Opinions
LGBTQ rights and inclusion amid Botswana’s constitutional review process
All Batswana must be included in debate
The Botswana courts are among the very few in Southern Africa that has set a trajectory in realizing and protecting LGBTIQ+ rights.
In 2016, the Botswana Court of Appeal, in the Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LEGABIBO) registration case, proclaimed that “members of the gay, lesbian and transgender community, although no doubt a small minority, and unacceptable to some on religious or other grounds, form part of the rich diversity of any nation and are fully entitled in Botswana, as in any other progressive state, to the constitutional protection of their dignity.” This remark would go on to set the tone for queer rights in Botswana and the region.
The presidential promise of advancing together
Commencing the 2018 16 days of activism against violence on women and children campaign, President Mokgweetsi Masisi acknowledged LGBTIQ+ people as vulnerable a group who continue to face stigma and discrimination in Botswana. He went on to say that they need equal protection under the law. This an authentic statement because they do form part of the rich diverse nation of Botswana. In response, the members of the LGBTQI+ community through an open letter thanked him for his words and encouraged him to live up to his call for protection. In 2019 during his election campaign, the president of Botswana promised Batswana a fair and equal constitutional review process that reflects the voices and concerns of all Batswana — regardless of their social, economic and gender status. This coming at a time when his government was fighting for the recriminalization of LGBTIQ+. This appeal by the State was a push for the continuous exclusion of LGBTIQ+ and denying them their fundamental rights to freedom of expression, liberty, privacy, dignity and protection under law. In its sense, being LGBTIQ+ is a political statement and to fully enjoy the privileges that come with the bill of rights as stipulated in the constitution one needs the backing and pledge of allegiance from the government.
A constitutional review – a space for all?
In January 2022, President Masisi had promised that the constitutional review process would be inclusive of LGBTIQ+ people. This had given hope and a form of relevance and belonging to the LGBTIQ+ community that finally we were being seen by the highest office in the land. This presidential promise had encouraged LGBTIQ+ people to practice their fundamental civic duty and contributing to a better and inclusive nation. The constitutional review process commenced at the anticipation of Batswana, but more anticipated was the LGBTIQ+ community. Would this process be inclusive, and progressive and reflect the diversity of Batswana as promised by the president bearing in mind his consistency and failure to live up to his words or were the LGBTIQ+ community once again a pawn in the political game? A December 2022 Afrobarometer report showed that an increasing number Batswana are losing trust in the president’s office. This is followed by the recent controversial reports around the president interfering with the judicial system in the just concluded Bamalete land case. One tends to wonder the legitimacy and question the transparency of the mandate of the Office of the President in ensuring that all Batswana are included and have a fair access to social, economic and legislative practices. In our fight for the realization and promotion of human rights for all, to become true leaders and masters of diversity and inclusion, we must be deliberate and intentional about practicing inclusion from all dimensions.
The bare minimum and reflection of diversity
President Masisi had appointed the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to review Botswana’s Constitution and spearhead this process. In country of 2.4 million people representation matters. The commission of inquiry to tick the gender box have eight females form part of the 19 tasked force team. The rather disappointment that when diversity and representation is addressed, it is only limited to cisgendered male and female. It does not consider the broader gender and sexuality spectrum. Such an essential democratic and civic process needs representation of already marginalized groups, such as young women, people living with disabilities and LGBTIQ+ people. After all, the High Court did state that they [the LGBTIQ+ community] form part of the rich diversity of Botswana. The president, after his promise ensuring inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people in the constitutional review process, made an intentional decision to exclude LGBTIQ+ persons in the commission of enquiry. The Presidential Commission of Inquiry task force had experts from the public workers union, House of Chiefs, Village Development Committee, public health education sector, religious community, advocates for people with disabilities and the attorney general’s office. The setup of the commission contributes to multiple forms of exclusion of sexual and gender minorities; as country that recently decriminalized a group that had been marginalized and vulnerable for decades, the intentional representation of LGBTIQ+ people would have been present in the commission of inquiry.
