- iProbono Equality Director Aritha Wickramasinghe and Women’s Solidarity Network Executive Director Satya Ramanayaka on how the Gender Equality Bill could have helped the LGBTQIA+ community
On the verge of a breakthrough, Sri Lanka’s dream of equality for all genders was recently shattered. In April, the Women, Child Affairs, and Social Empowerment Minister proposed the Gender Equality Bill, a legislative measure aimed at promoting equal opportunities and protecting the rights of all genders, including transgender individuals. The bill was a beacon of hope for many in the LGBTQIA+ community, promising to address long-standing inequalities and provide much-needed legal protections.
However, in a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court struck down the bill in May, leaving the protections for transgender individuals in limbo. The Daily Morning spoke to various experts and members of the trans community to understand the initial promise of the Gender Equality Bill, the implications of the court’s decision, and the human cost of this legislative setback.
The promise of the Gender Equality Bill
The Gender Equality Bill was designed to eradicate systemic and institutional inequalities prevalent in Sri Lanka. It aimed to ensure that all citizens, regardless of gender identity, had equal access to education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. According to iProbono Equality Director and attorney-at-law Aritha Wickramasinghe, a prominent legal expert and advocate for LGBTQIA+ rights, the bill’s purpose was to address systematic and institutional inequality that is prevalent in Sri Lanka, not only between men and women, but also among other minority genders.
One of the key provisions of the bill was its recognition of gender identity and the inclusion of protections for transgender individuals. This was seen as a significant step forward in a country where transgender people often face discrimination in various spheres of life. The bill was designed to guarantee basic rights, such as the right to education and healthcare, to all citizens, irrespective of their gender identity.
“This law and the frameworks it would have put in place would have begun the process of understanding the systematic inequalities faced by everyone because of their gender, whatever that gender might be,” added Wickramasinghe.
Women’s Solidarity Network (WSN) co-founder and Executive Director Satya Ramanayaka emphasised the inclusive nature of the bill. “When you speak of gender equality, we can’t just talk about cisgender (a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered for them at birth) women and men; we have to speak of the others as well. An inclusive bill would mean that all gender minorities will be spoken about and taken into consideration. There will be provisions in place; thus, when rights are violated, it becomes easier to address these violations and take the required action.”
Supreme Court’s decision
In May, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka struck down the Gender Equality Bill. The court’s decision was unexpected and has been met with widespread debate and disappointment among human rights advocates.
The court’s ruling effectively leaves the protections for transgender individuals in a state of uncertainty. “Without the bill, there are no comprehensive legal frameworks to address the discrimination and violence faced by transgender people in Sri Lanka. This legislative setback has halted the progress toward a more inclusive and equal society,” Ramanayaka opined.
Following the Supreme Court determination, there has been a community consensus that the Gender Equality Bill, as it stood, was not a good piece of draft legislation and was greatly lacking. Introducing such a bill resulted in an unfortunate backlash for an already marginalised community. Ramanayaka claimed that groups like the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress and the newly formed Mothers Movement have been attempting to muddy public opinion and spread misinformation regarding the LGBTQIA+ community and their rights.
Opposition from religious and political figures
The Gender Equality Bill faced significant opposition from various quarters, including political and religious leaders. Former Justice, Prisons Affairs, and Constitutional Reforms Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe openly opposed the bill in parliament, aligning himself with several prominent religious figures who called for its withdrawal. At a joint press conference held in July, Ven Prof. Kumburugamuwe Vajira Thero, Siva Ramachandran Kurukkal, Mowlavi Alhaj Hassan Mawlana, and Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith voiced their concerns about the bill, along with the Women’s Empowerment Bill and the Penal Code Amendment, which contained provisions regarding the age of consent.
Ven. Prof. Kumburugamuwe Vajira Thero argued that decriminalising homosexuality, as proposed in the penal code amendment, would lead to the destruction of Sri Lankan civilization and society. He stated: “Religious leaders led by the Buddhist monks have always seen to it that Sri Lankan society is safeguarded whenever there were challenges to our society. We will be compelled to do the same again as the proposed new legislation will lead to the promotion of uncivilised carnal pleasure. We strongly believe that the institution of the family – that is, the union between a man and a woman – is a foundation of procreation. There should be no hindrance to this act of procreation. Therefore, LGBTQIA+ is viewed as uncivilised carnal pleasure, which poses an impediment to the culturally accepted common family nucleus.”
Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith also expressed his opposition, stating: “We are not against those who are born with various desires which are beyond their control. We believe that rights should be upheld.” However, he criticised international organisations that he believed promoted various lifestyles, thereby destroying Sri Lankan culture. The religious leaders emphasised their willingness to take to the streets to protest the proposed legislation, reflecting the depth of their opposition.
Lack of consultation
A significant issue with the Gender Equality Bill was the lack of consultation with community service organisations (CSOs) and stakeholders. This lack of transparency from the Government when drafting the bill has been a point of contention. “Introducing laws without consulting the respective communities is very problematic. An apt example would be the rape law amendment they brought and had to withdraw due to a lack of consultation,” said Ramanayaka. The absence of input from CSOs and the communities most affected by the bill’s provisions resulted in a piece of legislation that did not fully address their needs or concerns.
To understand the real-world impact of this legislative setback, it is essential to listen to the voices of those directly affected. Here are the stories of three transgender individuals from different parts of Sri Lanka. Their names have been changed to protect their identities.
Nira, a 24-year-old transgender woman from Jaffna, shared her struggles with accessing healthcare. “When I go to the hospital, they look at me strangely. Sometimes, they don’t even know how to address me. I often leave without receiving the care I need because I feel so humiliated,” she said. The Gender Equality Bill could have mandated training for healthcare providers on transgender issues, making such experiences less common.
Ajanthi, a 19-year-old transgender woman from Trincomalee, spoke about the challenges in education. “I was kicked out of school because I refused to wear the boys’ uniform. They said I was a bad influence on other students. I just want to learn, but they won’t let me,” she recounted. The bill included provisions for inclusive educational environments, which could have protected students like Ajanthi from discrimination.
Lalitha, a 32-year-old transgender man from Nuwara Eliya, faced severe employment discrimination. “I’ve lost count of how many jobs I’ve been fired from just because of who I am. It’s exhausting and heartbreaking,” he explained. The bill aimed to create equal employment opportunities for all genders, potentially preventing such unjust terminations.
Why it matters
The Gender Equality Bill was not just a piece of legislation; it was a symbol of hope for many transgender individuals in Sri Lanka. It represented a step towards a society where everyone, regardless of their gender identity, could live with dignity and respect. The bill’s provisions were designed to dismantle the barriers that have long prevented transgender people from fully participating in society.
Wickramasinghe highlighted the bill’s potential impact: “This law was designed to ensure that all Sri Lankans were included and no one was excluded from enjoying the basic benefits of citizenship, irrespective of whether they were men, women, or other genders. It was going to guarantee everyone certain basic rights, such as the right to education, healthcare, and privacy.”
As a transwoman herself, Ramanayaka echoed these sentiments, stressing the importance of inclusive legislation: “Right now, there are hardly any provisions in place for when the rights of these minorities are violated, so it makes our jobs so much more difficult. I believe if such a bill is passed, it’ll be good to have such provisions in place.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the bill has significant consequences. Without these legal protections, transgender individuals remain vulnerable to discrimination and violence. The uncertainty surrounding their rights creates an environment where prejudice can thrive, perpetuating the cycle of marginalisation and exclusion.
The setback of the Gender Equality Bill underscores the urgent need for continued advocacy and action. Raising awareness about the importance of such legislation is crucial in garnering public support and pushing for future reforms. Wickramasinghe pointed out: “The purpose of this bill is to help eradicate barriers and restrictions that have been placed for all Sri Lankans and to deny them the exercise of their citizenship because of whether they are men, women, intersex, or transgender persons.”
Public support and advocacy can play a vital role in reviving the bill or introducing new legislation that addresses the gaps left by its absence. It is essential to create a society where everyone, regardless of their gender identity, can live free from discrimination and violence.
The Gender Equality Bill was a landmark piece of legislation that promised to transform the lives of transgender individuals in Sri Lanka. Its rejection by the Supreme Court is a significant setback, but it also serves as a rallying point for continued efforts towards equality. By understanding the human cost of this legislative failure and advocating for change, we can work towards a future where every Sri Lankan, regardless of their gender identity, is treated with dignity and respect.
To add to this, Ramanayaka stated: “An inclusive bill would mean that all gender minorities will be spoken about and taken into consideration. There will be provisions in place, thus when rights are violated, it becomes easier to address these violations and take the required action.” This vision of inclusivity and equality is one that we must continue to strive for, ensuring that no one is left behind in the fight for justice and human rights.
As Ajanthi aptly put it: “Being transgender isn’t a choice, it’s who I am. All I want is to be respected for that. The chance to live safely, without fear, shouldn’t be a question. We deserve to exist authentically, just like everyone else.”