An anti-LGBTQ group marched Sunday in Istanbul, demanding that LGBTQ associations be shuttered and their activities banned, in the largest demonstration of its kind in Turkey.
Several thousand people joined the demonstration dubbed “The Big Family Gathering.” Kursat Mican, a speaker for the organizers, said they had gathered more than 150,000 signatures to demand a new law from Turkey’s parliament that would ban what they called LGBTQ propaganda, which they say pervades Netflix, social media, arts and sports.
Hatice Muge, who works as a nanny, came to the gathering from Bursa province.
“People are here despite the rain for their children, for future generations,” she said, urging the Turkish government to take action. “They should save the family, they should save the children from this filth.”
The group held banners that read: “Protecting the family is a national security issue.”
LGBTQ parades have not been allowed in Turkey since 2015.
Ahead of Sunday’s demonstration, the organizers circulated a video using images from past LGBTQ Pride marches in Turkey. The video was included in the public service announcement list of Turkey’s media watchdog.
The video and the demonstration prompted an outcry from LGBTQ associations and other rights groups. The organizers of Istanbul Pride called on the governor’s office to ban the event and authorities to take down the video, arguing both were hateful.
ILGA Europe, which works for LGBTQ equality, tweeted it was extremely concerned about the risks of violence.
“The Turkish state needs to uphold its constitutional obligation to protect all its citizens against hate and violence,” it said.
Amnesty International’s Turkey office said public service announcements listing the event violated Turkey’s equality and non-discrimination principles.
Top Turkish officials have called LGBTQ people “perverts” who aim to hurt traditional family values.
In July 2022, Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi sparked fears of a return to Section 28 when he promised to “protect” children from “radical activists”.
The former education secretary, currently serving as equalities minister in Liz Truss’ cabinet, made his comments while launching a failed leadership bid to become PM.
For LGBTQ+ people, alarm bells rang.
Zahawi’s suggestion that children are being subjected to “damaging and inappropriate nonsense” sounded a lot like Margaret Thatcher’s infamous 1987 speech in which she said kids were being taught they had an “inalienable right” to be gay.
Section 28, which came into effect in 1988, banned the “promotion of homosexuality” by local authorities. It gave rise to a culture of fear that stopped teachers from talking to kids about LGBTQ+ issues, and the scars run deep for queer people who grew up under its shadow.
It was repealed in Scotland in 2000, and in England and Wales in 2003.
More than 30 years on, a culture of hostility for LGBTQ+ people is threatening to boil over. Anti-trans sentiment is at an all-time high, with hit pieces appearing in the right wing press almost daily.
Comments from senior Tories such as Zahawi, Suella Braverman and Liz Truss herself have led some to question whether there could be a new version of Section 28, this time focused on trans issues, right around the corner.
UK government could ‘create an atmosphere’ that discourages LGBTQ+ inclusion
Sue Sanders is chair of Schools OUT UK, an organisation that works to eliminate prejudice from schools. She doesn’t think the Tories would be “foolish enough” to enact a new version of Section 28 – but is concerned the government might introduce guidance that could make schools a cold environment for LGBTQ+ youth.
“I think they’ll do it through producing the sort of language we’ve seen from the likes of Suella Braverman,” Sanders tells PinkNews.
“They’ll make statements which will cause an atmosphere and will then promote self-censorship in teachers unless we give them the resources and the confidence to say, look, you’re still legally able to do this stuff,” Sanders says.
“It’s the stirring of the atmosphere that the media and right-wing politicians do which then makes the atmosphere very unsupportive.”
‘Section 28 had a profound effect on kids and teachers’
Reflecting on Section 28, Sanders says it was “horrendous”.
It created a culture that forced teachers back into the closet and starved children of LGBTQ+ representation and discussion in the classroom.
“The trauma that both teachers and kids went through is something that some of them have not in any way recovered from,” Sanders says.
“It would have had a profound effect on kids and teachers alike… I’m sure we had suicides because of it.
“What’s needed is our teachers’ unions to be very clear and to keep sending out guidance and clarity on where they stand legally.”
Tories want to ‘cement their power’
Drag Race UK star Divina De Campo grew up under Section 28. She says the UK was “incredibly homophobic” during the ’80s and ’90s, and Thatcher’s government was quick to capitalise on that.
