No Place for People Like You: An Analysis of the Needs, Vulnerabilities and Experiences of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon
By Sam Loffman
Systematic Exclusion: Diverse SOGIESC Refugees
Post-disaster zones contain an array of dilemmas: the devastation of infrastructure, loss of life, economic instability and the threat of a power-vacuum create complex situations for humanitarian actors. With an unprecedented rise in both natural and conflict-related disasters over the past two decades, humanitarian practitioners and institutions have increased their knowledge and ability to maximise both humanitarian and security goals in post-disaster zones. The purposeful inclusion of minorities in post-disaster humanitarian efforts, both on the ground and throughout peacebuilding efforts, has increased within the integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR). However, red flags continue to arise in the exclusion of sexual minorities within these efforts, more specifically, the neglect of the specific needs of diverse SOGIESC (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics) refugees around the globe.
For many refugees, protection and safety is the highest priority--yet for diverse SOGIESC refugees, protection and security can be seemingly out of reach. Heartland Alliance International’s article “No Place for People Like You” (2014) provides a meaningful insight into some of the challenges faced by diverse SOGIESC refugees in Lebanon, and provides a deep analysis of protection and safety challenges. For instance, many refugees find it difficult to place their trust in a foreign state for their economic and social protection, being outsiders, there is a significant increase in systematic discrimination often placing refugees in vulnerable positions. However, diverse SOGIESC refugees find this challenge to be an even greater hurdle: more often than not, diverse SOGIESC refugees have been expelled from their families and lack community support due to social and cultural biases, and the lack of inclusion in government resources. As Heartland Alliance (2014) reports, one hundred percent of the respondents interviewed in their report claims they have encountered employment discrimination based on either their refugee status, nationality, diverse sexuality or most commonly all of the above. In a state that has either criminalised, or has a deeply rooted system of discrimination, diverse SOGIESC refugees find themselves isolated, with no seemingly trustworthy resource to turn to in order to find the safety and protection they so desperately need.
As Heartland Alliance (2014) notes, the threats that diverse SOGIESC refugees receive from a family level, community level, from a range of actors including authority figures, governmental figures and even other refugees, has an immense effect not just on their protection and safety, but on other aspects of their lives as well. The report notes that a significant number of diverse SOGIESC Syrian refugees have experienced harassment, threats and discrimination from Lebanese authorities, yet almost none of these victims have reported these incidents to police. This is because diverse SOGIESC Syrian refugees find themselves in a position where reporting incidents to police may result in further abuse from police themselves or may result in their arrest based on either their diverse sexuality or their immigration status. Some simply do not report incidents of harassment to police because they believe that no action will be taken to ensure their safety within the community. Many SOGIESC refugees often find themselves resorting to survival sex in exchange for money, food, and shelter. Even when members of this cohort do not turn to survival sex work, they remain at an extremely high risk of abuse and mistreatment. Survival sex is problematic as it exposes vulnerable individuals to a wide range of serious threats such as violence and harrassment, mental health issues, drug use, increased risk of trafficking, and an abundance of physical and sexual health issues. Despite the high rates of these issues within the SOGIESC refugee community, over 80% of those who have experienced some form of violence and discrimination have not reported it to officials.
How, therefore, can diverse SOGIESC individuals who are facing or fleeing conflict settings be included in the humanitarian and development sector? There are parallels between the systemic discrimination and violence against the diverse SOGIESC community and those experienced by (cisgendered heterosexual) women. The experiences of women, however, have been addressed throughout various international means, including the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) and have been met with varying degrees of success. Perhaps the implementation of UNSCR 1325 can act as a guiding framework in developing a comparable protection resolution for diverse SOGIESC individuals in the peacebuilding process.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) is built on the recognition and understanding of the unique challenges facing women in conflict and the security needs of women in these settings. UNSCR 1325 is built on a foundation of four critical pillars: the protection of women and girls’ physical and mental wellbeing and health; the prevention of gender based violence against women and girls at all levels; the participation of women in all peace-building efforts; and the insurance that relief and recovery aid is distributed equally to women and girls as well as men and boys. The ratification of UNSCR 1325 saw an increase in gender based peacebuilding and conflict measures such as the United Nations encouragement of states to build National Action Plans (NAPs) in order to create structure in their fulfillment of UNSCR 1325.
