Russia’s new law banning any promotion of what is seen as “non-traditional sexual relations” could stigmatise the LGBTQI community and put HIV/AIDS prevention at risk.

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Dec 16 2022 (IPS)

A new law banning LGBTQI ‘propaganda’ in Russia will further stigmatise LGBTQI people in the country and could worsen what is already one of the world’s worst HIV/AIDS epidemics, critics have warned.

The legislation, approved by President Vladimir Putin at the start of this month, bans any promotion of what authorities see as “non-traditional sexual relations”.

Groups working with Russia’s LGBTQI community say the new law – an extension of 2013 legislation banning the positive portrayal of same-sex relationships to minors – will effectively make outreach work illegal, potentially severely impacting HIV prevention and treatment among what is a key population for the disease.

It also comes amid intensifying anti-LGBTQI political rhetoric and a Kremlin crackdown on the minority and civic organisations helping it.

“Since 2014, Russia has been purposefully driving HIV service organizations underground. The new law is another nail in the coffin of effective HIV prevention among vulnerable populations,” Evgeny Pisemsky, an LGBTQI activist from Orel in Russia, who runs the Russian LGBTQI information and news website parniplus.com, told IPS.

Russia has one of the worst HIV epidemics in the world. For much of the last decade the country has seen some of the highest rates of new infection recorded anywhere – between 80,000 and 100,000 per year between 2013 and 2019, although this has fallen to 60,000 in the last two years.

Officials figures for the total number of people infected range from between 850,000 cited by the Health Ministry and 1.3 million according to data from the Russian Federal AIDS Centre. The real figure though is believed to be much higher as the Russian Federal AIDS Centre estimates half of people with HIV are unaware of their infection.

Experts on the disease have repeatedly criticised Russian authorities’ approach to HIV prevention and treatment, especially the criminalisation and stigmatisation of key populations, including LGBTQI people.

Indeed, the new legislation is an extension of a controversial 2013 law banning the promotion of LGBTQI relationships to minors. This was denounced by human rights groups as discriminatory, but also criticised by infectious disease experts who suggested it further stigmatised gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM), affecting their access to HIV prevention and treatment.

Organisations working with the LGBTQI community in Russia worry the new legislation could make the situation even worse.

Gennady Roshchupkin, Community Systems Advisor at the Eurasian Coalition on Health, Rights, Gender and Sexual Diversity NGO, told IPS: “Practice in many countries has proved that increased stigma of marginalized populations leads to increased discrimination towards these groups, and, subsequently, these people increasingly frequently refuse to come forward for [HIV] testing and help.

“Formally, the new anti-LGBTQI law puts no limits on providing LGBTQI people with medical help and examinations. But, of course, the ban on sharing information with anyone about the specific characteristics of their sexual life may significantly decrease the quality and timeliness of testing and care.”

Meanwhile, Pisemsky said outreach work was likely to stop in its current form as provision of some services will now be too risky.

“All outreach work will go deep underground. Even online counselling will be dangerous,” he said.

The law could also impact LGBTQI mental health – research showed LGBTQI youth mental health was negatively affected after implementation of the 2013 legislation – which could, in turn, promote risky sexual behaviours.

“We cannot know what exactly will happen. Use of alcohol and practice of chemsex may increase, and there could be a rise in cases of long-term depression and suicides. But what we can say with certainty is that there will be a dramatic decrease in the use of condoms and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) – unprotected sex with an unknown partner is also an indicator of mental and cognitive conditions in the age of HIV – sexual health literacy, and self-esteem among LGBTQI people,” said Roshchupkin.

Meanwhile, international organisations heading the fight against HIV/AIDS have attacked the law, warning of its potentially serious impact on public health.

“Punitive and restrictive laws increase the risk of acquiring HIV and decrease access to services… Such laws make it harder for people to protect their health and that of their communities,” UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima said in a statement.

But such warnings are almost certain to fall on deaf ears, at least among Russian lawmakers.

Although homosexuality was decriminalised in the early 1990s after the fall of communism, LGBTQI people face widespread prejudice and discrimination in Russia. The country placed 46 out of 49 European countries in the latest rankings of LGBTQI inclusion by the rights group ILGA-Europe.

These attitudes are fuelled by what many LGBTQI activists say is a systematic state policy to stigmatise and persecute the minority.

Since the 2013 law was implemented, authorities have cracked down on NGOs campaigning for LGBTQI rights, using various legislation to force them to close. At the same time, politicians have intensified anti-LGBTQI rhetoric, and regularly attack the community.

