International Trans Day of Visibility

There is a staggeringly high amount of trans rights discourse in mainstream media, yet 1% of adults currently describe themselves as transgender, non-binary, non-conforming, or “in another way” rather than as either man or woman  (World Economic Forum 2021). While the current debate on trans rights circulates on media platforms, critical components of a trans person’s experiences such as seeking out community, goals of gender euphoria and chosen family sometimes go unsung. Self-proclaimed radical feminists find themselves in agreement with more conservative individuals in that they both oppose the notion that ‘trans women are women; trans men are men’. There needs to be a focus on the humanity of trans people.[a]

Community and kinship are powerful and pertinent components of the trans community and of trans people themselves. People who share the same identity can be bonded in ‘obscure and emotional’ ways ‘which [are] more powerful the less they could be expressed in words’ (Conner, 1993, p. 383). There is a deep connection between individuals who experience walking through the world as people of trans experience. With a small percentage of the world’s population who identify as transgender or non-binary, these communities and connections are important. A sense of belonging comes naturally to human beings, we crave to belong in groups. Cole Banton articulates that although every trans person’s journey is unique and different, trans people are driven to create spaces for themselves through a collective feeling of alienation from social society on the basis of their gender identities. Banton further asserts that the trans community is important and life-saving and sometimes a replacement for biological family relations – there is a ‘sense of feeling at ease with other trans people’. Banton communicates sentiments that a large number of trans people feel in relation to the community. Not only do trans spaces provide protection, but they are a nexus of intense kinship that produce waves of cultural shifts.

Ballroom is a prime example of such a community, it is a carefully curated space. Emerging amid the Harlem Renaissance in a response to a staunch campaign by the Black Church to rid New York of its LGBTQ residents; black trans women created a space to empower the community. Ballroom’s system of “houses” and the use of terms “brother”, “sister”, “mother” and “father” show the importance of the ballroom community in the lives of trans people, with chosen families taking the place of biological ties where needed. Typically known for the production of “voguing”, a widely known dance form, Ballroom is a community and a space that steps outside of the binary across gender, relationships, and sexuality with contributions to popular culture since its inception. Trans-friendly spaces are born from resistance, from being outcasts to influencing mainstream works such as “Renaissance” by Beyonce. Ballroom has grown internationally from an underground scene in Harlem to multiple scenes from London to Tel Aviv, and the need for such trans-inclusive spaces around the world is clear. No community or group is without its internal politics, but Ballroom focuses on creating a space that celebrates individuals in all stages of transition.

Those in Ballroom resist mainstream notions of gender and sexuality, it dwells within the centre of the debate on trans rights. Simone Weil, a feminist philosopher, discusses the notion of human rights and proposes a focus on human needs. Weil argues that there is something about human beings that make them sacred that is divorced from personal characteristics. In relation to trans people, it is important to address the core needs of human beings outside of the basic necessities of food, water, and shelter. Trans people need family, stability, recognition of existence, safety and more components to life that ensure not only survival but a good quality of life. With policymakers debating on various aspects of trans lives, the needs of trans people should be at the forefront of policymakers’ minds when voting on policy.

Ultimately, International Trans Day of Visibility celebrates the lives of all trans and gender-nonconforming people – it’s a nod to trans history and plays a part in maintaining society’s push towards a more inclusive world for trans people.

Shamima Begum ruling: a threat to the right to have rights

A summary and critique of revoking citizenship.

In 2015, Shamima Begum, then a fifteen year old child, and two of her friends left the United Kingdom, after being groomed online by ISIS members to join the terrorist organisation. She subsequently married an ISIL fighter upon arriving in Syria. When Shamima Begum was 19 years old, the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid stripped her of her UK citizenship, citing national security issues as well as the argument that she had Bangladeshi citizenship. The South Asian country had made it clear that they would not accept her and would execute her if she came on its territory.

The questions which should have arisen are: firstly, with respect to Britain’s internet security and safety laws, how was a fifteen year old child able to be exposed to a terrorist organisation to the extent that she was groomed into moving to Syria? And secondly, how was Shamima Begum able to go through British airport security using her sister’s passport?

