In a series of rushed hearings closed to the public at Apple’s request, a Moscow court on Monday fined the tech giant in three separate cases for violating Russia’s anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda laws.
They’re the first cases brought against the company under the latest iteration of laws meant to erase LGBTQ+ identity, which President Vladimir Putin has called evidence of moral decay in the West.
Apple was found guilty of three administrative offenses related to “LGBT propaganda” and fined 7.5 million rubles, or about $93,500. A fourth case alleging Apple failed to take down unspecified non-LGBTQ+ online content that Moscow deems illegal earned a fourth fine for the company.
At the start of the first hearing, Apple’s representative, Elena Chetverikova, requested the proceedings be closed to the press and public because proprietary information about the company would be disclosed. It remains unclear precisely what Apple’s violation of laws related to “LGBTQ+ propaganda” was.
Adding to the confusion, the judge in the case, Alexandra Anokhina, rushed through her summary after the public was invited back into court following the first hearing.
Independent Russian news outlet Mediazona elaborated: “Our reporter notes that the judge read the decision at such a rapid pace it was virtually impossible to grasp the precise details of the claims. We then approached the court’s press secretary to request that a summary of the official court record be released for clarity. The response was terse: ‘The hearing is closed.’”
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Apple has often yielded to Roskomnadzor, the country’s censorship agency, enabling the company to largely maintain its operations in Russia.
Based on research from digital rights group GreatFire and Apple’s own transparency report, the tech giant removed twelve applications at Russia’s behest in 2023. The apps allegedly violated laws enacted to silence dissent and counter “fake news” about the military, contrary to the state’s narrative about the war.
Amid a resurgent crackdown on dissent in 2024, Apple removed nearly sixty applications at Roskomnadzor’s request from the Russian App Store between July and mid-September, many without any public notification. Among them were several major VPN services, which enable secure, encrypted connections between servers and users.
In the aftermath, Amnezia VPN’s developers described Apple as “the largest provider of censorship in the world.”
Apple went on to restrict access to podcasts from BBC Russian, investigative news site The Insider, and Ekho Moskvy, a liberal radio station. In November, another fine was levied against the company for failing to delete unspecified “prohibited information.”
Apple was subject to Moscow’s first major punitive action around “LGBTQ+ propaganda” in August 2023, when a Moscow court fined the company for failing to remove “inaccurate” content concerning the war in Ukraine and accused it of targeting minors with LGBTQ+ content in a “destabilization” effort directed at the government.
That hearing was also held behind closed doors at Apple’s request, with company representatives citing “commercial confidentiality.”
Apps depicting same-sex couples were reportedly among the content in violation of “LGBTQ+ propaganda laws.”
A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to return to the U.S. a gay asylum-seeker it wrongfully deported.
In his Friday, May 23, ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, noted that the man, identified only by the initials O.C.G., has no known criminal history and was the victim of multiple violent anti-LGBTQ+ attacks in his home country of Guatemala prior to seeking asylum in the U.S. last year. As the Guardianreported, a U.S. immigration judge ruled earlier this year that O.C.G. would likely face persecution and torture if sent back to his home country and granted a withholding of removal protecting him from deportation to Guatemala. But two days later, with no warning, the Trump administration loaded O.C.G. onto a bus to Mexico, a country where he said he has also experienced violence.
Murphy noted that during previous immigration proceedings O.C.G. had expressed fear of being sent to Mexico, presenting evidence that in April 2024, while traveling through the country to reach the U.S., he was raped and held for ransom there.
“The immigration judge told O.C.G.—consistent with this Court’s understanding of the law—that he could not be removed to a country other than his native Guatemala, at least not without some additional steps in the process. Those necessary steps, and O.C.G.’s pleas for help, were ignored,” Murphy wrote.
Given the choice to remain in Mexico or return to Guatemala, O.C.G. chose to return to his home country.
As Advocate reported, in a declaration submitted to the court last week, O.C.G. said that for over two months he has been essentially living in hiding in Guatemala, largely staying indoors and relying on family to bring him groceries and other necessities for fear of being recognized by those who had previously attacked him.
