Credit: Ryan Brown/UN Women

By Inés M. Pousadela and Samuel King
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay / BRUSSELS, Belgium, Mar 30 2026 (IPS)

On 19 March, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) did something unprecedented in its eight-decade history: it held a vote. The Trump administration, having spent two weeks attempting to defer, amend and ultimately block the session’s main outcome document, known as the agreed conclusions, cast the only vote against its adoption. That dissenting vote said a lot, as it came from the world’s most powerful government, backed by financial leverage, bilateral reach and a network of anti-rights states and organisations that are making inroads at many levels.

Established in 1946, the CSW brings together 45 states each year to negotiate commitments that, while not legally binding, shape domestic legislation, set international norms and signal the direction of political will. Civil society plays an important role in it: the NGO Committee on the Status of Women coordinates thousands of organisations, from large international bodies to grassroots groups, with the aim of ensuring those most affected by policy have a seat at the table. For several decades, this has been the closest thing the world has to a dedicated annual intergovernmental negotiation on women’s rights.

The assault on gender equality

The Trump administration arrived at CSW70 having withdrawn from UN Women in January and from its Executive Board in February, citing opposition to what it calls ‘gender ideology’. It submitted eight amendments targeting language on reproductive health. When these didn’t succeed, it attempted to defer or withdraw the conclusions entirely. When that too failed, it voted against adoption and tabled a separate resolution seeking to impose a restrictive definition of gender, effectively attempting to rewrite 30 years of carefully negotiated commitments. Its resolution was blocked.

At the Munich Security Conference in February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defined western civilisation as bound together by Christian faith, shared ancestry and cultural heritage, an ideological approach that treats women’s equality, reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ rights not as human rights but ideological impositions to be rejected. The Trump administration’s financial muscle is now the delivery mechanism for this worldview.

Defunding as a weapon

The immediate material crisis at CSW70 was the collapse of funding. The elimination of 90 per cent of USAID contracts wiped out US$60 billion in foreign aid. The USA is instead negotiating bilateral deals with 71 countries under its ‘America First’ global health strategy, extending its global gag rule not just to civil society organisations but to recipient governments. This means any institution that receives US health funding must certify that neither it nor any organisation it works with promotes or provides abortion.

Funding will now flow through faith-based groups, with ultra-conservative Christian organisations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Watch International set to benefit, having spent years building networks across Africa, Asia and Latin America. They use the language of family values, parental rights and national sovereignty to consolidate conservative influence over laws affecting women, LGBTQI+ people and young people. In many countries, they already have direct access to governments while progressive organisations are routinely excluded.

With threats intensifying, the UN is signalling retreat. A proposal under the UN80 cost-cutting initiative to merge UN Women with the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has alarmed civil society worldwide. The stated rationale is efficiency, but there’s little overlap between the two agencies and their combined budgets make up a small part of the UN’s overall spending, suggesting savings would be modest. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the targeting of these organisations reflects the increasing contestation of their rights-based mandates rather than any logic of organisational efficiency.

Over 500 civil society organisations signed an open letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres warning that, when sexual and reproductive health rights are absorbed into broader mandates, they risk ‘being deprioritised, underfunded, or rendered politically invisible’. Some states have urged caution but so far none has committed to blocking the merger.

Civil society holds the line

In difficult times, over 4,600 civil society delegates attended CSW70 and made their presence count. They took the floor to name structural barriers and demand accountability: youth representatives challenged the normalisation of online violence, Pacific Island delegates described how geography compounds the denial of justice for survivors, and activists from Haiti documented the labour exploitation of migrant domestic workers. They all emphasised that when women’s rights organisations are restricted or defunded, survivors lose their primary pathway to justice.

The NGO CSW Forum hosted over 750 events alongside the official session. But not everyone could participate. US visa restrictions meant several women’s rights activists, particularly from the global south, couldn’t enter the country. This is a worsening problem that limits civil society’s ability to engage.

CIVICUS’s newly released 2026 State of Civil Society Report documents exactly what civil society has been up against: institutions built to protect women’s rights under sustained, coordinated attack, their funding cut, their mandates targeted and the human rights values they are built on reopened for revision. CSW70’s agreed conclusions offer hope, committing states to action on AI governance, discriminatory laws, digital justice, labour rights, legal aid and the formal recognition of care workers. But as the contest over them made plain, political will is running low and the anti-rights community is emboldened. Civil society left CSW70 without losing ground – and this seems to be the measure of success in the regressive times we live in.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Marco Longari/AFP

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 9 2026 (IPS)

Consider what International Women’s Day looked like a few years ago, and what it looks like now: the same date, the same global moment of reflection, but a vastly changed global landscape. Gender rights are facing the most coordinated and wide-ranging attack in decades. Anti-rights forces are dismantling protections secured after generations of struggle, destroying infrastructure built to address gender-based violence and realise reproductive rights and rewriting legal frameworks to roll back rights, with a specific focus on excluding transgender people. This is the result of a deliberate, carefully crafted, handsomely funded and globally coordinated strategy.

Fortunately, resistance is proving harder to extinguish than those driving the backlash had expected. Another International Women’s Day of mobilisation is here to prove it.

A regressive template

While attacks have been building for years, the global landscape shifted quickly in January 2025, when a newly inaugurated Donald Trump signed executive orders imposing a rigid binary classification of sex across federal law, stripping non-discrimination protections for LGBTQI+ people in healthcare and housing, and banning diversity, equity and inclusion policies across the federal government. Because the USA had been the world’s largest bilateral donor, the simultaneous dismantling of USAID and expansion of the global gag rule — blocking US funding to organisations that provide abortions or advocate for abortion rights — had immediate effects on women and girls all over the world, with particularly deadly consequences in conflict zones, rural areas and the world’s poorest countries.

Elsewhere, regressive forces were already mobilising – and Trump’s example only emboldened them. Hungary banned Pride marches and authorised surveillance to enforce compliance. Slovakia and the UK redefined sex as exclusively biological, stripping legal recognition from non-binary and transgender people. Burkina Faso criminalised same-sex relations and their ‘promotion’. Trinidad and Tobago’s Court of Appeal reinstated colonial-era penalties for homosexuality of up to 25 years in prison. Kazakhstan introduced a Russian-style ban on positive LGBTQI+ representation in education, media and online platforms.

It’s striking how consistent the underlying logic is across different political and regional contexts: gender equality is framed as a dangerous ‘ideology’, feminism is demonised as a foreign imposition, LGBTQI+ visibility is portrayed as a threat to children. The similarities reflect a coordinated effort to manufacture cultural conflict to consolidate hierarchies, strengthen elite authority and deflect attention from economic and political failures.

The backlash has reached the international institutions that have long served feminist movements as key arenas for developing a common language, setting a shared agenda and coordinating action across borders. A milestone in anti-rights advances was observed at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women’s 69th session last year, where a well-organised anti-rights bloc succeeded in stripping longstanding references to sexual and reproductive health and rights from the meeting’s Political Declaration.

What resistance looks like

Yet regression is not going uncontested: not in the streets, not in the courts and not even in the world’s most repressive settings.

In Hungary, tens of thousands defied the Pride ban in Budapest, risking prosecution to assert their right to be visible in public space. In South Africa, sustained civil society pressure, including over a million signatures demanding action, compelled the government to declare gender-based violence and femicide a national disaster. In St Lucia, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court struck down colonial-era laws criminalising same-sex relations. Courts in Malawi and Nigeria recognised the right to safe abortion for sexual violence survivors. The UK finally repealed a Victorian-era law that had continued to criminalise abortion in England and Wales. Denmark and Norway improved access to abortion services. Marriage equality came into force in both Liechtenstein and Thailand. At least three European Union member states — the Czech Republic, France and Poland — adopted consent-based definitions of rape.

Even in the most difficult of circumstances, under Afghanistan’s system of gender apartheid, women are maintaining underground schools, keeping solidarity networks alive and documenting abuses, setting their sights on future justice processes.

While the list of advances is impressive, some of the most important contemporary victories are invisible: stalled bills, softened provisions, laws not passed because civil society refused to stand aside. An attempt to repeal The Gambia’s ban on female genital mutilation was blocked. Kenya’s anti-LGBTQI+ Family Protection Bill remains stalled. In Latvia, when conservative forces moved in October 2025 to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention on violence against women, large-scale protests and a civil society petition won what could be a crucial delay. These defensive successes rarely make headlines, but they result from sustained, unglamorous advocacy and coalition work. Without them, the most extreme proposals would advance much further and faster.

Rising to the challenge

Recognition of rights is never permanent. It’s won through sustained struggle and can be reversed through organised opposition from those who perceive other people’s rights as a threat to their privilege. Backlash isn’t a historical anomaly but a predictable counter-mobilisation, and civil society has met it as such, by organising, mobilising, litigating and refusing to concede ground.

This is precisely what CIVICUS’s 2026 State of Civil Society Report, set for release on 12 March, sets out to document. The report examines the state of the world and civil society action throughout 2025 and early 2026 – including a dedicated chapter on women’s and LGBTQI+ people’s rights – and reveals strong patterns of resistance. Across regions and political contexts, it shows how civil society understands the scale of the attack and is responding in every possible way.

As this International Women’s Day will once again make clear, the backlash is organised and strong. But so is the resistance.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Pyari Hessa (#07) in action for Jamshedpur FT. Credit: Jamshedpur FC

By Diwash Gahatraj
DELHI, Feb 20 2026 (IPS)

Pyari Hessa, 26, balances long shifts as a loco traffic controller at a steel company in Jamshedpur with evening football practice on the same turf where professionals train.

A trans woman from the Ho tribal community, she was born Pyare Lal in Bedamundui, a remote village 50 kilometres away from Chaibasa, the headquarters town of the West Singhbhum district in Jharkhand. For years, she fought against family expectations and societal norms for the right to live authentically and to be seen simply as a person.

Today, as captain and striker for Jamshedpur FT( Football Team) in India’s first-ever football tournament dedicated to transgender women, the Transgender Football League, her fight for acceptance finds powerful expression on the pitch.

League match action between Jamshedpur FC and Chaibasa FC. Photo Credit: Jamshedpur FC

Launched on December 7, 2025, under the Jamshedpur Super League (JSL) by Jamshedpur Football Club (FC), this groundbreaking eight-team tournament brings together around 70 transgender women, many hailing from Santhal, Ho, and other local tribal communities. Hosted at the JRD Tata Sports Complex’s artificial football turf, the league features a fast-paced seven-a-side format.

The players come from different walks of life; some are factory workers, daily wage labourers, stage performers, e-rickshaw drivers, and more, from areas like Chaibasa, Chakradharpur, Noamundi, Saraikela, and beyond, competing not only for goals but also for visibility, dignity, and a true sense of belonging. In this space, they are celebrated for their skill, passion, and teamwork, transcending societal barriers and redefining inclusion through sport.

Kundan Chandra, head of Grassroots and Youth Football at Jamshedpur FC, explains the club’s thinking.

“The introduction of the Transgender Football League marks a progressive and meaningful step in our commitment to making football inclusive, accessible, and empowering for every individual. As a club we firmly believe that football must serve as a platform where talent is nurtured without discrimination.”

For players like Pyari Hessa, that belief is no longer just words. “When I’m playing football, it gives me immense happiness and gives me recognition. The game gives me a chance to rise above my gender identity. It gives me a platform,” Pyari says.

Life wasn’t easy for her, neither at home nor in her search for stable employment.

A Bachelor of Arts graduate, she lost her father at a young age and now lives with her mother in Jamshedpur, far from her ancestral tribal village. Before securing a job, she took on odd jobs as a daily wage worker to make ends meet. Eventually, she found employment in the logistics department of one of India’s leading steel manufacturers under their targeted hiring for under-represented groups.

More league match action between Jamshedpur FC and Chaibasa FC. Credit: Jamshedpur FC

Her tribal identity profoundly shapes her life, but as a trans woman, she faces additional layers of hardship. Traditional tribal communities in Jharkhand, rooted in customs, nature worship, and social norms, often do not accept transgender individuals with the respect they deserve, leading to exclusion, stigma, and limited family or community support.

Jharkhand is home to over 30 indigenous tribes. The culture and social position of transgender people within the tribal (Adivasi) communities here are complex and generally marked by limited traditional recognition or acceptance.

Journey From Village to Pitch

“I started playing football at ten, just like any other boy in my village. We’d kick around plastic balls on the village ground, purely for fun, nothing more,” Pyari says. “When I was in college, I met people from the trans community who played in charity and exhibition matches around Chaibasa. That’s when I realised football wasn’t just a game for me anymore—it gave me a reason to keep going and grow.”

“In those local matches, the winning trans team would get cash and be honoured. Before every game, the organisers would announce to the crowd: ‘Don’t pass gender comments, don’t disturb the players—give them the respect they deserve.’ Hearing that it felt like a small victory.”

Pyari shares these memories with a quiet pride. After winning her match on 25 January, her team triumphed 4-1 against Chaibasa FC.

According to coach Sukhlal Bhumij, who trains Pyari and the other team members, “Trans matches are being played between eight teams, and it happens every alternate Sunday and should be over by April.”

Saraikela FC (yellow) versus Indranagar FC (red) in league competition. Credit: Jamshedpur FC

Love for the Game

Football enjoys a passionate and deeply rooted following in Jharkhand, especially among its tribal communities. In rural villages, children play barefoot on open grounds from a young age, making it a daily part of life and culture. While cricket remains popular, football thrives at the grassroots level through local tournaments and has gained further momentum with Jamshedpur FC in the Indian Super League, where fan groups proudly celebrate tribal identity, explains Bhumij, an All India Football Federation (AIFF) C-License coach.

The sport also empowers many, particularly tribal girls and transgender players, transforming village fields into powerful spaces of pride, inclusion, and social change.

In districts like West Singhbhum, informal transgender exhibitions and charity matches have long been organised by village committees and community groups, often as one-off events, charity fundraisers, or parts of local tournaments to promote visibility and respect.

Puja Soy, one of the league’s highest scorers with seven goals from six matches, says football is finally bringing her community real recognition. The 23-year-old Jamshedpur FT standout, a professional stage dancer who completed her Class 10 education, now lives independently in Jamshedpur. Born as Shoray Soy, she moved away from her parents in DiriGoda village for her higher education and better life.

Sharing the harsh realities she faces off the pitch, Puja says, “No flat owners want to rent houses to people from our community.” Finding even this place was a struggle.” She currently shares a single-room home with another trans woman in Jamshedpur.

Jharkhand aligns its policies for transgender persons with India’s Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, allowing individuals to self-identify as the third gender and obtain a Certificate of Identity without mandatory medical proof. Key benefits include inclusion in the OBC category for reservations in education and government jobs, a monthly social security pension of ₹1,000 (about USD 10), dedicated transgender OPDs in government hospitals for discrimination-free care, and access to schemes such as Ayushman Bharat health insurance, scholarships, skill development programmes, and shelter support. The state has also established a Transgender Welfare Board and support unit to facilitate implementation.

However, community members say the reality on the ground differs sharply from what’s written on paper. Despite these provisions, transgender women frequently miss out on job opportunities. To survive, many resort to begging at traffic lights or highway toll points, while others turn to sex work. One player in the league, speaking on condition of anonymity, shared that she plays football during her leisure time but, lacking employment, often stands at highway toll booths or traffic signals to beg from passersby.

Begging by transgender persons has become a common sight on Indian streets and in markets—so normalised that society has largely accepted it as inevitable, even as progressive policies promise a different future.

Freedom on the Field

Back at the practice grounds of the JRD Tata Sports Complex, Pyari is ready for the evening session. Cleats laced up, ball at her feet, she looks focused.

“I can’t come for practice every day because of my shift work,” she says with a small smile. “But whenever my shift ends in the late afternoon, I make sure to come here. This is where I feel free.”

As Pyari starts dribbling, moving the ball smoothly across the turf, it feels like more than just football. With every touch and turn, she’s juggling her job, her life as a trans woman, her tribal roots, and her dreams, all in perfect rhythm, just like the way she controls the ball. In this field, everything seems to fit.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses Kazakhstan’s anti-LGBTQI+ bill with Temirlan Baimash, activist and co-founder of QUEER KZ youth initiative, a Kazakhstani LGBTQI+ organisation.

Temirlan Baimash

Why is the government pursuing an anti-LGBTQI+ law now?

The government has both domestic and geopolitical reasons for pushing this new law criminalising LGBTQI+ activism and expression.

At home, it’s facing growing public dissatisfaction. Promoting an anti-LGBTQI+ law helps shift attention away from economic problems and demands of accountability for abuses, including the mass shootings and killing of peaceful protesters ordered by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev in January. The law also helps mobilise conservative support and score political points. Anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric presents queer people as a threat to what are described as ‘traditional values’, deepening stigma and making violence seem acceptable. State-aligned media repeat this message, while authorities tolerate it, creating a climate where attacks against LGBTQI+ people and human rights defenders are increasingly normalised.

External factors also play a role. In the context of deteriorating relations with the USA, the government is increasingly copying Russian policies. For example, authorities have been pushing a foreign agents law similar to Russia’s. This move is also intended to demonstrate to Russia that Kazakhstan remains its ally. In this context, authorities have intensified repression at home, particularly against journalists and LGBTQI+ people, using our community as a convenient political target.

How will this bill affect LGBTQI+ people if adopted?

Although the law hasn’t been adopted yet, it’s already affecting us. Repression has intensified, and my colleagues and I have faced arrest, detention, torture and other forms of ill-treatment.

In October, our colleague Aziyat Agishev spoke out against the proposed law at a civic forum attended by government representatives. Two days later, military personnel abducted him, beat him and denied him access to his lawyer and family despite there being no legal grounds for his detention. He was only released thanks to media and public pressure.

A month later, during a private presentation of research on LGBTQI+ people in Kazakhstan, a group of homophobic people forced their way into the venue, filmed us and provoked a confrontation. Later that day, police detained our colleague Ardzh Turynkhan, held him overnight and fined him around US$170. While he was detained, officers mocked him, threatened him with rape and physical violence and ignored his requests for help, despite the fact he has a disability.

Just one day after this incident, on 22 November, the same group attacked us again in a café. Although we were the victims, police detained me instead, clearly in retaliation for our activism. They held me for three hours without showing any legal documents, surrounded by around 10 police officers and secret service agents. They later fined me on unrelated grounds. My colleague and I now face the risk of criminal charges based on false accusations, which could lead to prison sentences.

How are you opposing this law?

Despite the risks, we continue to document violations, speak out publicly and try to keep attention on what is happening. This law can still be blocked, because President Tokayev has between 10 and 30 days to sign it, and he hasn’t signed it yet. We and other civil society groups are mobilising to stop it.

We also work to empower LGBTQI+ people. We run workshops to help young queer people understand their rights and begin their journeys as activists. We share information and organise community events and gatherings to strengthen networks and build resilience.

Because civic space is heavily restricted and domestic avenues for dissent are extremely limited, international advocacy is essential. We engage human rights mechanisms by preparing shadow reports for processes such as the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review process and reviews under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

What international support are you receiving, and what more is needed?

International civil society organisations such as Front Line Defenders and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association support our work, alongside organisations such as COC Netherlands and intergovernmental bodies including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and UN mechanisms.

Their support is vital, but it isn’t enough. We need governments such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK – which are major investors in Kazakhstan – to pay more attention to what’s happening on the ground. Naming and shaming can work, but only if it’s followed by real consequences. These governments must pressure our government economically and politically to stop this law from passing.

We also need international media to tell our story. This repressive law cannot be ignored, yet so far we have struggled to reach journalists willing to report on our illegal arrests, kidnappings and torture. Press coverage, public statements and sustained pressure from international civil society, media and public figures can make a difference by putting Kazakhstan under the spotlight and increasing the political cost of signing this bill into law.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram

SEE ALSO
Pride 2025: resistance rising CIVICUS Lens 27.Jul.2025
Georgia: ‘The ‘anti-LGBT’ bill would make life nearly impossible for LGBTQI+ people’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Tamar Jakeli 10.Aug.2024
A ‘New Kazakhstan’, or more of the same? CIVICUS Lens 02.Dec.2022

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

People take part in an anti-corruption protest in Kathmandu, Nepal on 8 September 2025. Credit: Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Dec 24 2025 (IPS)

2025 has been a terrible year for democracy. Just over 7 per cent of the world’s population now live in places where the rights to organise, protest and speak out are generally respected, according to the CIVICUS Monitor, a civil society research partnership that measures civic freedoms around the world. This is a sharp drop from over 14 per cent this time last year.

Civic freedoms underpin healthy democracies, and the consequences of this stifling of civil society are apparent. At the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the world is experiencing 19th century levels of economic inequality. The wealth of the richest 1 per cent is surging while some 8 per cent of the world’s population – over 670 million people – suffer from chronic hunger. Weapons-producing firms, closely intertwined with political elites, are reaping windfall profits as death and destruction rains down in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and many other places. It should surprise no one that the political leaders fomenting these conflicts are also squashing civic freedoms to avert questions about their motivations.

From Lima to Los Angeles, Belgrade to Dar es Salaam and Jenin to Jakarta, far too many people are being denied the agency to shape the decisions that impact their lives. Yet these places have also been the site of significant protests against governments this year. Even as authoritarianism appears to be on the march, people are continuing to pour onto the streets to insist on their freedoms. As we speak people in Sofia in Bulgaria are demonstrating in large numbers against endemic corruption which recently forced the government to resign.

History shows that mass demonstrations can lead to major advances. In the 20th century, people’s mobilisations helped achieve women’s right to vote, liberation of colonised peoples and adoption of civil rights legislation to address race-based discrimination. In the 21st century, advances have been made in marriage equality and other LGBTQI+ rights, and in highlighting the climate crisis and economic inequality through protests. But in 2025, the right to protest, precisely because it can be effective, is under assault by authoritarian leaders. Around the world, the detention of protesters is the number one recorded violation of civic freedoms, closely followed by arbitrary detentions of journalists and human rights defenders who expose corruption and rights violations.

This backsliding is now happening in major established democracies. This year, the CIVICUS Monitor downgraded Argentina, France, Germany, Italy and the USA to an ‘obstructed’ civic space rating, meaning the authorities impose significant constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights. This regression is being driven by anti-rights nationalist and populist forces determined to degrade constitutional checks and balances and advance ballot box majoritarianism that denies minorities a fair say in economic, political and social life.