What’s happening today around trans rights and anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment isn’t dissimilar to what happened then, de Campo says – the Conservative Party has targeted Muslims, migrants and, most recently, the trans community.
“Section 28 created a hostile environment, which is exactly what the Tory party have done again but for other people,” de Campo tells PinkNews.
She points out that the government instructed schools to not use materialsfrom organisations that oppose capitalism in 2020 – for de Campo, that suggests they could do the same with LGBTQ+ issues.
“They’ll do exactly like they did in the ’80s and they’ll use [us] to try and cement their power,” de Campo says.
The media and political figures are driving a moral panic about trans people because it pays to do so, de Campo says. The media is trying to create an “emotional reaction”, whereas the government is listening to the wrong people.
“Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss have both said, ‘Is a trans woman a woman? No.’ They very clearly said that.
“For 20 years we’ve operated under a system where trans women are women so there’s plenty of data about whether trans people are a danger to society in the way they’re being painted and the fact is, no, and we’ve got plenty of evidence about whether self-ID is a danger to women and the answer is no.”
‘Show solidarity, just like we did with the miners’
De Campo says the solution is solidarity – people from marginalised backgrounds need to come together and fight the oppression that’s coming from government. It’s the best way to avoid a repeat of Section 28 in the future.
“If we’re not going to see it get as bad as it was then, now is the time for us to organise,.
“We need to do exactly like we did before. It becomes about solidarity with other groups – showing solidarity with the Muslim community, with the Jewish community, with working class people who are all going to be struggling a lot through the winter and through next year.”
She continues: “It’s going to become about writing to your MP, showing solidarity, just like we did with the miners – just like how it worked before. That’s what we’ve got to do.”
Few have confidence in Truss
It’s vital we avoid a new version of Section 28 because its effects were so far-reaching, according to LGBTQ+ rights activist Peter Tatchell. It had a “devastating effect” on LGBTQ+ teenagers and caused many to suffer from anxiety, depression and self-harm.
The problem is that avoiding Section 28-like policies could be difficult under a government that’s decidedly right-wing.
“The Tories have shifted to the right under Liz Truss,” Tatchell tells PinkNews.
“They are waging a culture war against our community and see political mileage in appealing to their conservative bases.”
He says the future for LGBTQ+ rights in the UK right now is “gloomy”.
“Regression seems more likely than progress. We’ve already witnessed more than four years of delay in banning conversion therapy and trans people will not be protected if the legislation finally gets tabled. Reform of the Gender Recognition Act has been kicked into the long grass, despite a majority of those who responded to the public consultation urging change.
“The government wants to deport LGBTs and other refugees to Rwanda, even though it is not safe. There are rising levels of anti-LGBT+ hate crime and no serious government action to remedy it.”
Tatchell has “no trust or confidence” that anything will improve for LGBTQ+ people under Truss’ rule.
“She’s appointed a cabinet dominated by homophobes, including some who oppose marriage equality and trans rights.”
Much is uncertain for LGBTQ+ people right now, but one thing is certain: queer people are facing into a dark period, and they’re going to have to fight hard to protect their hard-won rights.
Malta’s prime minister, Robert Abela, has promised reforms for the country’s LGBTQ+ community, including free gender affirming surgery for trans people.
According to local publication Lovin Malta, the prime minster attended Malta’s Pride march in Valletta on 10 September to share news that the government is committed to carrying out these reforms.
In an interview with ONE Radio he said: “I believe that social reform gives the Labour Party its identity.
“My presence yesterday, as well as that of ministers and MPs, symbolises the messages that while we have done a lot, more is yet to come. While we’re proud of what we did, more needs to be done.”
The Labour Party leader noted the recent lift of a ban on gay men donating blood in Malta, and said the next step will be free gender affirming surgeries for trans people, as promised in Labour’s manifesto.
Abela took to social media to announce the reform for donating blood in Malta.
In the Facebook post he said: “Today we will fulfil another electoral promise with new protocols for donating blood.
“That way we will have fairer protocols that remove any form of discrimination with LGBTIQ+ people where the parameters for a person to be able to donate blood will be equal for everyone.”
He ended the message by saying: “Reforms remain at the top of this government’s agenda. Not least in the equality sector.”
