Intersecting exclusions - Experiences of violence and displacement among LGBTQI+ communities in Kenya
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ODI Report Intersecting exclusions Experiences of violence and displacement among LGBTQI+ communities in Kenya Fiona Samuels and Maryline Mireku with Rachel George, Jenny Rivett and Emily Dwyer September 2021
Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. How to cite: Samuels, F., Mireku, M., George, R. et al. (2021) Intersecting exclusions: experiences of violence and displacement among LGBTQI+ communities in Kenya, ODI Report, London: ODI (https://odi.org/en/publications/intersecting-exclusions-experiences-of-violence-and- displacement-among-lgbtqi-communities-in-kenya). Cover photo: LGBTQI+ individuals living on the African continent often experience stigma and are forced to live much of their lives in secret. Credit: 2011. Travis Lupick / Flickr. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all those based in Kenya who generously contributed to this research report. Many thanks to Megan Daigle who provided valuable feedback as a peer reviewer. We are also grateful to Kathryn O’Neill for her editing, Caelin Robinson for design and layout support, Hannah Bass and Emilie Tant for providing communications coordination support, and Cristiana Conte for providing programme management support. Finally we would like to thank all those who took part in the consultations, group discussions and validation workshops in Kenya.
Contents Acknowledgements / i List of boxes and tables / iii Acronyms and abbreviations / iv 1 Introduction / 1 2 Policy and programming environment in Kenya / 4 2.1 Policies / 4 2.2 Programmes / 6 3 Challenges faced by members of the LGBTQI+ community in Kenya / 11 3.1 Stigma, violence and norms / 11 3.2 Access to services and programming / 16 3.3 Identity, privacy, visibility and being ‘out’ / 19 4 Recommendations / 22 4.1 Recommendations for legislators and policy-makers / 22 4.2 Recommendations for service providers and programme implementers / 23 References / 26 Appendix 1 Respondents in the consultations / 28 Appendix 2 Validation exercises / 29
List of boxes and tables Boxes Box 1 Terms used to refer to LGBTQI+ individuals in Kenya / 13 Tables Table 1 Snapshot of existing programmes in Kenya and target population coverage / 7 Table 2 Breakdown of respondents who took part in the consultations / 28
Acronyms and abbreviations CAL Coalition of African Lesbians CBO community-based organisation CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women CSO civil society organisation HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOYMAS Health Options for Young Men on HIV, AIDS and STIs INGO international non-governmental organisation IPV intimate partner violence GALCK Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya GBV gender-based violence KHRC Kenya Human Rights Commission KNCHR Kenya National Commission on Human Rights KP Key population LBQ lesbian, bisexual and queer LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender LGBTQI+ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning), intersex + MSM men who have sex with men MSW male sex worker NACC National AIDS Control Council NASCOP National AIDS and STI Control Programme NCAJ National Council on the Administration of Justice NGEC National Gender and Equality Commission NGLHRC National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (Kenya) NGO non-governmental organisation SGBV sexual and gender-based violence SOGIESC sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions and sex characteristics SOGI sexual orientation and gender identity STI sexually transmitted infection UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1 ODI Report
1 Introduction
There is growing awareness of the need to The study is guided by three overarching questions:
address, through policy and programming,
experiences of gender-based violence (GBV)1 1. What are the barriers to inclusive GBV
among individuals and groups with diverse prevention/protection approaches that take
sexual orientations, gender identities and an intersectional view, particularly of the
expressions and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) experiences of people with diverse SOGIESC
or members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and refugees or urban migrant populations
transgender, queer (or questioning), intersex in Kenya?
and other (LGBTQI+) community. 2. What approaches currently exist to address
these needs in Kenya?
This study contributes to a growing body of 3. What recommendations can we derive for
work on these issues, focusing on Kenya as a policy and practice?
case study to delve further into the nuance of
LGBTQI+ experiences of violence. We adopt an The study consists of two components: a
intersectional framing to explore the various literature review, and consultations with key
experiences that can shape the drivers and informants in Kenya. The literature review (George
manifestations of violence – in this case, focusing et al., 2021) focused on Kenya, but also brought in
on the experiences of GBV among people of material from the East Africa region and globally
diverse SOGIESC and among urban migrants or where relevant. The literature review also served
those with refugee status. Using an intersectional to frame the study as well as define key terms and
lens highlights the often ambivalent positions concepts used. This report draws on the literature
in which people of diverse SOGIESC find review and complements it with findings from
themselves. As we describe later in the report, the consultations. These two documents should
not only are LGBTQI+ migrants or refugees often be viewed together; while this study summarises
discriminated against, facing homophobia from some dimensions of the literature review to
other refugees and host populations, but they also contextualise the findings from the
experience discrimination from host members
of the LGBTQI+ community who see them as
benefiting where they are not.
1 ‘GBV’ is a term used extensively across gender research, development and UN system literature. In this report,
the authors would like to acknowledge current debates in the international community which question the
generalising and expansive way the acronym GBV is deployed. From an intersectional perspective, ODI seeks to
better engage with the range of gender-motivated (often male) violence directed towards different members
of the LGBTQI+ community (who have historically been marginalised across GBV work). Although in this
instance we employ the term ‘GBV’ to situate this report within the current literature, we will continue to
interrogate the appropriateness of the term and work with our partners to develop more nuanced language.2 ODI Report
consultations, it does not do so exhaustively. and the challenges related to GBV faced by people
Instead, it highlights some areas to which the of diverse SOGIESC. We then present policy
consultations add further depth and nuance in recommendations, drawing from the two core
terms of the Kenyan context. parts of the study (the literature review and the
stakeholder consultations). In each section, we
The framings and definitions outlined in the start with a brief synopsis of the literature review
literature review are also relevant for this ODI followed by findings from the consultations.