In February 2023, the Special Immigrations Appeal Commission upheld the Home Office’s decision to strip Shamima Begum of her British citizenship. Begum argued against the removal on nine grounds, however for the sake of brevity and ensuring layman readers are aware of the key parts of the judgement, this article will only focus on two grounds of appeal. The first ground of appeal was that the Home Secretary had failed to consider that she may have been trafficked into Syria and that they had contravened their own policy. The second ground of appeal was that the UK government had failed to meet its obligations under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right not to be held in slavery or servitude) in not providing Shamima Begum protection and instead revoking her citizenship and leaving her stranded in a camp in North-East Syria. 

The Commission found that there is credible reason to believe that Begum had been trafficked into Syria to be sexually exploited and that many State institutions had failed in their duty to prevent her from leaving the country as she did and making her way from Turkey to Syria. However, it held that a credible suspicion as to whether the young girl had been trafficked was not enough to restrain the Home Secretary’s power to strip her of British citizenship.

The Commission also found that the Home Secretary was under no formal obligation to consider whether she had been trafficked in his decision. Another finding of the judgement is that the Home Secretary’s advisers had painted a simplistic picture of Begum’s travels to Syria to join ISIS, and that the conclusion that she had chosen to go on her own accord was an insensitive and blunt one. However, it held that the conclusion was an important part of the Security Services’ national security assessment. In other words, national security is allowed to trump human trafficking concerns in this case. 

Importance + Critique

The deprivation of citizenship is a decision which should not be considered lightly (After all, it was Hannah Arednt who said that citizenship should be the right to have rights). This is the case in many parts of the world, including the United Kingdom.

Since 2006, 173 people had been deprived of their UK citizenship due to national security reasons and 289 people had been deprived of their citizenship due to reasons pertaining to fraud. Before that, the UK government had not taken such a decision since 1973. 

The case of Shamima Begum at the SIAC is a bewildering one. The Commission found that it was possible that Begum was trafficked into Syria and that the Home Secretary had been given a one dimensional picture of the situation by his advisers, yet these factors did not help Shamima’s case. Colin Yeo highlights the fact that the Home Secretary not having to consider the trafficking element of the case should have been enough to conclude that the deprivation of citizenship was unlawful. This is due to the Commission’s judgement stating that the Home Secretary need not give weightage to the trafficking factor. This is different to not considering a factor at all.

The committee has also acknowledged that Ms. Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship till the age of 21 and is no longer a citizen of that country. However, that did not stop them from leaving her stateless by denouncing her citizenship. 

The implications of this judgement are varied and many. Most importantly, citizenship is not a matter of right and may be taken away at any point in time in the eventuality of non adherence to national laws, which while prudent and just, also means that there is no room for redemption, especially for people of colour. The fact that the Home Office was able to deprive Shamima of her citizenship, thus rendering her stateless, puts non-British origin people of the United Kingdom at risk. Shamima Begum’s case is unique, not because she is the first person to lose citizenship, but because throughout the trial, she was treated as an adult and not a child. She was not seen as a child who was groomed into joining ISIL, trafficked and then sexually abused by an adult and forced to bear children. She was seen as an adult who had voluntarily joined the terrorist group, came to regret it and then wanted the UK government to help her leave. Adultification of children of colour is common in institutions and leads to (as is the case here) the rights and protection of children not being guaranteed.

As of now, the judgement upholds the logic of the government’s decision to deprive citizenship. This means the government can deprive people of citizenship without giving weightage or any consideration to any mitigating circumstances. The Home Secretary can put these factors aside and allow national security to trump all rather than balancing the rights of the individual along with national security considerations. What would this mean for victims who were trafficked into committing serious crimes or joining organisations which engage in such activity? Trafficking in general is a very complicated and nuanced issue in the law, and for the government to be allowed to make decisions in such cases hastily with very simplistic advice means that the government is allowed to make a strong, miscalculated legal move on a whim. 

This case is most likely to go to the European Court of Human Rights (the highest ranking Court a case in the UK can go to). One can only hope that the Court carries out its duty of upholding the rights of Shamima Begum and reversing the precedent set by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. 