The ignorance of considering the law
In 2021, when the Botswana Court of Appeal decriminalized consensual same sex-sexual relations, this saw a landmark change and the continuous, infectious trajectory from the 2016 LEGABIBO registration case. This put another stamp of approval of legitimacy by the courts that human rights indeed are for all. The fundamental rights to expression, liberty, privacy and equal protection under the law are to be enjoyed by LGBTIQ+ people. This was now the law as pronounced by the courts. The process of constitutional review failed to live up the law — to protect and include LGBTIQ+ people. Society and its norms are dynamic and evolutionary and transform as a society and the world change. LGBTIQ+ people mobilized one another and collectively entered a setting that from the onset aimed to exclude them. The constitutional review process setting included the Kgotla setting, which for many queer people and women is already an unwelcoming place filled with patriarchal dominance. Galvanized with religious and traditional fundamentalist the Kgotla platform seemed like a deliberate intention to continue excluding women and queer people. In 2021, women who wore pants were turned away from receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations at the Kgotla spaces. Queer resilience is a powerful thing as this did not discourage LGBTIQ+ people from exercising their democratic rights. LGBTIQ+ showed up and showed cause. If there is one thing to learn from a community who for years have been criminalized and ostracized is that we continue to have hope and that the struggle for true freedom and liberty continues. A luta continua!
The presidential commission of LGBTIQ+ erasure
The commission of inquiry submitted its final report with recommendations to the president for consideration. The report was also made available to the public to engage with. The voices captured and recommendations made caused an outcry from the public, civil society organizations and human rights movements. The report displayed the continuation erasure LGBTIQ+ people and goes against the orders of the courts which are now laws and the utterances of President Masisi. The commission needed to investigate best practices and incorporate these into the recommendations to the president for review. It needed to have identified and differentiated constitutional matters from civic and social matters. The recommendations took little to no human rights-based approach resulting in multiple discriminatory and harmful recommendations that impact various vulnerable and marginalised groups in Botswana. The report was unsafe and lacked inclusive and protective language, this in addition to it already being anti-gender and anti-LGBTIQ+. This goes against the principles and ethics of human rights, body autonomy and doing-no-harm.
Bradley Fortuin is the LGBTIQ+ Program Officer at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and is social justice activist with over 10 years of experience in program design and strategic management, focusing on developing, implementing, and strengthening LGBTIQ+-led movements.
Opinions
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Our endorsed candidates hold their affiliation as a badge of honor
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We believe in a District where everyone can live a happy and dignified life. That means housing, healthcare, transit, education, and safety are treated as guarantees rather than privileges reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.
Our endorsed candidates do not hide what they believe. They engage in the democratic process openly, explain their politics clearly, and ask their fellow members to spend long nights and weekends doing the hard work of campaigning. And as the last six years of local elections have shown, including three successful D.C. Council campaigns and the overwhelming passage of Initiative 82, D.C. voters are often a great deal more interested in the endorsement of Metro DC DSA than in the handwringing of the Washington Post editorial board.
That is what makes Peter Rosenstein’s April 2 op-ed in the Blade so revealing. His piece was not just wrong. It was smug, unserious, and politically disconnected from the actual lives of queer people in this city. Worse, he used the platform of our local LGBTQ outlet to disregard Palestinian humanity while scolding democratic socialists for refusing to join him in that moral failure. Put plainly, Rosenstein has been publishing crank op-eds for years, and this one was no exception.
My name is Hayden Gise. I am a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and I am a union organizer. I do not speak on behalf of the national DSA organization, the local chapter, or any campaign. But I will not sit quietly while Rosenstein wraps himself in the mantle of queer Jewishness to sell the lie that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
He packages that lie in the same kind of pinkwashing rhetoric used by Benjamin Netanyahu, who mocked solidarity with Palestinians by saying, “Some of these protesters hold up signs proclaiming ‘Gays for Gaza.’ They might as well hold up signs saying ‘Chickens for KFC.’” Rosenstein’s liberal Zionism is not thoughtful, brave, or nuanced. It is just a more polished way of telling Palestinians their lives matter less and telling queer people we should be grateful for the empire so long as it flies a rainbow flag. Which, by the way, is showing itself to be a losing strategy.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza is not some tragic deviation from the history of an otherwise peaceful Israel. The Nakba was the mass expulsion and displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s establishment in 1947–49, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. My Jewish values tell me that is wrong. Rosenstein’s politics treat anti-Zionist Jews like me as illegible. No serious person should treat that accusation as an argument.