Unfortunately, some of the actions implemented under UNSCR 1325 unintentionally generate discrimination against and marginalisation of people with diverse SOGIESC. For example, the notion of relief and recovery is built on heteronormative assumptions and a binary understanding of gender. Under the existing relief distribution system and as mandated through UNSCR 1325, food rations are distributed to women with the assumption that these will be dispersed amongst their children and family members. While this system was developed with the consideration of the specific risks (cisgendered, heterosexual) women face in refugee camps and humanitarian settings, it inadvertently excludes individuals with diverse SOGIESC. For example, same-sex families with children, childless same-sex couples, gay men, and trans women can all face challenges in accessing humanitarian relief because of these heteronormative assumptions and binary understandings of gender. What’s more is that the current system of prioritising the needs of women in humanitarian efforts is fuelling the existing indirect discrimination of diverse SOGIESC individuals within this system. IRIN’s ‘Lost in the Chaos’ (2014) is one of many reports that highlights the violence and discrimination facing many transgender and SOGIESC individuals in general, in police stations, detention centres, refugee camps and border facilities. Transgender women in particular are often excluded from food ration lines and housing establishments that are divided based on binary gender notions. In this sense, the humanitarian sector fails to include transgender women in its efforts to protect and include women. Furthermore, it is clear that while UNSCR 1325 is successful in including the needs of heteronormative, cisgendered women, it fails to go beyond a heteronormative, binary structure, and in part inadvertently excludes those with diverse SOGIESC from these efforts.
UNSCR 1325 has had a positive impact on the experiences of women and girls involved in or fleeing conflict. With this in mind, perhaps a United Nations Security Council Resolution that advocates, similar to that of UNSCR 1325, the participation in peacebuilding, prevention of violence, protection of, and equal distribution of aid for those in conflict zones with diverse SOGIESC, would be an acceptable step towards a more inclusive development agenda. Such a resolution would require an immense range of inclusive efforts: for example, enabling people to safely have access to toilet and shower facilities that align with their gender identity; creating an inclusive and safe housing environment; food distribution efforts that respect the diversity of each individual; and providing UNHCR staff with training that teaches them to not only ensure equal treatment of all individuals, but also to ensure diverse SOGIESC people can trust and rely upon UNHHCR staff for protection and support. A concrete example of SOGIESC inclusiveness in action is the LGBTI Youth Group based in Lebanon. Under the support of UNHCR, an LGBTI Youth Group was created in 2015 to address the specific needs of young LGBTI Syrian refugees in Lebanon, and allow them to create support networks, financial networks, build on life skills and create a safe space for seeking protection and assistance. There are other examples of innovative approaches to inclusion—but these approaches are happening on an ad hoc basis. Using the framework of a systems-changing approach, like that seen in UNSCR 1325, is an imperative for diverse SOGIESC inclusion.
There are, of course, an array of obstacles to the explicit recognition and protection of the rights of people with diverse SOGIESC in conflict and disaster settings. Park (2016) notes some of these significant obstacles: cultural practices such as conversion therapy, forced avoidance of disclosure in order to adhere to local norms, curative rape, and the threat of violence and ostracization are just some of the barriers to achieving such a resolution. Furthermore, critics may ask how a global, diverse SOGIESC inclusion agenda can be carried out when same-sex sexual relations are still criminalised in 72 countries. In response to this, we can turn to the success of UNSCR 1325 and both the passing and ratification of the Convention on Eliminations of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) despite inequality and legal discrimination facing women around the globe. Opposition to the rights of people with diverse SOGIESC is too often used to excuse failure to act: the world has previously demonstrated its commitment to the inclusion of women despite widespread sexism and legal opposition. There is no reason that, if the humanitarian sector is indeed dedicated to protecting the rights of all individuals affected by conflict and disaster, that a comparable inclusion process for the diverse SOGIESC community cannot be undertaken.
The exclusion of diverse SOGIESC refugees in the humanitarian agenda is just one element in a smorgasbord of issues—but it is one that can no longer be ignored. While the challenge of creating a more inclusive development agenda is one that does not come lightly, it is one that is not out of reach. UN resolutions have been used to overhaul the humanitarian sector in the past, and there is no reason why it can’t be done again. There are many individuals and communities with stories, understandings, ideas, and perspectives within post-disaster zones and the broader humanitarian arena, and it is critical that these voices need to be heard and understood in order to pave the way to a more inclusive agenda.
