Rob Jetten’s achievement in dragging his socially liberal D66 party from fifth place to the top of Dutch politics in less than two years has been extraordinary. But politically, all the stars were perfectly aligned for the 38-year-old to do so. The result of Wednesday’s election is too close to call, with Jetten vying with anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders for the most seats in parliament.
If his party does come top, Rob Jetten could become the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister. Jetten has not made his private life part of his political identity, but five years ago he posted a video in which he read out a long list of homophobic messages from his phone, to prove why an international day against homophobia was important. Jetten is now engaged to Argentine hockey player, Nicolás Keenan, and they are due to marry next year.
A government proposal would pave the way to bring criminal charges against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Türkiye, one of the most alarming rollbacks of rights in decades, Human Rights Watch said today. The proposal should be immediately withdrawn.
A draft of the omnibus reform law, referred to as the 11th Judicial Package, was leaked to the media, revealing plans to amend the Turkish penal code and civil code with new articles that threaten the rights of LGBT people. One would criminalize behavior deemed “contrary to biological sex and general morality,” including its so-called “promotion.” Another would sharply restrict access to gender-affirming health care, raising the minimum age to 25 and imposing onerous eligibility conditions. A third would allow for criminal charges against both transgender people and medical professionals who provide care outside these new limits.
“Bringing criminal charges against people for their gender identity or sexual orientation is a profound violation of human dignity and amounts to state-sanctioned oppression,” said Hugh Willamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Turkish government should drop plans to introduce these amendments, which blatantly violate international law and would leave LGBT people in constant fear of arrest and prosecution.”
The draft omnibus law, which also includes criminal justice changes, such as longer prison sentences for children and removal of online content allegedly violating privacy, has emerged in Türkiye’s increasingly conservative and authoritarian political climate. The justification for the proposed anti-LGBT amendments is based on vague claims to protect “the family” and “public morals,” a framing the Erdoğan government has repeatedly employed in recent years to legitimize stigmatizing and excluding LGBT people and to undercut women’s protection and rights.
One amendment to article 225 of the penal code (on “indecent acts”), which uses vague and broad language, provides that anyone who “engages in attitudes or behaviors contrary to biological sex and general morality, or who openly encourages, praises, or promotes such attitudes or behaviors” would face up to three years in prison.
The amendment would also potentially allow criminal charges against civil society organizations supporting sexual and gender minorities and promoting their rights, and against media outlets and journalists for reporting on issues relating to gender identity and sexual orientation.
This amendment also would allow for criminal charges for anyone who takes part in a same-sex engagement or marriage ceremony with penalties of up to four years in prison. Turkish law does not currently allow for same-sex marriage, so any such ceremonies are, by definition, symbolic and private.
Another amendment would change article 40 of the civil code on “Changing Sex,” raising the minimum age for gender-affirming health care including surgery from 18 to 25, mandating permanent infertility for such procedures, and requiring multiple evaluations from government-approved hospitals. Imposing arbitrary age cutoffs for health care and forcing trans people to sacrifice their reproductive capacity are grave violations of their bodily autonomy, health, and equality before the law.
The leaked draft also includes penal code amendments to punish healthcare professionals who perform gender-affirming medical intervention in violation of the proposals with fines and up to seven years in prison. Transgender people receiving medically necessary care deemed illegal under the amendments could be punished with up to three years in prison. By allowing criminal charges against both potential medical providers and patients, the law would force treatment into dangerous and unregulated underground settings, heightening the risks of exploitation, medical complications, and irreversible harm, Human Rights Watch said.
The proposed prison sentences would also make it possible for courts to place people in pretrial detention pending an investigation.
Fifteen LGBT groups in Türkiye have expressed strong concerns about the threat the amendments pose to their fundamental freedoms, right to equality before the law, and participation in a democratic society. In a statement, the Turkish Medical Association emphasized that granting LGBT people access to necessary healthcare services should never be criminalized and highlighted that the proposal violates human rights.
Under international human rights law governments have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of LGBT people and cannot invoke simple moral disapproval as justification to deny their rights, or resort to discrimination against them, far less criminal charges. Any restrictions on rights must have a legitimate purpose and be established in law, in a manner that is precise, accessible, and foreseeable, so that individuals can both conform with the law and know the precise conduct that will bring them in conflict with the law.
The measures to achieve the purported purpose of the restrictions, such as to protect “public morals” or “the family,” must be established as necessary, proportionate, and nondiscriminatory. Türkiye is a party to a several treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which require these fundamental legal standards.