“I feel fear and the danger anytime I go out. For me, it’s not easy. The people who targeted me before know who I am and they have shown me twice before what they’re capable of. I don’t want to get attacked a third time,” he wrote, adding that a normal life is impossible for him in Guatemala. “I can’t be gay here, which means I cannot be myself. I cannot express myself and I am not free.”
Murphy described the circumstances around O.C.G.’s deportation “troubling,” noting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had twice provided the court with “false information” in the case.
“Defendants had submitted a declaration, made under oath, that O.C.G., prior to removal, affirmatively stated that he had no fear of being sent to Mexico,” Murphy wrote.
But hours before a May 16 deposition, DHS admitted that they could not find a witness to support that claim, acknowledging an “error” in their previous court filings.
Murphy determined that “O.C.G. is likely to succeed in showing that his due-process rights were violated.”
“At no point in this litigation have Defendants put forth an account of O.C.G.’s removal that would comport with what this Court has found due process requires,” the judge wrote.
Murphy ordered DHS to take immediate steps to “facilitate” O.C.G.’s return to the U.S., noting that in this case, the term “should carry less baggage than in several other notable cases.”
Murphy was likely referring to Kilmar Ábrego García, a legal permanent resident of Maryland who was among hundreds of men the Trump administration deported to El Salvador in March, accusing them with little evidence and without due process of being members of a Venezuelan gang. Like O.C.G., Ábrego García had no criminal history and had been granted protection by a U.S. immigration judge from deportation to El Salvador. The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” Ábrego García’s return to the U.S. But the administration has refused to do so, arguing that it is not within its power now that he is incarcerated in another country.
Unlike Ábrego García, Murphy noted, “O.C.G. is not held by any foreign government. Defendants have declined to make any argument that facilitating his return would be costly, burdensome, or otherwise impede the government’s objectives.”
Murphy ordered DHS to provide a status report on O.C.G.’s return within five days of his May 23 decision. He also ordered DHS to turn over discovery, including depositions of the individuals involved in the false declaration that O.C.G. did not fear removal to Mexico.
O.C.G. is at least the second gay asylum seeker that the Trump administration has wrongfully deported this year. Andry José Hernandez Romero, a Venezuelan makeup artist who came to the U.S. seeking protection from anti-gay persecution in his home country, was one of the men sent to El Salvador in March. In April, Romero’s lawyer expressed “grave concerns” about his likelihood of survival in CECOT, the notorious Salvadoran mega-prison in which he is being held.
After two years together, Ramita and Shilu—both pseudonyms to protect their identities—traveled to Sindhuli this month to register their marriage under Nepal’s June 2023 Supreme Court ruling which allows for same-sex marriages. But instead of recognition, the couple reportedly faced harassment, delays, rejection, and were forcibly separated, with police complicity and family hostility exacerbating their ordeal.
As local officials stalled the registration process, citing uncertainty about legal procedures, Ramita’s family reported her “missing.” Despite Ramita’s insistence that she felt unsafe with her family and wanted to marry Shilu, police handed her over to relatives she described as abusive. According to both women, police mocked their relationship and subjected them to verbal harassment. One officer allegedly made demeaning comments questioning the legitimacy of their relationship.
The 2023 Supreme Court interim order instructed the Nepali government to create a separate register for marriages between people of the same sex as well as third gender people, who have been recognized in principle based on self-identification for over a decade. The intention was to give queer couples interim legal recognition while the court deliberates a pending marriage equality case. But officials have been inconsistent in applying the order.
Since 2023, a handful of same-sex couples have successfully registered their marriages. Additionally, two same-sex couples in which one partner was Nepali and the other a foreigner were able to obtain spousal visas, but both had to take their cases to the Supreme Court.
Ramita and Shilu’s experience also reflects a broader pattern: lesbian women often face pressure, frequently enforced by their families, to conform to “compulsory heterosexuality,” a societal expectation that women should be in relationships with men. Ramita has said she fears being sent to a faith healer. “Even if you die or become disabled, I’ll still make you marry a man,” her sister-in-law reportedly told her. Shilu remains in fear and grief, unable to contact Ramita, whom she described as being held in a “hostage-like condition” since the attempted registration.
