INTERFAITH DIALOGUE ON THE

HUMAN RIGHTS OF LGBTQIA+

PERSONS

REPORT

29TH January 2021

Voilà Hotel, Bagatelle

Prepared by: Nitianand Shibnauth

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 2
SPEECHES .................................................................................................................................. 3
WELCOME SPEECH – Miss ANAÏS BOULLÉ ............................................................................ 3
MESSAGE – His Excellency VINCENT DEGERT...................................................................... 3
MESSAGE – Father PHILIPPE GOUPILLE ................................................................................ 4
KEYNOTE SPEECH – Dr Roopanand Mahadew...................................................................... 5
PANEL DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 6
PARTICIPANTS........................................................................................................................ 6
TOPICS ................................................................................................................................... 7
RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ........................................................................................ 7
RELIGION AND TENSION ................................................................................................... 7
DISCUSSION AS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS ............................................................................ 7
SITUATION IN MAURITIUS .................................................................................................... 7
MAURITIUS CRIMINAL CODE, SECTION 250...................................................................... 8
THE TABOO OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE ............................................................................... 8
THE SHOCK OF COMING OUT .......................................................................................... 9
DEALING WITH THE HATE ................................................................................................... 9
HOMOSEXUALITY AND MENTAL ILLNESS........................................................................... 9
QUESTION TIME ........................................................................................................................11
PRIVACY IN ONE’S BEDROOM ........................................................................................11
DEALING WITH ‘STONE THROWERS’.................................................................................11
SOCIAL PRESSURE .............................................................................................................11
POLITICAL DIALOGUE ......................................................................................................12
INTRODUCTION

Organised by Collectif Arc-En-Ciel in partnership with the Human Rights Campaign

Foundation, the Kaleidoscope Trust and the European Union, this interfaith dialogue on
the human rights of LGBTQIA+ persons attempted at creating an unprecedented space
where human rights activists, people from the LGBTQIA+ community and faith leaders
can freely discuss probleMs. such as discrimination, intolerance and LGBT-phobia in the
context of human rights, values and religious beliefs. Such dialogue was deemed
essential to prevent ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural divides while providing ways
to deal with differences in identity and values.

The event started with Speeches which outlined the work already in progress to ensure
inclusion and respect of LGBTQIA+ persons in the Mauritian context. This was followed by
a roundup of possible revisions and measures to continue along the same lines.

The only Keynote Speech lingered on distinctions between religious belief and
religious freedom, as well as ambiguity in various local and international law wordings,
that complicate the quest to reconcile faith and the freedom of sexual orientation.
Setting the tone for the ensuing panel discussion, the keynote speech critically went over
some similar cases of previous fights for equality and acceptance, laying stress over the
similarities and differences of said contexts to the one at hand.

The Panel Discussion included personalities from various fronts – legal, pedagogical,
religious, philosophical and social – and took a holistic approach at the probleMs.
outlined in the previous speeches. The main giveaway was the need of intra-faith
dialogue before moving to such interfaith discussions. The need to include more
stakeholders in the quest for equality and inclusion was also stressed on. A change in the
mindset of not only religious, but also corporate and political leaders, was noted to be
the long-term goal of such endeavour. Suggestions and questions from the audience
during the Question Time veered in the same general direction.
SPEECHES
WELCOME SPEECH – Miss ANAÏS BOULLÉ

Ms. Anaïs Boullé, President of Collectif Arc-En-Ciel, kicked off the event with a brief
reminder of the activities of Collectif Arc-En-Ciel, linking the Interfaith Dialogue with the
aiMs. of the organization. She reiterated the contribution of Collectif Arc-En-Ciel in
providing such platforMs. and tools for interfaith and interdisciplinary dialogue, essential,
according to her, to promote Human Rights and to go beyond preconceived ideas of
sexuality, sexual preference and gender portrayal.