The European Court of Human Rights, whose judgments are binding on Türkiye, has already made clear in the leading judgment of Bayev and others v Russia that the kind of legislative proposals in the leaked draft law are entirely incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In recalling its precedent of refusing to uphold “policies and decisions which embody a predisposed bias” on the part of a sexual majority against a sexual minority, the court stated that these types of laws concern both facets of the very existence and identity of individuals and the essence of the right to freedom of expression, and cannot be justified as necessary to protect morals, the family, or children.
The right to freedom of expression as protected under international law includes the right to seek and receive information and ideas of all kinds including “information on subjects dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity.”
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights protects the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and obligates governments to ensure the right to health without discrimination, including on the basis of one’s sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The European Union and Council of Europe and their member states should use all diplomatic and political channels to ensure this regressive draft law, which would put LGBT people in Türkiye in grave danger, is abandoned.” Williamson said. “This is a defining test of Türkiye’s respect for rule of law and fundamental democratic principles on rights and equality.”
This week Brazil is hosting the 4th National Conference on the Rights of LGBTQIA+ People, an ambitious effort to chart new directions for public policy on equality and inclusion. Beyond its national scope, the conference underscores Brazil’s reemergence as a key voice in global equality debates. And as many countries, including in the Global North, roll back support of LGBTQIA+ rights, the conference shows how the Global South can lead in renewing commitment to equality and human rights.
The conference seeks to convene government, civil society, and grassroots actors from across Brazil and shape a new National Plan for the Promotion of Human Rights and Citizenship of LGBTQIA+ People. Discussions are organized around themes of confronting violence, promoting decent work and income generation, advancing intersectionality and internationalization, and adopting a national policy on the rights of LGBTQIA+ people. Together, they reflect a comprehensive vision that links democracy, participation, and equality, and are expected to set the stage for renewed federal commitments and stronger policy implementation in the years ahead.
The first edition of the conference, held in 2008 under the theme “Human Rights and Public Policies: The Path to Ensure the Citizenship of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Travestis, and Transexuals,” was groundbreaking in embedding the rights of LGBTQIA+ people within Brazil’s broader social policy agenda. The second and third editions followed in 2011 and 2016. Former Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to hold the conference, but it never happened. His successor President Jair Bolsonaro revoked the decree and adopted openly hostile rhetoric toward LGBTQIA+ populations.
The conference’s return comes at a pivotal moment. Violence against LGBTQIA+ people remains alarmingly high in Brazil, particularly against trans and gender-diverse people. Legal protections are robust, but enforcement remains a challenge. Meanwhile, lawmakers and gender-critical social movements continue to threaten hard-won rights, including around gender and sexuality educationand gender-affirming care.
The conference can also serve as a model and galvanize other Latin American countries to strengthen their own participation, partnerships, and normative frameworks on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics.
But advancing policy frameworks is only the beginning. Ensuring effective implementation, holding institutions accountable, and translating conference resolutions into equality demand sustained political will and resourcing. Brazil’s renewed engagement offers hope that transformative, inclusive policymaking in the Global South can shape not only national futures but also support the global struggle for human rights.
Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people are rising around the world as politicians target them through legislation and rhetoric.
Anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes have increased in the past five years across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe, according to a new report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, with transgender and gender nonconforming people particularly affected. The spike may in part be attributed to world governments passing anti-LGBTQ+ policies, which has “escalated internationally in tandem with political rhetoric.”
Some of the high profile incidents cited in the report include the mass shooting at the LGBTQ+ bar Club Q in Colorado that left five dead, the 2023 murder of a woman in California who was not LGBTQ+ because she flew a rainbow flag in her store, and the arrests of 20 members of the white supremacist group Patriot Front in 2023 who intended to riot at a Pride event in Idaho.
“These threats come from across the spectrum of ideological extremism, but frequently from groups that also pose a threat to the state and are openly opposed to democratic norms,” the report notes.
In the U.S., hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people remained high despite an overall decrease in violent crime. Out of 11,323 single-bias incidents the FBI reported in 2024, 2,278 (17.2 percent) were based on sexual orientation and 527 (4.1 percent) were based on gender identity. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation were the third-largest category, with crimes based on race, ethnicity, or ancestry being first and religiously motivated crimes second. Gender identity bias was the fourth-largest category.
Threats and harassment against school board officials in the U.S. also increased by 170 percent from the previous year in November, 2024 to April, 2025, the ISD report notes. Many of these threats were explicitly motivated by an anti-LGBTQ+ bias, with the perpetrators objecting to age appropriate queer books or content in public schools.