Rights advocates have condemned the incident as a grave human rights violation, calling for immediate protections and an investigation into local authorities’ conduct.
Same-sex couples who want to marry in Nepal have the legal right to do so. But the prolonged period under the interim order and lack of accountability for officials’ actions are undermining Nepal’s reputation as a global LGBT rights leader.
Municipal officials in the town of Łańcut, Poland, have abolished the country’s last remaining “LGBT Ideology Free” zone, righting more than five years of political assault on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) people across the country.
Between 2019 and 2024, while the right-wing Law and Justice party was in power, provinces, towns, and municipalities across Poland adopted discriminatory “family charters” pledging to “protect children from moral corruption” or declared themselves free from “LGBT ideology.”
Over time, authorities in one-third of the country adopted anti-LGBT resolutions after the Law and Justice ruling party made “protecting” Poland from “LGBT ideology” a centerpiece of its successful 2019 electoral campaign. Under the resolutions and charters, regional and local governments were to refrain from encouraging tolerance toward LGBT people and cut funds to organizations promoting nondiscrimination and gender equality.
Although legally unenforceable, LGBT activists told Human Rights Watch the “LGBT Ideology Free” zones – in their attempts to stigmatize, exclude, and indirectly discriminate against LGBT people – sent the message that LGBT people were not welcome in these areas. As a gay man in eastern Poland told Human Rights Watch: “In 2020, one of my good friends who had never before had an issue with my sexual orientation suddenly accused me of being ‘an ideology.’”
The situation in Poland offers a lesson for the region. In recent years, alongside the rise of right-wing populism, there has been manufactured hostility towards the concepts of “gender” and “genderism” in Europe, with opponents labeling it “gender ideology.”
Opponents have weaponized undefined “gender ideology” as a tool to curtail sexual and reproductive rights and LGBT equality by playing on people’s fear of social change and claiming a global conspiracy of great influence and scale.
Some observers refer to “gender ideology” as “symbolic glue,” or an “empty signifier”: it simultaneously means nothing and everything, and is consistently used to attack feminism, equality for trans people, the existence of intersex bodies, the elimination of sex stereotyping, family law reform, same-sex marriage, access to abortion, contraception, and comprehensive sexuality education.
The removal of Poland’s last “LGBT free” zone is reminder of the profound harm such symbolic policies inflict on people’s lives, a lesson that should be heeded across the region and the world.
A law enacted in Peru on May 12 purports to combat sexual violence against children and adolescents, but instead undermines freedom of expression and access to information and discriminates against transgender people, Human Rights Watch said today. The law’s vague and overly broad provisions could also be used to suppress expressions of identity, artistic content, and educational materials while failing to effectively address pervasive sexual violence against children and adolescents in the country.
The law, the stated aim of which is to “safeguard the right to sexual integrity of children and adolescents,” also mandates that public restroom access be restricted based on “biological sex,” effectively barring transgender people, including trans youth, from using public restrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
“Protecting children and adolescents from sexual exploitation and abuse is an important state obligation, but this law turns child protection into a pretext for repression and discrimination,” said Cristian González Cabrera, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The law opens the door for authorities to censor expression that they deem ‘inappropriate’ under the guise of safeguarding children, while scapegoating trans people, a group already at high risk of violence in Peru.”
The levels of sexual violence against children and adolescents in Peru are high. According to the Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations, from January to March 2025, the Women’s Emergency Centers received 4,910 cases of sexual violence against children and adolescents (out of 15,293 total cases received). In 2024, the total number of such cases was 22,798 (out of 63,489). While Congress has a responsibility to respond to this crisis, the new law fails to provide an effective or rights-based solution, Human Rights Watch said.
Article 4 of the law prohibits the “exploitation and sexualization” of children and adolescents in media, advertising, and entertainment. However, because the provision does not define what constitutes its key concepts of “sexual connotation” or “objectification,” it could be used to censor personal or cultural statements, artistic creations, or learning resources. Resulting arbitrary enforcement and censorship could also undermine children and adolescents’ ability to access information relevant to their own sexual development, including as part of an age-appropriate and science-based comprehensive sexuality education curriculum that could help prevent sexual violence.
