Connect with us

Commentary

Penal Code 377: The bane of Bangladesh’s LGBTQI population

Lawmakers must repeal colonial-era sodomy law

Published

on

Penal Code 377 criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual acts in Bangladesh. (Photo courtesy of Riaz Osmani)

Penal Code 377 criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual acts in Bangladesh. (Photo courtesy of Riaz Osmani)

According to surveys, 5 to 10 percent of the world’s population belong to the LGBTQI category (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex.) The first two feel sexual and emotional attraction towards people of the same gender, not the opposite as is the social norm. Bangladesh is no exception to this and there are numerous such people who live clandestine lives, away from the limelight of family, friends and society. Many of them live double lives by entering sham marriages with the opposite gender to save face with family and society. Such marriages do irreparable damage to both parties involved since they are not based on love or intimacy.

After the murder of gay rights activist Xulhaz and gay cultural activist Tonoy by Islamic militants earlier this year, gays in Bangladesh are now in hiding, fearful of their lives. Those who are able to are leaving the country. This is a sorry state of affairs and needs to change soon. First thing to aid this change will be a bit of education. People never choose their sexuality. Homosexuals are born with their sexuality that they discover after puberty in the same way heterosexuals do. Nobody makes this choice. There is no choice here. Moreover, it is never possible for someone to change their sexuality. This means a gay person cannot be turned straight (heterosexual) by any means. Likewise, a heterosexual person cannot be turned gay (homosexual) by any means. Young boys and girls cannot be influenced by other homosexuals to become gay. Nobody becomes gay upon puberty. The sexuality is determined at a much earlier stage.

The American Psychological Association, along with other equivalents in the Western world and in India, have long ago determined that homosexuality is in no way a mental disorder or illness. It is a perfectly normal sexual orientation or expression for a small percentage of the world’s population. Any attempt at changing this through therapy, religious teachings, physical and mental abuse have proven totally ineffective and have often led to depression and suicidal tendencies among those being tried to be converted. The Western world has finally come to terms with these realities and has removed all laws that make criminals out of homosexuals, discriminate against them and prevent them from marrying the person they love.

It is high time that Bangladesh repeal laws in the country that make criminals out of her LGBTQI population. Interestingly enough, the main item of Bangladesh’s penal code that is used to maintain this criminality was not necessarily intended for that purpose. This item is the Victorian-era Penal Code 377 that Bangladesh (along with India, Pakistan and other former British colonies) inherited as independent nations. This code states the following: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Victorians had strange notions about sexual behavior and this code was instituted throughout their empire to prevent any sexual act by any two people (or a person and an animal) that did not result in human procreation. This meant that if a man and woman engaged in various sexual acts other than that which resulted in procreation, they would be deemed as criminals. This also meant that any sexual acts by homosexuals were criminal offenses. But the second one was an unintended consequence. The main purpose was to make sure all sexual activity was for the purpose of procreation.

There is no point in blaming the British for this ridiculous legal intrusion into people’s personal affairs today. We have been independent long enough to take care of our own affairs and the British have long removed their equivalent from their statute books. According to the Bangladesh Constitution, “all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law . . . The state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth . . .” As has been done in the legal challenge to 377 in India, the clause above needs to include sexual orientation. I am asking for such a legal challenge to Bangladesh’s 377 since it violates the spirit of the country’s constitution. Under no circumstances must gays in Bangladesh be automatically deemed criminals by virtue of 377.

In the current climate where Islamic militants are openly killing homosexuals and have advocated more such killings on the internet, it is not possible for a fearful person to seek police protection if under threat for being a homosexual. The said person is liable to face police arrest and/or harassment and possibly rape. Removal of this ghastly legal absurdity will at least allow room for gays in Bangladesh to seek protection.

This brings me on to my next point and that is the role of religion (Islam in particular) in public life. The gay rights movement in Bangladesh will hit a brick wall (if it hasn’t already) as long as the politicians, civil society members and most importantly the religious community invoke Islam as the main barrier to repealing Penal Code 377 and granting homosexuals equal status in the eyes of the law. While most Muslims and people of other faiths steadfastly maintain that their faith is absolutely against homosexuals and that the latter deserves to be persecuted, most will draw blanks if asked to quote actual references from scriptures that promote this point of view.

The quote often given is that of the story of Lut (Lot) in the Quran and Bible where God supposedly destroyed a town for sodomy (i.e. homosexual acts.) This is the only thing that is attributed to attitudes towards homosexuals. There is however a debate about the meaning of the story. Some researchers of Islam in the west have argued that this story did not have anything to do with consensual sexual acts between two adult homosexuals but was about male rape. I will not venture into this argument because from my point of view, it belongs in religious academia, not in a country’s legal system, especially a system that has been defined by common law.