MESSAGE – His Excellency VINCENT DEGERT

His Excellency Vincent Degert, Ambassador of the European Union to Mauritius,

reminded the audience of the universal freedom and equality in dignity and rights of
every individual, as per the very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This leads to the respect of one’s right to faith, especially in a multicultural setting such as
Mauritius. Similarly, he listed various examples of acceptance of the LGBTQIA+
community in public statements made by religious leaders such as the Dalaï Lama,
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Imam Tareq Oubrou from Bordeaux, Thai Buddhist monk Shine
Waradhammo and Pope Francis himself. This, according to him, goes alongside the
message of love, comprehension and tolerance common to all major religions of the
world.

Talking about the contributions of the European Union, he mentioned the extended
strategy to combat hate crime and hate speech in various contexts, including that of
discrimination against LGBTQIA+ persons, under the EU’s Gender Action Plan (III). This will
attempt to ensure security and equal opportunity for the LGBTQIA+ community within the
international community the European Union can reach, including Mauritius. Mauritius,
he recalled, has a certain unspoken acceptance towards LGBTQIA+ persons, but that
the Mauritius Criminal Code, with the example of Section 250, does not allow for
constitutional freedom of the community. This archaic 19th century law that is no longer
according to international norms, he says, was the subject of 1 of 14 recommendations
made to the Mauritian government by the EU about LGBTQIA+ laws, none of which have
yet been accepted.

His Escellency Vincent Degert ended by congratulating the organisers of the event
while reiterating the European Union’s as well as his personal continuous engagement in
promoting love and inclusion, rather than exclusion, as ordained by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
MESSAGE – Father PHILIPPE GOUPILLE

The message of Father Philippe Goupille, President of the Council of Religions, was
read by Miss Amita Boolaucky, and drew parallels between the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and religious writings. Human beings having been created at the image of
God is a way of reiterating the uniqueness and the rights to dignity of each individual
according to him. The periodic review of the rights in question also shows the need to
keep up with the changing times. His message also stressed on the need for mutual
respect for each other’s dignity, for which dialogue is a good medium. The Council of
Religions, he said, is open to such dialogue. Conflict is inevitable according to him, but is
essential to finding common grounds for mutual understanding and respect.
KEYNOTE SPEECH – Dr Roopanand Mahadew

The keynote speech was presented by Dr Roopanand Mahadew, senior lecturer at

the department of Law of the University of Mauritius. A specialist in human rights law and
public international law, he is the author of various acclaimed publications in the field.

He started by pointing out similar discussions that have led to major changes in the
past, such as the discussion for the right for women to vote, the rights of disabled people
and those of indigenous people. On a positive note, he mentioned that revision to laws
in Europe now equated bias against sexual orientation to racism, indicating change in a
positive direction. On the local context, he noted the addition of sexual orientation to
the Equal Opportunities Act.

However, he pointed out, the inclusion of religion in the discussion about rights of
LGBTQIA+ persons complicates the discussion, due to religion’s personal and prone-to-
controversy nature. Religion has constituted a barrage in this fight, exemplified by the
religious argument put forth in UK court in 2013 by a worker who refused to serve same-
sex couples. Thus, he questioned the compassionate and all-encompassing nature
religion is supposed to have. He pointed out how, during local discussions for abortion
laws, members of the parliament were seen quoting religion before saying that while
those beliefs are to be respected, they need to be “put aside” to prioritise the wellbeing
of individual.

Moving to Human Rights, he posited that law is a framework under which both the
right to religion and the right to sexual preference are protected. However, Article 18 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights distinguishes between belief in a religion and
the manifestation of such belief in public. The belief itself, he explained, is limitless, while
the manifestation of it is limited by social norms and public law. The right to religion in itself
is ambiguous according to him, since there is no set of beliefs that is formally ordained;
Hindus from various branches of Hinduism and of varying degrees of rigor to practicing
the religion are all protected under the right to religion, he pointed out. Even the right not
to believe (atheism) is protected under the same laws, the manifestation of which can
be seen as a lack of respect towards religious believers. Thus, believers of LGBTQIA+
equality as well as nonbelievers should be entitled to freedom to do so, which is
paradoxical. This ambiguity is furthermore seen in the comprehension of the right to
privacy. What is private, he asked, and where does the private turn into the public?
PANEL DISCUSSION
PARTICIPANTS

Miss AJEELEE KAUR BEEGUN, moderator of the panel discussion, is the Executive
Director of Collectif Arc-En-Ciel since April 2020. With experience as Head of Advocacy
and Legal Affairs and as lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, she is an HRC
Foundation 2020 Global Advocacy Innovator.