The push to degrade democracy by anti-rights forces now coming to fruition has been many years in the making. It accelerated this year with the return of Donald Trump. His administration immediately withdrew support to international democracy support programmes and instead built links to politicians responsible for crushing civic freedoms and committing grotesque human rights violations. Trump has laid out of the red carpet to El-Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Hungary’s Victor Orbán, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, ushering in a new era of values-free might-is-right diplomacy that threatens to undermine decades of painstaking progress achieved by civil society.

The fallout is clear. Many wealthy democratic governments that traditionally fund civil society activities have significantly reduced their contributions. At the same time, they have linked their remaining support for civil society to narrowly defined strategic military and economic interests. In doing so, they have played directly into the hands of powerful authoritarian states such as China, Egypt, Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela that seek to discredit domestic calls for accountability. Countries including Ecuador and Zimbabwe have introduced laws to limit the ability of civil society organisations to receive international funding.

All these developments are negatively impacting on civil society efforts for equality, peace and social justice. Yet the story of 2025 is also one of persistent resistance, and some successes. The courage demonstrated by Generation Z protesters has inspired people around the world. In Nepal, protests triggered by a social media ban led to the fall of the government, offering hope for a much-needed political reset. In Kenya, young protesters continued to take to the streets to demand political reform despite state violence. In Moldova, a cash-rich disinformation campaign run by a fugitive oligarch failed to sway the course of the national election away from human rights values. In the USA, the number of people joining the No-Kings protests just keeps on growing.

With over 90 per cent of the world’s population living with the institutional denial of full civic freedoms, anti-rights forces must be feeling pretty smug right now. But democratic dissent is brewing, particularly among Generation Z, denied political and economic opportunities but understanding that another world – one more equal, just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable – is possible. It’s far from game over yet, and even in difficult times, people will demand freedoms – and breakthroughs may be just around the corner.

Mandeep S Tiwana is Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

CIVICUS discusses restrictions on civic space in Thailand and the detention of activist and human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa with Akarachai Chaimaneekarakate, Advocacy Lead at Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR).

Akarachai Chaimaneekarakate

Thai authorities are using the country’s draconian lèse-majesté law, which bans criticism of the monarchy, to criminalise dissent and shut down debates about the role of the king and royal family. Arnon Nampa, featured in CIVICUS’s Stand As My Witness campaign, is currently imprisoned simply for giving public speeches questioning the monarchy’s role in a democratic system. His case is one example of a wider crackdown on freedom of expression. Yet despite this pressure, a new generation of activists continues to push for accountability, democracy and equality, mobilising creativity and solidarity to challenge longstanding power structures.

Why was TLHR founded, and what’s its role?

TLHR was established in 2014, just two days after a military coup overthrew Thailand’s elected government. A group of activists and human rights lawyers came together because they knew people would soon be detained, harassed or prosecuted simply for speaking out or criticising the coup, the government or the monarchy. Sadly, they were right. And although the founders expected the organisation to be temporary, assuming elections would soon restore normality, 11 years later TLHR is still working every day to defend people targeted for exercising their fundamental rights.

Arnon Nampa is one of its founders. He is a well-known activist and human rights lawyer who has spent more than a decade defending victims of rights violations, including environmental defenders and activists charged with lèse-majesté. Under Thai law, each count carries a sentence of three to 15 years, so people can end up serving decades in prison.

In August 2020, amid nationwide pro-democracy protests, Arnon delivered a Harry Potter-themed speech that invoked ‘He Who Must Not Be Named’ to pose previously taboo political questions about the monarchy and constitutional reform. His speech opened a national conversation about the monarchy’s role in Thai democracy, but it also led to his imprisonment on the same lèse-majesté charges he had previously defended others against.

How widespread are lèse-majesté prosecutions?

Unfortunately, they are very common. The lèse-majesté law is used to silence dissent and punish even the mildest criticism. People have been prosecuted simply for sharing a BBC article about the Thai king, questioning constitutional amendments or raising concerns about public spending linked to the monarchy.

Since the 2020 protests, over 280 people have been charged with lèse-majesté, and the sentences have been extremely harsh. One activist was sentenced to 50 years in prison just for sharing online clips about the monarchy on Facebook, including a segment from John Oliver’s ‘Last Week Tonight’ comedy show.

People have been prosecuted for absurd reasons: one child was convicted for wearing a crop top to a protest after being accused of mocking the king. Another protester was sentenced for wearing a traditional Thai dress said to mock the queen. A further activist was convicted for conducting a peaceful public opinion poll on the king’s royal prerogatives.

How do Thai activists manage to stay hopeful despite such intense repression?

Thai activists keep finding creative ways to make their voices heard. Humour and symbolism have become powerful tools for raising sensitive issues without crossing legal red lines. Arnon’s Harry Potter speech was only one example.

What’s truly inspiring is the solidarity that has emerged among diverse groups. Children, labour activists, LGBTQI+ advocates, rural communities and students are standing together, fighting for free expression but also broader social justice causes including environmental protections, labour rights and the struggle against torture and enforced disappearances.

Society is shifting too. Not long ago, openly discussing the monarchy was unthinkable. Now those conversations are happening everywhere. People are finding new ways to resist in everyday spaces, even in cinemas where many no longer stand for the royal anthem. While the government is still trying to shut down dissent, as shown by the dissolution of the largest opposition party for proposing changes to the lèse-majesté law, it has become clear that once conversations about democracy and equality begin, they are very hard to silence.

What role are young people playing in driving and shaping the democracy movement?

Many older people still hold deep reverence for the monarchy because they grew up under its strong influence. But younger generations are asking direct, fundamental questions that strike at the heart of Thailand’s political order: shouldn’t everyone be equal, and shouldn’t rights stem from our shared humanity rather than bloodlines? For many young activists, the struggle doesn’t end on the streets. It continues at home, around the dinner table, when they discuss politics with their parents who may not support their views.

The 2020 protests showed how powerful young people can be. Middle school, high school and university students led the movement. They were fearless, tech-savvy and well organised, and their creativity, courage and solidarity reshaped activism in Thailand.

This push for change isn’t happening in isolation. Young Thais are drawing inspiration from the global wave of Gen Z-led movements in places like Hong Kong, Myanmar and Taiwan, and the online political movement the ‘Milk Tea Alliance’, where young activists are calling for equality, transparency and real democracy. This way, Thai activists are linking their local fight for democracy to a broader global movement for freedom and justice.

How can real change happen in Thailand?

Change is already underway, but there’s still a lot of work to do. The 2023 election made it clear that people want democracy, and even though the establishment blocked the winning party forming a government, the democratic spirit remains strong.

A recent campaign for a new, people-drafted constitution gathered over 200,000 handwritten signatures in just three days. Small business owners, students and vendors took part across the country, showing they want change and a say in shaping their future.

Civil society is also pushing for an amnesty bill to free people prosecuted for political reasons. It would be a key step towards reconciliation and a more inclusive democracy, because a country can’t claim unity while jailing people for thinking differently.

Arnon once said something that has stayed with me: we’ll definitely reach the finish line. But there’s no rule saying everyone in the movement must reach the finish line together. Some may leave the path, some may pass away. If anyone doesn’t make it that far, we can tell the people standing at that finish line that in this struggle there was a friend who once fought side by side with us. Arnon said, ‘In this movement, there is no hopelessness. If you reach the finish line and don’t see me, then just think of me. And if I reach the finish line and don’t see you, I’ll be thinking of you too’.

His words are a reminder that even in difficult times, this is a shared journey, and people will keep walking it together.

This interview was conducted during International Civil Society Week 2025, a five-day gathering in Bangkok that brought together activists, movements and organisations defending civic freedoms and democracy around the world. International Civil Society Week was co-hosted by CIVICUS and the Asia Democracy Network.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Twitter
Akarachai Chaimaneekarakate/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Thailand: ‘The right-to-work initiative is a big relief for refugees and a step forward for human rights’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Mic Chawaratt 31.Oct.2025
Thailand: ‘The popular will expressed in elections shouldn’t be overturned by judicial intervention’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Sunai Phasuk 30.Sep.2025
Thailand: new prime minister, same old problems CIVICUS Lens 21.Aug.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Charlie Weimers with EU flag and the Sweden Democrat’s party symbol, a bluebell.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 19 2025 (IPS)

On September 11, Charlie Weimers, a Swedish Member of the European Parliament and active within the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, rose up during a Parliamentary session and asked for a minute of silence to honour the memory of Charlie Kirk, who the day before had been shot and killed during a political meeting at the Utah Valley University in the U.S.

“Madam President, dear colleagues, the murder of political activist Charlie Kirk, a husband, loving father and patriot has shocked the world. We must strongly condemn political violence and rhetoric that incites violence. Will you stand with me in reflection and prayer in his honour, and I yield the rest of my time for a moment of silence.”

Charlie Weimers began his political career as a member of the Swedish Chrisitan Democrat Party, but later switched to the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist, right-wing populist party, which in spite of efforts to tune it down finds its roots in Neo-Nazi fringe organizations. It is now Sweden’s second largest political party with more than 20 percent of the electorate behind it.

There is nothing wrong in condemning murder political violence and defend freedom of speech, but this cannot hinder us from scrutinizing who is canonized as a victim of radical aggression. Charlie Kirk was 33 years old when he was murdered, leaving a wife and two small children behind. He had admitted that when he in 2012 started Turning Point USA, which eventually would become a rich and powerful organization, he had “no money, no connections and no idea of what I was doing.” At that time, Kirk had dropped out of college and been rejected by The U.S. West Point Military Academy. Nevertheless, he had rhetorical gifts for countering progressive ideas, being sensitive about cultural tensions, and endowed with an aptitude for making provocative declarations that resonated with frustrated college audiences, who followed and agreed with his web postings. Kirk’s frequent college rallies eventually attracted tens of thousands of young voters, as well as the attention and financial support of conservative leaders. President Trump was not wrong when he declared that:

The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie.

After his death Kirk has been praised for showing up at campuses where he talked with anyone who would approach him. Conservative journalists have declared him to be one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. Kirk’s message was readily embraced by youngsters who accepted his view that Democrats had spent hundreds of billions of dollars on illegal immigrants and foreign nations, while the young “lost generation” of the U.S. had to pinch their pennies, but would not be able to own a home, never marry, and even be forced to work until they died, abused and childless. However, he also gave them hope, telling these unfortunate youngsters that they did not have to stay poor and accept being worse off than their parents. They just had to avoid supporting corrupt political leaders, who were lying to them only to take advantage of their votes. Kirk assured his young audience that it is an undeniable fact that cultural identity is disappearing, while sexual anarchy, crime and decadence reign unabated, private property is a thing of the past, and a ruling “liberal” class controls everything. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was probably right when she said that Kirk had inspired millions of young people “to get involved in politics and fight for our nation’s conservative values.”

Kirk allied his Turning Point USA not to any poor radical fringe groups, but to conservative, wealthy donors and influencers. He preached a “Christian Message” well adapted to several members of such groups, declaring that Turning Point USA was dedicated to “recruiting pastors and other church leaders to be active in local and national political issues.”

Kirk fervently defended the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, i.e. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed “, declaring that it was worth “a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can keep a Second Amendment which protect our other God-given rights”.

However, Kirk was not happy about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed “discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in employment, education, and public accommodations.” He stated that the Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake” and declared that if the majority of Americans were asked if they respected the Civil Rights Act the answer would have been a “no”. Adding the caveat that “I could be wrong, but I think I’m right.”

Undoubtedly, there was a racist ingredient in Kirk’s ideology. He did for example state that the concept of white privilege was a myth and a “racist lie”. In October 2021, he launched an Exposing Critical Racism Tour to numerous campuses and other institutions, to “combat racist theories”, by which he meant the propagation of an understanding of the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political laws and mass media, all of which Kirk considered to be propaganda and an unfounded brainchild of liberal Democrats. He blamed the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programmes for threatening U.S. competitiveness and security, even claiming that upon sitting in a plane and realising that the pilot was “Black”, he could not help thinking “’Hey, I hope he’s qualified”.

Like most populist, “patriotic”, European right-wing political parties, not the least the Sweden Democrats, though they nowadays try to hide it more carefully than before, Kirk endorsed the so-called “great replacement theory”. This way of thinking assumes that powerful, nefarious actors, for some obscure reason, are trying to replace an upright indigenous, generally white-skinned population with immigrants of “doubtful” origin. Kirk did not even hesitate to state that Democrats supposedly wanted to make the U.S. “less white”.

Kirk also argued that humans have no significant effect on global climate change and joined antivax activists by, among other statements, calling the mandatory requirements for students to get the COVID-19 vaccine “medical apartheid”. Kirk was outspoken when it came to claim that Trump’s loss in the president elections of 2022 was due to fraud, supported the “stop the steal” movement and denied that the violent attacks on the Capitol were an insurrection.

Opposing political violence and supporting free speech does not mean that you have to sanctify a victim like Charlie Kirik, who after all was a racist and an incendiary agitator against underprivileged groups, as well as he degraded scientists who warned against climate change and vaccine denial. It is not defensible that such a voice, no matter how despicable it might be, is silenced by violence and murder. However, we cannot refrain from pointing out the great harm the kind of agitation Kirk devoted himself to can cause. As an educator, I have often been forced to experience how children suffer from racism and bigotry preached and condoned by influencers like Charlie Kirk. Accordingly, to sanctify such persons and tolerate their prejudiced ideology is hurtful and dangerous.

Furthermore, let us not be fooled by deceitful propaganda trying to convince us that Charlie Kirk’s so called “debates” were neither aggressive, nor mendacious. They were brutally provocative; opponents were shouted down, or belittled. The rhetoric was hateful, contempt was poured out over women, Black people, immigrants and Muslims, queer and trans people. Liberals were branded as enemies, science demeaned. And, yes – Charlie Kirk turned to young people, who felt frustrated, marginalized and despised, telling them that he wanted to give them hope and a will to fight injustice. But at what price? Based on what truth? Incitement to violence and contempt for humanity might be safeguarded in the name of free speech, but it should never be accepted and defended. It must be attacked through an unconstrained press based on facts, a well-founded science, and an unfaltering respect for human rights.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Stella_E/Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Aug 13 2025 (IPS)

When Kenita Placide co-founded United and Strong, St Lucia’s first LGBTQI+ organisation in 2001, death threats were routine. Over the years, several friends were murdered for being gay. But 24 years on, Kenita’s Caribbean island nation has become the latest to overturn a colonial legacy that criminalised LGBTQI+ people.

On 29 July, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court – a St Lucia-based regional court that serves nine countries and territories – declared sections 132 and 133 of St Lucia’s Criminal Code unconstitutional, effectively decriminalising consensual same-sex sexual activity. This made St Lucia the fifth Caribbean country in four years to achieve this legal breakthrough through the courts.

St Lucia’s victory demonstrates that civil society can keep making gains even in largely regressive times. It offers fresh hope for LGBTQI+ activists in the six countries of the Americas that criminalise same-sex relations: Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.

Colonial laws, contemporary resistance

All the criminalising countries in the Americas are part of the Commonwealth Caribbean, where the prohibition of consensual same-sex sexual activity remains an enduring legacy of British colonial rule.

Following independence in 1979, St Lucia retained criminal provisions that punished ‘buggery’ and ‘gross indecency’. Rather than liberalising these laws, a 2004 amendment expanded criminalisation to include sex between women, with jail sentences ranging from five to 10 years.

While prosecutions have been rare in recent decades, these laws have fostered stigma, legitimised prejudice and contributed to discrimination and violence against LGBTQI+ people. They’ve hindered access to essential services, particularly healthcare, and denied LGBTQI+ people full legal protection. Civil society has documented numerous instances of verbal harassment, physical abuse and discrimination in workplaces and public spaces.

The tide began to turn over the past decade. The Commonwealth Caribbean’s first public Pride event was held in Jamaica in 2015, marking the growing visibility of the LGBTQI+ movement. Laws began to change, starting with a successful court challenge in Belize in 2016.

Civil society’s strategic litigation

The legal challenge in St Lucia was spearheaded by the Eastern Caribbean Alliance for Diversity and Equality, founded by Kenita in 2016, and United and Strong, which evolved from an HIV/AIDS organisation into a human rights group documenting abuses, advocating for reforms and providing essential services.

Together, they brought the case as part of a Caribbean litigation strategy launched in 2019, filing challenges in four Eastern Caribbean countries – Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis and St Lucia – plus Barbados, which has its own court system. The lawsuit argued that virtually identical criminal provisions violated constitutional rights to privacy, equality and liberty. Positive rulings came for Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados and St Kitts and Nevis in 2022, while a separate legal challenge succeeded in Dominica in 2024.

St Lucia’s ruling was particularly significant given recent setbacks, including the recriminalisation of consensual same-sex relations in Trinidad and Tobago in March, reversing a 2018 court ruling, and the dismissal of challenges to anti-gay laws in St Vincent and the Grenadines last year.

The road ahead: from decriminalisation to equality

Legal reforms are still needed. While the 2006 Labour Code prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and the 2022 Domestic Violence Act protects same-sex couples from abuse, significant gaps remain in housing and public services protection.

Future civil society advocacy is expected to focus on broader legal protections, marriage equality, adoption rights, recognition of non-binary genders, gender change procedures and banning harmful practices such as conversion therapy. But conservative religious groups, which hold significant sway in many Caribbean societies, are expected to resist further advances, which they frame as threats to traditional values. Experiences in Dominica and elsewhere suggest that backlash is likely.

Evidence indicates laws are moving faster than public opinion. St Lucia now ranks 154th out of 198 countries on Equaldex’s Equality Index, which rates countries according to their LGBTQI+ friendliness. But the index shows a significant gap between limited legal protections and broadly negative social attitudes, with legal rights scoring 46 out of 100 while public opinion lags at just 17 out of 100.

While governments and courts can advance recognition of LGBTQI+ rights through legislative and judicial reforms, deep-seated social prejudices may remain. Activists face a double challenge: pursuing legal victories while simultaneously engaging in the slower, more complex work of changing attitudes. Without this parallel effort, legal protections may fail to translate into genuine equality in daily life, leaving LGBTQI+ people formally protected but still vulnerable.

St Lucia’s LGBTQI+ rights activists still have much work ahead, but their approach – combining grassroots organising, strategic litigation, regional coordination and decades of persistence – offers a blueprint for others striving for rights. It proves that even in conservative contexts, civil society can achieve change by building coalitions and persisting over time. St Lucia has just offered fresh hope to embattled activists elsewhere in the Caribbean, and around the world.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Aug 4 2025 (IPS)

Rice queues – something once unthinkable – began appearing around May. As the country’s staple food hit record prices, frustrated shoppers found themselves breaking a cultural taboo by switching to rice from South Korea. It was a symbol of how far Japan’s economic certainties had crumbled, creating fertile ground for a political shift.

That came on 20 July, when Japan joined the ranks of countries where far-right parties are gaining ground. The Sanseitō party took 15.7 per cent of the vote in the election for parliament’s upper house, while the ruling two-party coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and Kōmeitō lost its majority. The result spells trouble for Japan’s civil society.

From conspiracy theories to parliament

Sanseitō, founded during the COVID-19 pandemic, grew out of a right-wing YouTube channel. Initially, it spread virus conspiracy theories and opposed masks and vaccines, territory that globally provided entry points for far-right radicalisation. Since then, it’s embraced exclusionary politics.

The party’s leader, Sohei Kamiya, says he wants to be Japan’s Trump. His ‘Japan First’ agenda, accompanied by an abundance of xenophobic rhetoric, urges strict immigration limits.

Sanseitō shows deep hostility towards excluded groups. It strongly opposes LGBTQI+ rights, even though these are limited in Japan, calling for repeal of the 2023 LGBT Understanding Promotion Act. The party opposes same-sex marriage; despite civil society legal action leading to mixed court judgments, Japan remains the only G7 country to not recognise marriage equality.

Kamiya has blamed young women for Japan’s declining birthrate, saying they’re too career-focused and should stay home and have children. He’s has also said he supports Trump’s moves to eliminate climate protections and calls for Japan’s militarisation, positions right-wing populists are commonly taking around the world.

Economic crisis and political corruption

Change has been coming in Japan’s previously static politics. The LDP, a big tent right-wing party, has been in power, either on its own or with Kōmeitō, for almost all of the time since its 1955 founding. It long enjoyed credit for reconstructing Japan’s shattered post-Second World War economy and rebuilding international relationships through a strongly US-aligned foreign policy.

But its dominance has crumbled under economic stagnation and corruption scandals. The LDP lost its lower house majority in a snap October 2024 election, called by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba after he assumed leadership following his predecessor’s scandal-forced resignation.

In November 2023, it was revealed that some US$4 million had been hidden in unreported and illegal slush funds linked to key party factions. This scandal followed the July 2022 assassination of former prime minister Shinzo Abe, whose killer harboured a grudge against the Unification Church, a religious movement widely considered a cult. The killing threw the spotlight on extensive links between the church and LDP.

Political crisis coincided with economic malaise. Inflation is rare in Japan, but in common with many other countries, food prices have spiked and pay hasn’t kept pace. The rice crisis, partly due by extreme weather impacts caused by climate change, provided the most potent symbol, affecting a staple food deeply embedded in national identity. The government reacted to high prices by releasing some of its reserve stock, but refused calls to cut the 10 per cent consumption tax, which Sanseitō wants to abolish.

Demographics and immigration fears

Underlying these economic problem lies Japan’s demographic challenge. An estimated 30 per cent of people are aged 65 or over, and around 10 per cent are 80-plus. The flipside is a low fertility rate: each woman is currently predicted to have 1.2 children, far below the 2.1 rate needed to maintain a stable population.

Japan’s demographics threaten to undermine its economic base, since there may not be enough taxpayers to fund social security spending. A previously reluctant government has been forced to ease tight immigration controls and bring in more working-age people. Foreign-born residents now comprise around three per cent of Japan’s population, a small proportion for most global north economies but a highly visible change in a previously broadly homogenous society.