How Social Media Fuels the Iranian Protests

Iran has seen major waves of resistance in the form of protests in 1999, 2009, 2017, 2019 and 2021; what separates the 2022 protests from protests before? All preceding protests reveal an underlying legitimacy crisis for the regime where the population have called for regime change. These protests share common themes of widespread dissatisfaction with the regime and its exclusionary policies towards women and other minority groups. However, the protests sparked by Amini’s death have transcended sectarian and ethnic differences, and the role of social media has differentiated the 2022 protests in terms of reach. Amini’s death has sparked global outrage across the country with individuals in adjacent countries and the West demonstrating support for Iranian protests by burning their hijabs and cutting their hair. The impact of social media has meant that protestors have been able to share videos of severe uses of force by the Iranian police and protests in real-time using the hashtag #Mahsa_Amini. 

The death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini has sparked protests against the current regime in Iran throughout all 31 provinces in the country and across the world. Amini’s death followed after being arrested for protesting the compulsory headscarf rules, resulting in her death. The Iranian police claim her death was a result of heart issues, however, public opinion rejects these claims as eyewitnesses have come forward with allegations that Amini was severely beaten by police officers almost immediately after her arrest. The police tried to dispel these allegations with reportedly heavily edited CCTV footage showing Amini holding her head and subsequently fainting whilst in police custody – this has sparked further outrage across the country. Several factors have been attributed to the protests in Iran, and scholars and journalists have highlighted the general dissolution of Khamenei’s regime, the contention of Islamic law, and women’s rights. Social media, albeit underappreciated, is a major factor driving the current wave of Iranian protests and is essential to comprehending both their effectiveness and the broad indignation over Amini’s death.

The outrage sparked by Amini’s death is far-reaching and pervasive. Cities like Mashhad and Qom, previously considered loyal to the regime, are protesting against the state. Despite state-sanctioned restrictions on the internet and apps such as WhatsApp and Instagram, the videos of protests and police killings have dispensed the spirit of resistance to areas that have previously been key strongholds of the regime in terms of public opinion and therefore upholding the regime’s legitimacy. The impacts of social media on the protests in Iran are pertinent, it plays a major role in unearthing even the quietest feelings of dissatisfaction and animosity towards Khamenei’s regime. The government’s internet censorship highlights the critical role that social media has played in the Iran demonstrations. The attempt to contain public fury and the dissemination of information online are two examples of how social media has helped the protests endure.

Similar to the major waves of resistance in previous years, the 2022 protests have been highly decentralised, there is no central leader or organisation that drives the resistance against the current regime. Similar to the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States and the United Kingdom when social media circulated videos of the public shooting of George Floyd, social media incentivises individuals in Iran to protest online and organise resistance on the ground.   Iran’s “George Floyd moment” might be summed up by saying that Mahsa Amini’s passing served as both the impetus and fuel for the public’s active forms of resistance to the government. Iran has gotten support from all around the world as a result, much like the BLM movement, which benefited greatly from social media. Iran was thus kicked out of the United Nations (UN) Women’s Rights Council, and the UN also sanctioned Iran’s Morality Police based on allegations of human rights abuses. 

Ultimately, many elements contribute to the Iran protests. Mahsa Amini’s death was the catalyst that started a continuing global movement against Iran’s current regime. Scholars and journalists alike have drawn attention to the role of women’s rights and debates on Islamic law, but social media has been a key component that helps to facilitate the impact of all grievances. Understanding social media’s significance is essential for comprehending the ongoing Iranian demonstrations since it reveals how a decentralised movement has spread throughout the globe. Social media is still a vital tool for winning over other nations’ and international organisations’ support.

Rwanda Plan: breakdown of the judgment

This article will summarise the key facts of the recent High Court ruling on the UK government’s policy of sending unsuccessful asylum seekers to Rwanda, the critiques of the ruling as well as the implications the ruling will have on the future of immigration control and human rights. This article will also explore whether the Rwanda policy is an effective deterrent against small boat crossings and an effective use of the public purse and resources. 