Miss MURIEL YVON is a board member for Collectif Arc-En-Ciel, with more than a
decade of local and international experience with activities and activism for the equal
rights of LGBTQIA+ persons.

Mister YATIN VARMA is a barrister and head of Varma Chambers. Former Attorney
General and newly elected President of the Bar Council, he was instrumental in passing
of landmark legislations, including one on legalizing abortion in specific cases.

Father LAURENT RIVET has been a priest for the Diocese of Port Louis since 2007. He
believes in using music to preach the messages of the gospel and has released a number
of albums.

Miss KRISHNEE APPADOO is a lecturer in laws at the University of Mauritius, President of

Collectif Urgence Toxida and co-founder as well as director of Mind Matters Ltd, she is an
environment, climate, youth, gender and mental health activist.

Miss KAY DAHALL is a degree holder in Science of Religion from the University of Cape
Town. She is currently preparing a philosophical doctorate in metaphysical science,
alongside her activities as Reiki Master, Pranic Healer, Arhatic Yogi and Shiv Yogi.
TOPICS
RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Upon being asked whether Religion and Human Rights are incompatible, Ms. Dahall
pointed to the etymology of the word ‘religion’, from Latin ‘religare’ which means ‘to
bind’. Religion, she said, binds God to human beings, as well as fellow human beings to
each other, “vertically and horizontally”, as she pointed out. Also, since both Religion and
Human Rights are well alive and breathing concepts, they are not inherently
incompatible.

RELIGION AND TENSION

Father Rivet reiterated the dynamism of both Religion and Human Rights. He added
that tension has always been associated to Religion, but as the individual is made to the
image of God (Genesis 1:27), one is entitled to same safe space as the other, and once
there is this respect, there is no place for tension. He put forth the “breathing” and
dynamic interpretations of the Bible in recent times as an example of that, shunning
“what should no longer be there” for more inclusive point of views. While he admitted
that Genesis 1:27 points to the creation of man and woman for each other according to
available translations and interpretations, he is open for dialogue on a more inclusive and
less restrained interpretation of this and other similar Biblical passages.

DISCUSSION AS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS

Ms. Appadoo refused the perception that the need to discuss rights of a minority
group is demeaning towards said group. She pointed out the need to be politically
correct in Mauritius, leading to fear to discuss and debate. Therefore, the discussion at
hand, while certainly unfortunate according to her, is also a laudable start.

SITUATION IN MAURITIUS

Ms. Yvon expressed hope for the case of Mauritius. The right to carry out pride
marches, have dialogues with intellectuals and people in position of power without the
fear of persecution is a very good sign according to her. “There are no policemen waiting
for us outside”, she joked, “and we are lucky to be in such a [small] country.”
MAURITIUS CRIMINAL CODE, SECTION 250

Mr. Varma was very critical of Section 250 of the Criminal Code, saying that it does
not have its place anymore. Quoting the April 2017 issue of the Office of the Director of
Prosecution newsletter, he expressed the popular opinion of the unconstitutionality of
said section.

Evolution at international level, he says, has made the section obsolete. He quoted
Pierre Trudeau (former Prime Minister of Canada) as saying, “There’s no place for the
state in the bedrooms of the nation”. Furthermore, he reiterated that constitutional
morality must prevail over social morality.

He mentioned that endeavor to amend and/or banish the law was undertaken in
2007, and posited that to circumvent the barrages they had back then, it is essential to
tackle the subject upfront; a proper debate on the amends to the Criminal Code is
needed, rather than a trial to sneak it in through a ‘back door’.