Sanseitō has weaponised this demographic shift, unleashing xenophobic rhetoric to tap into anxieties about cultural change, blaming foreigners for domestic problems. Anxiety about the birthrate has also provided ample ground to scapegoat feminism and LGBTQI+ rights movements.

Political disengagement and generational divides

The political establishment’s failure to connect with younger generations also created a dangerous vulnerability. Research in 2024 showed that only a third of voters were satisfied with the way Japan’s democracy currently works, and over half didn’t identify with any political party. Disaffection is widest among young people, exacerbated by the reality that politicians are typically a generation or two older.

The swing towards Sanseitō suggests that at least some disenchanted with established politics found something to vote for. The party draws support particularly from young people, and especially young men. It’s aided by having a much stronger social media presence than established parties, with around 500,000 YouTube followers compared to the LDP’s 140,000.

In many countries, it was once a safe assumption that young people were more progressive than older generations, but increasingly that no longer holds. In economies where young people are struggling, anything that looks new and promises to break with failed establishment politics, even when extremist, can be appealing.

Instability and polarisation ahead

Sanseitō says it doesn’t want to work with any established party and, as has been seen in other countries, may use its parliamentary presence to mount stunts and court publicity. Its support is unlikely to have peaked, and even though it doesn’t have power, it can expect influence: once far-right rhetoric moves from into the mainstream, it seeps into and shifts the broader political debate.

Japan’s rightward tilt could extend beyond Sanseitō. Unhappiness with the LDP saw another right-wing party, the Democratic Populist Party, pick up support. These shifts could cause the LDP to respond to its losses by taking a more nationalist and conservative tack, as associated with its former leader Abe.

Japan’s trajectory mirrors concerning patterns across global north democracies such as France, Germany, Italy and Portugal, where right-wing populist parties have gained profile by provoking outrage, sowing division and targeting excluded groups, alongside the civil society that defends their rights.

This all suggests danger for Japan’s excluded groups and civil society. As Japan steps along this troubling path, its civil society needs to be ready to make the case for human rights. What began as a rice crisis has evolved into a test of whether Japan’s democratic institutions, including its civil society, can withstand a gathering populist storm.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations

By Jesselina Rana
NEW YORK, Jul 18 2025 (IPS)

In its 80-year history the UN has never once been led by a woman. As the international community convenes for the 2025 High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) to review progress on gender equality and other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this remains a fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of global governance. How can an institution that has systematically excluded women from its highest office credibly champion gender justice worldwide?

With the various SDGs under review this year – goal 3 (health), 5 (gender equality), 8 (decent work), 14 (life below water) and 17 (partnerships) – there’s a widening gap between the UN’s pledge to seek ‘evidence-based solutions’ to ‘leave no one behind’ and the lived reality of women, girls and excluded communities worldwide. Despite decades of rhetoric on inclusion, these groups remain systemically marginalised from meaningful power and access to decision-making.

This contradiction between rhetoric and reality reflects a deeper power imbalance across the world that undermines the credibility and the effectiveness of efforts to address pressing global challenges.

CIVICUS’s State of Civil Society Report paints a picture of a disturbing rollback of progress on gender justice that spans continents and contexts. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have institutionalised a system of gender apartheid. In the USA, the Trump administration has drastically curtailed access to reproductive healthcare. Globally, the freeze on USAID’s health funding is projected to deny 11.7 million of the world’s most excluded women access to contraception, leading to over 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 8,300 preventable maternal deaths. In Russia, the state’s campaign against ‘child-free propaganda’ represents its latest attempt to control women’s choices and repress LGBTQI+ people.

According to UN experts, Palestinian women and girls have faced sexual violence in detention, including being strip-searched by Israeli soldiers. In China, women’s rights activists have been imprisoned for ‘inciting subversion of state power’. Meanwhile, authorities in Ghana, Kenya, Mali and Uganda have introduced harsh anti-LGBTQI+ laws under the guise of protecting family values.

These global trends and imbalances are exacerbated by attacks on civic space, restricting civil society’s ability to challenge discriminatory laws and practices and dramatically increasing risks to the safety and lives of those who dare to resist. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, a collaborative initiative tracking civic space worldwide, over 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is severely restricted. Only six out of 37 countries participating in Voluntary National Reviews at this year’s HLPF – the Bahamas, the Czech Republic, Finland, Japan, Micronesia and St Lucia – have open civic space. Civic freedoms are being crushed precisely when public participation is most desperately needed.

Even in the face of persistent failings in global governance and multilateral systems, feminist leadership continues to deliver where institutions fall short. As the UN marks the 25th anniversary of its Women, Peace and Security agenda, its most powerful legacy lies not in policy declarations, but in the actions of women who have transformed its vision into reality from Colombia to Sudan and Myanmar to Ukraine, contributing to peace agreements, defending rights under attack and rebuilding communities. Their leadership is often intersectional, crisis-tested and grounded in lived realities – precisely the evidence-based solutions needed to truly leave no one behind.

Today, the most effective responses to pressing global needs – climate resilience, democratic renewal and gender justice – are coming from the grassroots. Feminist movements, particularly in the global south, are already delivering on the SDGs, despite restricted civic space, chronic underfunding and persistent sidelining by patriarchal power structures locally to globally.

Across every metric that matters – from peace sustainability to economic resilience, from climate adaptation to democratic governance – feminist leadership works. Yet the institutions tasked with solving global challenges continue to exclude the leaders who’ve proven most effective at delivering solutions. If the UN80 Initiative is truly aimed at reasserting the value of multilateralism, it must centre the voices of women and excluded groups in policymaking and implementation.

The 2025 HLPF should offer a moment of reckoning. States can continue the charade of promoting gender equality while perpetuating gender exclusion at the highest levels, or they can finally align their actions with their rhetoric.

Through the 1 for 8 Billion campaign, civil society is calling for multilateral structures to be reimagined. This is not a call for incremental change or token gestures: it’s a demand for transformation. The world can’t afford another 80 years of male-dominated leadership at the UN while women and excluded communities bear the disproportionate brunt of global crises. The selection process for the next UN Secretary-General must be transparent and inclusive, and the role should be held by an intersectional feminist woman who leads with courage and holds truth to power.

Jesselina Rana is UN advisor at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Zed Jameson/Anadolu via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jun 5 2025 (IPS)

For decades, Portugal stood as a beacon of democratic stability in an increasingly unsettled Europe. While neighbours grappled with political fragmentation and the rise of far-right movements, Portugal maintained its two-party system, a testament to the enduring legacy of the 1974 Carnation Revolution that peacefully transitioned the country from dictatorship to democracy. It was long believed that Portugal’s extensive pre-revolution experience of repressive right-wing rule had effectively inoculated it against far-right politics, but that assumption is now demonstrable outdated. An era of exceptionalism ended on 18 May, when the far-right Chega party secured 22.8 per cent of the vote and 60 parliamentary seats, becoming the country’s main opposition force.

This represents more than an electoral upset; it marks the collapse of five decades of democratic consensus and Portugal’s reluctant entry into the European mainstream of political polarisation. Chega could hold the balance of power. The centre-right Democratic Alliance, led by Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, won the most parliamentary seats, but fell far short of the 116 needed for a majority. Meanwhile, the Socialist Party, which governed from 2015 to 2024, suffered its worst defeat since the 1980s, relegated to third place by a party that’s only six years old.

Chega’s meteoric rise from just 1.3 per cent of the vote and one seat in 2019 to its role as today’s main opposition demonstrates how quickly political landscapes can shift when mainstream parties fail to address people’s fundamental concerns. The roots of the transformation lie in a toxic combination of economic pressure and political failure that has systematically eroded public confidence in the political establishment.

Portugal has endured three elections in under four years, a sign of its novel state of chronic instability. The immediate trigger for the latest election was the collapse of Montenegro’s government following a confidence vote, with opposition parties citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest involving his family business. This followed the previous Socialist government’s fall in November 2023 amid corruption investigations, creating a recurring cycle of scandal, government crisis and electoral upheaval.

The political turmoil unfolds against a backdrop of mounting social challenges that mainstream parties have failed to adequately address. Despite its economy growing by 1.9 per cent in 2024, well above the European Union average, Portugal faces a severe housing crisis that has become the defining issue for many voters, particularly those from younger generations. Portugal now has the worst housing access rates of all 38 OECD countries, with house prices more than doubling over the past decade.

In Lisbon, rents have jumped by 65 per cent since 2015, making the capital the world’s third least financially viable city due to its punishing combination of soaring housing costs and traditionally low wages. This crisis, driven by tourism, foreign investment and short-term rentals, has pushed property ownership beyond most people’s reach, creating widespread frustration with governments perceived as ineffective or indifferent to everyday struggles.

Immigration has provided another flashpoint. The number of legal migrants tripled from under half a million in 2018 to over 1.5 million in 2025. This rapid demographic change has fuelled populist narratives about uncontrolled migration and its alleged impact on housing and employment markets. It was precisely these grievances that Chega, led by former TV commentator André Ventura, expertly exploited.

As an outsider party untainted by association with the cycle of scandals and governmental collapses, Chega positioned itself as the defender of ‘western civilisation’ and channelled anti-establishment anger into electoral success. It combines promises to combat corruption and limit immigration with a defence of what it characterises as traditional Portuguese values, including through extreme criminal justice policies such as chemical castration for repeat sexual offenders.

Despite Ventura’s insistence that Chega simply advocates equal treatment without ‘special privileges’, the party’s ranks include white supremacists and admirers of former dictator António Salazar. Its openly racist approach to immigration and hostility towards women, LGBTQI+ people, Muslims and Roma people reflects a familiar far-right playbook that has proven successful across Europe. Chega has cultivated significant connections with Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, Germany’s Alternative for Germany, and Spain’s Vox party, and Ventura was among the European far-right leaders invited to Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Montenegro has so far refused to work with Chega, which he has publicly characterised as demagogic, racist and xenophobic – a rejection that may have inadvertently strengthened Chega’s anti-establishment credentials. However, the arithmetic of Portugal’s fractured parliament suggests that any significant policy initiatives will require either Socialist abstention or, more controversially, Chega support, creating new opportunities for far-right influence, particularly on criminal justice and immigration policies.

Portugal’s experience offers sobering evidence that far-right influence should no longer be viewed as a passing fad but rather as an established feature of contemporary European politics. The speed of the shift offers a stark reminder that no democracy is immune to the populist pressures reshaping the continent.

The question now is whether Portugal’s institutions can adapt to govern effectively in this new fractured landscape while preserving democratic values. Portugal’s civil society has an increasingly vital part to play in holding newly influential far-right politicians to account and offering collective responses to populist challenges.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Eloisa Lopez/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, May 22 2025 (IPS)

The new pope, the latest in a line dating back almost 2,000 years, was quickly subjected to a very modern phenomenon: no sooner had Pope Leo XIV delivered his first address than people started trawling his social media history for clues about his views. In the context of an ongoing culture war, the fact that far-right grievance entrepreneurs were quick to decry the new pope as ‘woke’ seemed reason enough for progressives to welcome him. But for civil society and the global human rights community, it’s how Leo acts that matters.

The numbers alone make Leo’s appointment an event of global significance: Catholics make up over 17 per cent of the planet’s population, and they live predominantly in the global south. Catholicism remains overwhelmingly the dominant religion in Latin America, while the faith continues to grow, particularly in Africa.

This gives the pope great moral influence, which he can use for good – such as by urging climate action and mobilising compassion for migrants and refugees – or for ill, including by maintaining restrictions on women’s and LGBTQI+ rights. The pope is unquestionably a global leader. In an era dominated by right-wing populist and nationalist politicians who are attacking human rights, the pope’s voice can offer a vital counterweight.

Pope Francis’s progressive legacy

Pope Francis broke significant new ground. The first Latin American pope, the Argentinian lived modestly. He didn’t shy away from controversy, speaking out to defend the rights of migrants and refugees. He criticised right-wing populism, neoliberal economics and Israel’s assault on Gaza. He urged action on climate change and made moves to enable women to play a greater role in the church and open up the possibility of blessing for people in same-sex relationships.

ON his watch, the papal office became that of an international diplomat, helping negotiate a Cuba-US rapprochement, later reversed. Critics however pointed to his apparent reluctance to call out Vladimir Putin’s aggression as he sought to help negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. He also maintained the church’s opposition to ‘gender ideology’, a term routinely used to undermine demands for women’s and LGBTQI+ rights, particularly trans rights.

Though Francis took many progressive positions, that offered no guarantee his successor would follow suit. Historically a pope seen as liberal is often followed by a more conservative one. Francis however moved to make this less likely, appointing 163 cardinals from 76 countries. Many were from global south countries, including several that had never received such recognition, such as El Salvador, Mali and Timor-Leste. He appointed the first Indigenous Latin American cardinal, and the first from India’s excluded Dalit community.

Francis chose 79 per cent of cardinals aged under 80, eligible to vote on the new pope – including Leo, elevated in 2023. For the first time, the conclave had a non-European majority, with Europeans comprising only 52 of the 133 electors.

Francis’s re-engineering may have foreclosed the prospect of a particularly regressive choice. The result was another piece of history, with Leo the first pope from the USA, while his dual citizenship of Peru makes him the first Peruvian one as well. Known as an ally of Francis but a less outspoken figure, he may have emerged as a compromise choice.

Early days: promise and controversy

Leo’s nationality had been assumed to count against him: with the USA being the dominant global power, received wisdom held that the pope should come from elsewhere. In this Trump-dominated era, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that some who picked a US pope were trying to send a message – although time will tell whether it’s one of flattery or defiance.

US right-wingers, many of whom embrace conservative Catholicism – as Vice President JD Vance exemplifies – made clear they knew what the message was, reacting with anger. Another conservative Catholic, Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon – who routinely vilified Pope Francis – had aggressively lobbied for a conservative appointment, such as Hungarian hardliner Péter Erdő. Trump supporters allegedly promised huge donations if the conclave selected a pope to their liking, then quickly mobilised outrage about the selection of their fellow citizen, vilifying him as a ‘Marxist pope’.

Among the pre-papacy actions they deemed controversial was Leo’s sharing on Twitter/X of a link to a comment piece that disagreed with Vance, who’d argued that Christians should prioritise their love for their immediate community over those who come from elsewhere. Leo had also shared a post criticising Trump and El Salvador’s hardline leader Nayib Bukele over the illegal deportation of migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

In other past posts, he’d supported climate action and appeared to back gun control, defended undocumented migrants and shown solidarity with George Floyd, the Black man whose murder by a police officer in 2020 triggered the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Leo’s choice of name also appears to indicate a reformist intent. But on the other side of the ledger, a history of anti-LGBTQI+ comments quickly came to light. Leo is also accused of mishandling past sexual abuse allegations against priests under his supervision.

A moral voice in turbulent times

For civil society, what Leo does next matters more than his social media history. There are some encouraging early signs. Leo has signalled a more sympathetic approach to Ukraine and called for the release of jailed journalists.

The likelihood, if Leo’s career so far is anything to go by, is that he’ll be less outspoken than his predecessor, and more inclined towards negotiation and compromise. But the papacy offers a very different platform to that of a cardinal. Leo should take account of the fact that he’s assumed office at a time of enormous conflict, polarisation and turmoil, where many of the established assumptions about how politics and governance should be conducted are being torn up, and when global institutions and the idea of a rules-based order are coming under unprecedented strain. There’s a moral leadership vacuum in the world right now. He should help fill it.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An amendment to Hungary’s constitution includes the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers. Credit: Sara Rampazzo/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 13 2025 (IPS)

A controversial amendment to Hungary’s constitution has left the country’s LGBTQI community both defiant and fearful, rights groups have said.

The amendment, passed by parliament on April 14, includes, among others, the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers, with penalties including large fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment.

It also allows for the use of real-time facial recognition technologies for the identification of protestors.

It has been condemned by domestic and international rights groups and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as an assault on not just the LGBTQI community but wider human rights.

And there are now fears it will lead to a rise in violence against LGBTQI people whose rights have been gradually eroded in recent years under populist prime minister Viktor Orban’s authoritarian regime.

“There is serious concern that this legislative package could lead to an increase in threats, harassment, and violence against LGBTI communities in Hungary. When authorities criminalise Pride organisers and create a chilling effect on peaceful assembly, it not only emboldens hostile rhetoric but also signals impunity for those who wish to intimidate or harm LGBTI people,” Katja Štefanec Gärtner, Communications and Media Officer, ILGA-Europe, told IPS.

“The risks are not theoretical. Pride marches have long been a target for extremist groups, and this legal crackdown sends a dangerous message: that state institutions may no longer protect those marching but instead criminalise them. This creates an unsafe and unpredictable environment for all those standing up for human rights and democratic freedoms,” she added.

The amendment codifies legislation already passed in March banning LGBTQI events. It was met with widespread outrage in the LGBTQI community in Hungary. But there was also defiance, with Pride organisers insisting the event would go ahead.

Budapest’s mayor, Gergely Karácsony, also backed the organisers, pledging last month to help them find a way to hold the event despite the new legislation.

But while LGBTQI activists have said they will not give in to the new law, groups working with the community say some LGBTQI people have been shaken by the legislation.

“Depending on who you speak to, the mood now among the LGBTQI community is one of fear and worry or defiance,” Luca Dudits, press spokesperson for the Hatter Society, one of Hungary’s largest LGBTQI NGOs, told IPS.

“We will see how the new provisions [in the amendment] will affect the lives of LGBTQI people in the upcoming months, especially in June, which is Pride month, with the march taking place on the 28^th,” she added, noting that after legislation was passed in 2021 banning the depiction and promotion of “diverse gender identities and sexual orientations” to under 18s, there had been  “a wave of violence and discrimination against LGBTQI people”.

“I’m hoping this will not be the case this time. A lot of people have expressed their solidarity and said that they will attend the Pride March for the first time because of this shameful constitutional amendment,” Dudits said.

Outside Hungary, organisations and politicians have also raised the alarm over the legislation.

In a letter sent to the European Commission (EC) on April 16, dozens of LGBTQI and human rights organisations demanded the EC take immediate action to ensure the event can go ahead and that people can safely attend.

They said the ban on LGBTQI events was an attack on EU fundamental rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and that its provisions marked a significant infringement on privacy and personal freedoms protected under EU law.

Meanwhile, MEPs among a delegation which visited Hungary from April 14-16 attacked the ban and said they were calling on the EC to request the European Court of Justice to suspend the law pending further legal action.

One of the MEPs, Krzysztof Smiszek, of the Polish New Left, said the new law had led to a rise in violent attacks and hate crimes against the LGBTQI community in Hungary.

The government has defended the amendment, with Orban saying after the vote in parliament that it was designed to “protect children’s development, affirming that a person is born either male or female, and standing firm against drugs and foreign interference”.

The amendment also declares that children’s rights take precedence over any other fundamental right (except the right to life) and codifies in the Constitution the recognition of only two sexes – male and female – essentially denying transgender and intersex identities.

It also allows for the suspension of Hungarian citizenship for some dual nationals if they are deemed to pose a threat to Hungary’s security or sovereignty.

Many observers see the ban and the other measures included in the amendment as part of a wider attempt by Orban’s regime to suppress dissent and weaken rights protections as it looks to consolidate its grip on power by scapegoating parts of the population, including not just LGBTQI people but migrants and civil society groups, to appeal to conservative voters.

“Authoritarian governments around the world have discovered a playbook for keeping in power – it involves vilifying certain communities. That’s the logic behind attacks on LGBTQI communities and that’s what’s behind this. I don’t think Orban cares one way or the other about LGBT people; it’s just that they are an easy target,” Neela Ghoshal, Senior Director of Law, Policy, and Research at LGBTQI group Outright International, told IPS.

“Once you prohibit one form of protest or dissent, it becomes easier to prohibit all forms of dissent. I really do think Orban wants to prohibit all forms of dissent. He is seeking absolute power; he is not interested in the traditional architecture of democracy, i.e., checks and balances and accountability,” she added.

Dudits also pointed out the absurdity of the reasoning behind the government’s defence of the amendment.

“It is true that a large majority of society are either male or female. However, there are some people who have sex characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, external and internal sex organs, and body structure) that are common to both sexes. Intersex conditions occur in many different forms and cover a wide range of health conditions. The amendment is therefore even scientifically unsound, contradicting the very biological reality that it claims to be defending so belligerently,” she said.

If picking up voter support is behind the regime’s attacks on its perceived critics, it is unclear to what extent this policy is working.

Parliamentary elections are due to be held in Hungary in April next year and current polls put Orban’s Fidesz party – which has been in power since 2010 – behind the main opposition party, Tisza, amid voter concerns about a struggling economy, a crumbling healthcare system, and alleged government corruption.

Meanwhile, although some MEPs have publicly condemned the amendment, since the parliamentary vote the EC has said only that it needs to analyse the legislative changes to see if they fall foul of EU law but would not hesitate to act if necessary.

Rights groups say EU bodies must take action or risk allowing even greater curbs on freedoms in Hungary under Orban.

“From scapegoating LGBT people to suspending Hungarian citizenship of dual citizens, the Hungarian government is cementing a legal framework that is hostile to the rule of law, equality, and democracy in blatant violation of EU law,” Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a press release.

“Orban has shown once more his willingness to trample rights and shred protections, and there is no reason to think he won’t continue on this authoritarian path. EU institutions and member states should stand in solidarity with those in Hungary upholding EU values and do everything they can to halt the downward spiral toward authoritarianism,” he added.

Ghoshal said, though, that whatever happens, the LGBTQI community in Hungary would not give up their rights.

“The community has been through cycles of oppression and freedom. The younger members might not be able to remember it, but older members of the community will know what it is like to live under an authoritarian regime; it is in the country’s history. They have also had a taste of freedom too and they will not want to give that up.

“I think there will be a Pride march and I think there could be state violence and arrests there, but the community will remain defiant no matter what,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Amanda Perobelli/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 27 2025 (IPS)

This year’s session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), the world’s leading forum for advancing gender equality, confronted unprecedented challenges. With Saudi Arabia in the chair and anti-rights voices growing increasingly influential in the forum, the struggle to hold onto international commitments on gender equality intensified dramatically. On 8 March, International Women’s Day mobilisations also took on added urgency, with demonstrations from Istanbul to Buenos Aires focusing on resisting the multiple manifestations of gender rights regression being felt in communities worldwide.

CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report shows that hard-won women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are at risk, challenged by coordinated anti-rights movements that use gender as a political wedge issue. But it also provides abundant evidence that civil society is rising to the challenge.

Global regression

They call it ‘child protection’ in Russia, ‘family values’ in several Eastern European countries, ‘religious freedom’ in the USA, and ‘African traditions’ across the continent. The terminology shifts, but the objective is the same: halting progress towards gender equality and dismantling rights. Of course, it isn’t about differences in cultural values – it’s an orchestrated political strategy.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s system of gender apartheid has reached its brutal endpoint: women are effectively imprisoned in their homes, barred from education, work and public life, their voices literally silenced by prohibitions on singing or talking in public. Iranian authorities have gone to extreme lengths to maintain control over women’s bodies. In Iraq, lawmakers are considering lowering the minimum marriage age to just nine years old.

These extreme examples exist along a spectrum that includes Ghana’s parliament criminalising same-sex relations, Russia expanding ‘propaganda’ laws to prohibit any positive portrayal of LGBTQI+ identities, and Georgia – a country that says it wants to join the European Union – adopting Russian-style legislation restricting LGBTQI+ organisations under the cynical framing of ‘protecting minors’.

In the USA, Trump-appointed justices overturned constitutional abortion protections, triggering restrictions across numerous states. The second Trump administration has now reinstated the global gag rule, restricting international funding for organisations providing reproductive healthcare. The Guttmacher Institute projects this will deny 11.7 million women access to contraception, potentially causing 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and over 8,300 maternal deaths.

A coordinated transnational movement

Across Africa, there’s an intensifying wave of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, often driven by political opportunism. Mali’s military junta passed a law criminalising homosexuality as part of its broader crackdown on rights. Ghana’s parliament passed a draconian ‘anti-LGBTQI+ bill’, while Uganda’s Constitutional Court upheld the country’s harsh Anti-Homosexuality Act. In Kenya, a Family Protection Bill that would outlaw LGBTQI+ advocacy remains before parliament.

As recently seen at CSW, the ongoing backlash is transnational in nature. Anti-rights forces share tactics, funding and messaging across borders, with conservative foundations from the USA promoting restrictive legislation in Africa and Russian ideologues exporting their playbook to former Soviet states and beyond. US evangelical organisations and conservative think-tanks are a particularly influential source of anti-rights narratives and funding: they’ve funnelled millions of dollars into campaigns against reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ equality worldwide, while providing intellectual frameworks and legal strategies for adaption to local contexts from Poland to Uganda.

Victories against the odds

Against this daunting backdrop, civil society continues achieving remarkable victories through strategic resistance and persistence. In 2024, Thailand became Southeast Asia’s first country to legalise same-sex marriage, while Greece broke new ground as the first majority Orthodox Christian country to do so. France enshrined abortion rights in its constitution, creating a powerful bulwark against future threats.

A regional trend continued in the Caribbean, with civil society litigation successfully overturning colonial-era laws that criminalised homosexuality in Dominica. Colombia and Sierra Leone banned child marriage, while women’s rights groups in The Gambia defeated a bill that would have decriminalised female genital mutilation.

These successes share common elements: they’re the result of sustained, multi-year advocacy campaigns combining legal challenges, community mobilisation, strategic communications and international solidarity.

Take Thailand’s marriage equality victory. Success came partly through the campaign’s intersection with the youth-led democracy movement, which connected LGBTQI+ rights to broader aspirations for a fairer society. In Kenya, despite harsh anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric from political leaders, strategic litigation by civil society secured a court ruling preventing incitement to violence against LGBTQI+ people.

Even in the most repressive contexts, activists find ways to resist. Afghan women, denied basic rights to education and movement, have developed underground schools and created subtle forms of civil disobedience that maintain pressure without risking their lives. Along with their Iranian sisters, they continue to campaign for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime under international law.

The path forward: intersectionality and solidarity

Progress in realising rights is neither linear nor inevitable. Each advance triggers opposition, so every victory needs defence. To solidify and last, legal changes must be accompanied by social transformation – which is why civil society complements policy advocacy with public education, community organising and cultural engagement.

Advocacy is most effective when it embraces intersectionality, recognising how gender, sexuality, class, race, disability and migration status create overlapping forms of exclusion that need integrated responses. Feminist movements are increasingly centring the experiences of Black women, Indigenous women, women with disabilities and trans women.

Even where progress can feel elusive, civil society is playing a crucial role in keeping hope alive. Organisations defending women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are maintaining spaces where people are allowed to be their true selves, providing support services that nobody else will provide, documenting violations that would otherwise go unrecorded, keeping up the pressure on the authorities and building solidarity networks that sustain activists through difficult times.

International support for these efforts has never been more important. The USAID funding freeze highlights a troubling trend of shrinking resources for gender rights defenders at precisely the moment they’re needed most. This makes diversifying funding sources an urgent priority, with feminist philanthropists, progressive foundations and governments committed to gender equality needing to step up. More innovative funding mechanisms are required to rapidly respond to emergencies while sustaining the long-term work of movement building. Individuals have power: anyone can contribute directly to frontline organisations, amplify their voices on social media, challenge regressive narratives in their communities and demand that elected representatives prioritise gender equality domestically and in foreign policy. In the global struggle for fundamental rights, no one should be a spectator. The time for solidarity is now.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Pietro Bertora/SOS Humanity

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 25 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations Refugee Agency faces devastating cuts that may eliminate 5,000 to 6,000 jobs, with potentially catastrophic consequences for millions of people fleeing war, repression, hunger and climate disasters. This 75-year-old institution, established to help Europeans displaced by the Second World War, now confronts an unprecedented financial crisis, primarily due to the US foreign aid freeze – and the timing couldn’t be worse.

As CIVICUS’s 14th annual State of Civil Society Report documents, a series of connected crisis – including conflicts, economic hardship and climate change – have created a perfect storm that threatens migrants and refugees, who face increasingly hostile policies and dangerous journeys from governments turning their backs on principles of international solidarity and human rights.

At least 8,938 people died on migration routes worldwide in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record, with many of the deaths in the Mediterranean and along routes across the Americas, including the Caribbean Sea, the Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama and the extensive border between Mexico and the USA. Just last week, six people died and another 40 are missing after their boat capsized in the Mediterranean.

Such tragedies have come time again over the last year. In March 2024, 60 people, including a Senegalese mother and her baby, died from dehydration after their dinghy was left adrift in the Mediterranean. In June, US border agents found seven dead migrants in the Arizona and New Mexico deserts. In September, seven people were found clinging to the sides of a boat that capsized off the Italian island of Lampedusa, after watching 21 other people, many of them family members, drown around them.

These tragedies weren’t accidents or policy failures. They were the predictable results of morally indefensible political choices.

The reality behind the rhetoric

The facts contradict populist narratives about migration overwhelming wealthy countries. At least 71 per cent of the world’s refugees remain in the global south, with countries such as Bangladesh, Colombia, Ethiopia and Uganda hosting far more displaced people than most European countries. Yet global north governments keep hardening borders and outsourcing migration management to prevent arrivals. The second Trump administration has declared a ‘national emergency’ at the US southern border, enabling military deployment and promising mass deportations while explicitly framing migrants as invaders – a rhetoric that history shows can easily lead to deadly consequences.

Europe continues its own troubling trajectory. Italy is attempting to transfer asylum seekers to Albanian detention centres, while the Netherlands has proposed sending rejected asylum seekers to Uganda, blatantly disregarding the state’s human rights violations, particularly against LGBTQI+ people. The European Union is expanding controversial deals with authoritarian governments in Egypt and Tunisia, effectively paying them to prevent migrants reaching European shores.

Anti-migrant rhetoric has become a common and effective electoral strategy. Far-right parties have made significant gains in elections in many countries by campaigning against immigration. Demonising narratives played a key role in Donald Trump’s re-election. The mobilisation of xenophobic sentiment extends beyond Europe and the USA, from anti-Haitian rhetoric in the Dominican Republic to anti-Bangladeshi campaigning in India.

Civil society under siege

Civil society organisations providing humanitarian assistance are increasingly being criminalised for their work. Italy has made it illegal for search-and-rescue organisations to conduct more than one rescue per trip, imposes heavy fines for noncompliance and deliberately directs rescue vessels to distant ports. These measures have achieved their intended goal of reducing the number of active rescue ships and contributed to the over 2,400 migrant drownings recorded in the Mediterranean in 2024 alone. Tunisia’s president has labelled people advocating for African migrants’ rights as traitors and mercenaries, leading to criminal charges and imprisonment.

Despite mounting obstacles, civil society maintains its commitment to protecting the human rights of migrants and refugees. Civil society groups maintain lifesaving operations in displacement settings from the Darién Gap to Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. Legal aid providers navigate increasingly complex asylum systems to help people access protection. Community organisations facilitate integration through language instruction, job placements and social connections. Advocacy groups document abuses and push for accountability when state authorities violate migrants’ human rights.

But they’re now operating with drastically diminishing resources in increasingly hostile environments. Critical protection mechanisms are being dismantled at a time of unprecedented need. The implications should alarm anyone concerned with human dignity. If borders keep hardening and safe pathways disappear, more people will attempt dangerous journeys with deadly consequences. The criminalisation of solidarity risks eliminating critical lifelines for the most vulnerable, and dehumanising rhetoric is normalising discrimination and institutionalising indifference and cruelty.

A different approach is possible

Rather than reactive, fear-based policies, civil society can push for comprehensive approaches that uphold human dignity while addressing the complex drivers of migration. This means confronting the root causes of displacement through conflict prevention, climate action and sustainable development. It also means creating more legal pathways for migration, ending the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance and investing in integration support.

There’s a need to challenge the fundamental assumption that migration is an existential threat rather than a manageable reality than requires humane governance, and an asset to receiving societies. Historically, societies that have integrated newcomers have greatly benefited from their contributions – economically, culturally and socially.

In a world of unprecedented and growing global displacement, the question isn’t whether migration will continue – it will – but whether it will be managed with cruelty or compassion. As CIVICUS’s State of Civil Society Report makes clear, the treatment of migrants and refugees serves as a litmus test: the way societies respond will prove or disprove their commitment to the idea of a shared humanity – the principle that all humans deserve dignity, regardless of where they were born or the documents they carry.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela and Andrew Firmin
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay / LONDON, Mar 20 2025 (IPS)

In a world of overlapping crises, from brutal conflicts and democratic regression to climate breakdown and astronomic levels of economic inequality, one vital force stands as a shield and solution: civil society. This is the sobering but ultimately hopeful message of CIVICUS’s 14th annual State of Civil Society Report, which provides a wide-ranging civil society perspective on the state of the world as it stands in early 2025.

The report paints an unflinching portrait of today’s reality: one where civilians are being slaughtered in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere, with perpetrators increasingly confident they’ll face no consequences. A global realignment appears underway, with the Trump administration dismantling longstanding international alliances and seemingly determined to reward acts of aggression. Any semblance of a rules-based international order is crumbling as transactional diplomacy and the dangerous principle that might makes right become normalised.

Climate change continues to accelerate. 2024 was the hottest year on record, yet fossil fuel companies keep banking record profits, even as they scale back renewable energy plans in favour of further extraction. The world’s economies are reaching new levels of dysfunction, marked by soaring inequality and worsening precarity, while billionaires accumulate unprecedented wealth. Tech and media tycoons are no longer content just to influence policy; increasingly they want to control politics, raising the risk of state capture by oligarchs. Democracy is under siege, with right-wing populism, nationalism and autocratic rule surging. Democratic dissent is being crushed.

These compounding crises create a perfect storm that threatens the foundations of human rights and democratic freedoms. But in this precarious moment, precisely when civil society is needed most, it faces an accelerating funding crisis. Major donor agencies have cut back support and aligned funding with narrow national interests, while many states have passed laws to restrict international funding for civil society. The malicious and reckless USAID funding freeze has come as a particularly heavy blow, placing many civil society groups at existential risk.

At times like these it’s worth thinking about what the world would look like without civil society. Human rights violations would flourish unchecked. Democracy would erode even faster, leaving people with no meaningful agency to shape decisions affecting their lives. Climate change would accelerate past every tipping point. Women would lose bodily autonomy. LGBTQI+ people would be forced back into the closet. Excluded minorities would routinely face violence with no recourse. Whole communities would live in fear.

As events during 2024 and early 2025 have shown, even under extraordinary pressure, civil society continues to prove its immense value. In conflict zones, grassroots groups are filling critical gaps in humanitarian response, documenting violations and advocating for civilian protection. In numerous countries, civil society has successfully mobilised to prevent democratic backsliding, ensure fair elections and challenge authoritarian power grabs.

Through strategic litigation, civil society has established groundbreaking legal precedents forcing governments to take more ambitious climate action. Struggles for gender equality and LGBTQI+ rights keep being won through persistent advocacy, despite intensifying backlash. Across diverse contexts, civil society has employed a wide range of ever-evolving and creative tactics – from mass mobilisation to legal action – and proved it can and will hold the line even as civic space restrictions intensify and funding is slashed.

The message is clear: civil society represents a vital source of resistance, resilience and hope. Without it, many more people would be living much worse lives.

But if civil society is to keep doing this vital work, it may need to reinvent itself. The funding crisis demands innovation, because even before the USAID catastrophe, the donor-reliant model had reached its limits. It has long been criticised for reproducing economic and political power imbalances while constraining civil society’s ability to confront entrenched power. More diverse and sustainable resourcing models are urgently needed, from community-based funding approaches to ethical enterprise activities that generate unrestricted income.

To thrive in this changing and volatile context, civil society will have to embrace a movement mindset characterised by distributed leadership, nimble decision-making and the ability to mobilise broad constituencies rapidly. Some of the most successful civil society actions in recent years have shown these qualities, from youth-led climate movements to horizontally organised feminist campaigns that connect people across class, race and geographic barriers.

Civil society must prioritise authentic community connections, particularly with those most excluded from power. This means going beyond traditional consultations to develop genuine relationships with communities, including those outside urban centres or disadvantaged by digital divides. The strength of the relationships civil society can nurture should be one key measure of success.

Equally crucial is the development of compelling narratives, and infrastructure to help share them, that speak to people’s legitimate anxieties while offering inclusive, rights-based alternatives to the widely spread and seductive but dangerous appeals of populism and authoritarianism. These narratives must connect universal values to local contexts and concerns.

In this current cascade of global crises, civil society can no longer hope for a return to business as usual. A more movement-oriented, community-driven and financially independent civil society will be better equipped to withstand threats and more effectively realise its collective mission of building a more just, equal, democratic and sustainable world.

The 2025 State of Civil Society Report offers both a warning and a call to action for all concerned about the shape of today’s world. Civil society represents humanity’s best hope for navigating the treacherous waters ahead. In these dark times, civil society remains a beacon of light. It must continue to shine.

Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist and Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. They are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Chihwa Chadambuka belongs to the LGBTQ community, who have turned to climate-smart agriculture to change perceptions of the group. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

By Farai Shawn Matiashe
MUTARE, Zimbabwe, Feb 20 2025 (IPS)

Takudzwa Saruwaka is hoeing weeds in a cowpea field in eastern Zimbabwe one morning in February, trying to beat torrential rains threatening from the gray clouds above.

The 27-year-old has braved the rainy weather to work on this drought-resistant crop grown in the backyard of office premises, converted to a farming field at Matondo Growth Point, a peri-urban area about 25 kilometers outside Zimbabwe’s third largest city of Mutare.

“Last year we had a drought that took a toll on our crops. So, this year we decided to grow cowpeas,” says Saruwaka, a member of Mothers Haven Trust, a community organization supporting Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer women (LBTQI) in rural areas outside Mutare.

“It is short-term, meaning it matures in only two months.”

Saruwaka is one of the LBTQ members who turned to smart agriculture to build climate resilience in 2022.

Having been accused of being ‘involved in acts’ that cause droughts by the community, which is a misconception, these people are demonstrating that climate disasters like droughts and floods are caused by climate change and that climate-smart agriculture helps build resilience.

Last year, Zimbabwe was hit by a drought attributed to El Niño, a climate phenomenon that can exacerbate drought or storms—weather conditions made more likely by climate change.

More than half of the southern African nation’s population of 15.1 million was left food insecure.

Zambia, Lesotho, Malawi and Namibia are struggling with food shortages.

Takudzwa Saruwaka hoes weeds in a field at Matondo Growth Point, outside Mutare. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

Climate-Smart Farming Improving Family Relations

Chihwa Chadambuka, a founder of Mothers Haven Trust, says they were experiencing verbal threats and abuse as people were curious to know what happens behind their locked gates.

“We kept our premises locked for personal security reasons. They became so curious,” says Chadambuka, a transgender man, who established the organization in Zimbabwe’s second-largest city of Bulawayo in 2015 and moved to Mutare in 2019.

“We had to re-strategize. They saw us as beggars. We concluded we needed to venture into agriculture. We engaged an agronomist who helped us grow vegetables, onions, tomatoes and sweet potatoes.”

They started clearing the land in the backyard of their office premises.

Produce from their first harvest was donated to the local community and some were taken home to improve relations.

“This created a good relationship with the community. It sparked some conversations between us and them,” says Chadambuka, adding that they also sell some farm produce to the local community while the farmers take some to their families.

Saruwaka says by providing food to their families, it reduces rifts.

“Relationships between our members and their families are improving. If you tell them you want to be a she while they see you as a he, they will think you are running away from responsibilities,” they say.

“But if you are working, they take you seriously. Behind our sexuality, we also work hard building climate resilience.”

There are 64 countries where homosexuality is criminalized, and nearly half of these are in Africa, according to statistics from the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, a worldwide federation of organizations campaigning for LGBTQI rights.

In Africa, most countries, like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda and Kenya, inherited archaic and draconian laws that criminalize homosexuality from the white colonialists who introduced them many years ago.

Takudzwa Saruwaka removing weeds from a plot with climate-resilient cowpeas at Matondo Growth Point, outside Mutare. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage but is silent on gay relations, while other laws that criminalize homosexuality in the country carry stiff penalties of up to three years in jail for those involved.

The southern African nation is largely dominated by Christians, who account for more than 80 percent of the population.

In Zimbabwe, discrimination is worse for LGBTQI members in rural areas because of patriarchy, religion and societal beliefs.

Lack of access to opportunities due to discrimination increases the LGBTQI community’s vulnerability to climate change.

LGBTQI People ‘More at Risk’ From Climate Change

“LGBTQI people are at risk from climate change due to the intersection of social, economic, and legal factors that contribute to their marginalization and vulnerability in crisis environments,” says Matuba Mahlatjie, a communications and media relations manager at Outright International, an organization that works to strengthen the capacity of the LGBTQI movement around the world.

He says the marginalization of LGBTQI people is rooted in legal frameworks and normative assumptions that dictate which sexual orientations, gender identities, or sex characteristics are desirable and permissible, leading to experiences of bias, violence, and exclusion.

Mahlatjie says the LGBTQI community can be protected from climate shocks by proactively opening space for them and formally bringing LGBTQI organizations into the humanitarian ecosystem through mechanisms such as task forces or working groups.

Mothers Haven Trust organizes fairs where farmers meet and exchange farming techniques and exhibit different varieties of crops, including drought-resistant.

As water sources dry up every year, they have also set up a greenhouse to reduce their reliance on rain-fed agriculture.

Back home, other members are implementing techniques learned at the farm, contributing to household food security.

Chadambuka says plans are underway this year to directly work with the community to raise awareness about climate change.

“We want to engage schools, educating the young about climate change,” he says.

Saruwaka is working to become a full-time farmer and contribute to Zimbabwe’s food security.

“If I get a large piece of land and focus on farming. But I will drill a borehole because rain-fed agriculture is unsustainable due to climate change,” they say.

“I want to diversify into poultry and animal husbandry.”

Note: This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Pavitra Nandagiri—one of the highest-ranking transgender spiritual leaders at Maha Kumbh, the largest religious gathering on earth in Prayagraj, India. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
PRAYAGRAJ, India, Feb 18 2025 (IPS)

Despite a blazing sun and growing heat, Pavitra Nandagiri sits on a cot smiling. Clad in a saffron robe and headgear with her forehead painted with turmeric and vermillion, Nandagiri is a Mahamandaleshwar—one of the highest-ranking monks of the Kinnar Akhada (Transgender Arena) at the Maha Kumbh, the world’s largest religious gathering currently underway in northern India.

As a steady stream of visitors pours in to touch her feet, Nandagiri raises her right hand and touches their heads in a gesture of accepting their respect and blesses them.

Just a few hours ago, she had taken part in the special, ceremonial snan (bathing) in the Sangam—a place with mythological significance where three holy rivers—Ganga, Jamuna and Saraswati—are believed to have met. Taking a dip in the confluence of these rivers is considered by Hindus as the most sacred act of one’s lifetime.

The ceremonial bathing is led by the most important of the living Hindu saints and godmen who follow a strict order of hierarchy. On Wednesday morning (February 12), the fourth ceremonial bathing of the 45-day Maha Kumbh was held. Fifteen transgender spiritual leaders, including Nandagiri, marched along with the Naga Sadhus and Aghoris—the legendary saints with ash-covered bodies, matted hair, and minimalistic clothing. Together, they bathed in the river with the holy chant of “Har har Mahadev” (Hail Shiva) while saints of other sects waited for their turn.

A devotee prays at the Maha Kumbh Sangam, where three rivers are believed to have converged. While two of the rivers—Ganges and Yamuna—are visible, the third river, Saraswati, is said to be hidden underneath. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Later, inside the Kinnar Akhada, trans gurus receive visitors while some are seen performing some rituals and meditating along with Aghori ascetics. Asked how the partnership between the third highest order of the religious saints and the trans leaders came to be, Nandagiri says that it had been in the making since 2015 and culminated in a functioning collaboration during this year’s Maha Kumbh, which happens once every 12 years. She, however, does not share other details except that perhaps what brought together the two sects is their shared denouncement of worldly pleasure and embracing of a life free from its wealth and other complexities.