The law also modifies the provision of the criminal code concerning “obscene exhibitions and publications” by increasing the minimum prison sentence from three to four years for “anyone who shows, sells or delivers to a minor … objects, books, writings, images, visual or auditory, which due to their nature may affect their sexual development.” The maximum prison sentence remains six years.
Human rights standards call for specificity and proportionality for any restriction on the freedoms of expression and access to information, particularly when criminal penalties are involved, as vague or overly broad legal language can lead to unjust restrictions and discrimination.
Article 5 of the law states that “entry and use” of public restrooms is prohibited for individuals whose “biological sex” does not align with “the sex for which the service is intended.” Such provisions not only discriminate against transgender people but also reinforce harmful and unfounded fears that equate the presence of transgender people in restrooms with a threat to children.
Studies have shown no correlation between inclusive restroom policies and increased safety risks to women or children. On the contrary, it is transgender people who face elevated risks of harassment and violence in public spaces, including restrooms. Enforcing such a discriminatory policy also emboldens intrusive and humiliating scrutiny of individuals’ bodies or identities, potentially exposing people, including transgender and gender nonconforming youth, to suspicion and mistreatment.
On May 7, Human Rights Watch wrote to President Dina Boluarte, urging her to veto the then-proposed law as it curtailed the freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to nondiscrimination. No response was received.
On May 12, the Congressional Ethics Committee voted to open an investigationagainst Congresswoman Susel Paredes for her alleged encouragement of trans women to use the women’s restrooms in congress during a March event focused on gender diversity. The complaint alleges that she violated the Parliamentary Code of Ethics; she faces a suspension of 120 days without remuneration. Peru’s new law is likely to lead to more arbitrary and baseless legal actions targeting both transgender people and their allies.
Peru has an obligation to uphold children and adolescents’ right to comprehensive sexuality education, an essential element of the right to education. At its core, comprehensive sexuality education consists of age-appropriate, affirming, and scientifically accurate curricula that can help foster safe and informed practices to, among other things, prevent gender-based violence, including sexual violence. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has called on Peru to provide all children with appropriate and accessible education on sexual and reproductive health. This new law will threaten that access.
Additionally, Peru is a party to several human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights, which oblige the State to protect all individuals from discrimination on any grounds, including age and gender identity. Enactment of this law violates Peru’s commitments as outlined in these treaties.
“Peru should urgently repeal this law, which fails to respond effectively to sexual violence against children and threatens the rights of the very people it seeks to protect, including trans children and adolescents,” González said. “Instead, Congress should pass targeted and evidence-based laws to prevent sexual violence as well as the high levels of discrimination against transgender people.”
In the documents, the NEC is urged to vote in favour of postponing the National Women’s Conference because it would be at “significant risk of a legal challenge” following the judgement if it were to go ahead – as it had in the past – on the basis of self-ID, adding given the “proximity” to the ruling it may result in “protests, direct action and heightened security risks”.
“This would also represent a political risk which would be likely to feature prominently throughout conference week,” the document also reads.
The leaked papers went on to warn that Labour would face “significant risk of direct and indirect discrimination claims succeeding” if it continues to use positive action measures such as the National Labour Women’s Committee and women officer roles based on self-identification.
The NEC is urged in the documents to vote in favour of using a biological definition of ‘sex’ to “mitigate the risk of legal challenge” going forward.
You may like to watch
“Pending a wider review, all positive action measures relating to women in the Party’s rules and procedures shall be interpreted on the basis of biological sex at birth. Guidance shall be issued to all Party units and relevant stakeholders to this effect,” the document reads. “The Party will work with individuals and local parties affected by the judgment to resolve specific cases with sensitivity and compassion, acknowledging the significant effect the judgment will have had on many people.”
Further to this, it is recommended to the NEC that the women’s conference is postponed in “light of the legal and political risks” because “the only legally defensible alternative would be to restrict attendance to delegates who were biologically women at birth (including trans men)”.