Speaking to One Radio about the promise of free gender reassignment surgery Abela said: “They will be placed on the national health service, which means the state will finance the procedure.”
In 2019 Malta was named Rainbow Europe’s best European holiday destination for LGBTQ+ travellers, scoring an impressive 90 percent out of 100.
Belgium scooping up second place with 73 per cent, and the UK scraped in the top 10 in ninth place with 62 per cent.
PinkNews has reached out to Abela’s office for comment.
The president of Sri Lanka has said his government won’t oppose a bill to decriminalise homosexuality – but added the bill must gain support before any laws change.
On Sunday (11 September) president Ranil Wickremesinghe, who has held his role since July this year, said the government will not oppose a private member’s bill presented to parliament by MP Premnath C Dolawatte to decriminalise homosexuality.
Same-sex relationships are currently illegal in Sri Lanka, and there are other discriminatory laws against trans people and sex workers.
Dolawatte’s bill seeks to decriminalise same-sex sexual activity between consenting adults by amending sections 365 and 365A of Sri Lanka’s penal code.
‘A matter of private conscience’
However, it will require support from individual members of parliament, as president Wickremesinghe explained during talks with Samantha Power, the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
According to the Colombo Gazette he said: “We are for it, but you have to get the support of individual members. It’s a matter of their private conscience.”
Last month a bill to amend the penal code with the aim of protecting the rights of Sri Lanka’s LGBTQ+ community was handed over to Wickremesinghe by Dolawatte.
The Penal Code (Amendment) (19th Act) Bill to amend the penal code was also submitted to parliament by Dolawatte as a private member’s bill, the Eastern Eye reported.
The paper said the LGBTQ+ community of Sri Lanka and its allies issued a statement welcoming the private member’s bill.
But despite the bill being submitted, Sri Lanka’s LGBTQ+ community questioned the commitment of its government to address issues faced by the community.
It comes after the Sri Lanka government were accused of forcing abusive anal and vaginal virginity “tests” on LGBTQ+ people in an attempt to prove homosexual conduct.
Since 2017, at least seven people have been forced into the “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” physical examinations, according to a Human Rights Watch report.
Rosanna Flamer-Caldera of equalities group Equal Ground described the ex-leader as “pathetic” and hit out at the president’s “insidious references degrading the LGBTIQ community”.
Since 2013, Russia has had a law in place that criminalizes the distribution of “homosexual propaganda” to minors. This vague and overly broad law can be used to punish anyone who speaks positively about LGBTQ relationships or displays any kind of pro-LGBTQ sentiment. As a result, Russia has become one of the most dangerous countries in the world for members of the LGBTQ community.
Recently, Russian legislators have proposed to extend the LGBTQ propaganda law, which would criminalize anyone who promotes “non-traditional” sexual relationships to minors and adults. This, critics say, will further endanger the lives of Russia’s LGBTQ population, which has already suffered increased harassment, violence, and hostility in recent years.
ADVERTISING
Here, we take a look at the state of LGBTQ rights in Russia and what has fueled the shift towards anti-LGBTQ sentiments there.
Technically, it isn’t illegal to be LGBTQ in Russia. Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1993 and declassified as a mental illness in 1999. Transgender Russians have also been able to legally change their gender and identity documents since 1997.
However, there are currently no anti-discrimination protections in the country, despite the high rate of homophobia in Russia. Owing largely to President Vladimir Putin’s plan to position himself as the “world’s leading defender of traditional values”, the Russian government has only made it harder for its LGBTQ population to live freely and openly.
In 2012, the year Putin assumed office as President, the city government of Moscow banned LGBTQ pride parades for the next hundred years.
LGBTQ Rights In Russia Today
So, what is life like for an LGBTQ person living in Russia today? Here is a brief primer on Russian LGBTQ rights in the time of Putin:
The “Homosexual Propaganda” Law
Putin’s government classifies LGBTQ people as a threat to the traditional family values it hopes to uphold. In 2013, Putin signed a federal law banning the “promotion of nontraditional sexual relations to minors”. Ultimately, this law makes it illegal for anyone to introduce information about LGBTQ people to minors – encompassing any information shared online, on TV, and by the press.