Transgender-Inclusive Kumbh: Conditions Apply

At the Kumbh, Akharas are organized into various sects, primarily categorized based on their philosophical orientation and the deity they worship. The two main sects are Shaiva Akharas, dedicated to Lord Shiva, and Vaishnava Akharas, devoted to Lord Vishnu. Each Akhara operates under a hierarchical structure, typically led by a Mahant (chief) or Acharya (spiritual leader) who oversees the spiritual and administrative functions.

The inclusion of the transgender Acharyas in the Kumbh, especially as a part of the highly revered Juna Akhada of the group of the Naga Sadhus, however, has not been completely free of controversies. Some have disputed their claim of embracing a minimalistic life and accused them of indulging in a game of power and authority considered unbefitting for true sainthood.

On January 24, the community ushered in a former film actress called Mamta Kulkarni as one of its top leaders, which led to protests by many both from within the trans community and leaders of other Hindu sects, who described it as a public relations stunt. Baba Ramdev—a well-known yoga guru—called it a violation of the Hindu religious ethos. Some gurus went as far as threatening to boycott the next Kumbh—to be held in 2037—if the Kinnar Akhada is not excluded from the ritual bathing.

Kalyani Nandagiri—another top-ranking trans guru who opposed the actress’s inclusion—was physically attacked by unidentified assailants on February 12.

A monk at the Transgender Arena within the Maha Kumbh. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Despite these deep divisions and acts of violence, Pavitra Nanndgiri remains hopeful of the community’s future.

“People say a lot of things; some wrongs also happen. But such small issues should not be highlighted much. We are here today, and we will be here then (in the next Kumbh),” she says, sounding more like a peace advocate.

A Different Picture

While inside the Kinnar Akhada, trans gurus are busy receiving and blessing visitors; outside, on the street, a small crowd of men is seen surrounding a young trans man dancing to the fast beats of music.

“This is Launda Naach,” says Ajeet Bahadur—a local theater artist. “It’s a common form of rural entertainment here, performed typically by cross-dressing trans men.”

The audience of Launda Naach is typically male. It is said to have started at a time when women were not allowed to dance in public because of orthodox social norms. However, today the moves of a Launda Naach performer are often sleazy and according to Ajeet Bahadur, the dancers are often sexually exploited, and their performance is rarely seen as art.

“Their lives are unbelievably miserable; there is little respect for their art, all eyes are on their bodies and exploitation and poverty are a constant part of their lives,” says Bahadur, who has studied the lives of Launda Naach performers for some time.

Aside from Launda Naach performers, thousands of other trans men and women in India struggle to earn a living. They are usually seen begging on the street and inside public transport, while many are also often accused of extorting money from small businesses such as shopkeepers in local markets. Not surprisingly, the presence of a trans person in India usually evokes a mix of fear and contempt instead of the deep respect that is on display in the Kinnar Akhada of the Kumbh. Will the elevated status of the gurus here lead to any change in the social status of the common trans people?

Priyanka Nandagiri, a transgender monk, says that it cannot be guaranteed. “Broadly, the transgender community in India is divided into two groups: the Sanatani and the Deredaar. We are the members of the Sanatani group who have always been immersed in religious activities, while the Deredaar are the ones who have chosen a different lifestyle, such as performing dances on the street and at social events like weddings, etc. So, we have always been following separate paths,” she explains.

Dwita Acharya and Mohini Acharya—two other trans monks—nod in agreement: “It will depend on what life they choose,” they say in unison.

”If they want to follow our path (the Sanatani), they will get that recognition but if they want to continue with their usual Deredaar lifestyle, then people will continue to view them accordingly.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A protester holding a sign declaring the death of democracy during social protests against the authoritarian policies of Peru's President Dina Boluarte in downtown Lima, July 2024. Credit: Walter Hupiu / IPS

By Mariela Jara
LIMA, Feb 10 2025 (IPS)

“We are facing a deeply conservative government that is opening the doors to all kinds of setbacks. We have a failed state with a democracy that is no longer a democracy,” said Gina Vargas, a Peruvian feminist internationally recognized for her contributions to women’s rights.

In an interview with IPS from her home in Lima, Vargas shared her perspective on Peru, a country of 34 million inhabitants, which is undergoing a profound political crisis that is weakening its democratic institutions, ultimately harming the rights of the most vulnerable populations, such as women and the LGBTI+ community.

The female population is just over 17 million, according to the government’s National Institute of Statistics and Computing, while a 2019 study by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights estimated that LGBTI+ adults could reach 1.7 million.“The conservatives are taking away everything they believe goes against their traditional principles, while the reality for Peruvian women is one of discrimination, violence, femicide, sexual abuse of girls, and the denial of therapeutic abortion”: Gina Vargas.

Vargas, one of the founders of the feminist Flora Tristán Peruvian Women’s Center, one of the oldest organizations in Latin American feminism, argued that the conservative forces, which manifest as the far-right in Peru, are seeking to reclaim what they lost in terms of their values over the last three decades.

This period began with the adoption of the Beijing Platform for Action, which established norms and mechanisms for the advancement of women.

In September 1995, 30 years ago, the Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development, and Peace, convened by the United Nations, was held in Beijing, China. Representatives from 189 countries participated, not only from governments but also from women’s and feminist movements.

A sociologist, Gina Vargas will turn 80 in July. She coordinated the participation of Latin American and Caribbean civil society organizations in the global forum, as well as their contributions to the Platform, which outlines the commitments of states regarding 12 areas of action on the status of women worldwide.

She highlighted that within this framework, mechanisms were established at the highest level to promote equal rights, which in Peru’s case is currently the Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations (MIMP). However, this ministry will be diluted in a regressive wave through an upcoming merger with the Ministry of Inclusion and Social Development.

“The conservatives are taking away everything they believe goes against their traditional principles, while the reality for Peruvian women is one of discrimination, violence, femicide, sexual abuse of girls, and the denial of therapeutic abortion,” she lamented.

Peruvian feminist Gina Vargas believes that democracy no longer exists in Peru and that the growing influence of conservative groups is harming the rights of women and sexual diversity. Pictured third from the left during the launch of the 46th anniversary of the non-governmental Flora Tristán Center, of which she is one of the founders, on January 30. Credit: Mariela Jara / IPS

According to official figures, 170 femicides occurred nationwide in 2024. The number for the last three years rises to 450 when including victims from 2022 and 2023. Peru has a law against violence toward women and family members, and it has incorporated the crime of femicide into the Penal Code.

These are serious issues that three decades ago were weakly addressed by the state or absent from its agenda. But Vargas emphasized that the Beijing Platform left a set of commitments to be fulfilled and expanded, as has happened in many countries.

“But in Peru, we are facing brutal resistance in a context where there is no balance of power, and the Legislature passes laws to co-opt democratic institutions in their desire to control the country,” she stressed.

The legislative Congress of the Republic has an approval rate of 5%, and President Dina Boluarte’s administration has 6%, according to recent polls, reflecting one of the most discredited periods for state branches in the country.

Both branches of government are seen as colluding for personal interests, closely linked to corruption, and unable to address citizen insecurity and poverty, two of the most pressing issues in this South American and Andean nation.

Vargas warned: “We are facing a failed state, with the rise of fundamentalism, authoritarianism, and the imposition of the right-wing. What is not good for democracy is definitely not good for us or for sexual diversity.”

A banner featuring victims of femicide in Peru during a demonstration in Lima. Peru suffered 170 femicides in 2024, reflecting the severe violation of women’s human rights. Credit: Mariela Jara / IPS

Fear of Losing Rights

Antonella Martel, a 29-year-old psychologist, grew up in a country that already had a favorable framework for women’s rights and guaranteed gender equality, established in the 1979 Constitution and maintained in the current one from 1993.

She is aware that she has had more opportunities than her mother and grandmothers. “Now, traditional roles for women and men are being questioned; they are no longer normalized as before. There are also laws against gender-based violence, although access to justice is complicated,” she told IPS.

In the current context, she fears that the rights gained could be lost. “There is distrust in institutions that are not allies of women’s struggles and do not play a protective role for their rights,” she said.

One of her biggest concerns is that the setbacks and the disappearance of the Ministry of Women through its merger with another ministry will weaken the state’s action against violence. “We women face this problem every day, and it could get worse,” she warned.

Maria Ysabel Cedano, a lawyer with the Demus organization and the non-governmental Lifs, criticized the lack of protection for the rights of the LGBTI population. “Lesbians are not invisible because we are hidden in the closet, but because no one wants to see you or let you be seen,” she stated. Credit: Mariela Jara / IPS

They Don’t Want to See Us

María Ysabel Cedano, a 59-year-old lawyer from the feminist human rights organization Demus and an associate of the non-governmental Independent Feminist Socialist Lesbians (Lifs), believes that the world is experiencing a new fascist stage, which in Peru has its own version in Fujimorism and its conservative political allies, whether ideologically right-wing or left-wing.

The late Alberto Fujimori ruled autocratically between 1990 and 2000 and established an ultra-conservative movement that now manifests in the Popular Force party, the leading legislative group led by his daughter Keiko Fujimori.

Fujimori was the only head of state to attend the Beijing Conference, where he promoted his new National Population Policy and birth control measures. It was later revealed that this included the  forced, mass, and non-consensual sterilization of poor and indigenous people, especially in rural areas, a practice that victimized around 300,000 women.

“We are witnessing the hijacking of democracy as a political horizon, a system that, despite its flaws, allowed us to expand freedoms and rights such as equality and non-discrimination, access to justice, and those related to women, which have been the result of sustained struggles,” Cedano reflected in an interview with IPS.

She explained that anti-rights groups have not been satisfied with taking over the state as a spoil through corruption but are operating as a regime that attacks everything opposing their beliefs, seeking to impose totalitarian thinking.

In late 2024, the institution Transparencia issued a report on 20 laws passed by this Congress of the Republic that weakened democracy, favored the actions of criminal groups, and undermined human and environmental rights.

“They don’t need typical wars with lethal weapons; they have developed technological mechanisms to appropriate minds and hearts through denialism and disinformation,” she emphasized.

Cedano talked about Argentina, where libertarian President Javier Milei is dismantling progress in rights, and the massive rejection by the population on February 1. Along with her LIFS collective, she joined the solidarity sit-in in front of the Argentine embassy.

“Argentina generates and radiates indignation. It experienced and enjoyed dignity and knows what it has lost, whereas in Peru we don’t know it because we’ve never had anything,” she said regarding rights for the LGBTI+ population.

She adds there are no laws on gender identity or equal marriage. “In reality, we survive without enjoying rights; we live in a so-called democracy without being citizens,” she added.

The lesbian activist also denounced that they have been stigmatized and accused of atrocities such as wanting to homosexualize children, using them to attack comprehensive sexual education in schools.

She noted that the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights study reveals that 71% of the population perceives that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans people suffer discrimination. “We swell the lists of suicides, bullying, school dropouts, and sexual assaults. They want us to live in the ghetto, on the margins,” she asserted.

In a context where democratic institutions are unable to guarantee people’s rights and the Ministry of Women, as the governing body for gender equality, is about to disappear through the merger, the prospects for the rights of non-heterosexual people are at greater risk.

“Lesbians are not invisible because we are hidden in the closet, but because no one wants to see you or let you be seen. They make you feel guilty and responsible for the consequences of living fully in the light… and that results in multiple and terrible acts of violence,” Cedano stressed.

The United Nations Security Council met on December 12, 2024 to discuss the deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 4 2025 (IPS)

The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan has deteriorated significantly since the 2021 Taliban Offensive, an insurgency that resulted in the Taliban’s reclamation of power and the fall of the nation’s republic. In 2024, the Taliban issued further restrictions on human rights in Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls. These restrictions caused the country to enter a state of economic emergency. This, compounded with heightened insecurity and limited access to basic services, has left over 23 million people in dire need of humanitarian assistance.

Since 2021, the military group began coordinating a series of restrictive measures that significantly limited physical autonomy, access to education and freedom of expression, especially for women and girls. It is believed that women are currently unable to enter public spaces or hold jobs across multiple sectors.

On January 23, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two high-ranking Taliban leaders, Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and Supreme Court Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani, citing crimes of gender-based persecution. “These applications recognise that Afghan women and girls as well as the LGBTQI+ community are facing an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban,” said ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. He added that violations of international humanitarian law subjected to dissenters have been documented.

According to the arrest warrant, opposition to the Taliban’s statutes have been “brutally repressed” through murder, torture, imprisonment, sexual violence, and enforced disappearance. The ICC has indicated that it remains dedicated to analyzing future impunities perpetrated by the Taliban.

On January 16, Human Rights Watch (HRW) provided examples of the multifaceted humanitarian crisis that arose from the Taliban’s restrictions against women. According to the report, the Taliban’s edicts on women’s employment and freedom of movement have severely impeded their ability to receive access to healthcare. Additionally, Afghanistan’s healthcare system has been significantly damaged from an absence of female workers.

“The loss of foreign development aid and Taliban rights violations have caused a catastrophic health crisis in Afghanistan that is disproportionately harming women and girls,” said Fereshta Abbasi, a researcher of Afghanistan at HRW. “The Taliban have severely obstructed women from providing or accessing health care, while the cost of treatment and medicine has put care out of reach for many Afghans.”

According to a study conducted by the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI) titled Violation of Human and Women’s Rights by the Taliban in Afghanistan: The Taliban’s Takeover and its Consequences, the extensive restrictions on the autonomy of women and girls will yield severe economic and social consequences for Afghanistan.

Currently, approximately 3 million girls in Afghanistan have been deprived of education beyond sixth grade since 2021. It is estimated that the bans on women’s education and employment will cost the Afghan economy approximately 5.4 billion dollars. Furthermore, average wages increase by roughly 3.9 percent for each year that girls are in school. Afghanistan is projected to suffer intensified financial losses in the coming years.

The United Nations (UN) states that the exclusion of women and girls from the workforce and education greatly amplifies protection risks. Poverty has also been reported as a consequence of these edicts. According to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, restricting the role of women in public affairs “exacerbates poverty and hampers efforts to build a stable and resilient society”.

HRW states Afghanistan’s worsening economic crisis has facilitated extreme living conditions for approximately 23.7 million people, including 9.2 million children. It is estimated that roughly 14.7 million people are facing food insecurity, with 2.9 million at emergency levels of hunger. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) estimates that 3.9 million children between the ages of 6 to 59 months are projected to suffer from acute malnutrition and desperately require humanitarian intervention.

Additionally, 48 percent of the population live below the poverty line. Basic services such as access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), are critically underfunded, with 8.4 million people lacking access to safe drinking water and 4.3 million without latrines.

Sufficient aid responses have not been implemented due to the vast scale of unexploded ordnance which has restricted mobility. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), explosive remnants of war are the leading cause of death among Afghan children. From October to December 2024, there were 47 child casualties as a result of unexploded ordnance. Ongoing violence and the presence of explosive munitions near schools also negatively impact access to basic services.

Despite the persistence of these compounding crises in Afghanistan, humanitarian organizations remain dedicated to providing life-saving assistance wherever they can. Last year, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) launched the 2025 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan for Afghanistan, requesting 2.4 billion USD to support these efforts. In 2025, aid groups aim to target approximately 16.8 million people, assisting them with access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, WASH services, and all other forms of multisectoral support.

However, the efficacy of aid services going forward is in a state of uncertainty due to President Trump’s new measures to freeze foreign aid. Over the past 24 years, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided Afghanistan with over 109 billion USD in aid, with 746 million being allotted to Afghanistan in 2024 alone. Funding cuts like this are projected to have disastrous effects on humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan going forward.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, addresses the United Nations Holocaust Memorial Ceremony: Holocaust Remembrance for Dignity and Human Rights in observance of the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 28 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations (UN) held the annual Holocaust Memorial Ceremony on January 27 with the theme “Holocaust Remembrance for Dignity and Human Rights”. This year – 2025 – marks the 80 year anniversary of the end of World War II and the liberation of Nazi concentration camps that resulted in the deaths of over 6 million Jews. This event included testimonies from Holocaust survivors, underscoring the importance of understanding and remembrance. With Holocaust denial and attacks on Jews on the rise, it is important to take meaningful steps as a society to combat racism and antisemitism.

The opening remarks at this ceremony was delivered by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in which he emphasized the vast scale of minorities who were targeted by the Nazi party as well as the UN’s commitment to remember and honor these victims.

“Every year on this day, we come together to mark the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. We mourn the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators as they sought to destroy an entire people. We grieve the Romani Sintis, people with disabilities, LGBTQIA+ people, and all those enslaved, persecuted, tortured, and killed. We stand alongside victims, survivors, and their families. And we renew our resolve to never forget the atrocities that so outraged the conscience of humankind,” said Guterres.

Guterres went on to elaborate on the importance of remembrance. Although survivors of the Holocaust have continued to share their stories, it is a societal responsibility to fight for justice. “Remembrance is not only a moral act , remembrance is a call to action. To allow the Holocaust to fade from memory would dishonor the past and betray the future,” he said.

The UN Deputy Representative for the United States Dorothy Shea also spoke at this conference, underscoring that Holocaust remembrance is especially important as of today with antisemitism on the rise again, especially among younger generations. “Holocaust denial and distortion are also on the rise. They are a form of antisemitism and are often coupled with xenophobia.  History shows, as hatred directed at Jews rises, violence and attacks on the foundations of democracy are not far behind…The data also highlights a troubling increase in antisemitic attitudes among younger demographics, with significant implications for future societal dynamics,” she said.

On January 14, the Anti Defamation League (ADL) released the Global 100 Survey, a study that analyzes trends of antisemitic beliefs around the world. The survey studied around 58,000 people in 103 countries to represent the 94 percent of the entire adult population. It found that approximately 46 percent of adults worldwide harbor some form of antisemitic beliefs, equal to roughly 2.2 billion people. These numbers are nearly double the amount recorded in ADL’s 2014 survey and mark the highest level on record since the beginning of ADL’s surveys.

Additionally, the survey found that approximately 20 percent of the studied population had not heard about the Holocaust. Roughly 48 percent believe in the Holocaust’s historical accuracy, with this percentage being even lower, at an alarming 39 percent among 18-34 year olds. Furthermore, 50 percent of respondents younger than 35 years of age reported elevated levels of antisemitic beliefs.

ADL surveyors also analyzed a possible link between worldwide levels of antisemitism and the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) extensive acts of brutality against Palestinians during the Israel-Hamas War. Approximately 23 percent of respondents indicated support for Hamas.

Overall, sentiments towards Israel were relatively mixed, with 71 percent of respondents believing that their nation should have diplomatic relations with Israel and 75 percent believing that their nation should welcome tourism from Israeli people. Additionally, about 67 percent of respondents believed that their nations should not boycott Israeli goods.

“Antisemitism is nothing short of a global emergency, especially in a post-October 7 world. We are seeing these trends play out from the Middle East to Asia, from Europe to North and South America,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL’s CEO. According to the report, the highest levels of antisemitism are concentrated in the Middle East and North Africa, with the western world harboring relatively lower levels.

The global resurgence of antisemitism is particularly alarming as it has resulted in increased levels of hate crimes and discrimination. “Antisemitic tropes and beliefs are becoming alarmingly normalized across societies worldwide. This dangerous trend is not just a threat to Jewish communities—it’s a warning to us all. Even in countries with the lowest levels of antisemitic attitudes globally, we’ve seen many antisemitic incidents perpetrated by an emboldened small, vocal and violent minority,” said Marina Rosenberg, ADL Senior Vice President for International Affairs.

To effectively combat antisemitism on a global scale, it is imperative for governments, humanitarian organizations, and social media platforms to establish new measures that encourage more diverse and understanding attitudes. This requires action from all individuals to achieve societal progress in eliminating hateful beliefs.

It’s clear that we need new government interventions, more education, additional safeguards on social media, and new security protocols to prevent antisemitic hate crimes. This fight requires a whole-of-society approach – including government, civil society and individuals and now is the time to act,” said Greenblatt.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Big families are promoted on billboards in Russia. Credit: Sky News screengrab

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jan 6 2025 (IPS)

“A lot of people are very scared,” says Zalina Marshenkulova. “This is obviously another tool of repression. The state is waging war on the remnants of free-thinking people in Russia and trying to suppress all dissent and freedom,” the Russian feminist activist tells IPS.

The warning from Marshenkulova, who left Russia soon after the country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and now lives in Germany, comes just days after new legislation came into force in her home country banning “child-free propaganda.”

Under the law, any person, organisation or government official deemed to be promoting a “child-free” lifestyle or encouraging people, either in person or online, not to have children can face huge fines and, in some cases, may be deported.

While MPs have stressed the legislation would not infringe on the right of individuals not to have children, critics fear it will be used in what some have described as an ongoing “crusade” by the Kremlin to promote a deeply conservative ideology centred around ‘traditional values’ and rejecting decadent Western ways of life—even at the expense of women’s reproductive rights.

“Women are already buying up all sorts of contraceptive pills [fearing they may not be able to get them in the future]. Abortions are already hard to get and that’s only going to get even harder now,” says Marshenkulova.

The legislation, which came into effect on December 4, introduces fines for individuals spreading “child-free propaganda” in broadcast media or online of up to 400,000 rubles (€3,840), while companies doing so can be fined up to 5 million rubles (€48,000) for the same offence. Foreign citizens who fall foul of the legislation will face deportation.

Its supporters have said the legislation is essential to protect Russia against a harmful Western ideology that could have devastating consequences for a country struggling with worrying negative demographic trends.

“We are talking about protecting citizens, primarily the younger generation, from information disseminated in the media space that has a negative impact on the formation of people’s personalities,” Vyacheslav Volodin, chairman of the lower house of parliament, said ahead of the vote. “Everything must be done to ensure that new generations of our citizens grow up centred on traditional family values.”

But human rights groups and activists say they have grave concerns about it. They point out that it has similarly vague language to other repressive laws passed in Russia in recent years that have been used to persecute minorities, such as LGBT+ people, and government critics, including civil society groups, as well as opponents of the invasion of Ukraine.

The relative novelty of the legislation means it is hard to gauge how strictly it will be implemented and what exactly authorities will see as ‘childfree propaganda’.

But it has already had some effect.

“The law is vague and broadly formulated so we can’t predict what things will be considered punishable—no one knows,” Anastasiia Zakharova, a lawyer at the Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre, told IPS.

