Commentary
Same-sex couples seek relationship recognition in Namibia
Supreme Court in May ruled country must recognize overseas marriages
BY BRADLEY FORTUIN AND THABO BUTHELEZI | On May 16, 2023, The Supreme Court of Namibia ruled that Namibia’s immigration laws must recognize same-sex marriages validly concluded outside Namibia, setting aside the High Court decision of Jan. 20, 2022. This case’s decision will significantly impact LGBTIQ+ rights and advocacy in Namibia and the region.
Background
In August 2017, Daniel Digashu, a South African Citizen and Johann Potgieter, a Namibian citizen, approached the High Court of Namibia after the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration denied Digashu, a South African citizen, a work permit based on their same-sex marital status.
Similarly, Namibian-born Anete Seiler and German-born Anita Seiler-Lilles approached the High Court of Namibia after Anita was denied permanent residence based on their marital status.
The High Court, comprised of three judges, dismissed their applications. The High Court held that the Constitution of Namibia prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation; however, it could not grant the couples’ applications because of a 2001 judgement by the Supreme Court of Namibia in Immigration Selection Board v Frank, which refused to recognize the rights of same-sex partners under the Immigration Act. The High Court criticized the discrimination that was leveled at the applicants and the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court; however, it felt bound by the Supreme Court decision.
Supreme Court
The appellants argued that the facts in the Frank case differed in that their relationship was not recognized in terms of the law. The applicants in the Frank case were in a long-term committed relationship, whereas in the case of Digashu and Seiller-Lilles, the appellants’ relationships were valid regarding the law of the countries they were respectively concluded in.
The right to dignity
The Supreme Court of Namibia’s landmark decision to support the right to dignity for same-sex couples was a significant moment in the ongoing battle for equal rights. The Supreme Court held that denying the recognition of the Digashu and Seiller-Lilles’ respective marriages violated the right to human dignity. The court stated that the Constitution of Namibia guarantees the right to dignity to its people and does not exclude based on one’s sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. The court added that the fact that this is outlined in Article 8 of the constitution meant that it is constitutionally binding and relates to the protection of other rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that all Namibians have the right to human dignity under the law. This was also rooted in the idea that marriage is a fundamental right essential to the pursuit of happiness. Although same-sex marriages cannot be legally performed in Namibia, the court held that denying the recognition of same-sex marriages concluded lawfully outside the country violated the applicant’s constitutional rights and was a form of discrimination that had no place in modern society. The Supreme Court’s decision was a watershed moment that signaled a new era of acceptance and equality for Namibia’s LGBTIQ+ community.
The right to equality:
The Supreme Court further affirmed the right to equality for LGBTIQ+ persons. It held that the ministry’s approach infringed on the right to equality. The court declared that “spouse,” in the context of the law, includes same-sex couples. The right to equality is a fundamental human right, ensuring everyone is treated equally under the law. It is a cornerstone of democracy and is essential for protecting human dignity. In Namibia, the right to equality is enshrined in the constitution. However, despite these legal protections, discrimination still exists in many forms and affects various marginalized and vulnerable groups, such as same-sex couples.
The Supreme Court has played a critical role in interpreting and enforcing the right to equality in the Digashu, Seillers-Lilles judgment. The court interpreted the law and applied it to the specifics of this case to ensure that applicants are treated equally, giving precedence for future equality matters. The Supreme Court’s reasoning for granting equality is based on several fundamental principles. Firstly, the court recognizes everyone is entitled to the same legal protections. No one should be discriminated against based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other characteristic.
The court further recognizes that stigma and discrimination can take many forms and are influenced by one’s particular characteristics and identity. This is evident in cases when a law or policy appears neutral but disproportionately impacts a specific group, as can be seen in the Digashu, Seiller-Lilles matters where the ministry denied the applicants the right to equality based on their same-sex marriage status.
The court also recognizes that the right to equality is about protecting individual rights and promoting social cohesion. Stigma and discrimination can lead to social fragmentation and undermine the stability of society. By promoting equality, the court is helping to build a more cohesive, diverse, and stable community. This is also based on a deep understanding and interpretation of the principles of democracy and respect for human rights. The court proclaimed, “the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as indispensable for freedom, justice and peace.”