But the deeper problem with Rosenstein’s piece is that he has no real understanding of why Democratic Socialism resonates here. For queer people in D.C., Democratic Socialism is not an abstract theory. It is rent that does not consume half your paycheck, a union on your job, childcare you can actually afford, public transit that works, and a city where working-class Black and brown queer people are not displaced so developers and donors can cash in. Queer politics is not only about recognition. It is also about whether ordinary people can afford to survive.
That is why D.C. is fertile ground for Democratic Socialism. In the race for mayor, one of the leading candidates is Kenyan McDuffie, whose campaign already looks like a focus-grouped merger of Andrew Cuomo’s slogan and Donald Trump’s graphic design instincts, backed by big business interests and the super PAC money that follows them. The other has the endorsement of the major labor unions in the District. Who has a cohesive vision to make D.C. more affordable and childcare universal. Who puts people over profit and human rights over political expediency. Our next mayor, and our first Democratic Socialist Mayor: Janeese Lewis George.
D.C. is exactly the kind of city where Democratic Socialism should grow: working-class, queer, tenant-heavy, union-minded, and tired of being told that dignity is too expensive. Which side are you on? I know what side the queer people of the District of Columbia will be on.
Hayden Gise is a union organizer in Washington, D.C.
For half a century, the arc of LGBTQ progress in America has bent—slowly, imperfectly—toward justice. We fought for visibility, for legal protections, for the right to marry, serve openly, and live with dignity. Each generation built on the courage of the last.
And yet today, that progress is in peril. Across the country, lawmakers are rolling back protections, demonizing LGBTQ people for political gain, and trying to erase us from public life.
Opponents of our equality are working to erase us from the Constitution, and indeed, public life. In moments like this, based on my personal involvement working with one of the most effective leaders for LGBTQ rights I find myself asking a simple question: What would Jeffrey do?
Jeffrey Montgomery—the focus of a new documentary “America You Kill Me” and a long time Michigan activist and founder of the Triangle Foundation—was never content with quiet advocacy or compromise. He was a rabble-rouser, a strategist, and a relentless thorn in the side of powerful bigots. When politicians tried to marginalize LGBTQ people, Jeffrey didn’t politely ask for scraps. He forced the issue.
Jeffrey Montgomery started with his own determined voice and turned it into a movement. His story is living proof that personal courage can spark national conversations about justice and inclusion.
At a moment when the LGBTQ movement again faces hostility and regression, Jeffrey’s playbook offers lessons we would be wise to remember.
First, Jeffrey understood the importance of punching above our weight. In the early days of LGBTQ organizing, our movement was small, underfunded, and politically marginalized. But Jeffrey refused to let opponents see us that way. Through visibility, media savvy, and relentless organizing, he made LGBTQ advocates appear larger, stronger, and more unified than our numbers alone might suggest.
That perception mattered. Political opponents think twice before attacking a movement that looks organized, energized, and capable of mobilizing public pressure. Jeffrey knew that power is partly about reality—but also about what your opponent believes your power to be.
Second, Jeffrey never compromised on the value of our lives. Movements make compromises all the time. Politics often requires it. But Jeffrey understood that some things are not negotiable. The basic humanity of LGBTQ people is one of them. You can’t put our basic rights on the ballot. You don’t tell people to wait their turn. There are no turns. It’s now. It’s always now.
Too often, our opponents frame equality as something to be bargained over—as if the dignity and safety of queer people were a policy preference rather than a fundamental right. Jeffrey rejected that premise entirely.
You can negotiate strategy. You can negotiate timelines. But you cannot negotiate the worth of human lives.
And finally, Jeffrey understood the power of coalition. Today, one of the most effective tactics used against marginalized communities is division. If LGBTQ people can be fractured—by identity, ideology, generation, or strategy—our collective strength weakens.
Jeffrey instinctively resisted that trap. He worked with civil rights groups, labor leaders, faith communities, civic leaders and allies across movements. He understood that the fight for LGBTQ equality was never isolated from the broader fight for justice.
When opponents try to divide us, the answer is not retreat into smaller camps. The answer is to build broader ones.
If Jeffrey Montgomery were here today, he would not be discouraged by the backlash we are seeing. He would recognize it for what it is: the predictable response of those who feel their power slipping away.