report. To summarise briefly here, this study uses
‘intersectionality’ as a framing to highlight how It is important to note from the onset that this
multiple and overlapping forms of inequality can report is based on a consultation, essentially,
‘operate together and exacerbate each other’ with key informants. Given the Covid-19 context,
(Crenshaw, 1989, as quoted in Steinmetz, 2020, it was not possible to carry out an extensive and
para. 2). The literature uses various terms to in-depth study by speaking to many members of
describe gender and sexuality, each having a different LGBTQI+ population groups. Instead, it
history, reflecting power relations and attempts was decided to interview representatives of their
to navigate contested spaces, and speaking to organizations who were able to take part, mostly
particular disciplinary heritage, with translation through remote interviews.
bringing further complexity. In our study we do not
endorse any particular term but rather present the Respondents for the consultations were identified
findings using the categories provided in either the through the desk review and through the study
documents reviewed or reflecting the language team’s existing knowledge and experiences of
respondents used during the consultations. working with key stakeholders, including members
of the LGBTQI+ community and those involved
Where we do speak more generally, we have in GBV-related service provision and policy in
decided to use the terms ‘LGBTQI+ community/ Kenya. A total of 19 consultations were carried out
individuals’ and ‘people with diverse SOGIESC,’ with key informants between April and May 2021,
with either term used depending on the primary as well as two group discussions with members
materials that are most relevant to the particular of the LGBTQI+ community, in this case with
area or findings. We have also decided to primarily bisexual people and trans people. While additional
use the term ‘GBV’ instead of ‘SGBV’ (sexual and discussions with other groups were attempted,
gender-based violence) because, while GBV can be including with lesbian, bisexual and queer (LBQ)
sexual, it also takes many other forms. Too often, women, there was a reluctance to take part in the
especially among people of diverse SOGIESC, the research because of fears around confidentiality.
‘sexuality’ dimension is overemphasised to the (see Table 2, Appendix 1, for full details).
detriment of acknowledging the experience of
other forms of GBV. For further details of framing Due to the Covid-19 context, 19 of the
and definitions, see George et al. (2021). consultations were conducted virtually through
Zoom calls, one was conducted via telephone
After a brief overview of the methodology used and another was conducted by the respondent
for the consultations, we outline and discuss the self-administering the interview guide; two
policy and programming environment in Kenya, of these consultations were conducted with3 ODI Report
groups while the other 19 were with individuals The findings we present here are based on
(key informants). The consultations were views and perceptions from key informants
conducted by a qualified interviewer who took who participated in the consultations. While the
short notes during the process, which were research endeavours to include voices of different
expanded afterwards. Data was subsequently LGBTQI+ community members through the
analysed thematically. interviews with representatives of their diverse
organisations, this ODI Report cannot guarantee
Preliminary findings were shared, discussed that the whole spectrum of perspectives is
and validated with key stakeholders from represented. Given the Covid-19 context and
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and sensitivity around confidentiality, further group
civil society organisations (CSOs) as well as discussions with other groups within the LGBTQI+
government representatives in two separate community were not viable, for example with
meetings. Key findings from these validation LBQ women. And while we cannot generalise
exercises are detailed in Appendix 2; the findings the findings, they are nonetheless valid in and of
are also mirrored in the recommendations themselves, and were further confirmed through
(Section 4). the validation exercises.4 ODI Report
2 Policy and programming environment
in Kenya
2.1 Policies on refugee status. While LGBTQI+ refugees fleeing
to Kenya encountered similar discrimination
The literature review provided a brief overview there, including anti-sodomy laws, the presence
of the policy environment in Kenya in relation to of UNHCR in Kenya provides a particularly
the three overlapping areas of this study: people supportive environment by comparison. However,
with diverse SOGIESC (or LGBTQI+ people), evidence indicates that many Ugandans fleeing
migrants and refugees, and gender-based violence. to Kenya still reported ‘facing a similar hostile
The Kenyan Penal Code continues to criminalise and homophobic environment’ despite the legal
same-sex sexual relations between men, despite differences and presence of UNHCR and the
significant pressure from LGBTQI+ rights protective legislation promised (ibid.).
organisations in Kenya as well as international
actors, which led to a petition to decriminalise Several pieces of legislation provide a legal
homosexuality put before the Kenyan High Court framework for addressing GBV in Kenya from
in 2019 (which was rejected). Kenya’s policies a rights and penal perspective. These include
criminalising certain same-sex sexual acts are the Kenyan Bill of Rights (2010), the Penal
similar to those in many countries in Africa, Code, the 2001 Children Act, the 2006 Sexual
although they are less severe/restrictive than Offences Act and the 2015 Protection Against
policies in neighbouring Uganda. Domestic Violence Act. Kenya has also signed
key international and regional commitments
Kenya’s policies related to refugees have mainly related to GBV, including the Convention on
focused on refugee encampment alongside the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
restrictive measures specifically targeting Somalis Against Women (CEDAW) and the Protocol
under securitised frameworks as a result of the to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
country’s counter-terrorism policies, which often Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa. There
view Somali migrants with suspicion of terrorist are limitations in most of these pieces of
aims (Njogu, 2017; O’Callaghan and Sturge, 2018). legislation (e.g. GBV is not necessarily explicitly
Kenya’s LGBTQI+ refugee and/or asylum-seeking mentioned in every document, and marital rape
community includes many people from Uganda; is not criminalised). However, what stands out in
their numbers increased during 2014 around the existing documentation, and was confirmed
the time of heightened tensions in relation to in our stakeholder consultations, is that the
Uganda’s ‘anti-homosexuality bill’ (Pincock, needs of LGBTQI+ individuals – particularly
2020). While data on LGBTQI+ migration remains around the lack of specialised services and
limited, between 2014 and 2015, around 400 training of staff on LGBTQI+ protection concerns
asylum claims from Uganda were registered – are not addressed in this legislation. Similarly,
with the United Nations High Commissioner implementation of GBV legislation, policy and
for Refugees (UNHCR) in Kenya, some of which programming often focuses on women and girls,
include LGBTQI+ persons claiming asylum based overlooking transgender people, those with5 ODI Report
diverse sexualities, men and non-binary individuals and 165). The latter, therefore, violates the
(Chynoweth, 2019; Wilson et al., 2019; Moore and rights of LGBTQI+ individuals, drives inadequate
Waruiru, 2020; Right Here Right Now (RHRN), n.d.). protection for them, and sometimes even drives
violence. Similarly, respondents noted that while
As key informants highlighted, like all other Kenya is a signatory to international treaties
policies in Kenya, GBV policies are developed at to support equal rights (such as the Maputo
the national level and are then contextualised Declaration, which emphasises the need to
by counties at the sub-national level, devolving protect people whatever their sexual orientation
implementation to the local level. Some counties or gender identity), LGBTQI+ individuals continue
like Nairobi have specific units or departments – to be inadequately protected by the country’s legal
funded by both national and county government system. Given that the Constitution is regarded as
– responsible for implementing the contextualised supreme over any other regional and international
county GBV policies that prevent and respond to laws and treaties, it takes precedence over Kenya’s
GBV among all populations (see also Section 2.2). regional and international commitments; this
means that domestic legal guarantees for the
Despite these efforts to localise and implement rights of LGBTQI+ people are necessary in order
national GBV policies within the county-based to render any commitments to external treaties or
approach, study respondents discussed a laws meaningful within Kenya.