In December 2022, the UK High Court passed an influential and controversial judgment. In the judgment, the Court held that the government’s much criticised policy to send unsuccessful asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful. The case at the Court involved eight asylum seekers from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Vietnam, Albania and Sudan who argued that their asylum requests should be reviewed in the UK and not in Rwanda, reasoning that their claims would not be sufficiently examined in the country. They also argued that the Home Secretary’s legal analysis, which surmised that the East-Central African country was a “safe country”, was flawed. Asylum seekers highlighted that if sent to Rwanda, they would face maltreatment, which would amount to a human rights violation, and contended that the UK government sharing their data with the Rwandan authorities before their claims had been concluded was unlawful. Other arguments contested the fairness of government procedure, highlighting how it punishes asylum seeking (which is against international law) and discriminates against young male asylum seekers from countries (except Ukraine). The case saw interventions from NGOs, one border force officers’ union as well as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The Court disagreed with the asylum seekers, finding that the Home Secretary had taken reasonable steps in her analysis to conclude that Rwanda is a “safe country”. The Court also maintained this despite human rights abuses against dissidents and political asylum seekers, as highlighted by the asylum seekers’ legal team. Furthermore, it is permissible for the Home Office to contact Rwandan authorities regarding an asylum application before its conclusion and lawful to share data before an application is settled, if reasoned in the name of public interest. Against the grain of public opinion, the Court found that any indirect discrimination against male asylum seekers of certain nationalities is justified. The judgment also found that the process used for the Rwanda decisions is fair and that there is no need for asylum seekers to have legal representation during the process or legal advice before their screening interview. The Court concluded that the policy does not punish asylum seekers.

Since the UK is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, has the High Court erred in its ruling that the Rwanda policy does not violate Article 31 (non-penalty for “illegal” entry) and Article 33 (non-refoulement) of the Convention? Arguably, yes. It is baffling that the Court considered credible human rights reports (from Human Rights Watch and the General Human Rights in Rwanda) to be irrelevant to its analysis of Rwanda as a safe country. These reports specifically highlight the treatment of protesting asylum seekers and political dissidents respectively. Sending those fleeing persecution to a country with an unsatisfactory human rights record does little but extend their suffering. Furthermore, the government’s travel advice on Rwanda states that LGBTQIA+ people suffer discrimination and abuse, “including from local authorities”, and that there is a lack of legal protection for LGBTQIA+ people. Enver Solomon (Chief Executive of the Refugee Council) wrote in The Guardian that the policy “takes punishment of fellow human beings to a new level“.

This case shows that the “depressing and distressing” policy is here to stay (unless there is success on the partial appeal at the Court of Appeal). It is also a stark reminder of the state of human rights post-Brexit, as the Home Office does not need to do a thorough examination of the asylum seekers’ claims, since EU law no longer applies to the UK. This fits into the backdrop of a wider regression of human rights which have been upheld by the judiciary when challenged (e.g: the deprivation of citizenship in the Shamima Begum case). Given that the government is considering leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, the precedent set by this case will play a more significant role in future deportations to Rwanda, as asylum seekers will not have the protection of the ECHR to challenge any Home Office decision. 

Until then, the next steps will be the Court of Appeal, with no flights commencing whilst appeals are underway, and continued advocacy by Asylum NGOs and legal teams on an individual case by case basis. The operation and impact of the Rwanda Plan still remains to be seen, however the Australian offshoring model provides the UK with a cautionary tale: it did not intercept the smuggling business model, slow migration numbers nor protect refugees from criminal gangs. It also created the highest rates of mental illness amongst detainees ever recorded.

To those who oppose the Rwanda Plan, the silver lining remains the huge undertaking of an offshoring scheme. The Home Office will need to make “legally defensible decisions in individual cases” to deport anyone, and UK 2021 figures show only 113 asylum seekers were successfully removed. Leading immigration barrister Colin Yeo stresses the history of abandoned Home Office schemes and suggests the plan serves more as a “distraction from the asylum backlog and other issues”. On the other side of the process, Rwanda has only agreed to accept a few hundred asylum seekers per year, which begs the question – with £140 million already banked, could its government be relying on a failure within the chain of command? In any case, Rwanda has no need to overextend its end of the bargain. 

Set against a historical low in successful deportations, the Rwanda Plan reveals more than a hemorrhage of time and public resources, but a UK government with little to offer. Instead of building an accessible asylum system with opportunities for refugee self-reliance, the ‘out of sight’ mentality remains the UK’s preferred option. With maze-like bureaucracy and a huge asylum backlog, is the Home Office even benefitting from further unworkable proposals? And most importantly – is offshoring our problems really a sustainable approach? 