The law has not only had a chilling effect on LGBTQ rights but has also been used as a justification to shut down valuable websites that offer resources and services to LGBTQ youth. The law also discourages mental healthcare providers and educators from giving patients and students the information and care they need to cope with their struggles and navigate a homophobic environment.
According to LGBTQ advocates, this law is about much more than simply “protecting children” – it is a political tool to further the state’s anti-Western liberalism agenda. LGBTQ people are positioned as dissidents who wish to “finish off the traditional morality” – essentially making them out to be enemies of the state and a threat to Russian culture and values. According to the co-founder of the Russian LGBT Network, Igor Kochetkov, the 2013 law “is used in information campaigns to generate hatred, including against human rights defenders.”
“In the rhetoric of the Kremlin and state-loyal media, LGBT rights, feminism, multiculturalism, and atheism are identified not only as foreign to Russia’s values but as existential threats to the nation,” says the Boston Review.
The European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child have both condemned the law, as it is in opposition to their policies on freedom of expression and the right to assembly.
Same-Sex Marriage And LGBTQ Adoption In Russia
In April 2021, Putin signed a series of constitutional amendments that included a formal ban on same-sex marriage in the country. Previously, the Russian constitution did not explicitly define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman – a loophole that gave LGBTQ Russians a sliver of hope that same-sex marriages could be introduced on that basis.
But with the recent amendments – which also removed term limits for the president and allowed the Russian constitution to take precedence over international law – LGBTQ Russians now have little hope for marriage equality in their country.
The amendments also ban transgender people from adopting children in Russia. Currently, only single adoptions – meaning no same-sex couples – are allowed.
Illegal Detentions In Chechnya
In 2017, reports surfaced of a “gay purge” in the semiautonomous state of Chechnya. These purges, which were conducted by Chechen authorities, targeted gay and bisexual men and resulted in the detention of over 200 people. More have reportedly been beaten, tortured, and even killed.
Despite international protests and demands to end the purge from the UN and the European Court of Human Rights, the detention and torture resumed in 2019. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, men have been “kicked, beaten, and shocked with electricity” and were detained for three to 20 days. They were also stripped of their cellphones and forced to out other queer men.
According to Amnesty International, Russian authorities have “failed to provide justice” for the victims of the Chechnyan gay purges and offer effective protection to Igor Kotchetkov, who received death threats after leading the public investigation of the incident.
In the 2020 documentary Welcome to Chechnya, which follows a group of activists as they attempt to evacuate queer people from the region, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov blatantly denies the mere existence of queer people in Chechnya, stating, “We don’t have LGBT people here.”
The Bottom Line
Russia has come under fire in recent years for its treatment of the LGBTQ community. With lawmakers proposing a total ban on spreading “LGBTQ propaganda” to both minors and adults and the amendment to the Russian constitution that makes same-sex marriage in the country illegal, LGBTQ Russians face a mountain of challenges in earning the right to live openly and safely.
These policies have not only curtailed the rights of LGBTQ people in Russia but have also inspired deeper hate and homophobia in the country – particularly among its ultra-conservative population.
You can show your support by learning more about the situation in Russia and spreading awareness.
The EuroPride march route has been officially banned by Serbian police following mass anti-LGBTQ+ protests.
The event, which takes place in a different European city each year, was due to take place in Belgrade on Saturday (17 September) as part of Serbia’s bid for membership to the European Union.
But the event found itself under increasing scrutiny by religious and anti-LGBTQ+ protestors, including a march led by clergy from the Serbian Orthodox Church, who used rhetoric about “saving children” and “protecting family values” to push their hateful message.
Now, several weeks after Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić said the event would be postponed indefinitely due to vague suggestions of “security concerns”, Serbian police officially announced a ban on the route of the EuroPride march on Tuesday (13 September).
In a statement from the European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBTI Rights, several of the 145 MEPs who signed a letter to Serbian leadershipcondemning their postponement of events and urging the government to maintain their promise of EuroPride have spoken out against the announcement.
“We regret the decision taken by the Serbian police to ban the route of the EuroPride march, LGBTI Intergroup co-chair Terry Reintke MEP (Greens-EFA) said.
“We have been in constant contact in the last weeks with the Serbian authorities calling for political willingness in finding a solution that ensures all demonstrators’ security.
“We insist that all efforts must be employed to find a compromise solution.”