“LGBTQ+ individuals, who gained unprecedented civil rights in previous decades, are now increasingly targeted by online and offline hate, political rhetoric, censorship and legislation,” the report states. “A series of actions have sought to exclude LGBTQ+ people and culture from public life, ranging from book bans to a spread of legislation restricting trans people. In tandem, terror attacks (or the threat of terror attacks), violent extremist activity, and hate crimes targeting LGBTQ+ individuals have increased or remained consistently high since 2020.”
New research has revealed that transphobia in the UK has left 84 per cent of trans people feeling unsafe.
The YouGov poll, commissioned by the Good Law Project and published last week, revealed that almost two-thirds of transgender and non-binary people in the country had been verbally abused in public, and almost 25 per cent had suffered physical violence.
Fifty-nine per cent of trans people also reported facing barriers in accessing general NHS care.
Trans people’s right to access public spaces has become a major issue in the UK. (Getty)
Conducted in the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s judgement which determined that the 2010 Equality Act’s definition of a woman related to biological sex only, the poll also asked about key issues facing trans people in the UK such as access to public facilities. More than half of those who responded said they had difficulty going into changing rooms, while 49 per cent said the same about using public toilets.
Younger trans people were more found to be more likely to fear accessing certain spaces, with 81 per cent saying they found entering changing rooms difficult.
Respondents were also asked to rate the trustworthiness of UK institutions and political parties. The police were the least trusted, with 76 per cent saying they don’t trust them very much or at all.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been accused of “deeply disturbing” actions, was found to be distrusted by 66 per cent of transgender men and women. The UK’s human rights regulator has submitted guidance on public facilities provision based on proposed updates which call for the exclusion of trans people from facilities consistent with their gender identity.
Reform UK was the least-trusted political party among trans people, with 98 per cent expressing some or total distrust. Conservatives (96 per cent) and Labour(91 per cent) were not far behind.
Trans people facing ‘abject terror’ in UK, activists claim
Good Law Project’s trans rights lead, Jess O’Thomson, said the poll revealed the stark reality in the UK, with people living in “abject terror”.
You may like to watch
Elaborating, O’Thomson, said: “They are afraid of being harassed, outed and discriminated against. It is appalling that nearly half of trans people report they are now finding basic toilet access difficult, despite the EHRC’s claims that they are protecting people.
“The fact that only 14 per cent of trans people feel safe in this country represents a devastating humanitarian crisis.”
Earlier this month, the European commissioner for human rights, Michael O’Flaherty, expressed concern regarding potential anti-trans laws in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. Any “blanket practices or policies” excluding trans people from gendered spaces would pose significant breaches to international human rights laws, he said.
O’Flaherty recommended drafting “clear guidance on how inclusion of trans people can be achieved across all areas” and how “exclusion can be minimised to situations in which this would be strictly necessary and proportionate, in line with well-established human rights principles.”
Brazil has launched an AI platform that continually scans the internet and collects statements that it considers disinformation or hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community, which can then be used to prosecute offenders, Brazilian news site GP1 reported.
The offense falls under Brazil’s hate crime law, which in 2019 expanded to include homophobia and transphobia, and threatens prison time for the convicted. With blowback from conservative circles, it tests what governments and the public consider acceptable use of the technology.
The independent left-winger secured 63 per cent of the first-preference votes last week, and will become the Republic of Ireland’s 10th head of state, succeeding Michael D Higgins, who has served the maximum-allowed two terms in office. The result was announced from Dublin Castle.
Speaking in Irish and English, Connolly said: “I will be a voice for peace, a voice that builds on our policy of neutrality, a voice that articulates the existential threat posed by climate change.”
She also promised to advocate for those who have no voice. “Our public and democracy needs constructive questioning. Together, we can shape a new republic that values everybody, that values and champions diversity and that takes confidence in our own identity.”
Catherine Connolly supported LGBTQ+ marriage equality
Although the president’s post is mainly ceremonial, Connolly has been an advocate for reproductive rights, social justice and neutrality and pledged to fight “racism, bigotry and violence”, which, she said, had “no place in our society”.
A statement on her website said: “I campaigned for marriage equality in Galway and have spoken out in Dáil [the lower house of the Irish parliament] for LGBTQ+ rights abroad and at home, including in support of the Gender Recognition Act and against conversion therapy. Inciting fear and hatred towards the LGBTQIA community is abhorrent.”