International Day of Education

In light of the International Day of Education (24 January), it is timely to reflect on the recent ban on women attending university, the limitations for girls in secondary schools, and the restriction on women
educators in Afghanistan. UNESCO dedicates its fifth edition of the International Day to all the girls and women in Afghanistan, who have been denied their right to learn, study and teach. Director-General Ms. Audrey Azoulay states,

“The Organization condemns this serious attack on human dignity and on the fundamental right to education. With these persistent threats towards the advancement of education and careers… the future is seemingly bleak. To many, the threat towards education has been imminent, yet many still held hope onto the Taliban’s earlier statements reassuring the public of them upholding human rights obligations”.

After a 20-year war and the collapse of the Western-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani, the Taliban took back power in August of 2021. With many fearing and questioning this ‘new’ regime, the Taliban promised they would abide to various human rights obligations, specifically reassuring that, “our sisters and our men have the same rights,” and that they were “committed to the rights of women” within the context of their interpretation of Islamic mandates”. Abdul Baqi Haqqani, the Minister of Higher Education, also promised, “the people of Afghanistan will continue their higher education in the light of sharia law in safety without being in a mixed male and female
environment”.

However, these were empty promises, as the Taliban first showcased their power by gradually impeding on these rights a month into power. In September 2021, women were only permitted in universities that adhered to gender-segregated classrooms with strict dress code rules, and were
only taught by professors of the same sex or older men. And the threat to education did not stop there: in March 2022, all girls’ secondary schools were shut down, with the students being instructed to stay home till further notice. This restriction was then bolstered by the Minister of Higher Education’s announcement that women’s education would be suspended in December – “no PhD or master’s degree is valuable today. You see that the Mullahs and Taliban that are in power have no PhD, masters or even a high school degree, but they are the greatest of all”.

The Taliban insists that these measures are backed up by their interpretation of Islamic teachings, yet we have seen several leaders from Muslim-majority countries condemn their actions. The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed their astonishment and regret of the Taliban’s backtracking on their initial statement, compelling them to “reverse this decision, which is astonishing in all Islamic countries” and give “Afghan women their full legitimate rights, foremost of which is the right to education, which contributes to supporting security, stability, development and prosperity for Afghanistan”. Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also urged the end of the ban and expressed their concern and disappointment towards the regime. The UAE representative for the UN declared the Taliban’s actions aimed to erase women and girls from public life, further stating that the ban would “violate fundamental human rights, contravene the teachings of Islam, and must be swiftly
reversed”. The Secretary-General for the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation believes that these bans and restrictions will ruin the government’s already failing credibility, but most importantly deny girls and women access to their fundamental rights.

It is important to remember that before the Taliban’s takeover in 1996, Afghanistan benefitted from an inclusive education system, where women and girls took up 50% of Kabul University’s population (both individually within student and teacher populations), as well as 70% of the country’s
schoolteachers, 50% of civilian government workers, and 40% of doctors. With the enrolment of girls drastically increasing from 100,000 (2000) to over 3.5 million in recent years, many fear these numbers will severely dwindle with the new bans and restrictions.

The Taliban has a history of impeding on human rights. It is pertinent that not only are their actions scrutinised and condemned, but most importantly as a global community that we strive and actively contribute to protecting the rights of these girls and women, many of whom have only endured hardship and strife.

Rethinking the Environment with Indigenous Agency

Earth’s climate crisis could be approaching a “point of no return’’. 

The UN has reported that governments have not committed enough to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The scale of climate damage has already been immense: floods and landslides have forced 12 million people from their homes in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. In 2019, Cyclone Idai took the lives of over 1000 people across Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique only for Cyclone Kenneth to sweep through Northern Mozambique a mere six weeks later. The current climate emergency has far-reaching economic, physical, social, and political impacts on humankind, but a human-centric approach to achieving sustainability has not yet been successful to solve the climate crisis. Indigenous scholars are advocating for an alternative approach, critiquing society’s tendency to view the natural world as property, a commodity, or a resource. According to Linda Robyn, colonial logic argues that those who are “less civilised” (Indigenous Peoples) are unable to properly exploit the land and its resources so those who are deemed “civilised” must make the decisions about the land. Indigenous knowledge about the environment has been undermined as being non-knowledge or merely folklore instead of being a source of knowledge to establish a reciprocal relationship with Earth.