number of challenges emerging within the policy
environment. First, it was noted that the funding Given the restrictive legal landscape, domestic
provided to county governments to implement NGOs and groups that support LGBTQI+ people
GBV policies was often inadequate; this in turn led have to work around the discriminatory Penal
to inadequate awareness of the policies among Code and Sexual Offences Act by drawing on
both local policy-makers and local populations, guidelines from the Ministry of Health’s National
due to lack of sensitisation efforts. Of more AIDS and STI Control Programme (NASCOP).
relevance for this study (and as also mentioned in These guidelines state that health providers
documents analysed in the literature review), GBV are expected to provide services to all citizens,
policies at both national and county levels do not irrespective of their sexual orientation and gender
have a specific focus on members of the LGBTQI+ identity, to prevent HIV and other negative
community, as they were developed to cover all reproductive health outcomes. Similarly, LGBTQI+
populations. Respondents noted that this was a groups and CSOs successfully advocated for
critical concern given that LGBTQI+ individuals the recognition of intersex people in births
are particularly vulnerable to violence, and thus and registration since this lack of recognition
require tailored policies to adequately support influences their access to health services. Such
them to tackle forms of GBV which are otherwise strategies are viewed as more pragmatic for
(and often) invisibilised. working within existing policy frameworks rather
than seeking to repeal sections 162 and 165 of the
Respondents also observed a contradiction Penal Code.
within the policy environment between Kenya’s
Constitution (which assures protection for all Where LGBTQI+ individuals have been recognised
citizens against discrimination) and the Penal Code within existing policy frameworks and specific
(which criminalises same-sex acts) (sections 162 guidelines, and where policies have been6 ODI Report
developed to support them, this is almost exclusively community, policies alone – whether specifically
through the lens of HIV. Using the term/concept developed to protect the LGBTQI+ community
of ‘key populations’ (KPs), which include LGBTQI+ or focusing on all populations – will not provide
individuals, such policies develop and advocate for the protection needed unless the factors that
HIV/AIDS-related programming in Kenya. Hence predispose members of that community to GBV
female sex workers, men who have sex with men are also addressed.
(MSM), transgender persons, people who inject
drugs, and prisoners are all covered under the 2.2 Programmes
category of KPs, and policies and programmes
have been developed to support them in different In this section, we briefly review findings from
contexts. The terminology related to HIV/AIDS the literature review in terms of programming
advocacy and programming, and use of that arena as before turning to findings from the stakeholder
a vehicle for developing policies to support LGBTQI+ consultations. The consultations provided further
people in Kenya, is problematic (see George et al., details on and added to the evidence base on
2021) as it focuses on behaviour which is reductive programmes identified in the desk review. They
of the lives of sexual minorities. Nonetheless, it does also provided further contextualisation of the
provide an entry point through which to push an programmes, particularly within government
agenda for the protection of LGBTQI+ individuals. structures and institutions. The sub-section (2.2.1)
with findings from the consultations begins with
Despite HIV/AIDS advocacy and programming an overview of the role of the Kenya National
providing an entry point, most consultation Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), followed
participants highlighted that inadequate policies by an outline of the work of NASCOP and the
and guidelines for protecting LGBTQI+ individuals government-run GBV units. These are among the
from GBV resulted in them continuing to face key government institutions and programmes that
such violence. It was also noted that LGBTQI+ address issues related to the LGBTQI+ community
individuals are not restricted legally from and GBV. We then provide some details on NGO
accessing GBV-related services and, similarly, and CSO programming focusing on programming
service providers (both legal and health) are for LGBTQI+ individuals.
not restricted from providing services to those
individuals as Kenyan citizens. However, accessing The literature review provides a snapshot of
these services is difficult in the Kenyan context existing programmes in Kenya focusing on the
where, as highlighted in Section 3.3, members issues of interest to this study. To capture all
of the LGBTQI+ community continue to face programmes that deal with issues related to the
stigma and discrimination. There was a general diverse SOGIESC/LGBTQI+ community, refugees
perception that policies need to take this into and migrants, as well as GBV, the following
full consideration so that there can be deliberate categories were used to conduct searches.
efforts to specify and mainstream protection These are presented as such in George et al. (2021)
for LGBTQI+ individuals under GBV services. (see Appendix 2) along with their objectives,
Respondents felt that due to discriminatory and key components and target population, among
stigmatising sociocultural values and norms in the other details.7 ODI Report
Table 1 Snapshot of existing programmes in Kenya and target population coverage
SOGIESC or LGBTQI+ Refugee/migrant SGBV/GBV/IPV
Source: authors, adapted from George et al. (2021).