Public opinion
The court noted that the majority often influences public opinion, and elected officials express these views in Parliament. The court said it was the duty of the court to fulfill the constitutional rights of all people, including the minority groups such as LGBTIQ+ people. It is the duty of the courts to ensure, independently, that such groups are protected from stigma and discrimination and are afforded their constitutional rights. If the courts only relied on the majority’s opinions, there would be inconsistencies in who can and cannot be protected and recognized under the law.
Recognition of same-sex families
The State argued that in line with the doctrine of precedent, the term “family” does not include homosexual marriages and that in terms of the act and the constitution, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They further argued that sexual orientation is not listed as grounds for prohibited discrimination and that equality before the law does not mean equality for each person’s relationships.
The Supreme Court stated, in its decision, however, that in addition to “spouse” not being defined as either a man or woman, neither is marriage. It held that any marriage that is legally concluded outside Namibia must be recognized in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court noted that the facts in Frank were indeed different from the facts in the Appeals and that the statements made by the court in that case that “equality before the law for each person does not mean equality before the law for each person’s relationship,” were incompatible with the right to equality, and that it also fails to take into account the human worth and dignity of all human beings including those in same-sex relationships, which is at the core of the equality clause. It further held that the general principle of common law that if a marriage is concluded under the legal requirements for a valid marriage in a foreign country, it falls to be recognized in Namibia and that that principle applied in this matter. The court held that the ministry should have recognized the appellants’ respective marriages and that Mr. Digashu and Ms. Seiller-Lilles are to be regarded as spouses for purposes of the law.
The court went on to State that the ministry, by excluding a spouse in a same-sex marriage from inclusion within the term of “spouse,” infringed on their right to dignity and equality.
In a dissenting judgment by Justice Mainga JA, the judge states that the court had overstepped its bounds and had effectively redefined marriage. The judge further notes that the majority decision attacked traditional norms and values and threatened to undermine the institution of marriage itself. The dissenting judgement shows that there may be resistance to equal treatment of LGBTIQ+ persons. The silver lining is that four other justices recognized that the constitutional values of Namibia promote and protect the rights of queer persons.
Developments since the judgment
Following the passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court, there were emerging backlash from some members of the public and politicians. July 11, 2023, the National Assembly of Namibia passed a private member’s bill which aimed to redefine the term spouse and amends the Marriage Act. The bill was introduced with reference to Articles 81 and 45 of the Namibian Constitution to “contradict a decision of the Supreme Court of Namibia.” The proposed bill contradicts the Supreme Court’s Digashu, Seillers-Lilles’ decision. The bill was also discussed and approved by the National Council of Namibia and was sent to the President for assent but was sent back for further consultation.
The bill proposes that no marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as a valid marriage in Namibia and that anyone in a same-sex marriage will not be regarded as spouse for purposes of any law in Namibia. The Marriage Act amendment states that marriage “means a legal union entered into between persons of opposite sex.”
Importance of this case
The judgment has taken a significant step forward by recognizing same-sex marriages conducted legally outside Namibia. This decision will significantly impact various aspects of the law and advocacy, including human rights, family law and equality. This decision is a milestone towards equality and human dignity. This decision positively impacts the future of the LGBTIQ+ community and society. It has the potential to promote acceptance and diversity and pave the way for a more inclusive and equal Namibian society. It further reflects the changing attitudes and values of the Namibian society towards LGBTIQ+ people. This decision is a significant step towards recognizing LGBTIQ rights in Africa, particularly considering the current regression and extreme anti-LGBTIQ sentiment being seen elsewhere.
The High Court and Supreme Court sentiments, respectively, show that there has been a change in approach around LGBTIQ+ rights within the judiciary since the 2001 judgement. In affirming that the terms spouse and family in terms of the act include persons in same-sex relationships, the court has moved from its previous jurisprudence to a jurisprudence that interpreted equality in a purposive right-giving manner.
It will also positively impact the mental health and well-being of LGBTIQ+ people, who have long faced stigma, discrimination and prejudice. The judgment is a blueprint for the role of the Courts in upholding fundamental human rights and promoting equality. The courts have played a crucial role in the fight for LGBTIQ+ rights and recognition, and this ruling will serve as a precedent for future equality cases and help shape the country’s laws, policies and practices towards equality and human rights.
Namibia still criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual activities between people of the same gender in terms of its Roman-Dutch common law, with the Criminal Procedure Act outlining procedures for punishment, although such prosecutions are rare.
Access more information on the case here.
Bradley Fortuin is the LGBTIQ+ Program Officer at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a social justice activist.
Thabo Buthelezi is a researcher at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.
