From persecutors to protectors: Human rights and the F&M Global Barometer of Gay Rights^TM (GBGR)

Abstract

Sexual minorities are the most vulnerable minorities on the planet. Their existence challenges cultural norms, traditions, and power structures. They have been treated as social pariahs and scapegoats for the economic, political, or social ills in their countries. However, countries vary widely in the extent to which they are protective or repressive toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. This article systematically analyzes the global persecution and protection of sexual minorities through the application of the F&M Global Barometer of Gay Rights^TM (GBGR). Using GBGR world data from 2011 to 2014, we document the variance in levels of state and societal persecution and protection of sexual minorities in 188 countries. Our findings suggest that having a higher life expectancy, a democratic system, a lower percentage of rural population, and lower religiosity are significant predictors of whether a country will be more rights-protective toward its sexual minorities.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Rebecca Ware Green, Morgan Reed, and David Yao for research assistance in the preparation of the F&M Global Barometer of Gay Rights; the Hackman Research Grant program at Franklin & Marshall College; and Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, Bozena Welborne, and anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association.

Notes on contributors

Susan Dicklitch-Nelson is Professor and Chair of Government at Franklin & Marshall College.

Scottie Thompson Buckland is Project and Data Specialist at the Center for Opinion Research, Franklin & Marshall College.

Berwood Yost is the Director of the Center for Opinion Research and the Floyd Institute for Public Policy at Franklin & Marshall College.

Danel Draguljic is Associate Professor of Mathematics at Franklin & Marshall College.

Notes

1 We are cognizant of the controversy over “naming” or “labeling” the group of individuals we are examining. Thorben Sauer and Podhora (2013: 135–136) provided an excellent summary of the difference between the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) favored by the United Nations, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI), men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW) and homosexuals. As Thorben Sauer and Podhora noted, SOGI is “issue-centered” and LGBTQI is “people-centered.” We use the term “homosexuals” and “gay” interchangeably to refer to gays and lesbians. For simplicity sake, we refer to gays, homosexuals, and LGBTQI individuals as “sexual minorities.”

2 Those countries are Colombia and Greenland (2016); Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and the United States (2015); Scotland (2014); Brazil, England, Wales, France, New Zealand, and Uruguay (2013); Denmark (2012); Argentina, Iceland, and Portugal (2010); Norway and Sweden (2009); South Africa (2006); Canada and Spain (2005); Belgium (2003); and The Netherlands (2001; Pew Research Center 2013; Carroll & Itaborahy 2015).

3 Those countries are Iran, Iraq (some areas), Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen (Pew Research Center 2013; Carroll & Itaborahy 2015).

4 The F&M GBGR was cocreated by Susan Dicklitch-Nelson and Berwood Yost in 2011.

5 Sexual orientation and gender identity have been classified under “other status” by the United Nations since 2009.

6 We do not include transgender rights in our analysis because they are gender identity rights and separate from sexual orientation. We would have to measure each variable in relationship to transgender rights, which would create the need for a separate barometer. This is not in any way to discount the importance of measuring transgender rights, but to highlight that, although related, sexual orientation and gender identity are separate variables that each deserve its separate measurement. Having said that, in most cases if a country does not respect gay rights, it does not respect the rights of its transgender citizens either. Although our GBGR focuses on gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, it is presumed that if gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are not tolerated within a country, neither will be transgender or intersex individuals. This is the case for most countries, with the exception of Nepal, Pakistan, and India, which recently established legally recognized third gender categories (Integrated Regional Information Networks [IRIN] 2014). This discrepancy is most pronounced with the Indian Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of transgender rights in 2014, but reinstated the criminalization of homosexuality in December of 2013.

7 The GBGR was first launched with the case study of Uganda in 2012 (Dicklitch, Yost, and Dougan 2012). Although some changes were made to the original Barometer of Gay Rights (BGR) to account for issues in accessibility to macro-level comparison data, the GBGR has remained consistent in its commitment to measuring both state and civil society/societal level human rights respect or repression of the human rights of sexual minorities.

8 The GILHRO examines eight legal aspects: legality of consensual homosexual acts between adults, equality of age limits for consensual homosexual and heterosexual acts, explicit legislative prohibition of sexual orientation discrimination regarding employment, explicit legislative prohibition of sexual orientation discrimination regarding goods and/or services, any legal recognition of nonregistered cohabitation of same-sex couples, possibility of second-parent and/or joint adoption by same-sex partner(s), and availability of marriage for same-sex couples, (Badgett et al. 2014).

9 Although states are usually the worst violators of human rights, they are clearly not the only violators of individual human rights. In order to obtain a holistic account of the extent to which sexual minority rights are protected or repressed within a country, we included societal level indicators as well. In other words, the GBGR gives us a comprehensive view of how rights-respecting societies are toward sexual minorities as well.

10 We also recognize that the GBGR may inadvertently promote a form of “homonationalism that sees the Global North as more ‘progressive’ because of its supposed significant oppositions to LGBT equalities in the Global North itself” (see Puar 2013: 337; Rahman 2014). We disagree with Bosia (2014: 257), who contested the notion that there is a “human rights framework that is suitable for the politics of sexual minorities everywhere.” We are also sensitive to Kollman and Waites’ concern about the rigid application of Western notions of human rights to gay rights (see Kollman and Waites 2009: 7).

11 We conducted a Mokken Scale Analysis of the 29 GBGR items. The scalability of all items in the GBGR is .887 (se = .031). Initially, the two violence against sexual minorities items were included as part of the Societal Level Persecution subscale, but the Mokken Scale Analysis showed they were not measuring the same latent trait as the other societal level persecution questions. Further analyses revealed that the violence indicators might more appropriately fit into a separate scale, but we chose to retain all 29 items within the GBGR because of the high overall scalability of the total item set.

12 GBGR coders follow a GBGR coding manual and have weekly meetings with the principal investigator to ensure uniform interpretation of data cross-country.

13 We are cognizant that many other variables could have been added to measure levels of modernization, but we were also restricted by available data for 188 countries.

14 GBGR scores and all predictor variable scores differed significantly by region of the world.

15 Adjustments were made to the original GBGR scorecard based on accessibility of reliable data for all 188 countries.