After president Vučić’s postponement in August, the European Pride Organisers Association (EPOA) president Kristine Garina said at the time he could not “cancel someone else’s event”.
She said banning the march would violate Serbia’s commitment to the European Convention of Human Rights, which is important to follow when applying for an EU membership.
It’s unclear whether this ban will affect negotiations at this time.
Serbia has been attempting to join the union since 2009, but has hit several roadblocks involving human rights violations. Its history of banning Pride parades initially received criticism from official human rights organisations, including a march in the early 2000s that become violent after anti-LGBTQ+ protestors breached the proceedings.
But after several peaceful Serbian Pride parades went off without a hitch, EuroPride had allowed Belgrade the opportunity to be considered for hosting the 2022 event, which it eventually accepted.
In a letter to the EPOA, former prime minister Ana Brnabić wrote that the government was ready to “ensuring the full respect of human rights” and promised to help the Belgrade Pride organising team create a “safe and successful” EuroPride event.
Fellow co-chair of the LGBTI Intergroup Marc Angel MEP (S&D Group) said: “We have urged authorities to liaise, to negotiate and to agree on a compromise, which to this point was clear – a shorter, secure route, enshrining the principles of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
“We repeat – these rights must be ensured for those defending them and we maintain trust that a solution will be found. We urge authorities to put all focus on a credible solution to be proposed to the organisers.”
In the last three decades, protections for LGBT people’s rights have advanced rapidly in many countries and regions. However, rising populist authoritarianism poses a significant threat to this progress because abolishing sexual freedom is often at the heart of repressive political projects. The progress and backsliding in my home country, Colombia, illustrates the process of using democracy to erode rights.
In 2016, Colombia seemed like a legislative paradise for LGBT people. That year, a pinnacle of legislative success was a Constitutional Court ruling that secured a range of family rights for same-sex couples, including marriage and adoption, and protection of LGBT students in schools. But toward the end of the year, there was another exceptional event. In an effort to end a brutal, decades-long armed conflict, the Andean country held a plebiscite on a peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas. Unexpectedly, a small majority of 50.2 percent rejected the agreement after a bitter and polarizing campaign.
A key issue that mobilized the “no” electorate was the moral panic generated by the inclusion of gender, women rights, and LGBT-related provisions in the peace agreement, including a definition of gender and the explicit recognition of these populations as victims of the armed conflict. Extremist groups decried these provisions as imposing a “gender ideology,” tapping into a recent controversy about gender and sexuality education in schools.
Following the suicide of a queer student who had experienced severe bullying and discrimination in school, the Constitutional Court directed the government to carry out an existing law detailing measures to protect LGBT students from discrimination and to recognize diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity as a principle of comprehensive sexuality education. Conservative groups attacked this decision as imposing “gender ideology” on children, and social media became a battleground where the fate of Colombia’s peace was intertwined with the fate of LGBT people.
Many Colombians followed the conservative groups’ reasoning and conflated the peace agreement and the Court’s decision, believing the peace deal itself advanced “gender ideology” through gender and LGBT inclusive provisions. Again, social media—this time coupled with ballots—was the site of this mobilization. Political actors disseminated outrageous falsehoods regarding the peace agreement on social media networks, including WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, all of which impacted the public perception of the plebiscite. Notably, several fueled the idea that if the peace agreement were approved, “gender ideology” would be included in the Constitution and society would be “homosexualized.”
This juxtaposition between success in court and the mobilization of anti-LGBT sentiment on the streets left me questioning the efficacy of using law reform as a primary strategy to advance LGBT rights. Six years after the rejection of the peace agreement referendum, I can see that what happened in Colombia was not an isolated incident; instead, it has now formed an integral part of a new authoritarian playbook that manipulates democratic institutions to undermine the rights of women and LGBT people.
Anti-LGBT movements develop national, regional, and global strategies that rely on political authoritarianism, the spread of misinformation, and grassroots mobilization. A notable rhetorical feature of the anti-gender movement is its use of human rights language to undermine LGBT rights, for example, by using religious freedom or parental rights as a basis for attacking minority rights. This political homophobia approach is the major threat to LGBT rights worldwide.