LGBT+ Labour: “Equality and positive action is all about increasing diversity”
In response, in a joint statement issued by LGBT+ Labour’s trans officer Georgia Meadows, Labour for Trans Rights and Pride in Labour the content of the leaked proposals was condemned “unreservedly”.
LGBT+ Labour and the other groups said the proposals are “not effective ways to ‘clarify’ anything” and will “restrict trans members’ engagement in internal democratic procedures”.
“We would also question whether the exclusion of trans women from Women’s Conference is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, as trans issues have come up time and time again during the conference, this seems to completely remove trans people from that debate,” the statement reads.
“It is a blatant attack on trans rights and is seemingly an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the labour movement more widely.”
Calling on NEC members to vote the paper down, the group continued: “Trans people are already greatly underrepresented in British politics, and if passed, this decision by the NEC will further harm trans people’s ability to engage with the democratic process and make them feel unwelcome at a time when the trans community is increasingly under attack.
“Equality and positive action is all about increasing diversity, access and fairness in public spaces. There are no trans or gender non-conforming MPs, and our community is underrepresented both in the Labour Party and across devolved and local governments.”
An emergency protest condemning the Supreme Court ruling was held in April. (Getty)
In their own statement, gender critical Labour organisation Labour Women’s Declaration labelled the decision to potentially postpone the women’s conference a “knee jerk reaction” and warned against “incendiary action as cancelling the single major policy-making conference of the party which focuses on issues affecting women”.
A spokesperson for the the group said: “We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women’s conference.
“The party should not act in fear of threats and demonstrations. We have held fringe meetings for years, often in the teeth of violent threats from trans activists, which we have managed carefully and kept everyone safe.
“It would be exceptionally disappointing if our Party, which strives to be a grown-up and serious political force, and a strong government, could not find the courage to run this conference as planned and run it in accordance with law which was introduced under a Labour government. Women deserve better.”
PinkNews has contacted Labour for comment.
It is understood the Labour Party respects the Supreme Court’s judgment and will comply with statutory guidance once published. Ministers will also consider the EHRC Code of Practice when a draft is submitted following its consultation on changes.
What is the EHRC consultation?
Following the Supreme Court ruling and as part of its interim guidance, the EHRC said it aimed to provide an updated version of its Code of Practice – which will “support service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice” – to the UK Government by the end of June.
The equalities watchdog said it would be reviewing sections of the Code to incorporate the Supreme Court’s judgment and ensure it is in-line with its guidance.
“We are currently reviewing sections of the draft Code of Practice which need updating. We will shortly undertake a public consultation to understand how the practical implications of this judgment may be best reflected in the updated guidance,” the EHRC said.
“The Supreme Court made the legal position clear, so we will not be seeking views on those legal aspects.”
Originally, the consultation was scheduled for just two weeks but following criticism from from the Women and Equalities Committee and trans groups it was extended to six weeks.
The EHRC said the changes were made “in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society” and the consultation will now launch 19 May and conclude on 30 June.
The passage of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023 made life significantly more dangerous for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and those who support them. The law, which includes the death penalty for so-called “aggravated homosexuality” and lengthy prison sentences for the “promotion of homosexuality,” has fueled a wave of arrests, raids on shelters, evictions, and public outings. Many LGBT people have gone into hiding.
Amid this repression, a small group of Ugandan mothers—some for the first time—began speaking publicly in support of their LGBT children.
In April 2023, eight of them signed an open letter to President Yoweri Museveni, urging him not to assent to the bill. They wrote: “We are not promoters of any agenda; we are Ugandan mothers who have had to overcome many of our own biases to fully understand, accept, and love our children.” They called on the president to protect all children from violence and discrimination.
He signed the bill anyway.
But the mothers did not retreat.
During 2024, Human Rights Watch met with several of these mothers in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, and the neighboring Wakiso district. In a country where public support for LGBT rights is rare and potentially criminalized, these mothers are leading with clarity, compassion, and conviction. Their stories illustrate the human cost of Uganda’s anti-LGBT laws and the quiet courage of the mothers who resist them out of love for their children.