There is an overlap in programmes, with some work with national level government and non-
covering more than one of the areas listed governmental institutions. Government level
above. However, it was necessary to keep these includes working with the National Gender and
categories to highlight how these intersecting Equality Commission (NGEC) and the National
issues are dealt with by programmes. To Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ);
summarise our findings from the desk review, and non-governmental includes the the Gay
there is limited programming for refugees and and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK) and
migrants in Kenya of diverse SOGIESC that the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights
focuses on GBV. Similarly, while there are a range Commission (NGLHRC). The KNCHR also works
of organisations and initiatives working on issues with international institutions that advocate
affecting members of the LGBTQI+ community for human rights. It is also supposed to act as a
in Kenya, these do not appear to engage refugee watchdog over other government institutions
populations specifically. Finally, as alluded to on matters of rights and liberties. Its ability to
above, programmes that focus on some members advocate for the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals
of the LGBTQI+ community often use HIV or has, however, been limited by the Penal Code
AIDS as an entry point and thus often neglect (which makes same-sex acts illegal) and by
other aspects of the lives and experiences of the general intolerance of the police towards
LGBTQI+ individuals. LGBTQI+ individuals that also results from the
Penal Code. The KNCHR has, however, managed
2.2.1 Findings from the consultation to advocate for the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals
by reporting, and being witnesses in, cases of
Turning to findings from the consultations, at violence and abuse; it has also successfully
national level, the KNCHR and NASCOP have the sought constitutional interpretations of some
mandate to carry out activities that are relevant legislation that had the potential to make
to LGBTQI+ individuals. KNCHR is a government LGBTQI+ individuals vulnerable (such as denial
commission that was formed through an Act of of registration of LGBTQI+ organisations by
Parliament with a mandate to protect the rights the NGO Council, and anal testing to determine
and liberties of all Kenyans. It is expected to sexual orientation).8 ODI Report
NASCOP, established in 1987, operates as a programme (under NASCOP) handles GBV within
unit within the Ministry of Health; it receives its advocacy unit, with GBV being identified as an
funding from the national government as well area of focus since it has significantly affected the
as from external sources including The Global outcomes and success of the KP programme. The
Fund. NASCOP is mainly involved with technical unit has a violence prevention response protocol
coordination of HIV and AIDS programmes in that guides KP programmes. However, NASCOP
Kenya. Its programmes focus on three broad has faced challenges in engaging and developing
areas: (1) HIV and STI (sexually transmitted interventions with people of diverse SOGIESC due
infection) prevention; (2) HIV and STI care and to the fact that many remain hidden; the exception
treatment; and (3) strategic information, research (it notes) are MSM, who are less hidden than
and implementation science. One programme other members of the LGBTQI+ community.
under the HIV and AIDS prevention unit focuses
on key populations (KPs)2 or high-risk groups, NASCOP coordinates all stakeholders engaged
which include female sex workers, MSM, prisoners, in HIV service provision, including those serving
and people who inject drugs; most recently, transgender people and MSM. NASCOP builds
transgender people have also been included as capacity among stakeholders who are then
a KP, with key informants noting that guidelines expected to send quarterly and/or monthly
are being developed for the latter group. Key reports. It has a Committee of Experts that brings
informants noted that they also include intersex together stakeholders engaged in KP programmes
individuals in their programme, but there is less on a quarterly basis to discuss and provide
of a focus on them than on the other five KP guidance on matters related to KPs. Committee
groups. According to NASCOP, their programming members include members of KPs themselves,
is also extended to migrant and refugee the Ministry of Gender and Social Services, the
populations whom they expect to be supported Ministry of Interior Coordination (police and
to access services regardless of whether they are administration office, e.g. chiefs), the Ministry
documented persons or not. of Education (for activities focusing on younger
populations), and the Ministry of Agriculture
While the National AIDS Control Council (for nutritional support of people living with
(NACC) develops the HIV-related multisectoral HIV). However, challenges in coordination
policies and national HIV strategies, NASCOP were reported at both national and county
develops guidelines for the implementation levels, resulting in inadequate engagement
of HIV programmes. Programmes encompass of key stakeholders (especially multisectoral
behavioural, biomedical and structural approaches collaboration with other ministries) and poor
to HIV services. The guidelines for MSM service coverage of services. Reasons for inadequate
provision are within the KP guidelines, although coordination include: inadequate funding;
those for transgender people are separate, as their stigmatising attitudes of some key stakeholders
needs were seen to be unique and not adequately who feel that KPs should not receive support
covered by the wider KP guidelines. The KP through policies and programming because they
2 Key Populations (downloads), National AIDS & STI Control Programme (NASCOP), Ministry of Health, Kenya.
(See https://www.nascop.or.ke/key-populations-downloads/ ).9 ODI Report
do not conform to social norms; and differences yet finalised the contextualisation of GBV policies
in stakeholders’ goals, especially among donors, and sub-county GBV officials had just started in
making it difficult to identify joint goals and targets. their roles at the time of the consultation – it had
not yet carried out sensitisation activities with
As mentioned above, a key governmental key stakeholders.