“For example, a situation where women share publicly things like how hard it can be as a mother, how difficult it can be raising kids—will that be considered childfree propaganda? We have already seen that groups on social media where women talk about how hard it is raising children and being a mother have closed down to avoid potentially being fined. This law will have a chilling effect on what people will say,” she added.

Others say experience with Russian laws such as those introduced in the last decade banning “LGBT+ propaganda” provides a guide for how this legislation could impact women’s lives.

“This is another part of the Kremlin’s harmful ‘traditional values’ crusade. It will limit women’s freedom, their reproductive freedoms, and will stifle freedom generally,” Tanya Lokshina, Europe and Central Asia associate director at Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS.

“We can predict what the effects of this law will be because it is similar to the anti-LGBT+ propaganda law in Russia and we have seen the effects of that. It’s not so much that this kind of law targets individuals; it’s about purging the cultural arena of anything that could be even vaguely interpreted as propaganda,” she added.

She said while this could see a vast amount of films, shows and books disappearing from shop shelves, TV schedules, and online streaming services—”for example, a ‘romcom’ film in which you see a woman in her thirties with no children pursuing her career—anything like that is going to be outlawed. Can you imagine how many films, TV shows, books, etc. might have to be banned because of that? It’s mind-boggling,” she said—it could also significantly impact reproductive health.

“Will children be able to get information about abortion and birth control? We saw what happened with the anti-LGBT+ law when teachers and others who should have been helping them could not, or would not, talk about [LGBT+ sexual health issues]. If children needed help, they couldn’t get it,” she said.

Other rights activists agreed.

“There will be problems for women to get information about abortions, contraception, and other reproductive health matters and it will be particularly difficult for young people who already might already be struggling with getting hold of information on these things and now won’t have any way at all to access it,” Natalia Morozova, Head of the Eastern Europe/Central Asia Desk at the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), told IPS.

This comes at a time when women’s access to abortion is already being curtailed.

Elective abortion is legal in Russia up to the 12^th week of pregnancy, and in some exceptional cases, such as rape, up to the 22^nd week. However, in recent years there have been moves to limit access to the procedure.

Laws have been introduced in some regions outlawing “coercing” women—the legislation defines this as persuading, bribing, or deceiving a woman into undergoing the procedure—to have an abortion, while hundreds of private clinics across the country have followed a ‘voluntarily initiative’ supported by the Health Ministry and have stopped offering abortions.

The state has also introduced guidelines for doctors to encourage female patients to have children, but also to dissuade them from abortions.

“Already in state clinics in Russia, doctors put pressure on women to have children. There are women who have gone to a clinic and been questioned by doctors on why they have no children and why they don’t want to have them yet,” said Lokshina.

Health experts have already pointed to the dangers of restricting abortions, with World Health Organisation (WHO) officials previously warning that bans on private clinics performing abortions would force more women in Russia into having surgical abortions rather than medical abortions. Private clinics mainly offer medical abortions, whereas state hospitals perform surgical abortions, which carry higher risks of complications, side effects and injuries.

The WHO also raised concerns that tightening access to legal abortions could lead to a spike in dangerous illegal procedures.

This tightening of access to abortion and the passing of the ‘childfree propaganda’ law come as the Kremlin battles a demographic crisis amid rising mortality as Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine grinds on and the country’s birth rate falls.

Data from statistics service Rosstat showed 599,600 children were born in Russia in the first half of 2024, which is 16,000 fewer births year-on-year and the lowest figure since 1999. Meanwhile, the number of newborns fell 6 percent in June to 98,600, which is the first time the number fell below 100,000. There were 325,100 deaths recorded between January and June, which is 49,000 more than in the same period of 2023.

The Kremlin has called the demographic situation a “catastrophe” for the nation and lawmakers who backed the ‘childfree propaganda’ legislation see it as a way to help halt population decline.

But Morozova said the Kremlin’s main motive was bolstering its armed forces to continue fighting in Ukraine.

“They want a population that produces soldiers, women that produce soldiers. The only goal of this regime is to produce as many soldiers as possible,” she said.

According to Lokshina, the law will also give the Kremlin an extra tool in its fight against a group that many experts see as potentially the biggest threat to President Putin’s hold on power.

“The most notable protests [against the Russian regime] since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine have been women’s protests. The Kremlin sees women as being problematic and wants to silence them,” she said.

While it remains to be seen how the law will be implemented and interpreted by authorities in the future, some activists have already left the country in response to its passage, fearing it could be used against them.

But there are doubts the legislation will have any effect on the birth rate.

Some Russian women who spoke to western media ahead of the legislation’s approval said women’s decisions on whether to have children or not are largely rooted in financial concerns at a time when the economy is struggling, rather than anyone else’s opinion on their right to have children or not.

And research carried out by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) in October showed that 66 percent of Russians doubted fines for promoting childfree ideology would be effective.

“The law has no potential to influence the birth rate,” said Lokshina. “It is aimed at stifling dissent—in this case, the rejection of so-called traditional family values.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

It’s been a tumultuous year, and a tough one for struggles for human rights. Civil society’s work to seek social justice and hold the powerful to account has been tested at every turn. Civil society has kept holding the line, resisting power grabs and regressive legislation, calling out injustice and claiming some victories, often at great cost. And things aren’t about to get any easier, as key challenges identified in 2024 are likely to intensify in 2025.

Andrew Firmin

As recent events in Lebanon and Syria have shown, changing dynamics, including shifting calculations made by countries such as Iran, Israel, Russia, Turkey and the USA, mean that frozen conflicts could reignite and new ones could erupt. As in Syria, these shifts could create sudden moments of opportunity; the international community and civil society must respond quickly when these come.

Inés M. Pousadela

3. 2025 is the year that states are required to develop new plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement. The process will culminate in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, likely the world’s last chance to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. This will only happen if states stand up to fossil fuel companies and look beyond narrow short-term interests. Failing that, more of the debate may come to focus on adaptation. The unresolved question of who will pay for climate transition will remain central. Meanwhile, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and floods can be expected to continue to devastate communities, impose high economic costs, drive migration and exacerbate conflicts.

4. Globally, economic dysfunction is likely to increase, with more people struggling to afford basic necessities, increasingly including housing, as prices continue to rise, with climate change and conflict among the causes. The gap between the struggling many and the ultra-wealthy few will become more visible, and anger at rising prices or taxes will drive people – particularly young people deprived of opportunities – onto the streets. State repression will often follow. Frustration with the status quo means people will keep looking for political alternatives, a situation right-wing populists and nationalists will keep exploiting. But demands for labour rights, particularly among younger workers, will also likely increase, along with pressure for policies such as wealth taxes, a universal basic income and a shorter working week.

5. A year when the largest number of people ever went to the polls has ended – but there are still plenty of elections to come. Where elections are free and fair, voters are likely to keep rejecting incumbents, particularly due to economic hardship. Right-wing populists and nationalists are likely to benefit the most, but the tide will eventually turn: once they’ve been around long enough to be perceived as part of the political establishment, they too will see their positions threatened, and they can be expected to respond with authoritarianism, repression and the scapegoating of excluded groups. More politically manipulated misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and anti-migrant rhetoric can be expected as a result.

6. Even if developments in generative AI slow as the current model reaches the limits of the human-generated material it feeds on, international regulation and data protection will likely continue to lag behind. The use of AI-enabled surveillance, such as facial recognition, against activists is likely to increase and become more normalised. The challenge of disinformation is likely to intensify, particularly around conflicts and elections.

Several tech leaders have actively taken the side of right-wing populists and authoritarians, putting their platforms and wealth at the service of their political ambitions. Emerging alternative social media platforms offer some promise but are likely to face similar problems as they grow.

7. Climate change, conflict, economic strife, repression of LGBTQI+ identities and civil and political repression will continue to drive displacement and migration. Most migrants will remain in difficult and underfunded conditions in global south countries. In the global north, right-wing shifts are expected to drive more restrictive and repressive policies, including the deportation of migrants to countries where they may be at risk. Attacks on civil society working to defend their rights, including by assisting at sea and land borders, are also likely to intensify.

8. The backlash against women’s and LGBTQI+ rights will continue. The US right wing will continue to fund anti-rights movements in the global south, notably in Commonwealth African countries, while European conservative groups will continue to export their anti-rights campaigns, as some Spanish organisations have long done throughout Latin America. Disinformation efforts from multiple sources, including Russian state media, will continue to influence public opinion. This will leave civil society largely on the defensive, focused on consolidating gains and preventing setbacks.

9. As a result of these trends, the ability of civil society organisations and activists to operate freely will remain under pressure in the majority of countries. Just when its work is most needed, civil society will face growing restrictions on fundamental civic freedoms, including in the form of anti-NGO laws and laws that label civil society as agents of foreign powers, the criminalisation of protests and increasing threats to the safety of activists and journalists. Civil society will have to devote more of its resources to protecting its space, at the expense of the resources available to promote and advance rights.

10. Despite these many challenges, civil society will continue to strive on all fronts. It will continue to combine advocacy, protests, online campaigns, strategic litigation and international diplomacy. As awareness grows of the interconnected and transnational nature of the challenges, it will emphasise solidarity actions that transcend national boundaries and make connections between different struggles in different contexts.

Even in difficult circumstances, civil society achieved some notable victories in 2024. In the Czech Republic, civil society’s efforts led to a landmark reform of rape laws, and in Poland they resulted in a law making emergency contraception available without prescription, overturning previous restrictive legislation. After extensive civil society advocacy, Thailand led the way in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality law, while Greece became the first predominantly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage

People defended democracy. In South Korea, people took to the streets in large numbers to resist martial law, while in Bangladesh, protest action led to the ousting of a longstanding authoritarian government. In Guatemala, a president committed to fighting corruption was sworn in after civil society organised mass protests to demand that powerful elites respect the election results, and in Venezuela, hundreds of thousands organised to defend the integrity of the election, defeated the authoritarian government in the polls and took to the streets in the face of severe repression when the results weren’t recognised. In Senegal, civil society mobilised to prevent an attempt to postpone an election that resulted in an opposition win.

Civil society won victories in climate and environmental litigation – including in Ecuador, India and Switzerland – to force governments to recognise the human rights impacts of climate change and do more to reduce emissions and curb pollution. Civil society also took to the courts to pressure governments to stop arms sales to Israel, with a successful verdict in the Netherlands and others pending.

In 2025, the struggle continues. Civil society will keep carrying the torch of hope that a more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable world is possible. This idea will remain as important as the tangible impact we’ll continue to achieve despite the difficult circumstances.

Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The two are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

When I joined CIVICUS in 2019, I came in with two decades of work on influencing and monitoring public policies through grassroots and global activism. Joining CIVICUS as Secretary-General felt familiar, like returning home after a period of separation. My first international role in 2006 – as Campaign Director of the Global Call to Action against Poverty – was initially hosted by CIVICUS. One of my most memorable campaign endeavours, The World We Want 2015, was conceptualised in the basement of CIVICUS House in 2011.

Lysa John

Civic freedoms cannot be defended without bold commitments to tackle systemic discrimination

Our research shows that historically excluded groups are the first to be targeted by measures to curtail civic freedoms. Restrictions imposed on groups such as women, LGBTQI+ people, migrants, refugees and ethnic and religious minorities often serve as a precursor to broader interventions to dismantle fundamental rights and freedoms. The unwillingness of initially unaffected groups to challenge actions that violate excluded people’s rights sets the stage for more pervasive restrictions on civic freedoms.

Between 2019 to 2024, we saw some of the world’s largest public protests call for urgent action to tackle systemic discrimination, including Black Lives Matter and movements against gender-based violence. Movements such as #MeToo, #FreeSaudiWomen, #NiUnaMenos and #AbortoLegalYa are examples of how women have mobilised to advance systemic change for equality and justice.

Civil society has won some successes, including the passage of a Sexual Violence Bill in Indonesia to criminalise forced marriage and sexual abuse and enhance protections for victims. Spain has seen the introduction of a new Law on the Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, based on the principle of consent, to challenge widespread impunity for sexual and gender-based violence.

As part of its refreshed strategy for 2022-27, CIVICUS has committed itself to tackling the dual challenges of civic space restriction and structural discrimination. Towards this end, several new programmes, such as our compelling campaigns for Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Local Leadership, have been designed to prioritise the leadership of excluded communities and spotlight their strategies and struggles to protect civic freedoms.

Non-state actors are fuelling the backlash against civil society – and we must do more to hold them to account

Civic space is in its worst state since we launched the CIVICUS Monitor, our collaborative research project on civic space conditions, seven years ago: 118 countries and territories now have serious restrictions and only 2.1 per cent of people live in countries with open civic space.

As restrictions mount up, there’s a growing trend of culture wars waged by well-organised and well-funded international anti-rights networks who are skewing public opinion for political gain. Our 2019 report on the rise of anti-rights groups points out that authoritarian and populist leaders are working alongside non-state actors who oppose civil society’s focus on social justice and human rights, fuelling negative perceptions of civil society. The viral ability to spread and profit from disinformation has been deliberately used by states and anti-rights groups to sow confusion and discord, distort discourse and attack civil society.

At the same time, there has been an increased recognition of the importance of civic freedoms and the need to combat disinformation. This provides an opportunity to create new and more effective alliances to defend fundamental freedoms and human rights, speaking to the concern many people have about disinformation and rejecting culture war discourse.

People are connecting from the local to global level and demanding bolder action

We live on an increasingly interconnected planet. The threats we face – climate change, wars, economic inequality and disease – pay no heed to national borders. The global level has become a key sphere of action for people and organisations to claim rights and advance change.

Across the world, people are forging new platforms and forms of civic engagement that enable greater possibilities for action, collaboration and sustained opposition to systemic injustices. This is where the future of civil society lies, and where it can fulfil its historic role of promoting rights, defending democracy and asserting accountability. It is by demonstrating our commitment and leadership on these most difficult global issues of our time that we will win and sustain the trust and partnership of people across the world.

This is the time to commit to bold and lasting ideas for dialogue and deliberation, including at the global level, such as calls to establish a directly elected world parliament or citizens’ assembly. There is a need to develop these ideas and advocate for them, including by testing them at the local, regional and intergovernmental levels.

New forms of solidarity are helping change the way we resource, connect and communicate our efforts

The most successful struggles of recent times involve a mix of local-level, spontaneous acts by citizens and organisational planning and commitment. When global agreements on peace and human rights are violated, acts of transnational solidarity are an important first step towards developing international influence and scrutiny. New technologies offer tools for organising and focusing citizen power in new and creative ways. Around the world, active citizens are ready to put themselves on the line for the sake of a cause.

To support this, we need new technologies that are secure, free from interference and subject to democratic oversight – that enable people to share views in real-time, make informed decisions and exercise accountability.

An empowered, networked and well-resourced civil society is a public good no country can do without. Countries with closed civic space do not offer any opportunity for dialogue, dissent or participation in decision-making. An enabling environment for civil society—including access to public information channels, the removal of regulatory barriers and the creation of long-term incentives for local giving and global solidarity—will be fundamental to the protection of civic freedoms. We must invest in an operating framework that supports a positive vision of civil society’s contribution and expands opportunities for people, businesses and governments to partner actively with civil society for change.

As new and complex challenges make centralised approaches to leadership and decision-making redundant, we must do more to strengthen a wider ecosystem of solidarity and collective action. The present era of ‘leader-full’ movements shows how agency and leadership can thrive well beyond ascribed roles and traditional structures. Feminist leadership, with its emphasis on purpose, authenticity and collective engagement, is integral to our societies and workplaces.

Despite the setbacks, civil society is more relevant, more pervasive and more powerful than ever before

Civil society continues to be the force sounding the alarm against all manner of threats facing humanity and the planet. To serve this end, we use every tactic available, from street protest and direct action to litigation and advocacy in national and global arenas. My time at CIVICUS saw something no one had expected: a pandemic that stopped normal life in its tracks. Civil society stepped up. Our 2020 report, Solidarity in the Time of COVID-19, revealed how civil society organisations and networks were a vital source of resilience for communities around the world.

Pandemic-related emergency measures imposed in many countries saw a rising need for civil society, particularly for excluded groups and people left without their regular incomes. Civil society moved more quickly than states could. And while providing essential help, civil society also advocated for rights-oriented policies and accountability for state and market failures.

Around the world, civil society took responsibility, showed leadership and modelled responses that could be scaled up. This was not a case of doling out charity that positioned people as the recipients of aid, but of reaching out to communities who were struggling, hearing people’s needs and working to meet them, in ways that upheld people’s dignity and rights and recognised the challenges and histories of exclusion.

This is just one example of how civil society makes a difference. Civil society’s value must be celebrated. To this end, there are calls for the adoption of a Civil Society Action Day as an occasion to affirm the UN’s commitment to enabling civil society participation and drive meaningful debate on improvements. The UN has also been asked to appoint a Civil Society Envoy to drive best practices on civil society participation across the UN and proactively drive outreach to citizens and civil society groups across the world.

The moment is ripe for such innovations. As we organise for future challenges, we must keep investing in strategies to reinforce the relevance and resilience of civil society. CIVICUS will doubtless maintain the pressure for change and keep making the space for a free and enabled civil society.

Lysa John is the outgoing Secretary General of CIVICUS. She is presently the Executive Director of the Atlantic Institute.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Vano Shlamov/AFP via Getty Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Sep 30 2024 (IPS)

Georgia’s ruling party has put LGBTQI+ people firmly in the firing line ahead of next month’s election. On 17 September, parliament gave final approval to a highly discriminatory law that empowers the authorities to censor books and films with LGBTQI+ content, stop discussion of LGBTQI+ issues in schools, ban people from flying rainbow flags and prevent Pride events. The law excludes LGBTQI+ people from adopting children, bans gender affirmation surgery and refuses to recognise same-sex marriages of Georgians conducted abroad.

Latest troubling development

Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law breaches a wide range of international human rights commitments. And it’s a repeat offence: in May, a bill became law designating civil society and media groups that receive at least 20 per cent of funding from international sources as ‘pursuing the interests of a foreign power’. The ‘foreign agents’ law will enable vilification, fuel public suspicion and tie organisations up in lengthy compliance procedures.

President Salome Zourabichvili, who is independent of the ruling Georgian Dream party, vetoed the foreign agents bill, calling it a ‘Russian law’, also the view of the mass protest movement that rose up to oppose it. But presidential powers are weak, and parliament quickly reversed the veto. Zourabichvili – Georgia’s last directly elected president, with future presidents to be picked by parliament after her term ends in October – has also pledged to veto the anti-LGBTQI+ law. But a similar parliamentary override seems certain.

Georgia Dream says its anti-LGBTQI+ law, known as the law on ‘family values and the protection of minors’, is needed to defend ‘traditional moral standards’. It also said its foreign agents law was needed to stop international funders sponsoring ‘LGBT propaganda’ and fomenting revolution.

Both laws are part of a growing climate of state hostility towards civil society, in a country that once stood out as an ex-Soviet state that broadly respected civic freedoms. Last year, the European Union (EU)-Georgia Civil Society Platform – a body established as part of negotiations towards the country potentially joining the EU – criticised a sustained government smear campaign against civil society. Freedom House pointed to growing harassment and violence against journalists.

The anti-LGBTQI+ law reflects a reassertion of influence by the Georgian Orthodox Church, the country’s dominant religion, and a closer alignment with Russia. The foreign agents law imitates one introduced in Russia in 2012, which paved the way for intense repression of civil society, while Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law is also strikingly similar to that passed in Russia in 2013, which has been extensively used to criminalise and silence LGBTQI+ people.

The two laws can only move the country further away from the stated goal of joining the EU. They place Georgia at a fork in the road: the government and the church clearly see it as a socially conservative country that legitimately belongs in Russia’s orbit. But others – the many people, overwhelmingly young, who’ve protested and faced state violence in return – represent a different Georgian identity: one that’s democratic, inclusive and European.

Vilification and violence

Hostility has made it harder for Georgia’s LGBTQI+ people to claim visibility. Last year, violent far-right attacks forced the cancellation of the Tbilisi Pride parade. The authorities have consistently failed to ensure the safety of participants. When people first marched on 17 May 2013, they were attacked by a mob that included members of the clergy. In 2021, extremist groups also attacked journalists covering the event, as the police stood by and did nothing.

In 2014, the year after Pride first mobilised, the Church declared 17 May – the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia – to be Family Purity Day, an event marked with a public holiday. This year, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze joined thousands at the Family Purity Day march in Tbilisi. In contrast, such was the level of hostility that Tbilisi Pride organisers decided to only hold virtual events. LGBTQI+ people were denied the chance to do the very thing Pride events exist for: assert visibility and normalise their public presence.

The new law reverses some recent progress civil society achieved in shifting homophobic social values, with young people particularly showing more tolerant attitudes. But now the law will have the effect similar legislation has had elsewhere: giving the green light to stigmatisation, vilification and violence. Activists have pointed to the recent murder of one of the country’s few high-profile transgender people, model Kesaria Abramidze, as a grim sign of what may come. Extremist groups can only be emboldened, confident the law is on their side when they commit acts of hatred.

The upcoming election

Georgian Dream seeks a fourth consecutive term when the country goes to the polls in October. With the opposition divided, it seems certain to come first again. But its support fell in the last election and opinion polls suggest it’s lost more votes since. Possibly worried about keeping its majority, it’s opted to vilify an already excluded group of people.

Georgian Dream may think hostility towards LGBTQI+ people and civil society groups is safer electoral territory than a more explicitly anti-western, pro-Russian stance. But its recent decisions signal how it will rule if its electoral strategy pays off: not by upholding the rights of all Georgians but by putting the interests of its socially conservative supporters first, and by tailoring policies to please Vladimir Putin.

Georgian Dream still pays lip service to the idea of joining the EU, but the party’s billionaire financier and behind-the-scenes leader Bidzina Ivanishvili recently made his position clear, accusing western countries of being part of a global conspiracy to drag Georgia into a repeat of its ill-fated 2008 war with Russia. Georgian-Russian relations have warmed since Russia launched its all-out war on Ukraine in 2022.

The EU, for its part, reacted to the foreign agents law by suspending financial aid and Georgia’s accession negotiations. It must take a firm line and make clear Georgia won’t be allowed to join until the human rights of all its people are recognised and civil society is respected.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An amendment to Bulgaria’s education law, passed last month, bans the "propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one."