Mama Joseph
One of the first to speak was Mama Joseph, a mother of five. Her eldest child, Joseph, now 26, identifies as gender-nonconforming. At 17, Joseph came out to their mother, saying they felt like a girl and was attracted to boys. The conversation was painful and confusing. “I cried a lot,” she said. “I knew my child was different. But it was hard.”
Like many parents, her initial reaction was to try to change her child. She sent Joseph to live with relatives, hoping they would help “correct” them. But as Joseph became depressed, Mama Joseph realized the move only caused more harm. Eventually, she brought Joseph home. “There is nothing you can do except harm,” when you try to make a child conform, she reflected. And as Joseph’s mother, she realized “No one is going to support them except me.”
Unfortunately, that support now comes with significant risk after the passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Joseph lives in near-constant fear that is also affecting Mama Joseph. Simply being visible as a gender-nonconforming person can attract harassment or worse. The heated media attention on the law has created increased anxiety for LGBT people and the people who love them. “Whenever they talk about LGBT people, something bad is coming,” Mama Joseph said. But her position is clear: “No law will change my love for my child.”
Mama Denise
Mama Dennis, a woman in her late 40s, shared a similar journey. Her daughter, Dennis, is a 24-year-old transgender woman. From a young age, Dennis expressed herself in ways that challenged gender norms. She preferred dresses to trousers and loved playing with her sisters’ clothes. At 10, she entered a modeling contest against girls and won. Her mother remembers her confidence and strength.
In 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdown, when a morality-related crime happened near Dennis’s home, her neighbors took the opportunity to report Dennis’s gender expression and sexual orientation to police, even though they knew Dennis was not involved in the crime. The authorities then arrested Dennis and falsely accused her of other crimes. Her mother confronted the community directly, especially the men. “I asked them, ‘Has my child slept with any of you?’ They were embarrassed. I did not care.”
Today, because of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, Dennis is in hiding again. She no longer comes home to visit, and her absence left a silence in the house. “I miss her joy,” her mother said. “But I will keep defending her. Our children are not criminals.”
For these mothers, the law has brought not only fear, but also clarity. “This law shows us that we are not equal,” said Mama Dennis. “Our government is angry. They should use that energy to fight discrimination, not our kids.
Mama Arthur
Mama Arthur, a mother of five, has lived a different kind of struggle. Her eldest child, Arthur, was arrested in 2014 under Uganda’s previous anti-homosexuality law. Since then, Arthur has been in hiding, and their communication is limited and secretive. The real battle, though, has been at home. Her husband—Arthur’s father—has never accepted their child. “He constantly blames me,” she said. “He harasses me for having given birth to a cursed child.”
Her marriage has become a space of daily conflict. “I live like a single mom with a husband,” she said. “But I appreciate my kid very much. I accept Arthur the way they are.” She wants religious leaders, many of whom have supported the Anti-Homosexuality Act, to reconsider their messaging. “If you are a person of faith, you should preach love, not hate.”
More Mamas
The other mothers—Mama Rihanna, Mama Joshua, and Mama Hajjat—faced public scrutiny after their children were arrested in 2016 and 2022 respectively. The widespread national media coverage that followed, which included their children’s names, faces, and alleged offenses, had devastating consequences for the families. Each mother had to navigate the fallout alone.
One sold her only cow to pay legal fees and secure her child’s release. Another was forced to relocate after her neighbors turned hostile. The third hid her daughter from an abusive husband. In each case, the family’s safety, finances, and reputation were upended overnight.
Yet these mothers remain steadfast. “Sexuality doesn’t matter,” said Mama Hajjat, now in her 50s. And so she sheltered her daughter through the worst of the backlash. Over time, even her husband began to soften. “He saw what our daughter went through, what she was capable of. He started to change.”
For Mama Joshua, the issue is deeply political. “Our kids are the easiest target,” she said. “But they are not the problem.” She believes the government is scapegoating LGBT people to distract from broader governance failures. “None of this will bring jobs. It won’t build roads. It won’t feed children. It’s all distraction.”