Indeed, the new legislation was overwhelmingly supported in parliament, with senior political figures rushing to defend it as a necessary measure against Western threats to traditional Russian values.

Chairman of Russia’s federal parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, said about the law: “We must do everything to protect our children and those who want to live a normal life. Everything else is sin, sodomy, darkness, and our country is fighting this.”

International rights groups say it is clear the law has been brought in for a specific discriminatory purpose.

“There is no other way of seeing it than as an extreme and systematic effort to stigmatise, isolate, and marginalise the entire Russian LGBTQI community. It is an abhorrent example of homophobia and should be repealed,” Rachel Denber, Deputy Director of the Europe and Central Asia Division at Human Rights Watch, told IPS.

“This law has a characteristic similarity to other repressive laws adopted in Russia in recent years – the opportunity for its arbitrary interpretation. In an environment that is as repressive as Russia’s is right now, rather than deciding to take the risk of falling foul of the law and speaking openly about relationships or sexuality, people will just remain silent.

“This law emerged in a climate of cumulative repression of human rights and repressive laws across the board, which seek to silence dissent, and, through the force of law, enforce conformism,” she added.

Pisemsky agreed: “Laws like this one are designed to scare people. Fear needs to be constantly fed with something, otherwise it stops working. This law is not the last step in the escalation of homophobia in Russia.”

The effects of the ban, which essentially makes any positive depictions of the LGBTQI community in literature, film, television, online, and other media illegal with stiff fines (up to 80,000 US Dollars for organisations) for breaches, have been immediately visible.

Pisemsky described how HIV service organizations had altered their websites and social media pages to comply with the law, while Roshchupkin said LGBTQI community health centres were removing from their premises homoerotic posters and brochures with explicit depictions of same-sex sexual acts.

Meanwhile, Russia’s first queer museum, in St Petersburg, had to close its doors just weeks after opening to comply with the law, bookshops have cleared their shelves of works dealing with LGBTQI themes and libraries have taken to displaying similar works with blank covers.

It is unclear what other effects the law will have, but some LGBTQI organisations which spoke to IPS said people had been in touch with them asking for advice on emigrating.

Nikita Iarkov, a volunteer with the Andrey Rylkov Foundation, an NGO which helps people with HIV in Russia, said that though he did not think there was yet widespread fear among LGBTQI people in Russia, he is realistic about what the future holds for many of them.

“Unfortunately, this is not the first law discriminating [against LGBTQI people]. This kind of ban is sort of a regular practice now,” he told IPS.

“I hope that clubs in Moscow and St Petersburg will remain safe spaces for queer people, but I think that it will be impossible to have openly queer parties and clubs.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Kazakhstan's anti-gender bill aims for the complete erasure of concepts of gender and gender equality, according to rights activists. Courtesy: CC by 2.0/Steve Evans

By Samira Sadeque
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 10 2020 (IPS)

 The coronavirus lockdown in Kazakhstan, and the resultant limited public oversight and limited publication engagement, has paved the way for the government to propose amendments to the country’s laws around gender that could see the exclusion of the rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ)  community. 

Aigerim Kamidola, Legal Advocacy Officer, ‘Feminita’ Kazakhstan Feminist Initiative in Kazakhstan, spoke to IPS this week after presenting her organisation at the Jul. 9 United Nations panel on sustainable development for LGBTI people in times of COVID19. She was one of a group of advocates from around the world who shared their opinions and experiences about how the community has been affected during the crisis. 

She explains how the period of the lockdown was used for “the introduction of amendments and additions to legislative acts of Kazakhstan on family and gender policy”.

“The Draft Law (an anti-gender bill) proposes amendments to the law on state guarantees on equal rights and equal opportunities for men and women. The anti-gender bill aims for the complete erasure of concepts of gender and gender equality. The only outcome of the bill is to erase the word “gender” from the national legislation,” Kamidola says.

“And through the comments of some MPs initiating this legislation, we see that the rationale they provided was that there are “too many genders” and that they have the intention to reinstate two sexes.”

But Kamidola points out “the general public discourse in Kazakhstan is very homophobic and transphobic”.

“On a state-level the subject is a taboo so state officials normally do not speak of it.”

Her organisation works with lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer (LBTQ) women on issues of discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Kazakhstan.

Inter Press Service (IPS): How has COVID-19 impacted the LBTQ community in Kazakhstan?  