Commentary
Anti-science, anti-LGBTQ movements go hand in hand
HHS under RFK Jr. has blocked gender-affirming care for youth
A newborn baby died after contracting measles in Pennsylvania last month, and, as if it wasn’t enough grief for his parents, anti-vax activists are trying to track down and harass his family. Apparently, Gov. Josh Shapiro tangled with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his “inaccurate and misleading claims.”
On Aug. 26, RFK Jr., the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, declared that the deaths could be fabricated. We live in peculiar times, when it is government officials, not freaks on the internet, who are spreading conspiracy theories. The new spread of measles in the United States since Donald Trump came to power is one of the most shameful parts of the story of modern American politics, and the tragedy of parents who lost their baby because more and more people refused to vaccinate may seem absolutely unrelated to LGBTQ rights, but actually, there is a pretty solid connection.
Because RFK Jr., the same man who was fighting vaccination, promoted the false idea that vaccines caused autism, and even curated the anti-vaccine organization Children’s Health Defense before going into politics, is also a known opponent of transgender rights. Under his “leadership,” gender-affirming care for trans minors was banned, and there were also created new healthcare guidelines recognizing only two genders.
All around the globe, there is a weird correlation between anti-LGBTQ — particularly anti-trans — ideas and anti-science movements. And it should be clearer to the general public. People who are speaking against LGBTQ rights are not just threatening minorities. They are a danger to everyone.
The Trump-Vance administration is an iconic example of such tendencies.
Trump himself is a known critic of modern scientific studies — for example, believing in the same anti-vax conspiracies that Kennedy promoted, and showing obvious skepticism that global warming exists, despite all the evidence that has been shown by climatologists. And he is also a man who used trans people as boogeymen. Under his command, trans people were kicked out of the military. And even worse, recently he made an extremely chilling statement about the 2026 midterm elections, urging voters to “pretend I’m on the ballot” and vote for Republicans, and while discussing what he says is at stake, he said that if Republicans win, “transgenderism” will “end.” This is an offensive statement at best and genocidal at worst.
And, of course, I think everyone remembers the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was led by infamous billionaire Elon Musk, who announced to the world that he would destroy the “woke mind virus” that killed his child just because his trans daughter, Vivian Wilson, well, is happy to be a trans person.
DOGE is known not just for cancelling academic research around LGBTQ studies and gender studies. No, this agency abruptly canceled and froze thousands of federal science, research, and health grants, attacking such vital health programs as cancer research, vaccination research, and diabetes research, among others. As you can see, they are not just attacking people who are “affected” by the “mind” virus — they are dangerous to everyone, even if most of the public standing of Musk was around his anti-trans politics and he tried to present himself as a pro-science, pro-progress man by supporting the space industry.
An even more vivid example is the so-called Dark Enlightenment movement.
This extremely reactionary political movement was born in the late 2000s, and originally grew from very democratical classical liberal ideas. Until it became anti-democratic itself. And also often It was created by American software engineer Curtis Yarvin (writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug) and expanded by British philosopher Nick Land. The movement is popular among some Silicon Valley businessmen, and got support from PayPal founder Peter Thiel, and one of their main ideas is that modernity is bad. They are basically obscurantists, who see modern universities as part of “the Cathedral” — a system that, in their opinion, promotes equality and modern science that society doesn’t need. Of course, the movement’s followers are mostly anti-LGBTQ rights, and, as you can see, anti-queerness once again go hand in hand with obscurantism. Unfortunately, the movement got the support of extremely prominent politicians, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance.
In his speech from 2021, Vance proved to be an obscurantist when he claimed that universities are the enemy. He is also a known homophobe and transphobe.
So, why are anti-vaxxers, people who oppose modern scientific studies, and people who hate universities more likely to be queerphobic? Why do the same people who are defending their transphobia by showing that they support common sense actually often show zero such sense when it comes to protecting themselves and their children from measles or decreasing the chances of getting cancer?
We don’t have any statistics or studies that show that all obscurantists are queerphobic, but around the globe, the same dynamic is visible.
In Russian anti-LGBTQ censorship, books about animal biology and zoology have been censored because the censors saw “LGBT propaganda” in them. The famous pro-Putin philosopher Alexander Dugin, who is extremely anti-queer, also speaks up against modernity itself.
In Taliban’s Afghanistan, modern science and LGBTQ rights are attacked at the same time.