Moreover, since Bangladesh is a secular country (although in name only) where people of different faiths enjoy equal status (except for the anomaly of Islam still being the state religion,) there must be room for people of no faith or homosexuals who may or may not subscribe any faith. As long as Bangladesh is not an Islamic republic, religious beliefs cannot be used to criminalise, marginalise and persecute homosexuals. While social acceptance may come at a much later date, the country’s politicians and lawyers must have the foresight and courage to change the laws ahead of such social acceptance. Sodomy laws in the West were repealed much earlier than their societies were willing to accept homosexuals as equals.

Bangladesh will not be the first Muslim majority country to remove laws that criminalize homosexuals. Other such countries are Turkey, Mali, Albania, Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine (the West Bank only) and Indonesia (minus Aceh.) It is noteworthy that none of these countries were directly colonized by the British and hence did not inherit the Victorian penal code. But as I have already mentioned, our own countries are our own affairs and it is about time we correct this inhuman state regarding the status of the LGBTQI population. The civil society must also be on full guard not to allow Bangladesh to be turned into an Islamic republic.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

When a church fears the rainbow

Puerto Rico pastor objected to Pride symbols outside congregation

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.

I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.

The point is the words that followed.

Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”

As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.

I began thinking about fear.

There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.

Paint can be erased.

A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.

What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.

And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.

It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.

I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.

A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.

There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.

That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.

Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.

As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.

The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.

The words will not disappear as easily.

They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.

When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.

It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.

And that difference changes everything.

Continue Reading

Commentary

The boy they refused to forget

Jonathan David Muir Burgos released from Cuban prison after participating in protest

Published

on

Jonathan David Muir Burgos (Graphic by Ignacio Estrada Cepero)

When the Washington Blade first reported the story of Jonathan David Muir Burgos, the news centered on a 16-year-old Cuban teenager who had been sent to prison after taking part in a public protest in Morón, Ciego de Ávila. At the time, the facts were straightforward. A minor had lost his freedom, and his case was beginning to attract attention beyond Cuba’s borders.

Today there is another fact that deserves to be recorded with the same rigor.

Jonathan is no longer in prison.

His release, confirmed by multiple news organizations, closes one chapter of a story that, for months, was followed by journalists, human rights organizations, religious communities, and countless individuals who refused to let his name disappear from public view. Each of them became part of a much larger effort to ensure that the imprisonment of a Cuban teenager would not fade into silence as the news cycle moved on.

That collective attention does not explain every decision that ultimately led to Jonathan’s release, and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Judicial processes are rarely shaped by a single factor. What can be said with certainty is that Jonathan’s story never disappeared. It continued to be documented, discussed and followed long after the initial headlines were published.

Behind every widely reported case there is a family living a reality that rarely appears in the news. In Jonathan’s case, there was a father who also serves as a Protestant pastor and who spent months speaking publicly about his son while asking others not to forget him. There was a mother enduring the uncertainty familiar to any parent separated from a child. There were classmates, friends, and neighbors waiting for the day when Jonathan would no longer be known as the teenager behind bars, but simply as the young man returning home.

The image of a prison gate opening often marks the end of a news story. In reality, it marks the beginning of something far more difficult. A teenager must resume an interrupted education, reconnect with friends, rebuild ordinary routines, and recover a sense of normalcy after months in confinement. Those experiences seldom become headlines, yet they are part of the true cost of imprisonment.

Jonathan’s release is therefore more than an update to a story previously reported. It is a reminder that public attention has value. Journalism matters because it documents. Human rights organizations matter because they investigate. Communities matter because they refuse indifference. Families matter because they continue to wait, even when the waiting becomes unbearable. None of these efforts should be viewed in isolation. Together they ensure that a person’s story does not disappear simply because time has passed.

Many people leave prison after being forgotten.

Jonathan David Muir Burgos walked out of prison knowing that, throughout those months, thousands of people had continued to speak his name, follow his case and hope for the day when this story could be told differently.

Today, that day has arrived.

Continue Reading

Commentary

Religion, spirituality, and humanity: finding meaning in a complex world

LGBTQ refugees find hope in faith, common humanity

Published

on

By

A UNHCR-affiliated community center for refugees in Kraków, Poland, on April 5, 2024. LGBTQ refugees around the world often find hope in religion and their shared humanity. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

Religion and spirituality continue to shape the lives of billions of people around the world. Whether expressed through organized faith traditions, personal beliefs, cultural practices, or philosophical reflection, they remain powerful influences on how people understand themselves, others, and the world around them.

As a displaced person, I have seen firsthand how religion and spirituality affect people’s lives during times of uncertainty, hardship, and hope. In communities facing displacement, poverty, illness, conflict, and long waits for resettlement opportunities, questions about meaning, purpose, resilience, and belonging are not abstract concepts. They are part of everyday survival.

Religion and spirituality are often discussed together, yet they are not identical. Religion generally involves organized systems of belief, sacred texts, rituals, and communities. Spirituality is often more personal and may involve an individual’s search for meaning, connection, and inner peace without necessarily belonging to a specific faith tradition.