Aigerim Kamidola (AK):  We’ve seen two main trends in Kazakhstan regarding LBTQ populations: first one is that the general measures, policies and legislations [around] the state’s response to COVID-19 pandemic didn’t take the intersectional approach at the core of it. As a result, they exacerbated the pre-existing inequalities that disproportionately affected LGBTQ people.

The second trend is measures that specifically target civil society and LGBTQ groups. Despite [the fact] that there was a state of emergency and the quarantine, when there was limited public oversight and civic and social engagement, the parliament and the government actually used the space to adopt certain legislation which actually targeted civil society groups.

IPS: What are some ways in which COVID-19 has affected the health of the members of the LBTQ community in Kazakhstan?

AK: With our allies from transgender initiatives, Feminita completed a big research project on access to healthcare of LBQ women and trans people in Kazakhstan in March. Because of the stigma by medical professionals, there’s a high resentment of the LBQT community for [asking for] medical help and that increases health risks. It’s not only HIV or STIs, which are normally spoken of, but also for other chronic disease and cancer-related diseases.

As a result, it makes the group of people more susceptible to health risks [in the event of a] pandemic or other epidemiological diseases.

IPS: Your organisation was denied registration as an NGO last year — how does this affect your ability to operate in the country and to serve the LBTQ community?

AK: We recently received the supreme court decision upholding the previous court rulings, confirming that there was no violation in a denied registration. And it surely affects the organisation’s institutional development because as a non-registered organisation, you’re not eligible to open a bank account, or apply for funding and hence [unable] to maybe be more effective in responding to some urgent calls. 

As a result, the initiative operates with a small group of people — most of them work other jobs on the side. And they cannot pay the initial salaries, or operate sustainably or have sustainable activities. And that of course exacerbates in the pandemic. 

On the other side, we see a contraction of funding too and it is [being] channelled towards the needs of pandemic response or healthcare needs. Then there’s a contraction of resources to activists and civil society groups and human rights organisations needs. We know that it’s just the beginning and that the financial effects of the pandemic will catch up later.  

IPS: Has the LBQT community reached out to your organisation during this pandemic?

AK: We’ve had some cases throughout this quarantine time. One in particular was regarding a woman who faced hate speech by a prominent sport athlete who made a degrading statement with incitement to hate, and the activist called him out. As a result, there was an avalanche of hate speech towards her and then she faced death threats online. She also faced threats by fans of the athlete. 

We launched a media advocacy campaign and also relocated her during the pandemic. The first measure of the pandemic response by the state was isolation, stay at home, as a safe space but home is not always safe for everyone and it was very problematic to relocate a person during the quarantine, because there was a lockdown measure in place. And borders between the states were closed, so it was impossible to relocate her to another state. She was relocated within the same state.

IPS: How does the current pandemic — and global lockdown — affect the LBTQ community’s work and participation in the SDGs?

AK: What is important for activists and civil society and also for international community when they deal with governments like in Kazakhstan — whose economy is very resource and industry driven, and places priority on a lot of investment coming in — we see quite a lot of political will in engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework. But at the same time it is a country with a low human rights record, that resents a human rights framework.

What is important is for us to actually strengthen the links between the human rights and SDG frameworks and one cannot be implemented without the other. The state cannot cherry pick the one it likes and just ignore the recommendations in human rights treaties.

Tolerance. Credit: Rebecca/Flickr. CC BY 2.0.

By Andy Hazel
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 28 2017 (IPS)

Religious advocacy groups have a long history of working with the United Nations, pushing back against progressive interpretations of the terms ‘family’ and ‘marriage’ as enshrined  in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That effort was seemingly rewarded in 2016 as more people voted across the globe for political parties promising conservative interpretations of both, in stark contrast to moves by some countries in recent years to legalise same sex marriage and enhance protections for LGBTQI [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or intersex] people.

In 2017, the battle to define these terms both as they appear in the declaration and in law is growing increasingly fierce.

Like most advocacy directed at UN or Washington policy makers, lobbying by religious groups typically takes place behind the scenes, with success often measured in terms of whether or not progressive social policies get adopted.

Two of the most active and successful players are the World Congress of Families (WCF) – with its longstanding ties to African, Russian and Eastern European governments, as well as conservative US  politicians –  and the legal advocacy group the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has  had many successes in international courts defending Judeo-Christian rights. Both organisations cite their consultative status at the UN as a key to their reputations.

WCF Managing Director Larry Jacobs says that, given the current political climate, WCF and its supporters have cause for optimism.