structure that addresses GBV in Kenya is the
county-led GBV units whose goal is to prevent As also highlighted in the literature review, there is a
and respond to GBV by improving access to relatively large number of programmes in Kenya run
services, defining referral pathways, and offering by NGOs and international NGOs (INGOs) focusing
tracing and prosecuting of perpetrators. The on GBV. Some focus specifically on LGBTQI+
Nairobi and Mombasa county GBV units are good individuals or include them as part of the vulnerable
examples; both have been operating since 2019 target groups. Activities run by these NGOs include
and are funded by the county government. They the following: advocating for the rights of LGBTQI+
target the general population, although Nairobi individuals; responding to their experiences of GBV
county key informants reported that they have (including through the provision of psychosocial
a KP programming division, which develops support such as counselling and enrolment in
programmes for GBV prevention and response, a support group, referral to and/or support of
focusing on KPs that include members of the medical services, enrolment in safe houses, tracing
LGBTQI+ community. Mombasa county GBV unit, of perpetrators, support with reporting cases to the
on the other hand, does not have population- police, and raising legal fees for court proceedings);
specific GBV programmes. conducting gender diversity awareness campaigns;
and empowering members through providing
The county GBV units collaborate with NGOs them with knowledge on their rights. In practice,
and CSOs, taking a multisectoral and integrated this means distributing information on available
approach. They have collaborated with a wide services, enrolling individuals in support groups, and
range of stakeholders, including LVCT Health, the supporting them economically through provision of
Population Council, Health Options for Young Men stipends and inputs for income-generating activities.
on HIV, AIDS and STIs (HOYMAS),3 the National
Police Service, members of the judiciary, local There are also regional and international LGBTQI+
leaders (such as chiefs and community leaders), groups that most of the NGOs operating at the
and community members. Collaborations have community level associate with and are members
included: identifying and tracking perpetrators of. These include the African Intersex Movement
and survivors of GBV; developing partnerships (a regional movement), Rainbow Catholics, and
and referral to services for survivors; sensitisation Rainbow Adventists (both international networks).
on GBV issues; and collation of evidence for Respondents noted that these linkages helped
revisions of guidelines and practice. Challenges enhance advocacy efforts and, as discussed in the
faced by the county units have included literature review, these linkages can help provide
inadequate funding and difficulties in coordinating resources and shared learning for local activists and
partners for service delivery (for the Nairobi unit); programmers, drawing on global experience. NGOs
and for the Mombasa unit – given that it has not also collaborate with each other; for example,
3 A male sex worker-run organisation (see https://aidsfonds.org/partner/hoymas).10 ODI Report
Persons Marginalized and Aggrieved (PEMA) active limited. Moreover, the programmes that do
in the coastal areas of Kenya partners with the focus on LGBTQI+ issues do not necessarily
KNHRC, the GALCK,4 and Haki Africa to advocate offer a comprehensive approach; for instance,
for the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals. if responding to GBV, they may only offer
psychosocial support and not legal support.
NGOs (national and international) collaborate with As discussed in the literature review (George
the government of Kenya in their activities and et al., 2021), global learning supports a holistic
receive funding from donors. Funders mentioned approach. Legal reform, support for physical and
by key informants included: the United States psychosocial health, improved service delivery
Agency for International Development (USAID), and accessibility in multiple areas (including
the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief safe shelter), and social norm change are all
(PEPFAR), the Global Fund, and the Open Society fundamental components of support for LGBTQI+
Foundation. Mentioned implementers were the people – including those that are migrants or
Kenya Legal and Ethical Issues Network on HIV and refugees – in protecting against and preventing
AIDS (KELIN) and the Church World Service (CWS), GBV (see, for example, Chynoweth, 2020). Some
the Metropolitan Community Church’s Global respondents suggested that integrating LGBTQI+
Justice Institute, and Other Sheep USA. While all programmes into existing services would be one
national and international NGO programme staff way to ensure sustainability of the programmes.
consulted reported receiving funding for specific
activities related to LGBTQI+ issues, this funding According to respondents, another important
is often related to donors’ objectives and may not limitation of programmes was that not all of
necessarily always address the priorities of members those programmes targeting the LGBTQI+
of the populations they are aiming to support. Most community were led by members of that
funding is for HIV and SRH service delivery with community; it was felt that some programmes
limited funding for other programme areas. Because had met with resistance for this reason. This was
of the HIV focus, MSM and transgender people are generally identified as important for programmes
more targeted than LBQ women who are often advocating for the rights of the LGBTQI+
perceived to be at lower risk of HIV. community; without the key involvement of
members of the community, it was felt that they
NGO staff also noted that funding amounts were not in a position to be ‘adequately’ motivated
targeting LGBTQI+ issues are always very to champion for their rights.
4 The Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK) is the national SOGIE umbrella body established in 2006.
The coalition consists of 16 member organisations representing LGBQ voices from across Kenya:
https://www.galck.org/. GALCK has been instrumental in establishing (and re-establishing) working relationships
and alliances with government institutions and civil society organizations to inspire a society that appreciates
diversity which recognises that everyone has a right to equal opportunities – irrespective of their real or
perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.11 ODI Report
3 Challenges faced by members of the
LGBTQI+ community in Kenya
The literature review presents experiences and and ostracised when their identities, practices
challenges faced by members of the LGBTQI+ or behaviours appear to violate these norms.
community through thematic lenses (stigma, All of this can serve as a driver of GBV. Conflict-
violence, access to services, privacy/visibility), affected contexts, where tensions are already
followed by the experiences of different heightened, can exacerbate these problems.
population groups. In this report we use the The literature review also highlights how stigma
same thematic lenses to highlight experiences and exclusion are experienced differently by
as recounted by key informants, drawing out different population groups within the LGBTQI+
(whenever possible) whether these experiences community, so policy and programming (in
differ by population group. As in the literature conflict/displacement settings and other settings)
review, we explore experiences in terms of stigma, need to take that into account (for further details,
violence and norms (Section 3.1), challenges in see George et al., 2021).
accessing services (Section 3.2), and issues of
identity and visibility/invisibility (Section 3.3). 3.1.1 Stigma
3.1 Stigma, violence and norms
Everyone seems to stigmatise and discriminate
A range of studies (e.g. Moore and Barner, 2017; against LGBTQI+ persons. Families reject
Chynoweth, 2019; 2020; Plan International and them and even refuse to take them to school.
