iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Stephen Brown @stephenbrown.bsky.social · 18/08/2026

New article on #LGBTQ+ rights and Canadian foreign policy. It uses a new analytical framework for assessing states as "good allies", which should help analysis of such policies elsewhere. Co-authored with B. Neumann, M. Rosier and M. Rahman. #OpenAccess 🏳️‍🌈 🏳️‍⚧️ 🌍 www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

An ambiguous ally: Canada’s pro-LGBTQ+ foreign policy
by Stephen Brown,Bartosz Neumann,Morgane Rosier & Momin Rahman

ABSTRACT
Since 2015, Canada has become one of the most important defenders of the rights of sexual and gender minorities around the world. This article analyzes Canada’s record as a pro-LGBTQ+ foreign policy actor, focusing on its actions between 2015 and 2025. More specifically, we explore the degree to which the Canadian government’s strategies and practices reflect characteristics of a “good ally” in its relationship with LGBTQ+ civil society organizations. We develop a framework of “good allyship” as an analytical tool, based on three components – the demonstration of commitment, the institutionalization of support and relationship building – and then apply it to the Canadian case. We find that Canada occupies an ambiguous position as an ally. Although Canada has demonstrated good commitment, it might not be sustained, its institutionalization is limited, and the relationships fall short of equitable, long-term partnerships.

072

Stephen Brown @stephenbrown.bsky.social · 30/07/2026

🎺 Call for Papers | LGBTQI+ Rights in International Politics and the Global South | Online Workshop | Nov. 12–13, 2026 | Deadline for submitting abstracts: Sept. 20. Full details here: www.college-uaruhr.de/news-events/... 🏳️‍🌈 🏳️‍⚧️ 🌍

051

Stephen Brown @stephenbrown.bsky.social · 07/04/2026

Very pleased to have worked on this article, "Navigating Ambiguity: Reproductive Justice and the Restriction of Abortion Rights, LGBTI+ Rights, and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Zambia", with Thando Malambo, now available in the African Studies Review www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

*Navigating Ambiguity: Reproductive Justice and the Restriction of Abortion Rights, LGBTI+ Rights, and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Zambia*

Abstract
In Zambia, religious nationalists exploit legal and policy ambiguities to construct abortion and LGBTI+ rights as un-Zambian and un-Christian. This delegitimization narrows the scope of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) to family planning. Drawing on forty-five in-depth interviews with Zambian stakeholders and international aid officials, we argue that while these ambiguities constrain reproductive justice, they also allow activists to advance SRHR by building coalitions that connect advocacy for abortion rights, LGBTI+ rights, and reproductive justice to promote health service access and bodily autonomy for all. In Zambia and elsewhere, such activism and coalition building merit greater attention and support.

041

Stephen Brown @stephenbrown.bsky.social · 12/01/2026

Odd messaging from the government of Ontario. It apprently wants us to be organ donors, not to help women who need a transplant per se, but because their husbands can't survive without a wife to take care of them. Ad in today's @hilltimes.com, page 3.

Ad with the text "Scott didn't receive an organ transplant, but an organ transplant saved his life -- because thanks to an organ donor, his wife Katie received a lifesaving transplant"

242

Stephen Brown @stephenbrown.bsky.social · 22/12/2025

📣 New publication on LGBTQI+ activism in Botswana and how they succeded in overturning the colonial-era law banning same-sex sexual relations: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.... #OpenAccess 🏳️‍🌈 🏳️‍⚧️ 🌍

Journal article title and abstract:

"The decriminalization of same-sex relations in Botswana: National, regional and international dimensions of LGBTQI+ activism". by Stephen Brown, University of Ottawa, Canada

This article examines the first instance in the past 25 years of the decriminalization of same-sex relations in Africa via strategic litigation. It asks: What are the main factors that contributed to decriminalization in Botswana in 2019? What relative role did national, regional and international actors play? Drawing in part on interviews with key actors and observers in Southern Africa, it argues that Botswanan LGBTQI+ activists’ efforts outside the courtroom played a key role. They mobilized crucial support, expertise and financial resources of allies at home and elsewhere in Southern Africa, with some financial assistance from the Southern African affiliate of an international philanthropic network. Nonetheless, national activists maintained ownership of the process. The case thus contradicts assumptions in the literature that when human rights activists obtain assistance from transnational activist networks, the aid comes from the Global North and the international actors dominate the process.

020

Stephen Brown @stephenbrown.bsky.social · 13/08/2025

At a time when LGBTQI+ rights are under attack around the world, some countries are decriminalizing same-sex relations. My analysis of the case of Mauritius is now available on the Politics, Groups, and Identities journal website. Free to download. 🏳️‍🌈 🏳️‍⚧️ 🌍 doi.org/10.1080/2156...

Journal article "Escaping the multicultural trap: strategic: litigation and the decriminalization of same-sex relations in Mauritius", by Stephen Brown, University of Ottawa. Abstract: Mauritius is widely praised for policies that have minimized tensions between ethno-religious groups. Other types of groups, however, are excluded from that sociopolitical ordering of society. In particular, LGBTQI+ Mauritians have long been stigmatized and criminalized by an anti-sodomy law, enacted by the British colonial administration. Despite a reputation for a strong commitment to human rights, the Mauritian government never repealed that law. Drawing in large part on interviews with LGBTQI+ activists in Mauritius, this article analyzes how and why they challenged that anti-sodomy law in court, what they achieved and what the implications are. It argues that the state’s and political parties’ emphasis on traditional cultures made it difficult to convince the government to act, leaving strategic litigation as the best option for getting LGBTQI+ rights recognized. Grounded primarily in constitutionally guaranteed rights and harnessing support from international nonstate actors, their court cases succeeded in carving out greater space for LGBTQI+ rights within the conservative multicultural framework, even though the verdict was rather limited in scope. Significant pressure will be needed to achieve more political and social change, potentially including more strategic litigation, which poses a significant challenge to LGBTQI+ activists.

021

Stephen Brown @stephenbrown.bsky.social · 16/04/2025

My article on "Global Frictions: Foreign Aid, Donor–Recipient Relations and LGBT+ Rights in Tanzania" has been published in the latest issue of the Journal of International Development. You can download the PDF here (open access). 🌍 🏳️‍🌈 🏳️‍⚧️ #LGBTQResearch onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...

ABSTRACT: In 2018, a Tanzanian government official announced a crackdown on homosexuality. International actors rapidly expressed their disapproval and temporarily suspended some foreign aid, which elicited a negative response from the Tanzanian government and soured donor–recipient relations. The incident was short-lived, however, and expressed mainly at the symbolic level and does not appear to have achieved any change in policies or practices either among the donors or in Tanzania. How should one interpret this sudden eruption of frictions and its lack of impact and what are its implications? I argue that international actors felt pressure to take quick, visible action, regardless of how ineffective those steps could be expected to be. Politicians from Tanzania's ruling party seized this occasion to ramp up anti-LGBT+ and anti-donor rhetoric, attempting to strengthen their standing domestically. Both sides used the opportunity to express their identity as either defenders or opponents of LGBT+ rights. This case shows how donor–recipient frictions can be primarily performative and reflect both sides' desire to please their own constituencies without implementing any lasting changes to aid flows or domestic policy in the recipient country.

1113