“There’s been a fundamental denial over the last 50 years that the family is needed,” he told IPS, referring to the diversification of family structure away from the ‘traditional’ or nuclear model favoured by conservatives towards a more open interpretation. “Much of it is a result of the agenda of sexual revolution lobbyists,” he added, a view also shared by many involved in religious social policy.

“I think one of our greatest successes is protecting Article 16.3 [The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State]. Other groups are trying to redefine existing mandates in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the idea that family is ‘natural’ is one of our biggest successes.”

Pope Francis echoed these sentiments during his address to the United Nations, describing the family as “the primary cell of any social development”. While Pope Francis has preached acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality, he has never shown support for the non-nuclear family or gender fluidity.

The WCF coordinates conservative groups and has been linked to major international policy shifts, such as Russia’s law prohibiting the promotion of ‘non-traditional sexual relationships’, and Hungary’s ‘family-friendly’ policies. These moves have been linked to a rise in persecution of and violence against LGBTQI citizens. Members and associates of the group have been linked to the passage of laws outlawing homosexuality throughout Africa, and the failure of the Estrela Resolution to pass the European Parliament, a proposal to treat abortion as a human right and standardise sexual health education.

In the opposite corner to these groups, but likewise  drawing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  as the foundation for its  work, is  LGBTQI advocacy group Outright Action International. Outright argues that denying the expansion of ‘family’ beyond a nuclear structure and ‘marriage’ beyond a heterosexual union violates human rights.

“We need to ensure that cultural reasons or ‘traditional’ values aren’t used to undermine the universality of human rights principles, or equal application of existing law in regards to everyone,” says Outright’s UN program coordinator Siri May. “We felt very grateful for the support of [ex- UN Secretary General] Ban Ki Moon. He became a strong advocate for universality.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom joined the World Congress of Families in UN consultative status in 2014, with its declared aims to “help craft language that affirms religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. Chief counsel Benjamin Bull wrote: “ADF can now have a say when UN treaties and conventions are drafted that directly impact religious liberty and important matters related to the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.”

“No person – anywhere – should be punished simply for holding to Christian beliefs,” says Bull. Bull opposed Former UN Secretary-General Ban’s support for Ban’s LGBTQI rights arguing that it privileged “the demands of sexually confused individuals over the rights of other individuals.”

Cases for which ADF have advocated in the United States, Europe and in the Global South, most notably in Central and South America, have drawn accusations of human rights violations.

One key act during Ban’s tenure was the creation of a Special Rapporteur for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Inaugural appointee Vitit Muntarbhorn has been charged with identifying instances where human rights are violated based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Muntarbhorn only narrowly kept his role after the legitimacy of the office was challenged twice by the United Nations General Assembly, reflecting deep divisions within the UN’s membership on this issue.

“Vitit has a very focused brief so we’re excited to be working with him and other mandate holders,” says Outright’s May. “We’ll be looking to provide him and other experts with the best information available.”

WCF’s Larry Jacobs is keen to point out that, despite being designated a ‘hate group’ and ‘virulently anti-gay’ by both mainstream news media and human rights advocacy groups, he does not condone violence.

“We are not anti-gay. Homosexuals are the people that need a natural family the most. We are the ones that want to help the victims of the sexual revolution, the victims of divorce, the victims of people who have lived a promiscuous lifestyle. I think the question about homosexuality is ‘how do we deal with brokenness?’ ”

But May contests this. “We know throughout history that family units are not about one man, one women and two children. That’s quite a western construct. There are many examples of same-sex couple families with children that provide love. Human rights are applicable to the individual, and family units are very important, but they should never trump the right of the individual.”

“What we know about gender-based violence and LGBTQI rights are that they’re needed to protect an individual that might be at risk from their family. They have rights and obligations within human rights law and those rights should never be used to privilege heterosexuality.”

Despite their marked differences, both Jacobs and May are cautiously optimistic about the UN’s approach under new Secretary-General António Guterres, a man who forged his political and diplomatic career balancing socialist beliefs with his Catholic faith.

“We’d expect the incoming Secretary General would have the same interpretation of human rights law and traditional cultural values as Ban Ki Moon,” says May. “We feel very encouraged about his statements.”

“It’s a very exciting time,” concurs Jacobs. “Even when his party went against him on abortion, Guterres stayed true to his faith and his values. He wasn’t afraid to talk about the sanctity of human life from conception to death, so this is an exciting time.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelt Vitit Muntarbhorn’s name.