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Sep 4 2024 (IPS)

A law banning the portrayal of LGBT+ identities in Bulgarian educational institutions is just the latest piece of repressive legislation in a wider assault on minorities and marginalized communities across parts of Europe and Central Asia, rights groups have warned.

The law, passed in a fast-track procedure last month, is similar to legislation passed or proposed in many countries across the region in recent years that restricts LGBT+ rights. 

And while the Bulgarian law is expected to have a harmful impact on children and adolescents in the country, it is also likely to be followed by legislation aimed at repressing other groups in society, following a pattern implemented by autocratic rulers across the region, activists say.

“Often anti-LGBT laws go hand in hand with other [repressive] legislation. One will come soon after the other. What this is all about is for certain political parties to concentrate and gain ultimate power for themselves. LGBT+ people and other marginalized groups are just scapegoats,” Belinda Dear, Senior Advocacy Officer at LGBT+ organisation ILGA Europe, told IPS.

An amendment to Bulgaria’s education law, passed on August 7, 2024 with a huge majority in parliament, bans the “propaganda, promotion, or incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, in the education system of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or gender identity other than the biological one”.

Kostadin Kostadinov, chairman of the far-right Vazrazhdane (Revival) party that introduced the legislation, said that “LGBT propaganda is anti-human and won’t be accepted in Bulgaria.”

Critics say the law will have a terrible impact on LGBT+ children in a country where LGBT+ people already face struggles for their rights. In its most recent Rainbow Map, which analyses the state of LGBTQ+ rights and freedoms across the continent, ILGA Europe ranked Bulgaria 38 out of 48 countries.

“The teachers we have spoken to are really afraid of what is going to happen now. We are expecting to see a sharp increase in attacks and abuse of schoolchildren over gender and sexual orientation,” Denitsa Lyubenova, Legal Program & Projects Director at Deystvie, one of Bulgaria’s largest LGBT+ organizations, told IPS.

“The law has just been passed so we cannot be sure of its specific impacts just yet, but what we know from elsewhere is that laws like this in schools will impact children and adolescents, it will increase bullying and legitimize discrimination by other students, and even teachers,” added Dear.

Like other rights campaigners, Lyubenova pointed out the similarities between the Bulgarian law and similar legislation passed in other countries in Europe and Central Asia in recent years.

So-called ‘anti-LGBT+ propaganda’ laws were passed in Hungary in 2021 and Kyrgyzstan last year. These were in turn inspired by Russian legislation passed almost a decade earlier, which has since been expanded to the entire LGBT+ community and followed by laws essentially banning any positive expression of LGBT+ people.

Reports from rights groups have shown the harmful consequences of such legislation.

But while these laws have been roundly condemned by local and international rights bodies, political parties in some countries continue to attempt to push them through.

On the same day the Bulgarian law was passed, the far-right Slovak National Party (SNS) said it was planning to put forward a bill restricting discussion and teaching of LGBT+ themes in schools at the next parliamentary session in September.

Meanwhile, in June, the ruling Georgian Dream party in Georgia proposed legislation which would, among others, outlaw any LGBT+ gatherings, ban same-sex marriages, gender transition and the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

It will also prohibit LGBT+ ‘propaganda’ in schools and broadcasters and advertisers will have to remove any content featuring same-sex relationships before broadcast, regardless of the age of the intended audience.

In both countries, the proposed legislation comes soon after the implementation of so-called ‘foreign agent laws’ which put restrictions and onerous obligations on certain NGOs which receive foreign funding. Critics say such laws can have a devastating effect on civil society, pointing to a similar law introduced in Russia in 2012 as part of a Kremlin crackdown on civil society. The legislation, which led to affected NGOs being forced to declare themselves as ‘foreign agents’ has resulted in many civil society organisations in fields from human rights to healthcare being effectively shuttered.

Campaigners say it is no coincidence that anti-LGBT+ legislation and ‘foreign agent’ laws are being introduced closely together.

“[The anti-LGBT+ legislation] is likely to be the first in a series of laws that will discriminate against not just LGBT+ people, but other marginalized groups, which are seen as a ‘problem’ by far right organizations in Bulgaria,” said Lyubenova.

“This anti-LGBT+ law came from the Revival party, which has previously put forward bills for a ‘foreign agent law’ in Bulgaria. We are expecting a bill for foreign agent legislation to be introduced to Bulgaria’s parliament soon,” she added.

In Georgia, where legislation restricting LGBT+ rights will be debated in a final reading this month in parliament, civil society activists say the government is using one law to fuel support for the other.

“Both laws are part of the same, great evil [the government is pushing],” Paata Sabelashvili, a board member with the Equality Movement NGO in Georgia, told IPS.

Dear said the passing of ‘foreign agent’ laws was part of a template used by autocratic regimes to hold onto power “by dismantling civil society, which keeps a watch on politicians”.

The other parts of the template, she said, were to also “dismantle the independence of the judiciary, and the media”. Russia, Hungary, Georgia and Slovakia regularly score poorly in international press freedom indexes, and concerns have been raised about threats to media independence in Kyrgyzstan. Meanwhile, Russia is widely seen as no longer having an independent judiciary and concerns have been raised about government influence in the judicial systems in Slovakia, Georgia and Hungary.

Governments that have introduced these laws have said they are essential to preserve their countries’ traditional values and to limit foreign regimes—usually specifically western—influencing internal politics and destabilizing the country. These claims have been repeatedly rejected by the civil society and minority groups the laws are aimed at.

Some rights campaigners see the introduction of these laws as part of a coordinated international effort to not just spread specific ideologies but also entrench autocratic regimes.

While ostensibly the introduction of such legislation are the acts of independent sovereign regimes, campaigners say the politicians behind these laws are not necessarily acting entirely on their own initiative.

Activists in Slovakia and Georgia who have spoken to IPS highlight the strongly pro-Russian sentiments expressed by governing parties in their countries, while Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban has been heavily criticized even among European Union officials for his closeness to the Kremlin and criticism of help for Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbour. Meanwhile, Russia—as it does with many other central Asian countries—and Kyrgyzstan have historic ties dating back to the Soviet Union.

“These parties [behind these laws] have links to Russia. [Pushing through this kind of legislation] is strategically coordinated; it’s very well-planned,” said Dear.

“I believe this is all part of a wider trend linked to far right governments and/or parties,” Tamar Jakeli, LGBT+ activist and Director of Tbilisi Pride in Tbilisi, Georgia, told IPS.

Forbidden Colours, a Brussels-based LGBT+ advocacy group, linked the Bulgarian law directly to the Kremlin’s repression of rights in Russia.

“It is deeply troubling to see Bulgaria adopting tactics from Russia’s anti-human rights playbook,” the group said in a statement.

Meanwhile, international and Bulgarian rights groups have called on the EU to act to force the Bulgarian government to repeal the anti-LGBT+ law, while Bulgarian civil society organisations are getting ready to fight its implementation. There have been street protests against it in the capital, Sofia, and Lyubenova said her organisation was also preparing legal challenges to the law.

“What these far-right groups are doing with this law is they are testing our ability to stand up to hateful actions. We have to challenge it,” said Lyubenova.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Jay Mulucha speaks at the 25th International AIDS Conference in Munich. Credit: Steve Forrest/IAS

By Ed Holt
MUNICH, Jul 31 2024 (IPS)

Jay Mulucha, Executive Director of FEM Alliance Uganda, gave an impassioned plea to governments around the world to push lawmakers in his home country to reverse punitive new legislation criminalizing the LGBT+ community.

He became the first trans man to speak at the opening ceremony when he addressed the 25th International AIDS Conference in Munich last week (July 22)—the world’s largest conference on HIV and AIDS, attended by an estimated 10,000 people.

Mulucha spoke about how he and other members of the LGBT+ community in Uganda live in constant fear, and the impact of Uganda’s 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, which outlaws sexual relations among members of the same sex and imposes the death penalty for “serious homosexual acts.”

IPS spoke to Mulucha at the conference about how he and other activists refuse to give up their fight for acceptance and their determination to help others despite the dangers and challenges they face on a daily basis.

Jay Mulucha, Executive Director of FEM Alliance Uganda. Courtesy: Jay Mulucha

IPS: Were you surprised at the reception you got today when you spoke?

Jay Mulucha (JM): I was very surprised because this is a really big conference that brings together a lot of people. But at the same time, I am very pleased that I am here.

IPS: Today, we heard you talk about the repression that you and other members of the LGBT community face in Uganda. But of course, Uganda is not the only place where there are such laws. Do you think that your activities and what you are doing can be an inspiration for other LGBT+ people facing repression in other countries?

JM: Yes, it can. What I have achieved today by telling the world about what we are going through is going to make a change. That’s because I have made sure that we are getting opportunities (to speak out). This is the first time that a trans person has been part of the opening ceremony at [the annual IAS AIDS Conference] and it is very important that these opportunities be given to us so that they can hear our voices. You see, it’s not only in Uganda—people in other countries are suffering. Our voices are being trodden on, so if we are given the chance to speak, it gives us a greater opportunity to let the world know that things are not going well for people like us.

We work with different people in different countries to get out the message of what we are doing to counter the anti-gender movements that are rising up. This movement is really hurting us and we are doing what we can to try and stop them from spreading their hate.

IPS: Do you see any hope that the situation in Uganda for LGBT+ people will change any time soon?

JM: I joined the LGBTQI activist movement in Uganda more than ten years ago. When I joined, the situation was worse than it is today. Today, we are doing a lot of advocacy work, helping different people, and I can say that though the situation is not good, I am happy to say that there are some people who used to be homophobic and transphobic, and their minds and narratives have been changed through the advocacy work that we have done. Compared to ten years ago, at least now people know about the LGBT community. Back then, no one would even say it because people thought it was a sin to even mention the LGBT+ community. Right now, they are talking about us, the health service providers, and the government knows about LGBT—they are saying it. Even if it’s negative, at least they are saying it; they know that we exist and that we need services. So, I have a feeling that if we keep on doing our work, our advocacy, and we keep on talking about all these issues in different forums, at some point things will change. I can give an example of countries that have better laws, but those laws didn’t come about suddenly; it’s not like everyone woke up one morning and they were suddenly in place. People had to fight [for these laws] and go through a lot until things were better. I have a feeling that one day things in Uganda are going to change. We’re not going to give up; we’re going to continue the fight until we get what we want. We call upon different missions, different countries, in Europe, and the whole world to stand with us in this fight until we get what we want.

IPS: What impact are these laws going to have, or are already having, on the HIV situation in Uganda?

JM: These laws are making things worse. Different government officials are on record castigating and telling health service providers not to attend to any LGBT people, meaning that access to services is a challenge. The LGBT community is kept from accessing health services. This is because they know that once they try to access these services, they are going to be arrested, that they are not going to get these services, that they are going to be tortured, that they are going to be discriminated against, and (that they will be) told lots of homophobic things. These laws have really impacted health service provision for LGBT+ people. It’s so bad that some people are resorting to self-medication, which, of course, is bad and very dangerous.

IPS: How does someone in Uganda from the LGBT+ community who has HIV access the HIV care they need?

JM: There are drop-in centres that are being funded by international organizations. We also educate some health service providers. Some healthcare providers are welcoming; they welcome us and give us the services we need. The pop-up centres have supported the community. The community feels safe accessing services in places where they feel comfortable. Finding a doctor is done by word of mouth. There are some physicians that are welcoming [of LGBT+ people] but those doctors also have challenges; they have to give us services sometimes secretly because they don’t want to be seen supporting us.

IPS: Do you think that homophobia and transphobia are very prevalent in Uganda, or is it really the case that there is just a very visible and very vocal minority that thinks like that and is spreading anti-LGBT+ hate, and most other people are just silent on the issue?

JM: Homophobia and transphobia were very prevalent in Uganda even before LGBT+ people were as open as they are now. But with the anti-rights movement, it has just increased. There was already hate, but this movement that has come up has increased the hate, transphobia and homophobia. The anti-gender and anti-gay movements have just increased and fueled everything. The rise of those movements among the politicians and the ‘evangelicos’—like the religious leaders and the cultural leaders—has fired up everything. Nowadays, they are so vocal because they are being funded. They have these huge donors and people are bribed to support them. This is just increasing the hate.

Another thing—the reason these people are silent is because these anti-gay and anti-gender movements are being funded and they are bribing people to stand with them and for people to be silent about the whole situation. People are not standing with us because some of them have been bribed to do so. That is why the LGBT community in Uganda asked different governments in different countries to speak up about these repressive laws in Uganda and other places. But instead, some countries, especially European countries, have been silent on it, including Germany. They are welcoming parliamentarians from Uganda, like the vice speaker of parliament, who was welcomed with open arms by the German government recently. And Germany is still funding our government. Why is that happening?  They are hiding behind the US, which put sanctions on the government figures who were involved in the passing of the [anti-homosexuality] laws. Germany just put out statements on this. We don’t want statements; we want Germany to put sanctions on these people. And they should stop funding them. Instead, Germany should fund the LGBT+ organizations that are struggling. And they’re doing all this thinking that we won’t, or don’t, know about it. We call on the German government to stop this.

IPS: You spoke about waking up every day and wondering whether you were going to be safe. How do you and other activists function and do your jobs when you have to worry all the time about your safety?

JM: We are trying to do our work in hiding because we need to continue the struggle; we need to continue to stand with the LGBT community here. We find ways to operate safely. We try our best to make sure we aren’t discovered because the moment the government finds out about our work, they will close the organization, arrest us, or cancel our permission to work. So we do our work in hiding. The second thing we do is look out for each other and each other’s security and try to find new ways to keep ourselves safe. Safety is a major concern for us. The situation is not good, but we are not giving up. We tried to also make sure that we advocate and that we also help educate people in institutions, like the police for example. We speak to people and we try to make them understand who we are and why they should not be violent towards us. We are going through a lot of challenges at the moment, but we go on because we know that at some point this is going to change and everything is going to be okay with us.

IPS: What message would you like to give to people from this conference?

JM: I would like to say thank you to the conference organizers for allowing me to be a speaker here and hope people like me continue to get opportunities like this to speak, because whenever we do, it takes things to another level. Every time we get the chance to speak out, it allows our voices to be heard, and it is through our voices being heard that we get support.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Jul 15 2024 (IPS)

The political tide has turned in the UK – and civil society will be hoping for an end to government hostility.

The 4 July general election ended 14 years of rule by the right-wing Conservative party. The centre-left Labour party has returned to power, winning 411 out of 650 parliamentary seats.

Behind the headlines, however, there’s little reason to think the UK’s spell of political volatility is over, and the impacts of the deeply polarising 2016 Brexit referendum continue to ripple through politics.

Keir Starmer has become prime minister as a result of the UK’s most disproportionate election ever. The country’s archaic electoral system means his party won around 63 per cent of seats on just 34 per cent of the vote, up only around 1.5 per cent on its 2019 share and less than when it came second in 2017.

There was little perceptible public enthusiasm on display for Starmer and his promises of cautious reforms. But with high prices, failing public services and a housing crisis, many people wanted whatever change was available. Overwhelmingly the public mood was that the Conservative government was self-serving and out-of-touch and had to go.

Labour was far from the only beneficiary of haemorrhaging Conservative support. Smaller parties and independents took their biggest share of the vote in a century. The right-wing populist Reform UK party came third with 14.3 per cent of the vote, doing best in areas that had most strongly backed leaving the European Union, although the workings of the electoral system meant it won just five seats.

Labour’s resulting parliamentary majority is broad but shallow: it won many seats by small margins. Reform, having come second in 98 seats, can be expected to try to exploit the disarray in the Conservative Party, make as much noise as it can in parliament and hope for a breakthrough next time. Conservative politicians may well decide the lesson is to tack further right, and an alliance or merger between the two right-wing forces can’t be ruled out.

Discontent and disengagement were also indicated by a turnout of only 59.9 per cent, one of the lowest ever. There may be a several reasons: a sense Labour’s win was a foregone conclusion, and voter ID measures introduced by the last government that may have stopped 400,000 people voting. But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that at least some who stayed at home felt there was no point choosing between the parties on offer.

Time to reclaim rights

To address disaffection and stave off the threat of right-wing populism, Labour will need to show it can make a difference in addressing the UK’s economic and social malaise. One way it can signal a change and build positive partnerships to tackle problems is by respecting civic space and working with civil society. There’s plenty of room for improvement here.

Under the last government, hostility towards civil society grew and civic freedoms suffered. Last year, the UK’s civic space rating was downgraded to ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, our collaborative research project that tracks the health of civic space around the world. The main reason was new laws that significantly increased restrictions on protests and expanded police powers to break them up and arrest protesters. Climate activists have been the main target.

As the outgoing government backtracked on its net-zero pledges and committed to more oil and gas extraction, campaigners increasingly embraced non-violent direct action. The government’s response was to vilify climate protesters, backed by laws that criminalise protests deemed to be noisy or disruptive. Mass arrests of protesters have become commonplace, and it’s no longer rare for people to receive jail sentences for protest-related offences. Recently, protesters against the monarchy and those demanding stronger action on Israel have faced similar treatment.

Meanwhile the outgoing government relentlessly fuelled public hostility towards migrants, particularly those crossing the English Channel in the absence of legal routes. Its ‘hostile environment’ policy led to the Windrush Scandal – in which people who’d lived legally in the UK for decades were detained and deported for want of documentation they’d never needed. More recently the government introduced its Rwanda policy, threatening to permanently remove people to the authoritarian East African state. When, in response to a civil society lawsuit, the European Court of Human Rights ruled the policy illegal because Rwanda wasn’t a safe country to send people to, the government passed a law declaring it safe, and its more right-wing politicians called for the UK to leave the court.

At the same time, the government raided its aid budget to cover the costs of hosting asylum seekers in the UK. The government merged its international development ministry into its foreign affairs ministry in 2020 and, in 2021, dropped its commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid. Last year, it spent more than a quarter of its aid budget – money that should be used to help end poverty and inequality in the global south – on hosting asylum seekers in the UK.

As part of its rightward shift, the Conservative Party also backtracked on its commitments to LGBTQI+ rights, waging a culture war against trans rights, including by promising to ban gender-neutral bathrooms and prohibit discussion of gender identity in schools. The UK went from being Europe’s most LGBTQI+-friendly country to 16th. As happens every time politicians target an excluded group for vilification, hate crimes against trans people hit record levels.

This all leaves civil society with a big agenda to take to the new government. There’ve been some early encouraging signs. The government has dropped the Rwanda plan. It’s reversed an onshore wind farm ban. But there are many more advocacy asks. The best way to signal a new beginning would be to commit to respecting and repairing the space where demands can be articulated: rebuilding relationships with civil society, restoring the right to protest and reversing attacks on human rights.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Oleksandr Rupeta/NurPhoto via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jul 8 2024 (IPS)

In June, the Namibian High Court struck down two sections of the country’s Sexual Offences Act that criminalised consensual sexual relations between men, finding them unconstitutional. While hardly anyone has been convicted for decades, the fact that their relationships were criminalised forced gay men to live in fear, perpetuated stigma and denied them recognition as rights holders, enabling discrimination, harassment and abuse.

In decriminalising same-sex relations, Namibia follows in the footsteps of Mauritius, which did so in 2023. In both countries, the criminalisation of consensual same-sex relations dated back to colonial times. Colonial overlords imposed these criminal provisions and countries typically retained them at independence, long after the UK had changed its laws.

Namibia gained independence from South Africa in 1990 but retained the criminal provisions South Africa inherited from the UK. South Africa then decriminalised male same-sex conduct in 1994 – sex between women was never criminalised – and recognised same-sex marriage in 2006. But Namibia hadn’t followed the same path – until now.

A concerning regional landscape

Following the decriminalisation of same-sex relations, Namibia is ranked 56th out of 196 countries on Equaldex’s Equality Index, which ranks countries according to their LGBTQI+ friendliness. Only three African countries are ranked higher: South Africa, Cabo Verde and the Seychelles.

Today, 66 countries around the world criminalise same-sex relationships: 31 in Africa, 22 in Asia and the Middle East, six in the Pacific and five in the Caribbean. A disproportionate number are members of the Commonwealth, the alliance mostly made up of countries colonised by the UK. Thirteen of the 29 Commonwealth countries that criminalise same-sex relations are African. This often comes with harsh prison sentences – up to 14 years in Kenya and up to life imprisonment in Sierra Leone and Tanzania. In northern Nigeria and Uganda, the death penalty can apply.

Some Commonwealth African states that have long criminalised same-sex relations, including Ghana, Kenya and Uganda, are experiencing a strong conservative backlash. Typically, small gains in rights have provoked disproportionate responses from anti-rights forces, who assert that LGBTQI+ rights are part of an imported western agenda – even though it’s criminalisation that was imported, and the anti-rights backlash is lavishly funded by foreign forces.

Intertwined legal cases

Same-sex marriage reached Namibia’s courts long before same-sex relationships were no longer a crime. In 2017, two men who’d married in South Africa, one Namibian and the other South African, filed a court application to prevent the South African partner and the couple’s son being treated as ‘prohibited immigrants’. They argued that the Department of Home Affairs and Immigration had discriminated against them on the basis of their sexual orientation and sought recognition of their marriage and joint guardianship of their son. A similar case was filed by a female couple – one Namibian and the other German – and the cases were merged.

In early 2018, the male couple won a petition allowing the South African partner to enter Namibia to be with his husband and son. But in January 2022, the High Court rejected the petition to recognise same-sex marriages celebrated abroad. The judges expressed sympathy for the applicants, but said they couldn’t overturn previous rulings by Namibia’s Supreme Court. However, this raised campaigners’ hopes of a favourable decision in a Supreme Court appeal.

Indeed, in May 2023, the Supreme Court recognised same-sex marriages performed abroad between Namibian citizens and foreign nationals. But the court also said homosexuality was a complex issue and same-sex marriage should be dealt with by parliament.

Meanwhile, same-sex relations between consenting adult males remained a criminal offence. But the time was ripe: in 2021, Namibian LGBTQI+ activists held the country’s largest-ever Pride celebration, which included calls for the repeal of criminalisation. And in 2022, a few months after the High Court decision not to recognise foreign same-sex marriages, LGBTQI+ activist Friedel Dausab challenged the common law offence of sodomy in court. Supported by the Human Dignity Trust, he argued that criminalisation of his identity was incompatible with his constitutional rights.