Ultimately, the ecological crisis is an “intensification of colonialism”, exemplified by the disproportionate effects of climate change, with poorer countries experiencing colossal damage to their economies, populations, and land. COP27 in Egypt discussed the impact of climate change on poorer countries, with richer countries most responsible for climate change agreeing to payments, however is there any accountability or self-reflection? Without the use of the word reparations or compensation, countries who contribute to climate change the most are not acknowledging their roles in the damage caused to countries like Nepal, Mozambique, Pakistan or Bangladesh. 

Therefore, the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples are crucial to how we understand and combat climate change. Indigenous Peoples across the globe have endured constant waves of settler colonialism that have decimated their lands. Despite this, they have adapted and survived through centuries as great stewards of their environment; Indigenous lands make up around 20% of the Earth’s territory and contain 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Winona LaDuke, a member of the Anishinabe Nation, writes, “sustainability in these marginal habitats did not simply rely on a matter of luck”.

Conceptions of the environment by Indigenous Peoples requires a greater complex framework – one that is conscious of the relationship between specific communities, individuals and their land, intertwined with living, livelihood, culture, and even legal rights. Consequently, movements by Indigenous populations against environmental exploitation also take a specific language of their own, and there is much we can learn from their resistance. In India, the Dongaria Kondhs – an Indigenous community in the state of Odisha – launched resistance against the bauxite mining project of Vedanta Resources (UK based mining company) in 2002. The movement gained traction when Vedanta started acquiring land in Niyamgiri mountains, a sacred place tied to the ancestry of the Kondhs. At the beginning of the movement, any reasoning of the movement on ecological grounds against the bauxite mining project was dismissed in favour of the sacredness of the Niyamgiri mountains to the tribe’s culture by India’s Supreme Court. However, a clear separation of livelihood, ancestry, sacredness, and environment simplifies and is culpable in erasing the complex interlinkages of these aspects in indigenous life. The Supreme Court’s act of dismissing ecological concerns from cultural concerns assumes that the culture cannot be ecological, because the environment is separate from human life (see ruling here). However, indigenous cultures are a prime example or reminder that environment and life are interlinked. This is an important purview that environmental movements at large should adopt. The environment is not an abstract idea that can be acted upon separately. 

Resistance against ‘developmental’ projects is also common, as projects of the Western ‘development’ model often impinge upon regional lives. Often, what is understood as ‘development’ leads to violence, dispossession and erasure of indigenous cultures and communities. Protests against ‘developmental’ projects by Indigenous communities in India, and globally, emphasise the connection of natural resources, forests, rivers, and land, to tribal and adivasi (term for specific Indigenous communities in India) populations. Resistance by the Gond community in the state of Chhattisgarh, active for the past decade, intensified this year as the government approved three new coal mines, which would result in future environmental degradation and increased clearance of Hasdeo Aranya forests. Villagers from around the forest region have occupied the forests, building campsites, hugging trees (a historical form of tribal protest in India known as chipko), conducting speeches, events, and even work from within the forests. Demonstrating not only that their forest has cultural significance and provides livelihood, but there is a question of legal rights as well. 

These movements emphasise the casual disregard for rights of Indigenous communities in these projects. The disregard of indigenous rights is directly tied to the disregard of Indigenous existence and colonialism. The lack of Indigenous consensus on decisions of ‘development’, or land, forest interference is symbiotic of erasing marginalised voices. The disregard for understanding grassroots mobilisation for ecological catastrophe and implementation of top-down policies which do not consider violence on certain lives as violence, or do not account for how life is lived in the regions targeted for ‘development’ is a manifestation of imperialism. 

We do not suggest that indigenous life is infallible, but that Indigenous perspectives and mobilisation are crucial to the environmental movement at large. The constant dismissal of Indigenous lives is a symptom of colonialism. Indigenous communities should be considered active agents in the environmental movement, and intersectionality should extend to Indigenous communities within different contexts.