Edge Effect, 2020) show how stigma against Schools suspend and expel them based on
people of diverse SOGIESC can drive multiple assumed sexuality. Friends ‘out’ them by force
forms and dimensions of violence (physical, and some even sexually assault them in a bid to
emotional, sexual), discrimination, exclusion and ‘normalise’ through coerced sexual conversion.
isolation, including self-isolation. These are all (Group discussion with trans people)
particularly acute within conflict, displacement
and migrant settings. Much of this stigma is This quote from a discussion with trans people
shaped by harmful gendered social norms that reflects wider sentiments of key informants
form the basis for rigid views on masculinities, interviewed as part of this consultation.
femininities and sexuality, and contribute to the
normalisation of direct as well as indirect violence In the stakeholder consultations, respondents
(in the form of discrimination) against those seen often raised experiences of stigma and
to transgress those norms. Studies show that intolerance. Stigma permeated all aspects of
in many settings, LGBTQI+ individuals who are life, starting with family members; there were
considered to break or transgress established accounts of LGBTQI+ individuals being told to
gender norms – and/or fall outside the traditional be silent (silenced) about their sexual identity/
masculine/feminine binary – are stigmatised orientation (at best) and being disinherited,12 ODI Report
‘excommunicated’ by their families or considered often confused about a bisexual person’s sexuality
a ‘bad omen’ (at worst). Reflecting perceptions of (‘how could they feel the same for both men and
other key informants, in a group discussion one women?’) and it was worse for bisexual men, since
participant noted: society is less tolerant of men who identify with
feminine gender roles or identities. Also, it was
thought that trans people are more visible, which
No African family can accept one of their own makes them more susceptible to stigmatising
being gay. It is deemed as a curse and going behaviours towards them. According to
against nature’s and God’s way of sexuality. respondents, both key informants and members
(Group discussion with bisexual men) of the group discussion, there is a perception that
lesbians experience less intolerance or stigma,
There were also reports of family members being because lesbianism is generally seen as engaging
physically violent towards LGBTQI+ individuals in limited actions of sexual behaviour, rather than
as a way of ‘disciplining them to correct their as an identity per se (a ‘living for the moment act’).
behaviour’ and there were some family members As the literature review also found, lesbians in
who would even involve the police in beating up Kenya report difficulties in expressing and gaining
their relative. This stigma and intolerance has also recognition for their sexual orientation; limited
led to LGBTQI+ individuals being denied housing understanding and dominant stereotypes of how
by landlords and community ‘gatekeepers,’ diverse sexual orientation and gender identities
with some having experienced arson attacks on (SOGI) are expressed mean that a woman is not
their property, being evicted from their homes believed when she says she is a lesbian (see, for
(including from refugee camps) and being denied example, the Coalition of African Lesbians (CAL)
access to healthcare. and GALCK, 2016).
While most members of the LGBTQI+ community Box 1 gives an example of the range of terms that
face stigma and discrimination, most respondents are used in Kenya to describe members of the
felt that some sub-populations faced greater LGBTQI+ community. It also speaks to the issue
levels of stigma than others – namely bisexual regarding the use of country-specific terms and
people (and particularly bisexual men), gay men concepts to describe people of diverse SOGIESC.
and transgender women. Representatives of the As the box shows, some terms are also specific to
bisexual community explained that people were different regions within Kenya.13 ODI Report
Box 1 Terms used to refer to LGBTQI+ individuals in Kenya
Many terms are used to refer to LGBTQI+ individuals in Kenya. All have derogatory connotations and
some are more likely to be used in certain areas.
• Shoga – Used officially to describe gay men. Also used widely in Kenya to define men who have sex
with men (MSM) but also to verbally abuse men who are exhibiting behaviour typically identified
by society as ‘female’.
• Malaya – National slang. It translates from Swahili to English as ‘prostitute’. Used mostly by the
general community to refer to gay men and transgender women, as the assumption is that they
are ‘behaving gay’ so that they can make money through transactional sex.
• ‘2 in 1’ – Nairobi slang for a bisexual person.
• Msenge – Slang mostly used in coastal areas and Nairobi. It translates to English as MSM who
receive penetration. Also used as an abusive term in the same way as shoga.
• Kuchu – Coastal slang. It translates to English as weird/queer/unnatural. In official Swahili, kuchu
describes something or someone with unnatural beauty. The term is used for LGBTQI+ individuals
for not conforming to expected gender roles.
• Lele and Lesbo – Mostly Nairobi slang for lesbian. Also widely used in educational institutions,
particularly boarding schools (secondary).
• Wasagaji – Swahili term, used officially to describe lesbians. Directly translates to ‘grinders’.
• Basha – Coastal slang. It is used to describe a ‘top’ or ‘king’ MSM. It was originally used to describe
philandering men.
• ‘Homo’ – National slang for a homosexual man.
Respondents also used language such as jinsia tata (‘difficult to understand gender’ or ‘confusing
gender’) and jinsia badilifu (which translates as ‘changed gender’).
While some members of the LGBTQI+ community, especially MSM and male sex workers (MSWs) are
comfortable with calling each other the names listed above, they find it stigmatising/discriminatory
when other non-community members use those names to refer to them.
(See also: Geibel et al., 2008 for a discussion on self-reported sexual identities).