Credit: Jorge Luis Baños/IPS

By Phillip Kaeding
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 1 2016 (IPS)

Human rights groups have described the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC) decision on Thursday to appoint an independent expert to target the ongoing discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people all over the world as a “historic victory.”

“For LGBTI people everywhere who have fought so hard for this victory, take strength from this recognition, and let today represent the dawn of a new day,” OutRight International’s executive director Jessica Stern said. OutRight International was one of 28 non-governmental groups which welcomed the resolution with a joint statement.

More than 600 nongovernmental organizations helped ensure that the HRC in Geneva adopted the resolution to “protect people against violence & discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”.

The establishment of an expert-position for these problems is a significant step since not all of the UN’s 193 members see eye to eye on LGBTI issues. “A UN Independent Expert sends a clear message that violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are a concern for the international community and need to be addressed by Member States,” John Fisher of Human Rights Watch told IPS.

With regard to compliance, Fisher said: “Of course, some States will decline to cooperate, which only underlines the need for the outreach work that an Independent Expert will conduct. Members of the Human Rights Council are required by a GA (General Assembly) resolution to cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the biggest defenders of LGBT rights in the United States, expressed its approval, too. Jamil Dakwar, ACLU’s International Human Rights Director, told IPS the HRC resolution “is yet another affirmation that the promise of universal human rights leaves no one behind.”

He also emphasized that “even in a country like the United States, where some LGBT rights are legally recognized, recent events, including the tragic mass shooting at an LGBT club in Orlando and the post-marriage equality legislative backlash against transgender people, confirm that the human rights of LGBT communities are in dire need of attention and protection.”

Indeed, although many states are making progress, LGBTI people still face discrimination and violence. According to studies, between half and two thirds of LGBTI students in the US, UK and Thailand are bullied at school and thirty percent of them skip school to avoid the trouble.

Fisher said to IPS that “discrimination is faced in access to health, housing, education and employment, transgender persons face laws which deny their fundamental self-defined gender identity.”

In the past years, violence, particularly against transgender people was shockingly common. For example, the 2014 report of the Anti-Violence Project showed that police violence was 7 times more likely to affect transgender people than non-transgenders. The 2015 report, released this June, revealed that 67 percent of victims of hate violence related killings of LGBTQ people were transgender.

A study released this week shows that there are 1.4 million transgender persons living in the United States: Twice as many as previously estimated. Although the US is slowly addressing some issues related to LGBT rights, such as removing barriers for transgender persons in the military some states have begun banning transgender people from using the bathroom according to the gender they identify with.

Human Rights Watch and others are happy to witness progress in states like the US and many Latin American countries. There was a clear pattern in the voting behavior of Thursday’s HRC meeting, too. No African and few Asian countries (only South Korea and Vietnam) voted in favor of the resolution. The 18 votes against the new resolution came among others from Russia, China and various Arab States.

The non-governmental actors who supported the resolution, however, also came from developing countries. “It is important to note that around 70 percent of the organizations are from the global south,” Yahia Zaidi of the MantiQitna Network said.

The resolution builds on previous HRC decisions in 2011 and 2014. In the newest draft, the independent expert is the most important innovation. Still, other parts of it were debated, too:

“Some amendments were adopted suggesting that cultural and religious values should be respected; these amendments could be interpreted as detracting from the universality of human rights. The resolution does, however, also include a provision from the outcome document of the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, affirming the primacy of human rights,” Fisher reported from the council in Geneva.

Polish conservatives protesting against a reading of Golgota Picnic in Warsaw. Credit: Maciej Konieczny/Courtesy of Krytyka Polityczna

By Claudia Ciobanu
WAESAW, Jul 8 2014 (IPS)

A mix of conservative Catholicism and nationalism has become the predominant view in Polish public debate, with some worrying effects.

These were the values around which the opposition to communism led by trade union Solidarity built itself up in the 1980s but, after the fall of communism, opinion makers in the media and politicians continued to depict them as part and parcel of being Polish.

Observers note that the Polish Catholic Church has also grown increasingly conservative since 1989, in apparent contrast to an opening up of the Church worldwide.Conservative Catholicism and nationalism were the values around which the opposition to communism led by trade union Solidarity built itself up in the 1980s but, after the fall of communism, opinion makers in the media and politicians continued to depict them as part and parcel of being Polish.

Last month, the director of a theatre festival in the city of Poznan decided to cancel showings of a play fearing he could not ensure the safety of viewers in the face of threats by conservative and far-right groups. The play – “Golgota Picnic” by Argentinian director Rodrigo Garcia – describes the life of Jesus using striking depictions of contemporary society, including some with a sexual meaning.