Despite their differences, both seek to answer some of humanity’s oldest questions: Why are we here? How should we live? How do we cope with suffering? What gives life meaning?

A search shared across cultures

Human beings have always searched for answers to the mysteries of existence. Across continents and throughout history, people have developed different ways of understanding life, death, nature, and the universe.

Christians may turn to the Bible. Muslims may seek guidance from the Quran. Jews may draw wisdom from the Torah. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indigenous peoples, and many others have their own spiritual traditions and teachings.

Recently, an Australian reader, Eveline Goy, shared a thoughtful reflection after reading one of my earlier articles. She noted that while some people may speak of “false prophets” based on their religious beliefs, others may find truth and wisdom in entirely different traditions. She also highlighted the rich spiritual heritage of Australia’s First Nations peoples, whose stories of the Rainbow Serpent continue to shape cultural identity and understanding of creation.

Her reflection reminded me that while beliefs vary widely, the desire to understand our place in the universe appears to be deeply human.

Religion, love, and LGBTQ people

For many LGBTQI+ people, religion can be both a source of comfort and a source of pain.

Throughout history, faith communities have offered people hope, belonging, and moral guidance. Yet many LGBTQI+ individuals have also experienced rejection, exclusion, or condemnation from religious institutions because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

As a queer refugee, I know how deeply these experiences can affect a person’s sense of self-worth and belonging. Many LGBTQI+ refugees I work with were not only rejected by society but also by families and faith communities they once trusted. Some were told they were sinful, broken, or unworthy of love. Others were forced to hide their identities in order to remain accepted.

Yet this is not the whole story.

Across the world, there are also religious leaders, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and faith communities that embrace LGBTQI+ people and affirm their dignity. Many believers interpret their faith through the values of compassion, justice, mercy, and love rather than exclusion.

At its heart, love is one of the most universal values found across spiritual traditions. Whether expressed through faith, friendship, family, or community, love has the power to heal wounds, build bridges, and restore dignity.

For many LGBTQI+ people, the challenge is not choosing between faith and identity but finding spaces where both can coexist.

Religion and spirituality in difficult times

We live in a world facing numerous challenges. Wars continue across several regions. Climate change affects communities through droughts, floods, and extreme weather events. Economic uncertainty impacts millions of families. Refugees and displaced people face uncertain futures.

In such circumstances, many people turn to religion or spirituality for comfort and guidance.

Here in Gorom Refugee Settlement Camp, I see this every day. Some gather for prayer. Others find strength in sacred texts. Some find comfort in collective worship, while others seek peace through personal reflection and meditation.

For many, faith provides hope when circumstances seem hopeless.

Yet I have also observed something equally important. Not everyone draws strength from religion. Some find resilience through friendship, mutual support, activism, creativity, and the determination to keep moving forward despite adversity.

This reminds us that while religion and spirituality can be sources of strength, so too can our shared humanity.

The human values that unite us

One of the most remarkable aspects of religion and spirituality is that despite their differences, many traditions promote similar values: Compassion, kindness, forgiveness, generosity, honesty, and respect for others.

These values are not exclusive to any single religion or philosophy. They appear across cultures, faiths, and secular worldviews.

Living in a refugee community has reinforced this lesson. Some of the most generous people I have met are deeply religious. Others are not religious at all. What matters most is not necessarily what people believe, but how they treat one another.

When someone shares food with a hungry neighbor, that is compassion.

When a person comforts a frightened child, that is humanity.

When communities stand together despite differences, that is solidarity.

These actions often speak louder than doctrine.

Building bridges in a diverse world

Religion and spirituality have inspired extraordinary acts of kindness throughout history. Yet they have also contributed to division when people become convinced that only their own beliefs are valid.

In today’s interconnected world, we encounter a greater diversity of perspectives than ever before. This diversity can enrich societies, but it also requires humility, curiosity, and respect.

No individual, community, or tradition possesses all the answers to life’s mysteries.

The challenge is not to eliminate differences but to learn how to coexist peacefully despite them.

For LGBTQI+ people, refugees, people of faith, and those without religious beliefs, dialogue and mutual respect remain essential. We all benefit when societies create space for people to live authentically while respecting the dignity of others.

Religion and spirituality continue to play important roles in human life. They help many people find meaning, resilience, comfort, and community during difficult times.

At the same time, the values that often matter most compassion, dignity, kindness, justice, and love are not confined to any single religion or belief system.

My experiences as a queer refugee have shown me that hope can emerge from many places. Some find it in prayer. Some find it in philosophy. Some find it in activism. Some find it in human connection.

Perhaps what ultimately matters is not which path we follow, but whether that path encourages us to become more compassionate, understanding, and caring human beings.

In an uncertain world marked by division and conflict, our shared humanity may be the strongest foundation upon which we can build a more peaceful, inclusive, and loving future for LGBTQI+ people, for people of faith, and for all humanity.

Aby lives in the Gorom Refugee Settlement Camp in South Sudan.

Continue Reading

Popular