As well as experiencing stigma from others, mental ill-health and psychosocial distress as
there were reports of widespread internalisation well as self-imposed isolation. The literature
of stigma or ‘self-stigma’ among LGBTQI+ review found that these intersecting
individuals. This resulted from them ‘feeling experiences of self-stigma and experiencing
different,’ and seeing themselves as ‘not human stigma from others are particularly damaging
enough’ largely due to how others were for LGBTQI+ individuals in a migrant setting
depicting them. This was reported to lead to (see Chynoweth, 2020).14 ODI Report
The consultations also included accounts of some were also reports of religious leaders being
members of the LGBTQI+ community stigmatising violent towards LGBTQI+ persons when trying
and discriminating against other members who to ‘convert them back’ to what is considered
were of a lower social class and economic status. gender and sexual conformity.
For instance, LGBTQI+ individuals who worked as
sex workers were often discriminated against by Again according to respondents, violence from
those who did not; sex work was usually a survival other members of the LGBTQI+ community was
strategy for those who were unable to earn an mostly sexual and perpetrated by intimate partners.
income through other means. There were also reports of violence perpetrated by
fellow LGBTQI+ individuals who would blackmail
Refugee or migrant LGBTQI+ individuals were an individual and extort money from them in
reported to face multiple layers of stigma and exchange for keeping their sexual and gender
vulnerability. Not only do they face the psychosocial orientation confidential; this also took the form of
stress of being away from their homes and usually online bullying (e.g. through Facebook, Instagram
lacking viable livelihood options, but they also face and WhatsApp groups). Sexual violence was also
stigma, discrimination and violence due to their perpetrated by the general public and family
sexuality and gender orientation. Moreover, they members who saw it as a forceful way to make the
also face stigmatising attitudes and abuse from host person conform to a particular gender identity or
country LGBTQI+ individuals. This was explained presentation (‘correctional sex for conversion’).
by respondents as arising from the assumption These forceful ‘conversions’ were mostly
that refugees receive monthly stipends from experienced by bisexual persons and transgender
international donors/funders and are therefore women. Survivors of such assaults generally do not
better off than LGBTQI+ individuals in the host report them since usually no action is taken and
community, with envy on the part of the latter they are likely to face more ridicule and abuse from
leading to abuse and violence against the former the police. Sexual assault of LGBTQI+ individuals
(see sub-section 3.1.2). This, however, is common in prison was also mentioned – something that
to all refugees and not all refugees get a stipend especially affected intersex persons, who were put
from organisations that support their stay in the in jail without consideration of their gender.
country, but there is a belief that all do.
Refugee or migrant LGBTQI+ individuals were
3.1.2 Violence reported as among those most likely to experience
violence from members of the LGBTQI+
According to respondents, the most common community in host countries. As discussed earlier,
forms of violence experienced by (Kenyan) their peers reportedly assault and rob them
members of the LGBTQI+ community were since they are perceived to be better off than
sexual violence, emotional/psychological violence their host counterparts. The literature review
and physical violence. Family members, friends, also found that refugee LGBTQI+ individuals
neighbours (all ‘those who are well-known to the experience discrimination and exploitation
victim’), law enforcement agencies (including from other members of the refugee LGBTQI+
police and security officers) and members of community; in some cases, where refugees are
the LGBTQI+ community were mentioned as living in urban areas, this is driven by fear that
the main perpetrators of this violence. There a more ‘visible’ member of the community will15 ODI Report
expose the SOGI of other refugees and increase LGBTQI+ individuals and were largely identified
their risk of experiencing violence (see Moore as perpetrators of violence – something that was
and Waruiru, 2020). In camp settings, new arrivals strongly reflected in the secondary literature
can experience exploitation within the LGTBQI+ (see, for example, Goshal et al., 2018; KHRC, 2011).
community due to the temporary financial As a result of this situation, there is very limited
support they receive (see Refuge Point, 2017). reporting of violence by members of the LGBTQI+
Homophobia was also reported to have led to community. The few police officers who were
the deaths of some refugee or migrant LGBTQI+ responsive to the needs of LGBTQI+ individuals
individuals; this was noted to have happened in were those who had undergone sensitisation on
Dadaab refugee camp by several respondents. the rights of the LGBTQI+ community.
Language barriers can also predispose refugee or
migrant LGBTQI+ individuals to abuse since they The consultations also show that drivers of
are unable to express themselves and potentially violence are contextual. Societal tensions
avoid abusive situations. There were also were seen by many as leading to an increase in
accounts of LGBTQI+ refugees having to engage protection concerns for members of the LGBTQI+
in transactional sex as a survival strategy, often community as well as other minority groups.
resulting in sexual abuse by clients who refuse to Examples of such tensions include election
pay them, and threaten to inform the authorities periods, when law and order is often disrupted
about them, which could lead to deportation. due to violent encounters between rival political
groups, and general lawlessness and ‘mob-
Study respondents’ reports of the drivers mentality.’ Members of the LGBTQI+ community
of violence towards LGBTQI+ persons were often bear the brunt of tensions during these
similar to those identified in the literature periods. (Although a group discussion with
review. They included: stigma, intolerance and/ members of the bisexual community noted that
or lack of acceptance by those who come out; instabilities such as post-election violence had
vulnerability due to lack of protection from no correlation with violence faced by LGBTQI+
the law; and lack of economic empowerment. individuals since they are ‘abused any time abusers
As same-sex relations in Kenya are illegal, GBV get the opportunity… There is no particular time
policies offer no protection for members of for this abuse and stigma. It can happen any time’).
the LGBTQI+ community. This makes them There were also reports of an increase in intimate
vulnerable to violence, whether perpetrated by partner violence (IPV) among LGBTQI+ individuals
the general public or law enforcement agencies during periods of political instability/disruption;
(and particularly the police). Some respondents key informants explained this as resulting from
reported cases of abuse by police, who felt their likely disruption of economic activities and
actions were justified due to the illegality of same- therefore low income leading to power imbalances
sex relations. Some police officers reportedly between those who are earning and those who are
arrested or threatened to arrest LGBTQI+ not, which often manifests in IPV.