Among those asking for play to be cancelled were representatives of Poland’s main opposition party, Law and Justice, the main trade union Solidarity, and the far-right Ruch Narodowy (National Movement), all of which stand for traditional Catholic values. The Church also voiced its opposition to the play.

In itself, protesting against the play was unremarkable (it has also been met with opposition from Catholics in other countries, for example in France), but the Polish response was interesting: even if the festival was largely financed from public sources, the show was cancelled and there was hardly any resistance from public authorities to the decision. The public, however, made itself heard and readings of the play were organised in major Polish cities, with hundreds attending.

Meanwhile, the dynamics surrounding “Golgota Picnic” are being replicated over other issues in Polish society, among which the most striking is women’s reproductive rights. Poland is one of only three countries in the European Union where abortion is prohibited, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, there is a serious threat to the mother’s health or foetal malformation has been detected.

Abortion had been legal in communist Poland but was outlawed in 1993 after pressure from the Catholic Church. Ever since, attempts to make abortion legal have failed. In 2011, the Polish parliament came close to further tightening the law on abortion by prohibiting it no matter the circumstances.

At the time, it was not only the political forces explicitly standing for Catholic values that endorsed a total ban, but also many members of the governing centre-right Civic Platform, which depicts itself as Poland’s main liberal political force.

De facto, even the current restrictive law is not being implemented. In a series of high profile cases over the years, Catholic doctors in public hospitals have refused to perform abortions even if girls were pregnant as a result of rape, had serious health conditions or malformation had been detected in foetuses.

In May, in an escalation of the situation, over 3,000 Polish doctors, nurses and medical students signed a “Declaration of Faith” in which they rejected abortion, birth control, in vitro fertilisation and euthanasia as contrary to the Catholic faith. Signatories included employees of public clinics and hospitals. One of them was the director of a Warsaw maternity hospital who said he would not allow such procedures to take place in his institution.

The “Declaration of Faith”, which has been endorsed by the Polish Catholic Church, is contrary to Polish law and Prime Minister Donald Tusk has spoken out against it.

State authorities have been carrying out check-ups at those institutions in which signatories of the Declaration work to establish whether the law is being respected, and one fine has been imposed on the Warsaw maternity hospital whose director prohibits legal abortions. Yet more determined measures are still pending.

“Lack of massive resistance [to the Declaration] is not a sign of approval on the part of the general public,” comments Agnieszka Graff, writer and feminist activist. “It is rather a question of resignation: for 20 years we have seen politicians court the Church while ignoring public opinion on matters that have to do with reproductive rights. The pattern of submission has emboldened the radical anti-choice groups.”

Political power in Poland is firmly in the hands of conservatives. Law and Justice, the party with the best chance of winning next year’s parliamentary elections, is staunchly pro-Catholic and nationalist, and has in the past allied in government with far-right politicians. The governing Civic Platform, the choice of many liberals in this country, is bitterly divided between social conservatives and liberals, meaning it cannot enforce the constitutional secularity of the Polish state.

As Graff explains, in this political context, those who oppose the Catholicism-nationalism nexus find it difficult to coalesce into a strong movement. And ultra-conservatives continue to advance.

Far-right elements breeds in this environment and, in an ethnically and racially homogeneous country, their main targets are feminists, the LGBTQ community and leftists (the same groups that the Church condemns). Their strength is most visible in Poland during the annual Independence March on November 11, when tens of thousands of far-right youth take to the streets of Warsaw and other cities wreaking havoc.

According to June polls, the third strongest political force in Poland is the New Right Congress, which has a neo-liberal far-right agenda. The party, whose leader Janusz Korwin-Mikke has declared that women have lower IQs than men and that they enjoy being raped, gathered 7.5 percent of the vote in the May elections for the European Parliament.

“There is no clear demarcation between the Polish extreme right, the populist right and the mainstream right,” notes political scientist Rafal Pankovski of anti-racist group Nigdy Wiecej (Never Again). “The notion of a cordon sanitaire against the far-right does not seem to have been accepted in Polish politics and the media.”

Over recent years, civic mobilisation by progressive forces has nevertheless grown, and political parties with a strong liberal, secular and anti-nationalist message have been forming, but they still lack consolidation. Faced with the constant accusation of being “communists”, leftist forces that might counterbalance the conservative, nationalist and far-right trend are slow to grow in Poland.