And he would remind us that progress has never been linear. It has always required courage, persistence, and a willingness to challenge power directly.
So, when the moment feels uncertain, when the political winds shift against us, and when our opponents try to make us feel small, the question remains a useful one: What would Jeffrey do?
If history is any guide, the answer would be simple. He would make some noise. And making noise, today, means refusing to let fear, fatigue, or false unity quiet us when our lives are on the line.
Sean Kosofsky was director of policy at the Triangle Foundation.
Opinions
D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
Candidates like Janeese Lewis George should reject its endorsement
D.C. is not the place for the antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who advocate for the end of the State of Israel from the ‘river to the sea.’ The candidates they endorse agree to their platform, which includes not talking to any Zionist organizations. Being a Zionist simply means supporting the existence of the State of Israel. It does not mean supporting the war criminal who heads the government, or what he is doing, including murdering innocent Palestinians, or bombing civilians in Iran and Lebanon. As Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, wrote in a column in DC Jewish Week, the views of the DSA are totally unacceptable.
The Council is non-political, but I am not. I can say one candidate for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, has asked for, and received, the endorsement of the DSA, and by doing so agrees to its antisemitic platform. After her endorsement became public, George tried to ‘privately apologize’ saying she didn’t see the questionnaire submitted by her campaign, rather it was submitted by a staffer. Now George says she is both not antisemitic, and supports Palestinians. Well, that sounds good. But she, and anyone else who accepts the DSA endorsement, has to answer a series of questions: 1. Are you for a two-state solution and the continued existence of the State of Israel, contrary to the position of the DSA? 2. Do you support BDS? 3. What is your definition of a Zionist? 4. What is your acceptable definition of antisemitism? 5. Will you meet with Zionist groups in DC?
Then, we must recognize if one candidate, like George, can go after and accept an endorsement from an antisemitic organization, it gives tacit permission for others to do the same with organizations that might be Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-immigrant. All unacceptable. I urge D.C. voters to reject any candidate, for any office, who has the endorsement of the DSA. That is not what we want the leaders of our government to represent.
Thankfully, there are many choices in this year’s Democratic primary elections for every office. There is a race for mayor, congressional delegate, attorney general, Council chair, two D.C. Council at-large seats, additional Council seats, Democratic State Committee seats and ANCs. D.C. political leadership will look very different after this election.
I urge voters to whittle down their choices by first rejecting anyone endorsed by the DSA. The DSA’s platform, aside from being antisemitic, also includes suggestions to ‘Defund the Police.’ That is a slogan some of the candidates running adopted a few years ago, thinking the people wanted it. They quickly found the people of D.C. didn’t want fewer police, they wanted their police better trained, with better community oversight. They wanted to be sure the police were here to protect them, not to harass them. People should know the DSA at one point even withdrew its endorsement from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she wasn’t strident enough in her opposition to Israel and actually met with a Zionist organization. There are many Zionists like me — a gay, Jewish man — who support the existence of the State of Israel, yet want to see Netanyahu, a war criminal, a murderer, tried for his crimes and in jail, and his government replaced. Zionists who support Palestinians and want them to have their own free state.
As you decide who gets your vote, one way to find out about a candidate is looking at their website. I would suggest you reject any candidate who doesn’t have a strong issues section. The least you can expect of a candidate is to tell you in detail what they intend to do if you elect them. That includes our delegate to Congress, even if they won’t have a vote. If Democrats take back the House of Representatives, we can expect our delegate to once again get a vote in committee, and that can be very important.
In the next couple of weeks, I will make some endorsements and share them with you in the Blade, for anyone who might be interested. They will detail why I endorse a particular candidate. I will not suggest second, third, fourth, or fifth choices. That is for you to decide. No matter who you give your first vote to, even with ranked choice voting, you can still vote for only one person. If you decide to list more choices, make sure the views of your second, and other choices, coincide with those of your first choice.
So here is to an honest election season, one in which we end up with candidates winning who really care about our city, who have proven track records, and who will make us proud. Your job is to VOTE, and I hope everyone will.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
The White House5 days agoVIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
-
Movies5 days agoTrans-driven ‘Serpent’s Skin’ delivers campy sapphic horror
-
The White House5 days agoPam Bondi ousted as attorney general
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