There is evidence to support this claim. Anti-LGBT rhetoric in Uganda, as in other countries, often intensifies in moments of political or economic pressure. Leaders use moral panic to consolidate power, mobilize popular support, and deflect criticism. The Anti-Homosexuality Act, introduced and passed amidst corruption scandals and ahead of a critical election cycle, has served that purpose. But its cost—measured in fear, violence, and exile—is borne disproportionately by LGBT people and those who love them.
The mothers interviewed by Human Rights Watch are affiliated with PFLAG-Uganda, a social intervention project under Chapter Four Uganda’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion program. They do not identify as activists. Most are deeply religious, and several attend church or mosque regularly. Some are afraid of the consequences of speaking out. But none regret standing by their children.
They have formed quiet networks of solidarity since 2019, meeting regurlarly, sharing social advice and comforting one another when children disappear or flee the country. They know they are not alone, even if the state tries to isolate them.
“We are mothers,” said Mama Dennis. “We know our children. We love them.”
Their voices are clear and consistent. Some have spoken on community radio or attended court hearings. Others write letters, make phone calls, or otherwise simply refuse to abandon their children.
And their numbers are growing, with the support of Clare Byarugaba, the founder of PLFAG-Uganda.
Their message, despite everything, remains rooted in hope: That love can coexist with fear, that understanding can overcome indoctrination, and that change—however slow—is possible. “People can learn,” said one mother. “It is a matter of time.”
In Uganda, the public space for human rights has narrowed dramatically. But these women are carving out space in the most personal realm: the home. They are challenging political violence not through protest, but through presence. Through consistency. Through care.
Their resistance may not be visible on the streets, but it is steady. Their choice to love their children—and say so publicly—is both deeply personal and inherently political.
“I could never stop loving my child,” one mother said again, without hesitation.
A trans charity in Scotland has labelled the ban on trans women using female toilets in Scottish parliament an “unworkable” decision which will prevent trans folks “from participating in Scottish democracy”.
Following the UK Supreme Court ruling that the definition of ‘sex’ in the 2010 Equality Act refers to ‘biology’, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) – which oversees accommodation at Holyrood – decided that as of Monday (12 May) use of “all facilities designated as male or female” will be based on “biological sex” to be “in line with the Supreme Court judgment”.
Alongside designating single-sex spaces as solely based on biology, gender neutral facilities, open to anyone, will also be installed in Holyrood.
Presiding officer Alison Johnstone said: “As Scotland’s legislature, it is vital that the Parliament fulfils its legal responsibilities.
“Our officials therefore took immediate steps following the publication of the judgment to review it in detail and to consider its implications for services and facilities at Holyrood.”
Johnstone said it was important to make this change now “not only to ensure we fulfil our legal responsibilities, but to give clarity to all those using the building” and ensure “confidence, privacy and dignity” for both staff and visitors.
In response, Scottish Trans and Equality Network wrote a letter to the SPCB condemning the decision as “rushed” and “unworkable” as well as one which will “exclude trans people from participating in Scottish democracy, whether as staff or as visitors to the Parliament”.
The letter went on to say the change will “make trans people feel significantly less welcome at Parliament”.
Trans people already avoid public toilets frequently – 80% of trans people have avoided them due to fear of being harassed, being read as trans, or being outed. Policies to restrict the use of toilets on the basis of “biological sex” and/or to insist that trans people must use separate, segregated facilities from others will make this worse,” the letter reads.
You may like to watch
“Trans people have been using toilets in line with our gender identities across Scotland and the UK for decades. Changes to policy and practice to restrict trans people’s access to facilities on the basis of our “biological sex” after the Supreme Court judgment will profoundly change trans people’s ability to participate in public life as who we truly are.”
It adds: “We cannot understand why this decision has been described as one that will bring “confidence, privacy and dignity” to everyone. It will not do so for trans people. It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland’s democracy.”
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said, as quoted by The Independent: “Holyrood provides a wide range of facilities so that it is an inclusive and welcoming space for all.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling had an immediate effect in law and after careful consideration the SPCB announced interim steps to ensure it fulfils its legal responsibilities.