THE TABOO OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE

Ms. Dahall proposed that breaking taboos starts by talking about why those are
taboos. To reconcile the taboo of sexual preference and religion, she suggested starting
with inner discussion within religious bodies (intrareligious dialogue) so as to rasterize the
diverging opinions and to approach the subject with less inhibition. “Breaking taboos”,
she said, “is not complicated. It begins with talking about it. It begins with asking why we
are so afraid to talk about it.” For her to add that at the very basis, it is a discussion about
laws and constitutional ethics; while religious sentiments are to be respected, they should
not be what dictate constitutional amends.

Ms. Yvon agreed with the former suggestion, and pointed out the difficulty youngsters
have reconciling their religious beliefs and their sexual preference. Father Rivet continued
that youngsters need traditions that are driven and are dynamic. “By creating dialogues
and similar groups, we will create new space with new understanding and new ways to
get our thoughts across,” he added. He took the example of Pope Francis, who changed
his opinion about same-sex couples quite recently, driven by the social change.

Ms. Appadoo made the distinction between the God-fearing and God-loving
perceptions of Religion, suggesting that a change in individual mentality is what is
needed in order to consolidate actions and get rid of taboos about the subject. “It is not
only the responsibility of religion, the government or institutions to talk about these
sensitive matters; the citizen also has a duty to […] open up and be accepting”, she
added.
 Mr. Varma expressed regret at the lack of Public Interest Litigations in the Mauritian
system, and proposed that the debate needs to start with politicians, with the civil society
doing its best to honor and respect the individual’s nature.

THE SHOCK OF COMING OUT

Father Rivet attempted to explain the shock of parents when their son/daughter
comes out. He qualified it as fearful for parents, due to the lack of knowledge and the
taboo surrounding the subject. However, he advocated “[showing] more tolerance
towards those who can show none”. He distinguished between secularism and Divine
Law, and said that the individual must not suffer in this dichotomy. Safe spaces where
they can freely discuss without the fear of any taboo can ease the shock, according to
him.

DEALING WITH THE HATE

Ms. Dahall posited that despite the Criminal Code penalizing hate crime and hate
speech against LGBTQIA+ persons, differences are inevitable. Creating religious spaces
also infers distance, and distance creates conflicts. The aim of religion, according to her,
is group people and normalize opinions by internally resolving conflict. She furthermore
pointed out that the metaphor of Imago Deï asks for respect of each other’s space.

Mr. Varma echoed the idea by talking about ‘Aham Brahmaasami’ – I am one with
God. This calls for the consideration of each other as manifestations of the same divine
being, and therefore deserving the same respect.

Ms. Appadoo added that a pedagogical introduction of the religion of the other as
well as the sexuality of the other will reduce the incomprehension and thus, the hate.
“What makes us different”, she said, “is perception”, and that love can help bridge the
gaps.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND MENTAL ILLNESS

Ms. Appadoo started by stating that youngsters have trouble reconciling their religion
and their homosexuality. They are commonly perceived as mentally ill, since
homosexuality is considered a disease rather than being a normal state. This
unacceptance further contributes to mental stress, leading to conflicts and violence. She
also pointed out the unsafe nature of the online space, where it is much easier to express
hate, warranting the need for safe discussion spaces.
 Ms. Yvon added that Collectif Arc-En-Ciel did feel the physical hate of certain people,
who felt like the organization was the enemy of their personal beliefs. Ms. Appadoo then
remarked the need to walk in the shoes of the other, especially of the haters, so as to
better resolve conflicts.

Father Rivet mentioned the concept of ‘The Other’. “Hate”, he said, “emanates from
a lack of understanding, and […] fear of this unknown”. He reiterated the need for
dialogue to create bridges for the understanding to happen. However, Ms. Yvon replied,
there is sometimes no place for dialogue, for Ms. Appadoo to add that in some cases
there is tiredness from too much talking as well.

Ms. Kay concluded the discission by saying that there is no single Truth, and that each
person has a different personal truth. “To understand the truth of the other necessitates
the decision to be open to the version of truth of the other”, rather than discussion meant
only to discredit the other. Proper dialogue, she posited, arises from this initial decision.

