A “warm-hearted” London-based scientist was lured on Grindr before being killed and dismembered, police in Colombia have said.
Alessandro Coatti, 38, was last seen leaving his hostel in Santa Marta on 4 April.
The microbiologist, who had recently left his role at the Royal Society of Biology (RSB) after eight years as a senior policy officer, had told staff at his hostel that he wanted to learn about the local flora and fauna.
On 6 April, Coatti’s head, hands and feet were found in a suitcase near the Sierra Nevada Stadium. His other body parts were found the following day in a suitcase by the Minuto de Dios Bridge, the day after his legs were found a coffee bag in the Villa Betal neighbourhood.
Police, who initially thought Coatti’s death could have been linked to a violent war between two rival gangs in the city, now believe he was lured to his death by a group of thieves who target their victims on Grindr.
A coroner determined that he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
‘Loved by everyone he worked with’
The RSB remembered Coatti, who was also known as Ale, as someone who was “funny, warm, intelligent” and “loved by everyone he worked with”.
Tribute adds that he “will be deeply missed by all who knew and worked with him”.
A memorial page, organised for Coatti by RSB, features a memory wall of comments from people who knew him.
You may like to watch
One person wrote that he was a “delightful person toward with” and “warm-hearted”.
Another wrote: “He was knowledgeable, insightful and brought a warmth and humour to his role. Ale often had a mischievous twinkle in his eye before saying something that made me laugh.”
“Words cannot adequately express the profound sorrow I feel for a beautiful life cut so short,” someone else shared on the page.
Speaking to The Daily Mail, local human rights activist Vera Salazar said there have been 13 similar murders in the region in the last year.
In a statement posted on X, Santa Marta mayor Carlos Pinedo Cuello offered a reward of 50 million pesosfor information in the case.
The post was captioned: “The Santa Marta District Mayor’s Office emphatically rejects any act of violence and reiterates its commitment to defending public space and the safety of public officials who work towards a more orderly and safer Santa Marta for everyone.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Grindr has been linked to the death or harm of an LGBTQ+ individual. Last year, a 20-year-old was found guilty of bludgeoning an army veteran he met though Grindr to death with a hammer, as well as the attempted murder of another man he met on the gay app.
A Grindr spokesperson has previously told The Guardian that the company was aware of attempts to misuse its service but said they worked hard to ensure “a safe and authentic environment, free of harmful and fake accounts”.
In a major victory for lesbian couples, Italy’s top court ruled this week that the same-sex partners of women who conceive via in vitro fertilization (IVF) have the right to be legally recognized as their children’s parents.
As Reuters reports, in a ruling announced on Thursday, May 22, Italy’s Constitutional Court found that it is unconstitutional to deny legal recognition to the nonbiological mother of children conceived abroad via IVF. Doing so, the court said, violates the children of lesbian couples’ rights to care, education, and emotional continuity from both parents.
Prior to the court’s decision, a 2004 law prevented the nonbiological mom in a same-sex couple from being registered as their child’s parent. But as the judges noted in their decision, confusion over the 2004 law has led to a patchwork of interpretations across Italy, with some mayors allowing nonbiological moms to be listed as parents on their children’s birth certificates while others only list the birth mothers.
“These divergent outcomes reflect a shifting social reality to which the legislature has yet to respond,” the judges wrote, according to Reuters.
In 2023, under the leadership of far-right, anti-LGBTQ+ Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Interior Ministry began cracking down on cities that allowed both members of same-sex couples to be listed as “parents”— as opposed to “mother” and “father” — on their children’s birth registrations.
Thursday’s ruling, which strikes down part of the 2004 law, was hailed as “historic” by LGBTQ+ activists. Marilena Grassadonia, an advocate with the Italian Left opposition party, told Reuters that the decision “restores dignity and serenity to the many rainbow families who live in our country.”
However, the ruling did not extend the right to IVF treatment to single women or women in same-sex relationships. Under Italian law, only married heterosexual couples have the right to access medically assisted reproduction treatments like IVF. The court’s ruling only applies to women who seek IVF treatment abroad.
While same-sex civil unions have been legal in Italy since 2016, same-sex couples do not have the right to adopt, thanks in part to opposition from the Catholic Church. Surrogacy remains illegal as well, and restrictions preventing the adoption of “stepchildren” by nonbiological parents present major hurdles for gay fathers seeking to adopt children conceived via surrogacy abroad.
However, as Agence France-Presse reports, a court in northern Italy also ruled Thursday in favor of a nonbiological father’s right to adopt his child conceived abroad via surrogacy.