Talking about the legislation, she said: “It aims to provide for the disregarding of certain criminal convictions that arose… all through the 19th century and, indeed, one act going back to the 17th century, as well as the Common Law. It had nothing to do with justice or fairness. It was homophobia at its worst and a set of values that had nothing to do with love between two people.
“It is high time we got rid of it. We are not only recognising the injustice but actually setting up a process that will allow us to undo that injustice and to finally bring fairness.”
You may like to watch
“We need an inclusive society”
The new president has also voiced her support for the trans and non-binary community.
Asked where she stands on “gender ideology”, she responded: “We need an inclusive society. We don’t need division, we don’t need language to divide.
“I worked as a clinical psychologist, and trained in England. I know the pain and suffering someone goes through when they feel that they’re not in the right gender. I know that’s a painful, painful process and it’s something that I won’t comment on lightly.
“But I will say that, prior to my time and it was a good act, the government passed the Gender Recognition Act, and it’s law that someone can decide to change their gender and register accordingly, over 18 years of age.”
King Charles III has unveiled a memorial to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender military personnel after a decades-long campaign against a ban on being gay in the armed forces. In his first official engagement in support of the LGBT+ community, the King visited the sculpture, named “an opened letter”, at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire.
The memorial is dedicated to those from the LGBT+ community now serving in the forces, as well as those who served at a time when it was illegal to be gay in the military. During the ban, which lasted until the year 2000, those who were gay – or were perceived to be – faced intrusive investigations, dismissal and in some cases imprisonment.
Affected veterans, many of whom attended the ceremony on Monday, said the monument signified “closure” after years of campaigning first to change the law, and then to push the government to make reparations.
Last month, Hong Kong’s opposition-free Legislative Council overwhelmingly voted down a government-sponsored bill that would have partially recognized same-sex unions in the Chinese territory.
The bill, which would have granted limited rights to same-sex couples, was a response to a 2023 order by Hong Kong’s top court that gave the government until Oct. 27, 2025, to establish an alternative framework for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, such as registered civil partnerships or civil unions.
Marriage equality remains a work in progress in Asia, with only three jurisdictions — Taiwan, Nepal and Thailand — having fully legalized same-sex marriage. A 2023 survey of Hong Kong residents by the Chinese University of Hong Kong found that same-sex marriage was supported by about 60% of respondents.
Though the Hong Kong legislation fell far short of fully recognizing same-sex marriage, equality campaigners said it still would have been a step forward for the international financial hub, whose global image has suffered greatly after mass anti-government protests, severe pandemic restrictions and a crackdown on dissent.
However, 71 out of 86 lawmakers opposed the bill, with some blasting it as an attack on marriage and traditional Chinese values.
The veto marked the legislature’s first big split with the government since Beijing’s “patriots-only” electoral reform in 2021, which aimed to ensure “consistent” and “strong” legislative support for the executive after the 2019 protests. The changes have essentially shut out the pro-democracy lawmakers who traditionally challenged the government.
The Hong Kong government said it was “disappointed” by the veto but that it would respect the legislature’s decision and turn to administrative means to protect the rights of gay couples. The details of its next steps are not immediately clear.
‘No enthusiasm’
Hong Kong, a city of 7.5 million people, had been making some progress on LGBTQ rights through a string of court victories.
In 2023, Hong Kong’s top court ruled that transgender people could change their gender on their official identity cards without undergoing full sex reassignment surgery. In July, a Hong Kong court ruled that transgender people have the right to use public toilets in line with their affirmed genders.
And last month, a Hong Kong judge ruled in favor of a lesbian couple who wanted to include both mothers’ names on their son’s birth certificate.
But there have also been setbacks as the space for activism in Hong Kong has diminished. Pink Dot, the city’s largest LGBTQ event, said last month that it was holding its 2025 edition online after losing its usual venue with no explanation.
The case that prompted the same-sex marriage legislation was brought in 2018 by Jimmy Sham, a leading local gay rights activist who took the government to the Court of Final Appeal to have his overseas same-sex marriage recognized.
Gay rights activist Jimmy Sham in front of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong in August.Chan Long Hei / AP
The 2023 court ruling in his favor came while Sham, 38, one of 47 pro-democracy figures arrested in 2021 under a Beijing-imposed national security law, was on trial on subversion charges. Sham, who like most of the defendants pleaded guilty, was released from prison in May after serving more than four years.
To comply with the landmark ruling, the Hong Kong government proposed a mechanism in July by which gay couples could visit their partners in the hospital, access their medical records and make decisions about organ donation and funeral arrangements. It did not address parental or adoption rights.
