botswana; Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK), Kenya; and SMUG, Uganda.
9 The Envisioning video-production package included: a Sony HXRNX70 compact AVCHD HD camcorder, a fluid head tripod, three types of microphone (a unidirectional with boom pole and alternative camera mount, a wireless microphone, a handheld cardioid microphone), a tabletop microphone tripod and a basic light kit. In addition we provided high-capacity rugged hard drives. The camcorder had professional balanced line microphone inputs to support the use of external microphones.
10 The International Dialogue: Focus on Strengthening the Caribbean Response was an international conference organised by ARC International, United and Strong and Envisioning in Saint Lucia.
11 The Envisioning editing package included a Mac Pro laptop, external drives, and software including: Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 editing software, Adobe PhotoShop, Adobe After Effects, and Microsoft Word to support transcription work.
12 Kaija Siirala was an Envisioning staff member who assisted me with the participatory video work. Kaija coordinated the video projects, contributed to the editing, helped liaise with community partners, and gave them support and technical advice.
13 Interviewed on 8 Nov. 2011 by author. An excerpt appears in the documentary No Easy Walk To Freedom (2014).
14 In India, Adivasis make up a significant minority, 8% of India’s population. Land rights − ecological degradation caused by modernisation and development which has pushed indigeous peoples off ancestral lands − is a significant issue. According to the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, ‘Adivasis is the collective name used for the many indigenous peoples of India. The term Adivasi derives from the Hindi word “adi” which means of earliest times or from the beginning and “vasi” meaning inhabitant or resident, and it was coined in the 1930s, largely as a consequence of a political movement to forge a sense of identity among the various indigenous peoples of India. Officially Adivasis are termed scheduled tribes, but this is a legal and constitutional term, which differs from state to state and area to area, and therefore excludes some groups who might be considered indigenous’. See http://minorityrights.org/minorities/adivasis-2/ (accessed 20 Sep. 2017).
15 In vitro fertilisation.
16 For anonymous interviews the video teams used backlighting and audio filters to disguise participants’ identity; or conducted the interview using audiotape.
17 Interviewed on 4 May 2012 by author and Junior Molefe, LeGaBiBo and Envisioning. An excerpt is included in the documentary Botho: LGBT Lives in Botswana (2013).
18 For more information on the cross-dressing case in Guyana see: DeRoy and Henry, ch. 5.
19 Screenings included: the Urban Justice and Health Initiative/CITIES project in New Amsterdam, Berbice, Guyana; community meetings in Guyana, Saint Kitts and Saint Lucia; stigma and anti-discrimination training with healthcare providers in Saint Lucia; International Women’s Day in Saint Lucia; Association for Women’s Rights in Development 13th International Forum; OECS Litigation, Advocacy and Education Strategy forum; 11th Caribbean Institute in Gender and Development (CIGAD); Victory Institute political leadership meeting; Caribbean Women and Sexual Diversity conference; and the World Out Games, Human Rights Conference: From Safe Harbours to Equality.
20 J. Jaghai interviewed on 22 Jul. 2013 by B.P. Welsh, J-FLAG and Envisioning.
21 For more on SOGI work at the UN see: Vance et al. and Mbaru et al., this volume, chs. 8 and 6 respectively.
22 In the documentary The Time Has Come (2013).
23 Ibid.
24 See http://envisioning-tellingourstories.blogspot.com (accessed 14 Feb. 2018).
25 A song from And Still We Rise (2015) for which Nkyooyo Brian was the composer and lyricist.
26 For more on the impact of, and resistance to, the AHB/AHA see Jjuuko and Mutesi, and Lusimbo and Bryan, this volume, chs. 10 and 12 respectively.
27 My partner and I supported Junic in coming to Canada and settling in Toronto, where she successfully claimed asylum.
28 Interviewed on 29 Nov. 2014 by Richard Lusimbo, SMUG and Envisioning. An excerpt is included in the documentary And Still We Rise (2015).
29 Interviewed by the author on 29 Oct. 2011 for the documentary No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
30 Anjali Gopalan interviewed by the author on 28 Oct. 2011 for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
31 Anjali Gopalan, ibid., and Anand Grover, interviewed on 9 Nov. 2011 by author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
32 For an account of the debates and tensions of that time see Dave (2012).
33 Anand Grover interviewed by author on 9 Nov. 2011, and Vivek Divan interviewed by author on 27 Jan. 2014, for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
34 MSM and transgender people in the Envisioning research study in India identified themselves by sexual practice or gender performance or gender identity as: hijras, kothis, kinnars, panthis, jogtas, dangas, alis, double-deckers, chakkas, dhuranis and other terms. Lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual were also used, albeit more with English-speaking participants. Queer is sometimes the preferred term due to these complexities, and because it reflects a nuanced and shifting understanding that does not confine sexual identities to fixed LGBT categories.
35 Sudeesh and Shahid interviewed on 22 Nov. 2011 by author, and Arif Jaffar interviewed on 23 Nov. 2011 by author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
36 Ibid.
37 Anand Grover interviewed on 9 Nov. 2011 by author, and Gautam Bhan interviewed on 7 Oct. 2011 by author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
38 Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai’s groundbreaking book, Same-sex Love in India (2000) translated texts from 15 languages covering 2000 years to bring to light references to same-sex love in ancient, medieval and modern texts in India, including in the scriptures and Persian and Sufi literary traditions. Kidwai was interviewed on 16 Nov. 2012 by the author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
39 Gautam Bhan interviewed on 7 Oct. 2011 by author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
40 For more on the growth and perspectives of the movement see also the anthology ed. Narrain and Bhan (2005).
41 Interviewed on 2 Nov. 2011 by author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
42 Interviewed on 16 Nov. 2011 by author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014). This story was not included in the film. I am glad to share it with you now.
43 Interviewed on 16 Nov. 2011, as above.
44 Dalit, which means ‘oppressed’ in Sanskrit is the name popularised by Dalit leader, Dr Ambedkar, for India’s so-called ‘untouchable’ or lower castes.
45 Interviewed on 19 Nov. 2011 by author for No Easy Walk to Freedom (2014).
46 Bhan gave his speech in Delhi on 12 Dec. 2013.
47 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retd.) and ANR v. Union of India and ORS, Judgment 24 Aug. 2017, para 126.