Chiara Soldatini, a lesbian mother who moved from Italy to Spain last year, celebrated the Constitutional Court’s decision. “I am happy no one will now be able to challenge the fact our son is our son,” she told Agence France-Presse. However, she noted that she would “only uncork the champagne when all those families with two dads can toast with me.”
Ugandan authorities have perpetrated widespread discrimination and violence against LGBT people in the two years since the Anti-Homosexuality Act became law.
The Ugandan authorities have spread misinformation and hatred against LGBT people, making existing discrimination even worse.
The Ugandan authorities should end their crackdown on LGBT people, repeal the bill, and introduce legislation barring discrimination and promoting equality.
(Nairobi, May 26, 2025) – Ugandan authorities have perpetrated widespread discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, their families, and their supporters in the two years since the Anti-Homosexuality Act was enacted on May 26, 2023, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 69-page report, “‘They’re Putting Our Lives at Risk’: How Uganda’s Anti-LGBT Climate Unleashes Abuse,” documents the actions by Ugandan parliament members, government institutions, and other authorities that culminated in the enactment of the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act. Human Rights Watch found that the law has ramped up already existing abuse and discrimination against LGBT people to unprecedented heights. They also detailed the rights violations enabled by the law and the devastating impact it has had on the lives of LGBT people, activists, allies, and their families in Uganda.
“For the last two years, LGBT Ugandans have suffered a range of abuses because of the government’s willful decision to legislate hate against them,” said Oryem Nyeko, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Ugandan authorities need to urgently improve this environment, which enables a wide range of human rights violations and puts countless Ugandans at serious risk of abuse.”
During the months leading up to and following the law being passed, the Ugandan authorities, including high-profile political and government figures, used traditional and social media to spread misinformation and hatred against LGBT people, leading to an uptick in attacks and harassment against LGBT people and LGBT rights groups.
Researchers interviewed 59 people, including LGBT people, family members, representatives of LGBT rights organizations, activists, journalists, and lawmakers between August 2022 and April 2025. They reviewed the parliamentary records of the house debates about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, speeches by government figures and religious leaders, and media reporting in the lead-up to the passage of the bill.
Human Rights Watch found that in the lead-up to, and since the enactment of, the Anti-Homosexuality Act, the government has deliberately negatively shaped the public discourse about LGBT people in Uganda. This has encouraged attacks and harassment of individuals and independent organizations perceived as supportive of LGBT rights.
During this period, the authorities arbitrarily arrested and detained LGBT people, used entrapment via social media and dating apps, and extorted money from LGBT people in exchange for releasing them from police custody. LGBT people told Human Rights Watch they faced a range of physical attacks and online harassment because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or their LGBT rights activism. Many victims said they reported these attacks to the police, who took no discernible action.
The authorities, primarily the National Bureau for Non-Governmental Organizations and the police, also led a crackdown against LGBT rights groups, shutting down organizations that provide vital legal, sexual, and mental health services, arresting and detaining their staff, and in some cases seizing equipment and soliciting bribes from their staff.
Many of the people Human Rights Watch interviewed said that while violence targeting LGBT people and anti-LGBT rhetoric existed well before the law was introduced, the hostility intensified during its adoption and since.
One LGBT rights activist said: “Before the bill was tabled [in February 2023], you would receive calls once in a while, where someone would say: ‘We know what you are doing.’… But when they started tabling the bill, that is when these calls started becoming a lot. Where people would keep on calling you [saying]: ‘We know where you stay. We know what you do.’”
On April 3, 2024, the Constitutional Court upheld most provisions of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, after a cross-section of human rights activists challenged the law on the grounds that it violates fundamental rights guaranteed in Uganda’s constitution. The court did, however, strike down sections that restricted healthcare access for LGBT people, criminalized renting premises to LGBT people, and created an obligation to report alleged acts of homosexuality.
Human Rights Watch wrote to the director of public prosecutions; the inspector general of police; the minister of health; the minister of information, communications technology, and national guidance; and the executive director of the Uganda Communications Commission, to provide a summary of research findings and to request information. None responded.
Ugandan authorities should end their clampdown on LGBT rights groups, refrain from engaging in anti-LGBT rhetoric and hate speech, and ensure that those responsible for incitement to hatred and other human rights abuses and crimes against LGBT people are held to account, Human Rights Watch said.
The government should repeal the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act and the Penal Code provisions criminalizing consensual same-sex conduct between adults. It should introduce comprehensive equality and nondiscrimination legislation that would protect everyone from violence and discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
“The state-sanctioned bigotry and discrimination that has only become more entrenched in Uganda over the past two years has no place in a society that upholds human rights and the rule of law,” Nyeko said. “Uganda should end its assault on LGBT people and choose a future of dignity, equality, and freedom for all those who live there.”
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.