Even in the UK, Reform UK is known as the most anti-trans and anti-queer party, and they are facing widespread criticism from scientists and medical experts for promoting climate change denial and anti-vaccine ideas. It doesn’t mean that LGBTQ supporters never believe in conspiracy theories or that progressive politicians always support science.
No, it just means that explicit anti-science and anti-LGBTQ statements often go hand in hand.
I think there are two reasons for this correlation.
First, LGBTQ people are real. You cannot deny that sex is not binary, gender and sex are different, and transition improves the quality of life of actual trans people. Or that same-sex relationships are natural, because even animals have same-sex sexual contacts. To deny it, you need an ideology or a conspiracy theory.
The second reason is that anti-scientific populism and anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theories are popular among the same category of people. It’s a “bundle” of ideas — a trend that conservative voters often adopt together. Studies also show that people who are likely to believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in another.
But the question is more broad. We don’t speak enough about the harm anti-scientific conspiracy theories and obscurantist politicians around the globe create for mankind in general. Not all people would suffer from a prohibition of hormone therapy, or attacks on same-sex marriage. But anti-global warming ideas, anti-vax advocates, and restrictions on modern research, especially medical research, are potentially dangerous to any human being.
And one of the best things LGBTQ activists could do is just show society that they are being used — that the same people who are stealing LGBTQ rights are also destroying medicine and the environment, and it’s a threat to their own traditional families and future of all kids no less than to queer people.
Commentary
Please join me in supporting the Washington Blade Foundation
An important event impacting the LGBTQ community will be held on Sept. 12 in Rehoboth Beach, Del.
The event is a fundraiser for the Washington Blade Foundation. Whether you can join us in person, or just be with us from a distance, I ask you to seriously consider becoming a sponsor of this event. You may ask why should you care, why is this important, and how the Blade Foundation supports the LGBTQ community.
The event will feature an open bar, food catered by the Blue Moon, entertainment, and speeches from Blade staff along with remarks from Rehoboth’s Mayor-elect Susan Stewart and another surprise guest or two. You can buy tickets on Eventbrite; if you’re interested in sponsoring the event, contact Publisher Brian Pitts at [email protected].
The Blade Foundation was begun to ensure the history of our community, written in the pages of the Washington Blade, was archived, and never lost. That effort was a success thanks to the support of the DC Public Library. Now the Blade Foundation works to help ensure there will be future LGBTQ journalists working throughout the media, not just for the Blade. By funding interns and fellowships for LGBTQ journalism students, we help make that possible. By helping to fund the international news section of the Blade, the Foundation helps to keep the LGBTQ community around the world connected. In many countries where our community is either still not accepted, or worse, tortured, members of our community living in those places may only get news of their communities by reading the Blade online.
I know many of you reading this already know, the Washington Blade newspaper has been in existence, and reporting on the LGBTQ community, for more than 56 years. The paper’s reporting is done by those who are part of the community, and that makes a real difference. The paper is proud of its journalists, and the numerous awards they have won. One is Lou Chibbaro Jr., who recently was the subject of a documentary aired on PBS. He, and others like him, report the news honestly, without bias, but with fervor, because they actually live the stories.
In those 50-plus years since Stonewall, the Blade has been reporting on the progress our community has made. The steps forward, the stumbles, those allies who have worked with us, and those people who have tried to stop us from living our lives as who we were born to be. Again, the news is being reported by members of our own community. It is not others writing about us, but us, writing about ourselves. The Blade is followed by many mainstream media outlets, and stories that first only the Blade covered, ignored by mainstream media, were then picked up and reported garnering the widespread coverage they deserve. The Blade is the best place to find out about what the members of our own community are doing, and what others are doing to, and for, us.
It is sad that today the Blade has to report we are at a place in history where we are fighting just to keep the strides for equality we have made over the past 50 years. Because of that, it is even more important than ever, that the Washington Blade keeps publishing. Today, the Blade is the only LGBTQ news outlet with a dedicated seat in the White House briefing room. That is important for the Blade, and for all the members of our own community. It is important the Blade be where the action is.
The Blade’s international coverage helps us in the United States to understand where we can help those in our community who may be suffering and less fortunate, but also to celebrate with those who are even more free in many ways. The recent stories about World Pride in Amsterdam inspire us to fight even harder for our rights here, so we never again have a president who will work to keep our community from being all it can be. That we will never again have a President who threatens the lives of our trans sisters and brothers, threatens their healthcare, and throws our community’s heroes out of our military. Those news stories are important to write, and they often only get written about fully, in the Blade.