“This included taking into account EHRC’s interim update to organisations.”
Organisers of four major Pride events in the UK have jointly banned all political parties, including Labour, from its Pride events this year.
Acting in solidarity with the trans community, organisers of Pride events in Birmingham, Brighton, London, and Manchester collectively said they would be “suspending political party participation” from this year’s Pride events unless the needs of trans people are urgently addressed.
In a joint public press release, organisations Birmingham Pride, Brighton Pride, Pride in London, and Manchester Pride, said they will not “stand by as the dignity, safety, and humanity of our trans siblings are debated, delayed, or denied.”
Organisers said the decision was based largely on the political reaction to a UK Supreme Court ruling, which argued the 2010 Equality Act’s definition of women and sex refers to “biological women” and “biological sex.”
A spokesperson speaking on behalf of the organisations said that the ruling underscores an “urgent need for immediate action,” adding that they plan to “stand firmer, louder, and prouder in demanding change that protects and uplifts trans lives.”
“This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a direct call for accountability and a refusal to platform those who have not protected our rights,” they continued. “We demand real commitments and measurable progress. “
Pressure for Pride organisations to ban Labour and similarly anti-trans parties from their marches and events came after prime minister Sir Kier Starmer said he was “really pleased” at the Supreme Court ruling and believed it had provided “much needed clarity.”
Asked whether he still believes trans women are women and trans men are men, a spokesperson for Starmer said: “No.“
You may like to watch
The ruling also prompted the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to publish interim guidance which calls for the banning of trans people from all gendered public restrooms.
While the guidance is not legally enforceable, the EHRC’s position as an advisory board on human rights laws in the UK suggest it could be used to justify future anti-trans legislation.
LGBT+ Labour march at a Pride event with leader Keir Starmer. (AFP via Getty Images/NIKLAS HALLE’N)
An open letter published by the Trans Safety Network and signed by over 140 LGBTQ+ organisations argued that Pride organisers have a duty to “take a stand” against Labour’s and anti-trans political parties’ continued “transphobia” by barring all political parties from future events.
‘This is the minimum. Anything less is not allyship’, says Pride organisers
Echoing calls from Trans Safety Network, the organisers wrote that political parties need to stand “unequivocally with every member of the LGBTQ+ community,” not just part of it.
The organisations jointly called for political parties to implement protections for trans people under the Equality Act, improve access to NHS gender-affirming healthcare, reform the Gender Recognition Act so that Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) are easier to obtain, and to issue “sustainable funding” for trans-led services in the UK.
“This is the minimum. Anything less is not allyship, it is abandonment,” the spokesperson continued. “To those in power: when you demonstrate true solidarity and tangible commitment to trans rights, we will stand with you.
“Until then, we will continue to speak truth to power and fight for a future where every trans person can live safely, freely, and proudly.”
Keir Starmer has been urged to discuss the future of trans rights legislation in the UK with several LGBTQ+ charities. (Getty)
As pressure on Labour to reverse much of its anti-trans commitments, several LGBTQ+ charities pleaded with the prime minister to schedule a meeting with representatives to discuss the rise of transphobia in the UK.
14 organisations, including Stonewall, Scottish Trans, the LGBT Consortium, and others, urged the prime minister to speak with the charities to help reverse the “confusion” that the Supreme Court ruling had caused.
The letter, shared by The Guardian, also criticised the EHRC’s interim guidance, saying that it amounts to “significant overreach.”
A nonbinary person in Brazil has been granted official documents with a neutral gender marker for the first time in a historic and unanimous court victory.
The case involves a person who originally requested to be recognized as male on their official documents after they started hormone replacement therapy, but they later regretted making this decision and appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice in Brasilia. The person’s name has not been published in the media.
A panel of five judges at the court ruled in their favor, with Judge Nancy Andrighi writing in her ruling: “This human being must be suffering greatly. To undergo surgery, take hormones, become what she thought would be good for her and then realize it was not the case.”
The case is currently sealed, but it represents the first time that someone in Brazil has been able to get gender neutral official documents in the country, according to the AP.