When asked what concrete measures should follow this dialogue, she jokingly replied,
“Coming back tomorrow.”
QUESTION TIME
PRIVACY IN ONE’S BEDROOM

The first question was on the right to privacy in one’s bedroom, prefaced by the
statement that the Sanskrit saying mentioned by Mr. Varma induces a certain sense of
democracy. To the question, Ms. Dahall noted that religion has been shaped by various
traumas which, as she put it, “stand frozen in time”. The fact that it is still being shaped
indicates that religious evolution is very much possible.

Father Rivet contrasted the soul-centered concept of Asian religions as compared to

the Western religions, which focus a lot on the physical aspect of the individual, echoing
an idea previously mentioned by Ms. Dahall. To Western religious beliefs, he noted,
sexuality is given a sacred status, and control thereof is deemed of the religious domain.
Ms. Dahall then reiterated the need for intrareligious dialogue, so as to find modern
reinterpretations of religious texts, apt for the contemporary world, before moving to
interfaith dialogues.

DEALING WITH ‘STONE THROWERS’

Upon being asked about how to deal with the ‘stone throwers’, Father Rivet repeated
the idea of being more tolerant towards those who are not, pointing out the extent of
difference between the Gods and norms of various religions. “It takes time, […] and
sometimes conflict, to establish mutual understanding”, according to him.

Ms. Dahall answered by distinguishing conscience and intelligence – what the stone
throwers is a lack of conscience rather than a lack of intelligence. She posited that the
ones who are hitting are in fact the ones more injured. Giving the other cheek to the hitter
indicates the pain of the hitter. Putting the other cheek forward when one is slapped
means that one is at peace with one’s own identity, according to her. It is with such a
mentality, Mr. Varma added, that religious leaders need to start the dialogue.

Ms. Appadoo echoed the idea to reach out to the people who do not have the same
mentality. For that, she pointed out, an open mind is necessary on both sides.

SOCIAL PRESSURE

On a question about social pressure through the gaze of the other, Ms. Appadoo
answered that there is need for emotional, psychological and social support to those
coming out as an LGBTQIA+ person. She mentioned a psychologist in the USA, a personal
acquaintance who gave free therapy and guidance to persons coming out. Such
examples are to be followed, she said. A high-ranking police officer also later recalled
the case of a seventeen-year-old committing suicide for not being able to cope with the
pressure, before reiterating his personal support as well as that of the police force to avoid
such unfortunate incidents.

POLITICAL DIALOGUE

Upon a suggestion by a political personality in the audience about carrying out multi-
party discussions about this politically little brought-up subject, the Leader of the
Opposition, also present, welcomed such dialogue as an initiative for policy
amendments. “You have to reach out for a better outreach”, he said. Calling the event
at hand an “early harvest” and “a call for policy orientation” as well as “a call to talk to
all political leaders”, he synthesized the idea of implicating other stakeholders, especially
those in the legal profession, in the discussion alongside religious leaders. He also
advocated the inclusion of a Public Interest Litigation system in the Mauritian judiciary
system. He then moved on to suggest open discussions about the criminalization of
sodomy in Section 250 of the Mauritius Criminal Code, without stigma and taboo, and its
sanitary implications. “We are members of parliament, and our priority is to be elected”,
he admitted, “and it is time for you to reach out to all those who are members of
parliament.”

He took the example of the Hindu community, where he remarked that there is no
sole religious leader. Getting religious leaders to agree to indulge in such open discussion,
he admitted, is “an uphill task; it is difficult to break the glass”. He also suggested to look
for like-minded and open-minded people amongst the religious groups so as not “to hit
a wall”. He was critical about the policy of Interfaith dialogue; “There is no dialogue at
the level of Interfaith”, he remarked, “because prejudices run haywire”. He admired the
boldness and honesty of Father Rivet to be on such a panel, proof for him that “things
are changing”. However, he warned that “we have to reach out without being
confrontational; […] it has to be done in a spirit of dialogue [and] confrontation has to
be relegated.”

Another suggestion earlier had veered on the creation of a four-point manifesto

made for religious leaders, by religious leader and enforced by the state, before
concluding that what LGBTQIA+ persons seek is not special rights, but rather the right to
be equal, synthetizing the aim of the combat this event was centered on.