The High Court handed down its positive decision on 21 June 2024. The judges agreed that laws criminalising same-sex relationships amounted to unfair discrimination and were therefore unconstitutional and invalid.

Conservative backlash

LGBTQI+ advocates around the world welcomed the court’s decision, as did UNAIDS, the UN agency leading the global effort to end HIV/AIDS. But by the time the ruling came, resistance was underway.

In July 2023, in response to the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, parliament’s upper house quickly passed a bill banning same-sex marriages, including those contracted abroad. The bill would make it an offence to perform, participate in, promote or advertise these marriages, punishable by up to six years in prison. It was subsequently passed by parliament’s lower house and is currently awaiting the president’s decision to assent or veto. An appeal against the court’s decriminalisation decision also can’t be ruled out.

The way forward

While the direction of change so far makes it an example for the region, Namibia still has a long way to go. Outstanding issues include comprehensive protection against discrimination, marriage equality and adoption rights, recognition of non-binary genders, legalisation of gender reassignment and a ban on ‘conversion therapy’, a practice UN experts consider akin to torture.

Social change should be as much a priority as legal progress. The Equality Index makes it clear: social attitudes lag behind laws, with public homophobia a persistent problem. Moral panics, episodically mobilised by anti-rights reactions, cause public opinion to fluctuate, with no decisive majority in favour of equality. This means legal change won’t be enough, and won’t continue unless the climate of opinion changes.

In Namibia, as elsewhere, there’s a tug-of-war between forces fighting for rights and those resisting progress. It’s now a top priority for Namibian LGBTQI+ activists to shift attitudes. In doing so, they should show solidarity with their peers in less tolerant environments and become a source of hope beyond the country’s borders.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses the criminalisation of same-sex relations in Iraq with Sarah Sanbar, researcher at Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division.

Sarah Sanbar

What led to recent legislative changes criminalising LGBTQI+ people?

On 27 April 2024, the Iraqi parliament passed an amendment to the country’s 1988 anti-prostitution law, effectively criminalising same-sex relations and transgender identities. The amendment states that same-sex relations are punishable with between 10 and 15 years in prison, and provides for one to three years’ imprisonment for those who undergo or perform gender-affirming medical procedures.

The law also punishes those who ‘imitate women’ with a seven-year prison sentence and a fine of between 10 and 15 million Iraqi dinars (approx. US$7,700 to US$11,500) and criminalises the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, a vague and undefined expression.

The passing of this law follows years of steadily increasing hostile rhetoric against LGBTQI+ people. Prominent politicians and media personalities have consistently spread harmful stereotypes, tropes and disinformation. They often claim homosexuality is a western import that goes against traditional Iraqi values.

This rhetoric has increasingly translated into government action. For example, on 8 August 2023, the Communications and Media Commission issued a directive ordering all media outlets to replace the term ‘homosexuality’ with ‘sexual deviance’ in all published and broadcast language. The directive also banned the use of the word ‘gender’, which shows how the crackdown on LGBTQI+ rights is intertwined with broader issues, and is also used to target and silence women’s rights organisations working on gender-based violence.

Sadly, as in many other countries, LGBTQI+ people in Iraq are being used as political pawns and scapegoats to distract from the government’s failure to provide for its people. Tensions are growing between the more conservative and religious groups in society and government and those that take a more secular approach to governance. The fact that conservatives have gained increasing support in successive elections allows laws like this to be passed. Such a law probably wouldn’t have been passed even a few years ago.

What’s the situation of LGBTQI+ people in Iraq, and how do you expect it to change?

The situation of LGBTQI+ people is extremely unsafe. Threats to their physical safety, including harassment, assault, arbitrary detention, kidnappings and killings, come from society at large – including family and community members as well as strangers – and from armed groups and state personnel. Human Rights Watch has documented cases of abductions, rape, torture and killings by armed groups. Impunity is widespread, and the government’s failure to hold perpetrators accountable sends the message that this violence is acceptable.

With the passage of the new law, the already dire situation is expected to worsen. Tolerance for abuses has now been made explicit through legislation. As a result, an increase in violence is to be expected, along with an increase in the number of LGBTQI+ Iraqis fleeing the country to seek safety elsewhere. Unfortunately, it is becoming even harder for LGBTQI+ Iraqis to ensure their physical safety in the country, let alone lead fulfilling lives, find love, make friends and build links with others in their community.

What are the challenges facing Iraqi LGBTQI+ rights organisations?

The space for LGBTQI+ organisations in Iraq has long been extremely limited. For example, in May 2023, a court in the Kurdistan Region ordered the closure of Rasan, one of the few groups willing to publicly advocate for LGBTQI+ rights in the region. The reason the court gave for its closure was its activities ‘in the field of homosexuality’, and one piece of evidence cited was its use of rainbow colours in its logo.

Organisations such as Rasan have previously been targeted under vaguely worded morality and public indecency laws that restrict freedom of expression. By criminalising the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, the new law makes the work of LGBTQI+ organisations even more dangerous. Any action in support of LGBTQI+ rights could be perceived as ‘promoting homosexuality’, which could lead to activities being banned or organisations being shut down. It will be almost impossible for LGBTQI+ rights organisations to operate openly.

In addition, all civil society organisations in Iraq must register with the Directorate of NGOs, a process that includes submitting bylaws, lists of activities and sources of funding. But now, it is essentially impossible for LGBTQI+ organisations to operate transparently, because they can’t openly state their intention to support LGBTQI+ people without risking closure or prosecution. This leaves two options: stop working, or operate clandestinely with the risk of arrest hanging over them.

Given the restrictive legal and social environment, many organisations operate from abroad. IraQueer, one of the most prominent LGBTQI+ advocacy groups, is based in Sweden.

But despite the challenges, LGBTQI+ organisations continue to advocate for LGBTQI+ rights, help people fleeing persecution and work with foreign governments to put pressure on Iraq to roll back discriminatory policies. And they have made significant achievements, facilitating the safe passage of people fleeing persecution and broadening coalitions to advocate for LGBTQI+ rights internationally. Their perseverance in the face of adversity is inspiring.

What international support do local LGBTQI+ groups need?

Global organisations should use their capacity to sound the alarm and advocate for the repeal of the new law and the reversal of other discriminatory measures, and for impunity for violence against LGBTQI+ people in Iraq to be addressed.

An effective strategy could be to focus on human rights violations. Equal protection from violence and equal access to justice are required under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, both of which Iraq has signed. Advocacy for LGBTQI+ rights as human rights can put greater pressure on the Iraqi government to fulfil its obligations.

It’s also essential to provide resources and support to local organisations in Iraq and in host countries where LGBTQI+ Iraqis seek refuge, to ensure people have access to basic needs and community support, and can live full lives without fear.

Civic space in Iraq is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Human Rights Watch through its website, and follow @hrw and @SarahSanbar on Twitter.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Chanakarn Laosarakham/AFP via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jun 27 2024 (IPS)

At the height of 2024 Pride season, decades of civil society campaigning came to fruition in Thailand. With 130 votes for and only four against, on 18 June the Senate passed the Marriage Equality Bill. With a few strokes of the pen, the bill tweaked the language of the Civil and Commercial Code, replacing gendered references such as ‘man’ and ‘woman’ with gender-neutral ones such as ‘persons’ and ‘spouses’. It now goes for formal assent to King Maha Vajiralongkorn and will take effect 120 days after publication in the official bulletin.

This means equal marriage is now recognised in 37 countries. Recent progress has seen Estonia become the first post-Soviet state to join the ranks in 2023, and Greece the first majority-Orthodox Christian country to do so in early 2024. Thailand is the first country in Southeast Asia and the third in Asia, following Taiwan and Nepal, to recognise the right to marry and all associated rights for same-sex couples.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AROUND THE WORLD

The long road to equality

With its vibrant LGBTQI+ culture, Thailand has long been advertised as ‘an exceptional destination for gay travellers’. But things weren’t quite so good for local LGBTQI+ people, whose identities and relationships lacked legal recognition and associated rights.

Civil society worked to change that. Efforts to advance the rights of same-sex couples in Thailand date back at least as far as 2011.

The first shift came in 2012, when the government began to consider some kind of recognition for same-sex relations. In 2013 it drafted a civil partnership bill with bipartisan support, but progress stalled under the military government formed as a result of a 2014 coup.

The country remained under military rule until mid-2019, but rather than stopping, LGBTQI+ activism gained strength by connecting with the country’s youthful and outspoken movement for democracy. In 2017, a petition calling for the recognition of civil partnerships gathered over 60,000 signatures. The government responded by preparing a draft bill and holding public hearings where it received overwhelming public support. But by mid-2020, the bill – which activists criticised for not ensuring the same rights as marriage – died in parliament.

When youth-led protests for democratic change erupted in 2020, their demands included LGBTQI+ rights and led to the development of a new bill that was eventually introduced but failed to pass before parliament was dissolved ahead of a general election in May 2023.

LGBTQI+ activists also took to the courts, but received a setback. In 2021, in response to a petition filed by two LGBTQI+ people seeking to get married, the Constitutional Court ruled that the section of the Civil and Commercial Code that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman was constitutional. LGBTQI+ activists were particularly unhappy with the court’s sexist and demeaning language.

Cultural and political battles

Longstanding efforts to normalise the presence of LGBTQI+ people and shift conservative narratives produced high levels of acceptance and support for LGBTQI+ rights. Thailand ranks 44 out of 196 countries in Equaldex’s Equality Index, which rates countries according to their LGBTQI+-friendliness. But unlike most other countries, it places higher for public attitudes than for its laws.

This meant Thai LGBTQI+ activists were able to use the broadly favourable climate of opinion to pressure politicians. They turned LGBTQI+ rights into a bandwagon politicians wanted to join for political gain. As a result, some of the major parties competing in the 2023 election campaigned on pledges to push for marriage equality. This included the progressive Move Forward party, which won the most seats.

But military-appointed senators stopped Move Forward forming a government, and instead Pheu Thai Party, a populist party twice deposed in military coups, formed a coalition with military-aligned parties – not the outcome young democracy activists had hoped for. Still, the new prime minister, Srettha Thavisin, had also promised to send a bill to parliament.

He still took his time, and LGBTQI+ activists gave him the push he needed. By early September 2023, when the new government was sworn in, the Rainbow Coalition for Marriage Equality had collected over 362,000 signatures in support of marriage equality. Srettha sent the bill to parliament in November, and in December debate started on the government’s bill plus three other versions submitted by other parties and civil society.

The House of Representatives passed all four bills with an overwhelming majority, then formed a committee to merge them into one, and passed the combined bill with near unanimity. The Senate completed the process on 18 June.

What – and where – next

The Marriage Equality Bill recognises rights in relation to inheritance, adoption and healthcare decisions. But beyond these direct effects, activists expect it to have powerful indirect impacts, sending a message of acceptance and encouraging younger LGBTQI+ people to come out and lead full lives free of discrimination and violence.

Now marriage equality has been achieved, LGBTQI+ activism is turning to the next big issue – trans rights. Despite playing a prominent role in entertainment, transgender people in Thailand face steep barriers, particularly in employment. They have few legal protections against discrimination, and those that exist aren’t fully enforced. They’re unable to obtain legal documents that reflect their gender identity, and what few rights they have in this regard depend on bureaucratic discretion. To change this, LGBTQI+ activists will keep campaigning for a Gender Recognition Bill.

The significance of the change achieved in Thailand, and the further change that seems sure to come, extends far beyond the country’s borders. Most countries in the region don’t recognise same-sex marriage, and some, including Brunei, Malaysia and Myanmar, still severely criminalise same-sex relations.

Thai activists believe their success can both bring further change at home and set an example for other countries to follow. Given what they’ve achieved, they have every reason for hope.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Organizers decided to cancel physical Pride events this year for fear of a repeat of violence that marred the 2023 event when far-right groups attacked festival goers. The organizers and Georgia's president said anti-LGBT hate speech from government officials had incited violence ahead of the event in Tbilisi.

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 26 2024 (IPS)

“If this legislation passes, LGBT+ people simply aren’t going to be able to live here.” The warning from Tamar Jakeli, an LGBT+ activist and Director of Tbilisi Pride in Tbilisi, Georgia, is stark, but others in the country’s LGBT+ community agree, accurate.

Jakeli is talking to IPS in early June, soon after the ruling government party, Georgian Dream, proposed a bill in parliament that would, among others, outlaw any LGBT+ gatherings, ban same-sex marriages, gender transition and the adoption of children by same-sex couples. 

It will also prohibit LGBT+ ‘propaganda’ in schools and broadcasters and advertisers will also have to remove any content featuring same-sex relationships before broadcast, regardless of the age of the intended audience.

Strikingly similar to various legislation passed over the last decade in Russia, where the regime has looked to crack down on any open LGBT+ expression, critics say it could, if passed, have a devastating effect on Georgia’s queer community.

They fear it will lead to violent attacks on LGBT+ people and an increase in stigmatization, marginalization, and repression of the community.

“This legislation will give the green light to anyone who already has very conservative opinions to unleash violence on the LGBT community,” says Jakeli.

Experience from other countries where similar legislation has been introduced suggests this is a very likely outcome.

“The experiences of Russia and other countries that have passed such legislation show a clear pattern: state-sanctioned discrimination tends to foster an environment of hostility and violence against LGBTI communities,” Katrin Hugendubel, Advocacy Director at LGBT+ rights group ILGA-Europe, told IPS.

“This legislative move in Georgia could embolden extremist groups and individuals, leading to an increase in hate crimes and violence. The societal message that LGBTI people are less deserving of rights and protections can have severe and dangerous consequences,” she added.

Rights groups say that while the law would have an immediate negative effect on many aspects of LGBT+ people’s lives, it is also likely to reverse what has been a growing acceptance of the community in the country, albeit a slow one.

Although recent research suggests prejudice against LGBT+ people runs deep among what is a traditionally conservative population, activists say attitudes have become more tolerant towards the community in the last few years.

“There is still a conservative society here, and transphobia, homophobia and prejudice exist, [but] in recent years, surveys have shown people being less homophobic, especially in big cities and among the young. The dynamic has been positive,” Beka Gabadadze, an LGBT+ activist and Chairperson of the Board at Queer Association Temida in Tbilisi, told IPS.

But this could now all be under threat.

“The introduction of this legislation has the potential to undo much of the progress that has been made in recent years,” Hugendubel warned.

“Improvements in the situation for LGBTI individuals in Georgia have been fragile and often driven by the efforts of activists and supportive segments of society. This law, by contrast, represents a significant setback that could negate the positive changes achieved. It could lead to increased fear, discourage public expressions of identity, and drive LGBTI people and their allies back into hiding,” she said.

The bill must pass three readings in parliament before it becomes law, and the last of those is expected for September, a few weeks before planned parliamentary elections.

Activists say they expect it to be passed, pointing to the government’s willingness to push through legislation regardless of how unpopular it might be. a law requiring civil society groups that receive a certain amount of funding from abroad to register as “pursuing the interests of a foreign power” was passed earlier this year, despite massive street protests and overwhelming public opposition to it.

Over the next few months as the Bill is debated, Jakeli says she is expecting rising repression against the community.

She says her organization’s offices have already been attacked—she believes by people connected to the government. A Georgian Dream MP appeared to claim responsibility for a series of attacks against the offices of civil society organizations in May this year.

She also expects many LGBT+ people to start, if they have not already, planning a new life abroad.

While Georgian Dream has said the bill has been introduced as a necessary measure to stop the spread of “pseudo-liberal” values that undermine traditional family relationships, critics see it as the latest cynical attempt by a government turning away from the West to increase stigmatisation of certain groups, particularly the LGBT+ community, for political gain ahead of elections.

Georgian Dream also linked its foreign influence legislation to protecting the country from NGOs promoting LGBT+ rights, among others.

“The timing and nature of these legislative moves suggest that they are part of a broader strategy to appeal to homophobic and anti-minority sentiments among certain voter bases,” said Hugendubel. “This tactic has been used in other countries to consolidate power by stoking fears and prejudices,” she added.

Following the implementation of the foreign agent law, the US slapped sanctions on Georgian officials and the EU is currently considering similar action. There have been calls for similar moves to deter the government from pursuing its anti-LGBT+ legislation.

“International pressure, such as sanctions or diplomatic measures, can be effective in signalling to the Georgian government that these actions have severe repercussions. Additionally, domestic protests and sustained public opposition can also play a crucial role in pushing back against these laws,” said Hugendubel.

But Jakeli said the government might try to use any mass protests to further push their own repressive political narrative.

“What Georgian Dream wants is for LGBT+ activists to go out on the streets now and protest and then they can turn around to voters and say, ‘Look, these are radicals trying to overthrow the government who want to spread their decadent western morals through Georgian society’,” she says.

Activists say they are holding out hope that the elections in October will bring about a change of government. Although Jakeli admits the “odds of that happening are not great” with opposition parties, she points out, “facing almost as much repression from the government as the LGBT+ community does.”

But even if Georgian Dream do remain in power after the October vote, Jakeli believes its efforts to further stigmatize the LGBT+ community may actually have already backfired.

“The protests against the ‘foreign agent’ law united different sections of society and more and more people see anti-LGBT+ laws as another ‘Russian’ method of polarizing and dividing society.

“When I was on the front lines of the foreign agent law protests, for the first time I felt as if I was part of the majority, not minority, in Georgia. I think that people have realized that everyone should have human rights, including LGBT+ people,” she says.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UNDP is working in all regions of the world to integrate LGBTIQ+ people and issues in development efforts. Credit: UNDP Dominican Republic

By Ulrika Modéer and Christophe Schiltz
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 2024 (IPS)

This year has been called the ‘super election’ year, with 3.7 billion people potentially going to the polls. This historic political moment is also an opportunity to reflect on what these billions of voter experiences will look like. Who will vote, who can run for office and who might be excluded from the political process?

It goes without saying and is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone should have the right to participate in the political processes in their country, and huge strides have been made in recent years to recognize and advocate for LGBTIQ+ rights. But the reality for LGBTIQ+ people is often very different.

Because despite progress, one third of countries maintain laws that make same-sex relationships illegal. For the LGBTIQ+ people living in these countries, what is their experience with elections, as voters or as candidates?

Consider the transgender person who faces harassment whenever they leave their home and is ultimately excluded from their community. Or the LGBTIQ+ groups that are receiving constant online hate because of a wave of social media disinformation. To what extent are they free to express their political views, without fear of discrimination, hate speech or even physical violence?

These experiences do not exist in a vacuum. They are the result of a vast swathe of anti-LGBTIQ+ laws and policies, which in some countries are continuing to gather momentum, compounded by the pervasive stigma and discrimination many LGBTIQ+ people face in their everyday lives.

And they directly impact our political processes by silencing people, limiting the extent to which they can have a voice in their societies and in the decisions which affect them, and entrenching structural discrimination.

UNDP has been working for decades to help break these barriers and to strengthen laws, policies and programmes that respect the human rights of all individuals. This demands we work with a broad range of global partners and advocates, recognizing that LGBTIQ+ people are a diverse group and face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.

But with estimates suggesting about half of the global population may vote this year, it does throw into sharp focus the need to ensure that the people determining the leadership and political direction of their countries, truly reflects the full diversity of the world we live in.

We have reason to be hopeful that they will. Because with the steadfast support of partners like Luxembourg, UNDP has been supporting global efforts, including LGBTIQ+ organizations and activists, to help transform LGBTIQ+ rights.

For instance, last October, UNDP launched its global publication ‘Inclusive Democracies: A guide to strengthening the participation of LGBTI+ persons in political and electoral processes,’ in a jointly cohosted event with the LGBTI intergroup of the European Parliament.

Its aim is to provide policymakers, electoral management bodies, legislators, civil society and other stakeholders a clear set of tools to work towards a more equal exercise of civic and political rights, freedom of expression and association, and access to public services. The publication, informed by UNDP’s work globally, includes best practices from over 80 countries, mainly from the Global South.

At the same time, UNDP is working in 72 countries and all regions of the world to integrate LGBTIQ+ people and issues in development efforts.

This includes working with young key populations in Southern Africa – which includes young gay men and other men who have sex with men, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people – to help challenge some of the negative stereotypes appearing in mainstream media, and to change the negative narratives.

Support has focused on organizing media skills training for young people to build their journalistic skills and enhance the use of digital platforms for advocacy on issues affecting them.

But digital platforms also have the power to do great harm, and LGBTIQ+ individuals often face disproportionate online harassment, posing a threat to their equal political participation. With support from Luxembourg, UNDP has been able to prioritize combating dangerous online speech that targets individuals based on gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

For example, the Cabo Verde Free and Equal Campaign, part of UNDP’s efforts, focuses on fighting gender stereotypes and eliminating prejudices through legal and communication channels.

The global efforts to address LGBTIQ+ rights are having an impact. The recent HIV Policy Lab report – produced jointly by Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute, UNDP and the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) shows a clear and ongoing trend toward decriminalization of consensual same-sex sex around the world, with more countries removing punitive laws in 2022 than in any single year in the past 25 years.

These advances are part of a collective effort, because building inclusive and equitable societies means building a coalition of partners. At UNDP, the importance of partners like Luxembourg in helping to fund this vital work, and shining a light on the injustices LGBTIQ+ people face, is never underestimated.

This is important because investments in human rights are investments in our societies. And thanks to Luxembourg and our core donors, UNDP has been able to help people, whoever and wherever they are, to have a voice in shaping their societies.

This year, the stakes have never been higher. The decisions made in the elections taking place will set the course for how societies develop, and to what extent human rights are respected. Which is why we must also use this moment to recognize our partners and to renew our commitments to the LGBTIQ+ community.

The world’s attention will be focused on the election winners and losers. But the outcome is only one piece of the puzzle. Ensuring the political processes taking place are inclusive, credible and peaceful is how we ultimately build a world where everyone can vote, anyone can run for office, and most importantly, where no one will be silenced.

Ulrika Modeer is UN Assistant Secretary-General and Director of the Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP; Christophe Schiltz is Director General, Directorate for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Defence, Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, Luxembourg

Source: UNDP

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau