An LGBTQ+ rights group in Afghanistan is calling the international community’s acceptance of Taliban rule a “betrayal of humanity” and is demanding justice for queer people from the United Nations, human rights organizations, and countries that “claim to support human rights.”
Rainbow Afghanistan details a litany of abuses against the queer community by the Taliban, which returned to power two years ago as American forces withdrew from the country 20 years after the 9/11/2001 attacks.
“For homosexuals,” a Taliban judge said at the time, “there can only be two punishments: either stoning, or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him.”
Since then, members of the LGBTQ+ community have been mysteriously killed or disappeared, arrested, “tortured and sexually assaulted in prisons, and many were stoned to death in distant provinces and, in the worst case, sexually exploited,” the letter details, while “a large number of members of the LGBT community lost their lives due to suicide,” including lesbians and transgender women who have been “forced into marriage” against their will.
“The world has remained silent” in the face of “widespread and systematic crime against humanity,” the letter from Rainbow Afghanistan declares. “The eyes and ears of the world are not willing to see and hear.”
The group documents the abduction of at least ten members of their own organization at the hands of the Taliban, and describes the existence of “private prisons for members of the LGBT community in large provinces in parts of Afghanistan.”
“According to our findings, at least two transgender individuals under the age of 19 were transferred to one of these prisons after being identified by the Taliban in Herat, where they were tortured and raped.”
The group also describes a dangerous exodus of LGBTQ+ people from Afghanistan into neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, where they’re subject to similar abuse at the hands of authorities.
“The suffocating political conditions and the criminalization of non-binary tendencies and identities in these countries have exposed them to the threat of deportation” back to Afghanistan.
The group is demanding action from the United Nations and others.
“We want the countless crimes of the Taliban against the LGBTQ community in Afghanistan to be investigated and documented, and its perpetrators should be held accountable in independent courts, and human rights, as stated in its charter, should not be limited to geographic boundaries, gender identities, and certain social groups,” the organization wrote of the U.N.
“We, the activists, ask the United Nations, human rights organizations, and countries of the world to break this annoying silence towards the LGBT community. We want to end the silence of the international community regarding these tragedies as soon as possible. We want justice for the LGBT community of Afghanistan to be raised and realized.”
A Japanese family court has ruled that the country’s requirement that transgender people be surgically sterilized to change their legal gender is unconstitutional. The ruling is the first of its kind in Japan, and comes as the Supreme Court considers a separate case about the same issue.
In 2021, Gen Suzuki, a transgender man, filed a court request to have his legal gender recognized as male without undergoing sterilization surgery as prescribed by national law. This week the Shizuoka Family Court ruled in his favor, with the judge writing: “Surgery to remove the gonads has the serious and irreversible result of loss of reproductive function. I cannot help but question whether being forced to undergo such treatment lacks necessity or rationality, considering the level of social chaos it may cause and from a medical perspective.”
In Japan, transgender people who want to legally change their gender must appeal to a family court. Under the Gender Identity Disorder (GID) Special Cases Act, applicants must undergo a psychiatric evaluation and be surgically sterilized. They also must be single and without children younger than 18.
In 2019, Japan’s Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that stated the law did not violate Japan’s constitution. However, two of the justices recognized the need for reform. “The suffering that [transgender people] face in terms of gender is also of concern to society that is supposed to embrace diversity in gender identity,” they wrote. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a trans government employee using the restrooms in accordance with her gender identity. Her employer had barred her from using the women’s restrooms on her office floor because she had not undergone the surgical procedures and therefore had not changed her legal gender.
The current case before the grand chamber of the Supreme Court asks the justices to eliminate the outdated and abusive sterilization requirement.
India’s top court has declined to legally recognize same-sex unions in a landmark ruling that also emphasized the rights of the LGBTQcommunity to be free of prejudice and discrimination.
Campaigners had sought to obtain the right to marry under Indian law, giving them access to the same privileges extended to heterosexual couples, but while that was denied they welcomed the court’s recognition of their relationships.
A five-judge constitution bench led by India’s chief justice delivered the much-anticipated verdict on Tuesday, streamed live across the nation and to crowds outside the court who gathered to watch on their cellphones.
During the two-hour ruling, Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said queerness is a “natural phenomenon,” and told the government to ensure the “queer community is not discriminated against because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said the right of LGBTQ couples to choose their partners was not contested, and they were entitled to celebrate their commitment to each other “in whichever way they wish within the social realm.”
However, he added: “This does not extend the right to claim any legal entitlement to any legal status for the same union or relationship.”
Bhat called for a “high-powered committee” to be formed to evaluate laws that indirectly discriminate against LGBTQ couples by denying them “compensatory benefits or social welfare entitlements” that usually come with being legally married.
“This court cannot within the judicial framework engage in this complex task, the state has to study the impact of these policies and entitlements,” he said.
India’s marriage laws bar millions of LGBTQ couples from accessing legal benefits attached to matrimony in relation to matters including adoption, insurance and inheritance.
More than a dozen petitioners had challenged the law, taking their case to the Supreme Court, which heard their arguments during hearings in April and May.
Susan Dias, one of the petitioners in the case, said she, along with her partner were “disappointed” with the verdict.
“We were hopeful that it would go a little more positively,” she said. “We filed the petition with the hope that we’d leave with some rights. So, definitely disappointment but I don’t think we’ve taken any steps back.”
The ruling government of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had opposed calls to legalize the unions.
In a submission to the court earlier this year, lawyer for the government, Solicitor Tushar Mehta, called same-sex marriage an “urban” and “elitist” concept – one that is “far removed from the social ethos of the country.”
‘It’s not a loss’
Dozens of LGBTQ activists gathered outside the Supreme Court in the Indian capital New Delhi while the verdict was being read.
Some welcomed the judgment as a progressive move, while others said it wasn’t good enough.
Pranav Grover, 20, said it was a “diplomatic” verdict. “It came in perspective with keeping both parties happy,” he said, adding: “Let’s start to focus on the positive.”
Another bystander, Faraz, said he was a little disappointed.
“When we got to know of the privileges, it is definitely a good thing,” he said.”It is not a loss.”
Amrita, who goes by the pronouns she/they, said while it was “very nice to be recognized by the justices,” it was time to “get a move on.”
They added: “This level of indifference was not expected after waiting for so many months.”
Celebrity chef and LGBTQ activist Suvir Saran said while the Supreme Court “didn’t give us the right to marry, it has used the bench as a classroom for educating the legislators and the citizens about homosexuality and the other.”
A complicated history
India has a large LGBTQ community and celebrates gay pride in cities across the country but attitudes toward same-sex relationships have been complicated.
Hindu mythology dating back centuries features men transforming into women and holy texts include third gender characters. But same-sex intercourse was criminalized and marriage rights limited to heterosexual couples under a penal code introduced by India’s British former colonial rulers in 1860.
During nearly a decade in power, Indian leader Narendra Modi and his ruling BJP party have been keen to shake off India’s colonial baggage, renaming streets and cities and championing an India in charge of its own destiny. But Victorian laws governing same-sex marriage are one throwback to the colonial past his party has fought to retain.
Campaigners in India have said the law doesn’t only trap members of the LGBTQ community in the closet, but also invites other forms of discrimination and provides a cover for blackmail and harassment.
After a decade-long battle in 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the colonial-era law that criminalized same-sex intercourse – though it left intact the legislation limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Since then, surveys have shown that acceptance of homosexuality has grown.
According to a Pew survey published in June, 53% people believed homosexuality should be accepted – a 38% increase from 2014.
Yet, despite this larger embrace, conservatives within India have been opposed to same-sex unions.
Top leaders from the country’s various religious organizations came together earlier this year to say marriage “is for procreation, not recreation.”
A Hong Kong court on Tuesday dismissed a government bid to deny same-sex married couples the right to rent and own public housing saying that it was “discriminatory in nature” and a complete denial of such couples’ rights.
The ruling by Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal is the latest in a series of legal breakthroughs for gay rights advocates in the global financial hub this year.
The government had challenged two High Court rulings that it was “unconstitutional and unlawful” for the city’s housing authority to exclude same-sex couples who married abroad from public housing.
The appeal involved two cases, one in which the authority had declined to consider a permanent resident’s application to rent a public flat with his husband, because their marriage in Canada was not recognized in Hong Kong.
The other involved a same-sex couple who were denied joint-ownership of a government-subsidized flat by the authority because their marriage in Britain was not recognized in Hong Kong.
Court of Appeal justices Jeremy Poon, Aarif Barma and Thomas Au said in a written judgment that the authority’s treatment of gay married couples was “discriminatory in nature” and they should be afforded equal treatment.
“The differential treatment in the present cases is a more severe form of indirect discrimination than most cases because the criterion is one which same-sex couples can never meet,” the judges said in their ruling.
One of the men involved in the second case, Henry Li, welcomed the ruling in a post on Facebook.
Rights group Hong Kong Marriage Equality also welcomed the decision saying it had made clear “that discrimination and unequal treatment on the ground of sexual orientation has no place in public policy decisions.”
Hong Kong’s top court in September ruled against same-sex marriage but acknowledged the need for same-sex couples “for access to an alternative legal framework in order to meet basic social requirements.”
The government was given two years to come up with the framework.
A Hong Kong court in September sided with a married lesbian couple who argued that both women should have parental status over their child born via reciprocal IVF.
Activists in other parts of Asia are watching Hong Kong’s courts in the hope that their rulings could influence campaigns for reform elsewhere.
The World Bank will aim to ensure gay and transgender Ugandans are not discriminated against in its programs before resuming new funding, which was halted in August over an anti-LGBTQ law, a bank executive said.
World Bank project documents will make it clear that LGBTQ Ugandans should not face discrimination and that staff will not be arrested for including them, Victoria Kwakwa, the bank’s head for eastern and southern Africa, told Reuters.
Rights groups have said that the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), which was enacted in May and prescribes the death penalty for certain same-sex acts, has unleashed a torrent of abuse against LGBTQ people, mostly by private individuals.
“We’re doing all this to clarify this is not what you should be doing in World Bank-financed projects and to say you are allowed to do it the right way and you will be not be arrested,” Kwakwa said, on the sidelines of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings in Marrakech, Morocco.
She declined to give a timeline for assessing the measures’ efficacy and moving to a decision on whether to resume new funding for Uganda.
“We have discussed this at length with government. Government is comfortable with that,” Kwakwa said.
When the World Bank suspended new funding, Ugandan officials accused the development finance institution of hypocrisy, saying it was lending to countries in the Middle East and Asia that have the same or harsher laws targeting LGBTQ people.
The government would need to revise its budget to reflect the suspension’s potential financial impact, a junior finance minister said at the time.
The World Bank’s portfolio of projects in the East African country was $5.2 billion at the end of 2022. These have not been affected by the decision to suspend new financing.
Max and Sasha are just two of the many LGBTQ+ people who have joined the mass exodus fleeing Russia to avoid violence, discrimination and war.
Now, the queer Russian-Ukrainian couple are left with the scars of living under Vladimir Putin’s repressive regime.
Putin’s obsession with rejecting what he sees as Western “degradation” has led to Russia toughening anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in recent months. At the same time, the Kremlin has clamped down on free speech, human rights and dissent as the war in Ukraine drags on.
Max and Sasha fled Russia this time last year. They joined the hundreds of thousands of people trying to find safety in other countries bordering the huge nation.
They made it to the the Latvian border, hitching a ride with a stranger.
When the queer couple got to the crossing, guards confronted them, demanding to know why they were leaving Russia.
Unable to reveal their real reasons, they had “full-on panic attacks just trying to hold back tears” as they waited hours to be let them through, the pair tell PinkNews.
“When we got there and we gave our passports, the guard looked at Sasha’s, and he was like: ‘I can’t see the visa, so what are you doing? What are your plans? What are you thinking? What are you doing there?’” Max, who is Ukrainian, recalls.
“We were like: ‘There are some people waiting for us there’. We were trying to say at least something. You’re completely stunned… we were standing there trying not to cry because they took our passports.
“We were like: ‘What next? What are they doing with our passports? They’re not letting us go’.”
A growing number of people, like Max and Sasha, have left Russia via land border crossings into other countries. (Getty)
Several countries – including Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Finland – have put in place measures to restrict the entry of Russian citizens, limiting the chances for people to use them as safe havens.
At one point, the border guards let Sasha, who is Russian, through but said that Max couldn’t join him. However, the couple knew they had to stay together so they regrouped in Russia and used “some other ways to cross the border”.
‘The scariest thing was that people were delusional about Russia’
Eventually, they made it into one of the Baltic states and began the process of applying for asylum. But they encountered difficulties with access to resources because of their differing citizenships, given the ongoing war.
Max feels he has a “lot of privilege as a Ukrainian” because he can travel, and it’s “easier” to find a job. Sadly, he can’t share that same level of support with Sasha because the pair aren’t married yet.
The LGBTQ+ community in Russia has faced a growing crackdown by authorities, which has only increased in ferocity since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Getty)
The queer couple’s asylum application was initially denied because the person reviewing it argued that it’s merely “hard” for gay people in Russia – refusing to recognise the very real abuse LGBTQ+ people face.
“The arguments were: ‘It’s hard for gay people in Russia, but you did go to work. You did finish at school’,” Max explains.
“We were basically going around the streets, pretending we are someone who we are not. No matter how [hard] we try, people always figure everything out.
“We were standing near a subway station and hearing a guy talk to his wife like: ‘Oh my God, you won’t believe it. I’m standing next to the most disgusting f*****s. Come save me. They’re gonna rape me right now’. People don’t understand that it’s not possible to get any proper help.
“At [one] point, we were shot at. There were four guys passing us by in a car. They stopped to ask if we’re f*****s, and we said ‘no’. They said: ‘We saw you guys kiss’. We weren’t kissing.