The protections also would have applied only to same-sex couples who had registered their partnerships outside Hong Kong, a provision that advocacy groups criticized as discriminatory.
Yet the proposal met with strong objections from lawmakers, who cited a “lack of social consensus” in Hong Kong on the “highly controversial” subject of same-sex partnership.
They argued that the bill, even though it did not legalize gay marriage, would still lead to a “collapse of traditional family ethics and values” if passed.
LGBTQ couples at a mass wedding in Hong Kong in 2024, which a U.S. pastor performed online.Peter Parks / AFP via Getty Images file
“Why stir up trouble and break tradition for a small group, throwing the whole society into turmoil?” said lawmaker Junius Ho, a vocal opponent of LGBTQ rights.
Sham said that although the veto was a “great pity,” he hoped authorities would relaunch the legislative process.
“The question is whether those in power have the courage and wisdom to resolve differences and seek consensus,” he wrote in a Facebook post.
Hong Kong officials said the government had made its “best effort” to secure support from the legislature, basing the proposal on what they deemed “societal common ground.”
However, John Burns, an emeritus professor at the University of Hong Kong who specializes in the city’s politics and governance, said he saw “no enthusiasm” from the government to create an alternative framework for recognizing same-sex partnerships.
After being forced into action by the court, Burns said, the Hong Kong government “waited until virtually the last possible moment” before proposing a “minimalist bill.”
“They had many opportunities to fix this, and they sat on their hands and looked at the sky,” he added.
What’s next
The Chinese central government and pro-Beijing lawmakers, who have denied any erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, said the veto would not create a constitutional crisis but rather showcased the checks and balances of Hong Kong’s governance.
But legal experts said the government still has to find a way to comply with the court order.
“The legislature rushed through this decision,” said Azan Marwah, a Hong Kong barrister specializing in public law and family litigation.
He said lawmakers should have proposed and debated amendments to the bill if they had concerns.
“But instead of doing that, they simply abdicated their responsibility,” Marwah said. “Now, what will the court do? To be really frank with you, I don’t know.”
The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, which proposed the failed legislation, did not respond to a request for comment.
The lack of legal protections for same-sex couples may lead to a “big loss” of local or foreign talent in Hong Kong, as many multinational companies value diversity and equality, said Marie Pang, deputy secretary-general of the centrist political party Third Side.
“It would directly undermine Hong Kong’s competitiveness as an international city, especially when other regions in Asia already have relevant systems in place,” Pang said.
Amid the uncertainty, many people in Hong Kong’s LGBTQ community are continuing to look forward.
The campaign for equality and inclusion is more than legal victories, said Louis Ng, a law student and gay rights advocate.
“Real change requires open communication and engagement with all sides. Only then may we persuade the strong opponents,” Ng said. “It all takes time and effort.”
This month, the European Commission released its LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy 2026–2030, a renewed and ambitious step in the European Union’s commitment to equality, inclusion, and human rights. Building on the 2020–2025 framework, it reaffirms the goal of making “a Union of Equality” a lived reality, while confronting the surge in anti-LGBTIQ rhetoric and violence across Europe and beyond.
The strategy aims to strengthen the EU’s legal and policy framework against discrimination, calling for the full implementation of the Equal Treatment Directive and stronger safeguards against hate speech, hate crimes, and “conversion practices.” It also reinforces commitments to inclusive education, equitable health care, and recognition of diverse families across member states.
The strategy comes at another critical juncture: Within the EU, crackdowns on LGBTIQ+ rights in countries including Hungary,Slovakia, and Bulgaria highlight the EU’s mixed record and the need for more concerted action by the commission to hold member states accountable. These trends mirror a global backlash marked by the spread of anti-LGBTIQ+ and anti-gender narratives, the criminalization of same-sex relations, and the targeting of transgender people. The new EU strategy seeks to anchor LGBTIQ+ equality as essential to democratic resilience, linking internal coherence with external credibility.
Nonetheless, challenges persist. Implementation will depend heavily on member states’ political will, and enforcement mechanisms remain limited. Moreover, while external funding is vital, ensuring that it reaches grassroots actors in repressive contexts will require greater flexibility and direct-access mechanisms.
Overall, the LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy 2026–2030 is a reaffirmation of the EU’s aspiration to be a global human rights leader. It sends a clear message: protecting LGBTIQ+ rights is central to democracy, social justice, and the EU’s identity at home and abroad. The EU and its member states should honor the ambitions articulated in the strategy in political and financial decisions both domestically and internationally.