In many parts of the world, as never before, the legal recognition of the rights of LGBT people is gaining ground, and the long arc of history shows rapid progress, primarily triggered by democratic institutions such as elected officials or independent judges. One benchmark is the gradual decriminalization of same-sex conduct, another is the extension of marriage equality. However, this legal evolution coexists with threats such as those witnessed in Colombia. Well-organized groups mobilize around abstract and unfounded fears, articulating their conservative agendas in the frame of “gender ideology” that would somehow undermine the family and corrupt children, exploiting polarized elections, constitutional changes, or institutional crises.
Moreover, these actors are often aligned with authoritarian political projects that use social media to spread misinformation and smear campaigns. They instrumentalize anxieties around children and their welfare to garner popular support, invoking inveterate, dangerous stereotypes of LGBT people as immoral corrupters of children. In some contexts, these actions usher in anti-LGBT legislation and, at the same time, bolster the political fortunes of authoritarian leaders.
This new form of anti-LGBT sentiment is codified in legislation that focuses on censoring public expressions of identity, including speech on sexual orientation and gender identity, justified under the pretext of “protecting children.” The Russian “gay propaganda” law is a classic example of political homophobia that curbs the rights of LGBT youth and has a broader, stifling effect on the public expression of identity.
In recent years, Hungary has enacted laws banning discussions on LGBT issues, ended legal gender recognition for transgender and intersex people, and amended the constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual union and to functionally prohibit same-sex adoption. Seeking to justify its homophobic rhetoric the government held a homophobic referendum coinciding with national election day in April.
Poland, and more recently Romania, have taken steps to adopt comparable legislation. A bill before the Ghanaian parliament that forbids any form of support or speech regarding LGBT rights similarly discriminates against LGBT people.
In the Americas, lawmakers have increasingly proposed anti-LGBT legislation, such as in the United States where in the last five years there has been a spate of laws primarily targeting trans and non-binary youth in states including Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. And in Brazil, Human Rights Watch analyzed 217 bills and laws that restrict comprehensive sexuality education, including information on sexual orientation and gender identity, or ban alleged “indoctrination.” In Guatemalaand Perú lawmakers have proposed bills with similar terms, though in Guatemala the bill was withdrawn.
We should view the struggle for LGBT rights as part of a broader struggle against authoritarianism: a political regime founded on the erosion of human rights and freedoms, particularly of the most vulnerable groups. We should invest more in understanding the tactics that pro-authoritarian groups use, especially on social media. We should also develop recommendations and strategies to end the harmful misuse of social media and hold tech companies accountable for allowing the spread and amplification of damaging, bigoted messages.
Finally, any legal actions and progress should continue building on the grassroots mobilization of LGBT people and our allies. As is, law without social mobilization is vulnerable to authoritarian backlash.
On September 4, members of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq proposed an odious bill to Parliament that, if passed, would punish any individual or group who advocates for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The bill is reportedly gaining momentumamong parliament members.
According to the “Bill on the Prohibition of Promoting Homosexuality,” anyone who advocates for LGBT rights or “promotes homosexuality” would face imprisonment up to one year, and a fine of up to five million dinars (US$3,430). The bill would also suspend, for up to one month, the licenses of media companies and civil society organizations that “promote homosexuality.”
If passed, the law would endanger free expression in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) and eradicate public discussion around gender and sexuality. Even as LGBT people across Iraq have faced egregious violence, including murder, over two decades, the KRI was a comparatively accessible space for activism.
The proposed bill comes amid a heightened crackdown on free assembly and expression in the KRI, where just last month security forces arrested dozens of journalists, activists, and politicians in advance of planned protests over worsening corruption, poverty, and unemployment.
The new law would make a bad situation worse for LGBT people in Iraq, who can already be arrested under a range of vague penal code provisions aimed at policing morals and limiting free expression. In June 2021, police in the KRI issued arrest warrants under a “public indecency” provision against 11 LGBT rights activists who are either current or former employees at Rasan Organization, a Sulaymaniyah-based human rights group. As of September 2022, the case remained open pending investigation, though authorities had not detained the activists.
Advocates who support LGBT rights and document abuses against them should not fear reprisals for speaking up. The Kurdistan Regional Government should immediately quash the proposed bill and publicly guarantee the right to free expression, including around the rights of LGBT people.
A court in Iran has sentenced two LGBTQ and intersex activists to death after their arrest for “promoting homosexuality.”