So again, I ask you to consider being a sponsor, and joining us in Rehoboth on Sept. 12. Or if you can’t be in Rehoboth, that you support our work from a distance, and support this important event. The Washington Blade Foundation is a 501c(3) non-profit. So, whether you are a business supporting the community, an individual ally, or a member of the community, please dig deep, and help to support the future of LGBTQ journalism, and future LGBTQ journalists. By doing so, you are supporting the future of the LGBTQ community. You can donate online at bladefoundation.org/donate.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Africa
When home becomes a journey: migration, memory, and the African diaspora
People carry pieces of previous lives wherever they go
Sometimes I wonder whether home is a place or a feeling.
I have lived in places where I never imagined I would stay. I have crossed borders I never expected to cross and spent years in refugee communities where people wake up each morning wondering what the future will bring. I have known Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya, spent time in Zambia and South Africa, and now live in Gorom Refugee Settlement in South Sudan.
So, when I think about migration, I don’t think first about passports, borders, statistics, or immigration offices.
I think about people.
I think about the mother who leaves everything behind because she wants her children to survive. I think about the young person crossing a border with little more than a phone, a few clothes, and memories of a life that may no longer exist. I think about the refugee who has spent years waiting for a durable solution and still doesn’t know where they will eventually call home.
Migration is often described simply as movement from one place to another. But sometimes it is much more than that.
It can mean leaving behind a version of yourself.
Africa has always been moving
Africa’s migration story did not begin with modern refugee camps or today’s international borders.
People have moved across this continent for generations. They have followed trade routes, searched for pasture and water, moved for marriage, education and employment, escaped conflict, and built new communities elsewhere.
Migration has always been part of African life.
Today, people move for many different reasons. Some flee war and political instability. Others escape persecution or discrimination. Some leave because they cannot find work or see a future for themselves. Others migrate to study, find employment, start businesses, join family members or simply seek new opportunities. There is an important distinction here.
Not every African migrant is a refugee.
A refugee is someone forced to leave because returning home is unsafe. An asylum seeker is someone seeking protection and waiting for a decision on their claim. Exile can mean living away from one’s homeland, sometimes unwillingly. The diaspora is broader still: it includes people of African origin living outside their country or continent, whether they left by choice or were forced to leave.
These words matter because behind each one is a human story.
When leaving is not a choice
I know what it means when leaving is no longer a choice.
Forced displacement takes something from you that is difficult to explain. You may still have your memories, your language and perhaps a few possessions, but the ordinary things that once made life predictable can disappear.
You begin again.
Sometimes you begin again in another country. Sometimes you begin again in a refugee camp.
My experiences in Kakuma taught me that displacement does not necessarily end when you cross a border and reach somewhere safer. The uncertainty can continue for years.
Now, in Gorom Refugee Settlement, I see that uncertainty in the lives of people around me. Mothers worry about food and the health of their children. Young people wonder whether they will return to education. Others wait for resettlement or another safe pathway while trying to build a life with very limited resources. There is a strange feeling in waiting.
You are physically present somewhere, but mentally you may still be traveling towards a future you cannot see.

What happens to identity?
One of the hardest questions migration raises is: Who am I when I am no longer where I came from?
A person can cross a border in a few hours. Identity doesn’t move that quickly.
You carry your accent.
You carry your food.
You carry your mother’s stories.
You carry songs you heard as a child.
You carry the names of people who may never know where you ended up.
You carry memories.
And sometimes you carry pain.
I have met people who have lived in several countries and can no longer give a simple answer when asked where they are from. They may have been born in one country, grown up in another, lived in a refugee settlement somewhere else and now dream of resettling in a fourth.
Does that make them less African?
I don’t think so.
Perhaps it makes their identity larger.
Carrying Africa across borders
The African diaspora is sometimes discussed as though it were simply a population scattered around the world. I see it differently.
People carry pieces of home wherever they go.
An African family living in Australia, Canada, Britain, the United States, or elsewhere may still cook the food they grew up eating. They may speak their mother tongue at home, send money to relatives, listen to African music, support community projects and remain closely connected to events thousands of miles away. Migration doesn’t necessarily erase belonging.
Sometimes it creates several belongings at once.
The diaspora also contributes enormously to communities back home. Remittances help families pay school fees, buy food, build houses, access healthcare and start businesses. Migrants also carry knowledge, professional experience, ideas and connections that can benefit communities across borders.
