Criminalization and rhetorical nondiscrimination: Sex work and sexual diversity politics in Rwanda

Abstract

Sex that is considered nonnormative or undesirable is often subject to state sanction. In Rwanda in 2009 there was an effort to criminalize sex work and same-sex sex, but ultimately only the criminalization of sex work occurred. What explains these different outcomes? Although both groups are at higher risk for HIV transmission because of social stigma, these concerns were not sufficient. The political salience of the human rights argument that nondiscrimination is an essential government commitment in postgenocide Rwanda was used to reject criminalizing same-sex sex. However, neither politicians nor most civil society activists thought this human rights argument was applicable to sex work. Although criminalizing lgbt people was considered socially divisive, criminalizing sex work was considered necessary. Understanding these different outcomes reveals the limitations of human rights arguments on the regulation of sex in East Africa.

Acknowledgments

The WC Good Memorial Fellowship supported some of the research upon which this article is based. Thanks to all the Rwandans who agreed to be interviewed for this project. Further, thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that significantly improved this article. Any remaining errors are my own.

Notes

1 The analysis in this article applies only to consensual sex between adults. There are issues around differences between different-sex couples and same-sex couples on the age of consent and long-standing debates over whether sex work is ever done in the absence of coercion (Freeman, 1996; Mgbako & Smith, 2010; Raymond, 1998). Although these debates are important, they are not the subject of analysis here. The use of “sex work” in this article, rather than “prostitution,” is meant to signal that I am discussing situations that are noncoercive (Haak, 2018).

2 I use the term “sexual diversity” to acknowledge that more than just broad two categories related to sexuality exist and thereby avoid reinforcing the homosexual/heterosexual binary (Roseneil, 2002). I also avoid using the term “sexual minorities,” as the “minoritization of difference” is problematic. The term “minority” invokes hierarchies and divisions that identify one group as normative and others as deviant, thus reinforcing homophobic discourses (Petchesky, 2009).

3 The way the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi people is remembered in Rwanda is politicized, and what is emphasized about Rwandan history and the genocide and what is erased are not neutral (Buckley-Zistel, 2006). The discussion here is not meant to critically assess how the Rwandan state remembers the genocide. Rather, the official government response to the genocide and rebuilding Rwandan society, at least rhetorically, centers on unity, social harmony, and nondiscrimination.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emma Paszat

Emma Paszat (she/her) is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto Mississauga. Her research interests include LGBTQ politics, critical human rights, and social movements.