Iran Human Rights, a Norway-based NGO that champions human rights in Iran, on Tuesday noted the Urmia Revolutionary Court in Iran’s West Azerbaijan province sentenced Zahra (Sareh) Sedighi, 31, and Elham Coobdar, 24, to death after it convicted them of “corruption on earth” charges.
Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps on Oct. 27, 2021, arrested Sedighi while she was trying to enter Turkey.
Police in Iraqi Kurdistan reportedly detained Sedighi for three weeks after she spoke with BBC Persian about the treatment of LGBTQ and intersex people in the region. Sedighi had reportedly entered Iran in order to cross the country’s border with Turkey and ask for asylum.
Iran Human Rights cited Iranian media reports that said Sedighi and Coobdar faced charges of “deceiving and smuggling women and young girls to a regional country.”
“This is while human rights sources and LGBTQI+ activists stress that Zahra and Elham were arrested and convicted for their activism,” said Iran Human Rights. “This claim was confirmed in reports aired on IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) and other official media that cited ‘promoting homosexuality’ as one of the reasons for the two activists’ arrests.”
Iran Human Rights said Sedighi and Coobdar learned the court sentenced them to death on Sept. 1.
“Zahra Sadighi and Elham Choobdar were sentenced to death without due process and in unfair legal proceedings based on forced confessions,” said Iran Human Rights Director Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam. “Their convictions have no legal validity. Islamic Republic authorities have also cited promoting homosexuality as one of the reasons for their arrests. Their lives can be saved by immediate and strong reactions by the international community and civil society.”
ILGA Asia on Tuesday described the death sentences as “concerning.”
Saint Kitts and Nevis’ colonial-era law banning same-sex relations has been struck down in a “historic moment” for the Caribbean country.
On Monday (29 August), the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court struck down sections 56 and 57 of the Offences Against The Person Act which banned the “abominable crime” of “buggery”.
The law carried a maximum penalty of 10 years with hard labour.
While no evidence showed the longstanding provisions had been enforced in recent years, it seemingly justified the discrimination and violence LGBTQ+ Kittitians and Nevisians face due to societal stigma and shame.
Judge Trevor Ward overturned the parts of the act that criminalised “unnatural offences” and compared them to “bestiality”, which he said was unconstitutional.
He wrote in his judgment: “The absolute nature of the prohibition created by sections 56 and 57 are not reasonably justified in a democratic society in circumstances where they proscribe sexual acts between consenting adults in private, which involve no element of public conduct or harm to, or sexual acts, with minors.”
“To the extent that it criminalises the private lives of gay persons in this year, the law is excessive and arbitrary,” he continued, adding that the sections “fail to meet the constitutional qualification of being … in the interest of public morality.”
Ward added: “Section 56 of the act shall be read as if the words ‘This section shall not apply to consensual sexual acts between adults in private’ were added at the end of the section.”
The court’s verdict immediately went into effect.
“This is a transformative journey and a step to full recognition of LGBTQ persons across the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States,” Kenita Placide, executive director of the Eastern Caribbean Alliance for Diversity and Equality (ECADE), said.
“An affirmative decision means a yes to privacy and a yes to freedom of expression.”
Jamal Jeffers, a gay man, brought the constitutional challenge in January 2021 arguing that sections 56 and 57 breached constitutional rights to freedom of expression and privacy, and should be made null and void.
Joined by advocacy group St Kitts and Nevis Alliance for Equality, the claimants sought orders for same-sex acts to not be an offence if committed privately between “persons 16 years of age or more”, their motion read.
Saint Kitts and Nevis were among the first islands in the Caribbean to be colonised by the British, bringing with them centuries-old laws that outlawed homosexuality.
Section 56 read: “Any person who is convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding ten years, with or without hard labour.”
Former British colonies Barbados, Dominica, Guyana, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines all have similar buggery laws in the books.
“We are witnessing a historic moment in the Caribbean in which antiquated, colonial-era laws are being challenged and struck down,” said Maria Sjödin, executive director of global LGBTQ+ rights group OutRight Action International.
“We are awed by the strategic persistence of activists in the region who are leading the charge to ensure that human rights are advanced and that discriminatory, outdated law like this is overturned. Hopefully, the remaining countries in the region and beyond will follow.”