A person may leave Africa physically and still spend much of their life contributing to Africa.
That matters.
The price of being a migrant
But migration has another side.
Not every new country means a new beginning.
For some migrants, the journey leads to racism, xenophobia, exploitation, or discrimination. People can be judged because of their nationality, accent, skin color, immigration status or refugee identity.
Others discover that qualifications earned at home are not recognized. A professional becomes a cleaner. A teacher struggles to find work. A skilled worker is told to start again.
There is nothing wrong with honest work. The problem begins when someone’s dignity is reduced because they are a migrant.
For refugees, bureaucracy can become another form of suffering. A person can become a case number, waiting months or years for interviews, decisions, relocation opportunities, or family reunification.
But life doesn’t stop while the paperwork continues.
Children grow older, parents become sick, people lose loved ones, birthdays come and go and still the waiting continues.
I sometimes wonder whether the people making decisions about migration fully understand how heavy that waiting can become for someone sitting on the other side of the process.
Women, children, and LGBTQ refugees
Migration does not affect everyone in the same way.
Women often carry enormous responsibilities after displacement. They may become the main providers for their children while dealing with their own trauma and uncertainty.
Children experience displacement differently. They may not fully understand why they had to leave home, but they understand the absence of familiar faces, schools and routines.
Young people face another difficult question: how do you plan a future when you don’t know which country you will be living in?
For LGBTQ refugees, the journey can be even more complicated. Some leave because the place where they were born no longer feels safe for them. They may have experienced rejection, threats, violence or discrimination before they ever reached a refugee settlement.
And yet, even in such circumstances, people create community.
In Gorom, LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers come from different African countries and backgrounds. We don’t always agree on everything. But we understand something important: when the world has already made you feel unwanted, having people around you who understand your experience can mean everything.
Community can become another form of home.
Should borders decide our worth?
I understand why countries have borders. Countries have laws and responsibilities.
But I sometimes ask myself a simpler question: Should crossing a border change the value of a human life?
A child doesn’t become less deserving of food because they were born on the other side of a political boundary.
A mother doesn’t become less worthy of safety because she crossed without the right document.
A refugee doesn’t stop being a human being while waiting for an immigration decision.
From a Humanist perspective, this seems straightforward to me. Human dignity should not depend on nationality.
We can have immigration systems and still treat migrants with compassion.
We can protect borders without forgetting that the people standing behind those borders are human beings.
We can disagree about migration policy without dehumanizing migrants.
That balance isn’t easy. But perhaps that is exactly why we need more humanity in conversations about migration.
What does home mean now?
I have asked myself this question many times: Where is home?
Is it where I was born?
Where I first felt safe?
Where my memories live?
Or perhaps home isn’t always a geographical location.
Maybe home can be the people who stand beside you.
Maybe it is the language you speak when you are emotional.
Maybe it is the smell of food that takes you back to childhood.
Maybe, after so much has been taken away, home becomes something you slowly rebuild.
My birthday falls on Sept. 12. Birthdays usually invite us to think about another year of life. But for someone who has experienced displacement, another birthday can mean something deeper.
It means I made it through another year.
I am still here.
And I think about the many refugees who don’t know whether they will be safe long enough to celebrate their next birthday. I think about children growing up in camps who deserve to celebrate their birthdays in a home they can call their own.
That thought stays with me.
We are more than where we come from
Migration has taught me that people cannot be reduced to the countries printed on their passports.
We are our memories, our relationships, our struggles, our dreams, and our choices.
Africa’s diaspora is not simply a story of people leaving Africa. It is also a story of people carrying Africa with them.
And the refugee experience is not simply a story of loss. It is also a story of survival.
I don’t know where my own journey will eventually take me. Perhaps that is one of the things migration teaches us: we can make plans, but life sometimes writes a different story.
What I do know is that every person deserves the chance to live without fear, to love without persecution, to work with dignity, to raise children safely and to imagine a future.
Borders may separate countries.
They should never separate us from our humanity.
If migration has taught me anything, it is that home is not always the place we left behind. Sometimes home is the safe place we are still searching for.
And sometimes, while searching, we become one another’s home.
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon5 days agoPentagon expands testosterone screening as trans troops face hormone therapy restrictions
-
Switzerland5 days agoSwiss government backs nationwide conversion therapy ban
-
Calendar5 days agoCalendar: September 4-10
-
Movies3 days ago‘Here the Whole Time’ delivers queer coming-of-age comedy
