Long Term Partnerships, Both in Person and Online

Rainbow Railroad is embedded in the global LGBTQI+ rights movement and regularly connects face-to-face with partners from around the world in key community fora, for example the ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex organization) World annual conference, World Pride, and conferences and meetings for The Commonwealth Equality Network and the Dignity Network. These long term relationships then provide the flexibility for our staff to follow up through remote communications as needed due to security risks. Rainbow Railroad’s relational approach is validated by best practices in North- South partnership models, which emphasize that long term partnerships are the key to equitable collaborations,1 that a “‘friendship approach’ rather than ‘tick-the-box guidelines’”2 and “friendship work”3 are the best way to decolonize practices and ensure sustainability and relevance of joint work. Part of our partnership model is also capacity building and resource support. We provide small grants to our partners that strengthen their organizational capacity to not only support our work, but to increase their crucial work advocating for LGBTQI+ rights in their own countries and communities.

The benefit of these long term partnerships was clearly demonstrated last year following a crackdown on LGBTQI+ activists in Chad. An HRW researcher was on the ground in N’Djamena to conduct interviews regarding the state of LGBTQI+ persecution in Chad. This researcher was contacted by an individual claiming to be an LGBTQI+ human rights defender, who met with him in public and downplayed the extreme LGBTQI+ persecution in Chad, saying that HRW should stop its research because the situation was not that bad, despite credible reports of detention, torture and killings. Our partners in Chad identified this individual as someone known by the community who poses as a human rights defender, and we were able to inform HRW of suspicious conduct from this individual over the past several years reported by several Francophone LGBTQI+ networks. In this case, long term partnerships, even those mainly operating remotely, were able to provide better information and context than an in-person interview.

Conclusion

Many of our partner organizations are led by individuals with lived experience of persecution based on their SOGIESC identities, often working under direct threat themselves. Many have years of experience assisting community members on-the-ground and have in-depth knowledge of community, family and state treatment of LGBTQI+ community members. This uniquely positions partners to conduct reliable assessments of case risk level and credibility within their own communities.

Partner organizations are run by trusted community members with whom LGBTQI+ individuals can share openly about their identity, history and fears of persecution without the threat of homophobia, transphobia, baiting, or being outed to community or state actors. This trust and safety is at the core of why partners are best suited to verify and assess the needs of LGBTQI+ community members on the ground. Applicants can speak freely about their experiences in a nonjudgemental environment, free from discrimination and harassment, and stereotypes about shared LGBTQI+ experiences or presentations. This allows for trauma-informed, queer-sensitive interviewing, where individuals are invited to share their experiences with trusted community members who then rely on their knowledge and networks to complete credibility and identity checks, complementing Rainbow Railroad’s rigorous remote verification processes.

1 Chu KM, Jayaraman S, Kyamanywa P, Ntakiyiruta G (2014) Building Research Capacity in Africa: Equity and Global Health Collaborations. PLoS Med 11(3): e1001612.

2 Maha Shuayb, Cathrine Brun, Carving Out Space for Equitable Collaborative Research in Protracted Displacement, Journal of Refugee Studies, Volume 34, Issue 3, September 2021.

3 Mona Girgis (2007) The Capacity-building Paradox: using friendship to build capacity in the South, Development in Practice, 17:3, 353-366.