individuals in exchange for money, while some
would disregard the person’s gender while under Key informants also identified holiday periods as
arrest and put them in the wrong cells, where they a time of increased susceptibility to violence on
would face abuse. Respondents generally felt that the part of LGBTQI+ individuals, as during such
the police did not offer adequate protection to periods people have more time on their hands16 ODI Report
to identify non-conforming behaviour and to such as water points, maintaining privacy is
respond with intolerance towards it. Religious challenging. In such areas, even if people of diverse
festivities in Kenya also led to heightened levels of SOGIESC may not be open about their identity or
intolerance and increased protection concerns for relationships, they may be discovered and, as such,
members of the LGBTQI+ community. According may face increased discrimination and violence.
to some respondents, Ramadan in particular was There was also the sense that due to ‘more
considered to be a time when certain religious joblessness and idleness in urban areas,’ any minor
groups felt it was their obligation to make sure issue can create tensions and become a trigger
those around them were holy and, if not, they for violence and stigma, with LGBTQI+ individuals
were thought to need ‘cleaning’. This resulted in often facing the brunt of this.
violence towards LGBTQI+ individuals, as they
were seen to go against religious values that On the other hand, one key informant noted that
denounced same-sex relations and emphasised communities in rural areas were less tolerant of
the need to conform to gender roles which are LGBTQI+ individuals, whereas people in urban
sex-assigned at birth. areas (especially in Nairobi) tended to have more
liberal and progressive views, identifying less
During Covid-19, key informants reported that strongly with religious and cultural norms and
violence and discrimination towards members expected ways of behaviour compared to their
of the LGBTQI+ community had increased as rural counterparts. However, the same informant
part of a general increase of GBV in Kenya (and also noted that there were unexpected attitudes,
worldwide). Similarly, cases of being ‘outed’ and citing an example that when their organisation was
thrown out by community members increased doing programming in coastal areas (which are
during Covid-19 containment – this was as people heavily Islamic and where communities are strong
became suspicious of their neighbours in the early followers of Islamic faith), community members
part of the epidemic. This was due to frustrations were much more receptive to awareness raising
and fear caused by Covid-19 but also due to loss of and interventions targeting members of the
livelihoods and employment, and the disruption LGBTQI+ community when compared to regions
in services and access to service provision. such as Western Kenya, which were assumed to be
This made members of the LGBTQI+ community less religiously inclined.
vulnerable to violence, and disrupted programmes
that had previously sought to protect marginalised 3.2 Access to services
groups. and programming
There were differing perceptions around whether As outlined in the literature review, one of the
people living in urban or rural areas were more largest challenges faced by people of diverse
tolerant (or intolerant) towards LGBTQI+ SOGIESC is accessing services, whether for GBV,
individuals. On the one hand there was a view health (including mental health), legal services,
that living in urban areas, especially in precarious/ housing/shelter, job opportunities or education.
informal settlements, placed members of the Services are not easily accessible by LGBTQI+
LGBTQI+ community at greater risk of needing individuals, and few services involve members
protection. In areas with high population density, of the LGBTQI+ community in their design and
shared living spaces and communal services implementation, which undermines effectiveness.17 ODI Report
Certain sub-populations face particular difficulties While NASCOP has developed guidelines and
accessing certain services (for example, male has built the capacity of organisations to provide
survivors of GBV have difficulties accessing services to all, irrespective of a person’s SOGIESC,
services as they are mostly designed for women). some members of the LGBTQI+ community have
Additionally, some HIV programming is male been denied services (even upon referral) or
centred and therefore not inclusive of sexual have been stigmatised by health providers, as one
minority women. person explained:
LGTBQI+ individuals often lack appropriate
information and knowledge about services and, Being gay is enough for one to be denied
even if they do know where to access support, services in health facilities. Health providers
they prefer to consult traditional healers, don’t want to offer services to gay men
religious leaders and elders because of issues and ask homophobic questions like how gay
of confidentiality and trust. Service providers men have sex, how one decides to have his
often have negative and stigmatising attitudes anus penetrated… (Group discussion with
towards LGBTQI+ individuals, including racism bisexual people)
and xenophobia (particularly towards refugees),
which further limits access. With respect to This has resulted in inadequate uptake of services
housing or shelter, accounts of eviction and by LGBTQI+ individuals (including poor adherence
blackmail by landlords are common in the to treatment for those with HIV), who tend to
literature. Finally, services are not effective, and rely instead on reaching out to informal providers
providers are not trained in how to deal with the and talking to their peers about their struggles
intersectional experiences that this study focuses and experiences. There have also been cases of
on, and which represent the lived experiences of health providers denying family planning services
members of the LGBTQI+ community, whether to bisexual and transgender persons and of male
they are migrants/refugees or members of the health providers demanding sex from lesbians and
host LGBTQI+ community. intersex persons in exchange for service provision.
This kind of blackmail is made possible by the legal
Findings from the consultations pick up on context, as discussed earlier; it is one of the most
many of the issues raised in the literature critical ramifications of continuing to criminalise
review. Respondents reported that they usually same-sex relations.
sought assistance from programmes run by
community-based organisations (CBOs) or
NGOs, as those programmes are easier to access Some healthcare providers even sexually abuse
than government programmes. However, even them in order to give them services. There have
these CBO and NGO programmes are not widely been cases of lesbians and intersex persons
available. In relation to GBV services, it was noted being sexually assaulted by male healthcare
that there were few across the country and those providers who demand sex before offering any
that do exist are ‘blind to the plight of LGBTQI+ service. (Group discussion with trans people)
individuals who face double vulnerabilities.’
Similarly, it was noted that in general, there are few
facilities that provide non-discriminatory services.You can also read
