On June 24, Minister of Interior Bassam Mawlawi sent a “very urgent” letter to the Directorate of Internal Security and Directorate of Public Security, asking them to prevent any gatherings aimed at promoting “sexual deviance” and to report the results. Rather than mentioning a particular gathering, the letter encompasses “any celebration, meeting, or gathering aimed at promoting the phenomenon”. The letter begins by citing two grounds: calls on social media for parties and evening events to promote “sexual deviance” in Lebanon (which the minister presumably attached to the letter but did not publicize), and phone calls from unspecified religious authorities opposing the spread of the “phenomenon”. The letter also denies any argument based on “the personal freedom to express these activities or abuse thereof” as they “contravene customs and traditions in our society and conflict with the principles of divine religions”. This letter warrants the following comments.

 

Encroaching on the Power to Legislate

The letter addresses no specific gatherings but any celebration, meeting, or gathering that aims to promote this “phenomenon”. Hence, it is akin to a regulatory circular that establishes a general ban on any such celebration. The minister of interior thereby transcended his executive function and made a regulatory decision to restrict freedom of assembly. From this angle, he exceeded his powers and usurped the power of Parliament, which alone may enact regulatory norms via legislation that restricts freedoms, as is evident from the following legal texts:

 

• Article 13 of the Constitution, which stipulates that, “The freedom to express opinion verbally and in writing, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to form associations are all guaranteed within the scope of the law”.
• Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which stipulates that, “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others”.
• Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which stipulates that, “The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

 

The latter two articles are part of the Constitution per Paragraph B of its Preamble. Moreover, any regulatory decision is fundamentally deficient if it is made without consulting the State Council – a process the minister did not follow. Hence, the letter reflects an effort by the minister to usurp a public authority not belonging to him and a violation of the separation of powers.

 

Encroaching on the Powers of the Public Prosecution and Judiciary

The vague description of the meetings and gatherings encompassed by the ban gives the security services a broad mandate to intervene on their own initiative, assess whether a gathering falls under it, and conduct investigations and take repressive action without going through or seeking permission from the Public Prosecution. From this standpoint, the minister of interior seems to be assigning the security agencies powers to assess actions and prosecute them that should belong to the Public Prosecution. This is an encroachment on the powers of the judicial authority and, once again, the separation of powers. Moreover, the letter opens the way for police crackdowns denigrating dignity and reputation, in clear violation of the right to privacy (Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR).

 

Encroaching on Constitutional Freedoms

The letter included two main justifications for the ban: “customs and traditions” and “divine principles”. Not only are these justifications beyond those acceptable for restricting freedom of assembly, they also constitute a restriction of other rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and international conventions. Firstly, they restrict an individual’s freedom in private affairs and right to privacy in contravention of Article 17 of the ICCPR by prohibiting any behavior that conflicts with customs and traditions. Secondly, they restrict the “absolute” freedom of belief enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution by denying the freedom to have beliefs that run counter to divine principles as understood by the minister of interior.

 

Encroaching on Human Dignity

The letter not only describes homosexual relationships as illegal but also makes offensive value judgements when it labels them “sexual deviance” and a “phenomenon” without any legal basis and in blatant contradiction to the conclusions of the World Health Organization, which declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1990. Thus, in expressing his rejection of a broad segment of citizens and vilifying them for their sexual orientation, the minister transcended the bounds of decency, going as far as slandering them and attacking their human dignity.

 

Violating the State’s Commitment Not to Discriminate

The above clearly shows that the minister of interior has discriminated against a broad segment of citizens and residents in Lebanon in contravention of the state’s commitment to non-discrimination enshrined in international conventions, as well as the principle of equality among citizens in their enjoyment of legally guaranteed rights and freedoms, which is enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution. This discrimination undermines the citizenship of a group of people, constitutes an additional incentive for further emigration, and deters many emigrants from returning. Clearly, this concerns not only LGBTQ+ people but also their families, who are committed to protecting their members’ privacy and dignity against authorities’ abuses.

 

The minister’s actions also conflict with the orientation of the Lebanese judiciary, which has supported LGBTQ+ rights in many rulings over the past decade, refusing to consider homosexuality a criminal offense or unnatural given the development in medicine and social sciences.[1] They also conflict with stances adopted by the Lebanese state, particularly in the context of international review, as it boasted about these rulings in the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in 2015 and 2021. Also relevant are State Council decisions no. 188, 599, and 600, issued on 30 March 2021 and 9 June 2021. These decisions held that participating in a conference about LGBTQ+ people’s circumstances falls within the scope of the freedom of expression protected under Article 13 of the Constitution, and that although this freedom is subject to laws and must respect public order, any breach of public order “warrants an appropriate measure in keeping with the nature of the breach”.

 

Inciting Against Vulnerable Groups

The letter constitutes incitement against a vulnerable social group and a breach of civil security and peace by the minister responsible for preserving it. The letter also undermines the principles of freedom, plurality, and tolerance, which are supposed to be one of the qualities distinguishing Lebanon in its region. Making matters worse, the letter was issued after conduct by extremist groups (Soldiers of God) targeted any expression of LGBTQ+ rights. Instead of restraining these groups, here is the minister inciting them to further aggression.

 

Diverting Attention from the Struggle Against the Dominant Authority

Finally, this letter comes during the escalation of a crisis of livelihood. Its purpose could be to divert attention and create identity-based schisms and conflicts within society to obscure the sociopolitical struggles between society and the incapacity of the authority dominating it, as well as that authority’s past injustices and the equally unjust plans it may have in store, particularly regarding distributing the losses. The best response to this schismatic letter is a unifying discourse that emphasizes the need to work toward a state that guarantees the right to dignity and a life free of fear or want for all its citizens without discrimination – a discourse based on the principles of plurality, tolerance, law, and rights rather than factionalism, hate, demagoguery, and authoritarianism.

 

This article is an edited translation from Arabic.

[1] See the decisions by the Misdemeanor Court of Appeal in Mount Lebanon on 12 July 2018, Single Criminal Judge Rabih Maalouf on 26 January 2017, Single Criminal Judge in Matn Hicham Kantar on 5 May 2016, Single Penal Judge in Matn Nagi El Dahdah on 28 January 2014, and Single Criminal Judge in Batroun Mounir Suleiman on 2 December 2009.