“When we were talking about this in our [asylum] interview, they were like: ‘Why didn’t you go to the police?’ It’s pointless, you’ll leave the police station feeling worse.”
Sasha and Max, who have since been granted asylum after appealing the first ruling, say that people react with shock when they discover the true level of discrimination and violence LGBTQ+ people face in Russia.
“I think the scariest thing was, when we arrived, that people were delusional about Russia,” Sasha says. “They don’t know anything, what happens there and how it happens, which also affected our case.
“They don’t understand that, if you go to the police, you can be assaulted or even killed there, and no one will know. People have no idea what it is like… I was so scared after all that, that while being [in the country that last year], I wouldn’t go out of my house because I was so scared of people, men specifically.”
Anti-LGBTQ+ ideology has been a central axis of political propaganda in Russia over the past decade
Sasha and Max still feel the impact of the Russia’s oppressive anti-LGBTQ+ laws, which have led to hate and violence on the streets. As they put it: “You left Russia, but Russia never left you.
“It’s been a year, and when we got the asylum status approved, it was a relief, but I did not feel safe,” Sasha says. “It’s still hard for me to get out of the house. I’m still wearing a hat outside when I dye my hair.
“Yes, I understand that I don’t live in danger any more. I’m not in Russia. A rational part of me knows I’m not there, and it’s not as scary as I think it is outside [and] I can express myself with clothing more.”
It’s been a year since Max and Sasha fled anti-LGBTQ+ persecution in Russia, but Sasha says it’s “still hard for [him] to get out of the house”. (Getty)
Anna-Maria Tesfaye, the co-founder of LGBTQ+ not-for-profit organisation Queer Svit, says many LGBTQ+ people think they can “leave this bulls**t behind” when they flee Russia, but they realise they are still “mentally” trapped in the country’s politics of terror.
“You finally have the ability to think because you’re not in Russia any more,” she says.
“You don’t need to do anything, then it hits you. You understand that maybe you’re out of Russia, but you’re in Russia mentally. A lot of people understand that it’s probably post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Max and Sasha say they still “scan every corner [and] every street” for “scary-looking people” and the police because of their Russian experiences.
The pair are feeling a “little more freedom” in their new home, but it’s still difficult to live fully in the moment given the hate they endured.
Two lower courts in Nepal have denied a couple recognition of their marriage, in defiance of the Supreme Court’s recent interim order to register same-sex marriages while legislative change is pending. The couple – Maya Gurung and Surendra Pandey – are considering seeking redress at the Supreme Court.
Gurung, a transgender woman who is legally recognized as male, and Pandey, a cisgender man, held a Hindu wedding ceremony in 2017, and first attempted to register their marriage in June at the Kathmandu District Court, following the Supreme Court’s order. When that court rejected their registration, saying it did not need to recognize a couple that was not one legal male and one legal female, they appealed to the Patan High Court.
In their ruling, the high court judges said that because the Supreme Court order named the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, it was the responsibility of the federal government to change the law before the lower courts could register such marriages.
Nepal’s civil code currently only recognizes marriages between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court attempted to rectify that by ordering the creation of an interim registry for nontraditional marriages until parliament changes the law. The two lower courts are now reversing the logic by claiming that the national law must be changed first.
Nepal’s Supreme Court has a globally-recognized record of rulings upholding the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, although implementation has been piecemeal. In 2007, the court ordered the government to form a committee to study same-sex marriage. In 2015 that committee recommended the government “grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage on the basis of the principle of equality.” However, successive governments failed to bring legislation to the parliament, leading to further court rulings. Earlier this year the court ordered the government to recognize the marriage of a Nepali man who had married a German man.
Marina Machete became the first transgender woman to win Miss Portugal last week, making her one of two trans contestants so far to compete for Miss Universe later this year.
Machete, a 28-year-old flight attendant, thanked her supporters for the “positive and empowering” messages she has received since being crowned Thursday.
“To all of you watching, I just want to say that, just like the universe, your possibilities in life are limitless,” she said in a video shared on Instagram over the weekend. “So don’t limit yourself to any dream that you have.”
She added that she is excited to meet the other delegates at the 72nd Miss Universe pageant in El Salvador in November.
“Yes I’m trans and I want to share my story but I’m also Rikkie and that’s what matters to me,” she wrote in an Instagram post at the time. “I did this on my own strength and enjoyed every moment.”
“I thought we were really accepting … in the Netherlands, but the hate comments show the other side of our society. I hope that’s a wake-up call,” she told Reuters at the time. “For now, I fully ignore it. I focus on the good things coming my way.”
It appears that Machete and Kolle will be the only transgender contestants among the 90 women who will compete for the crown on Nov. 18. There are two more qualifying pageants — in Mongolia and China — before the Miss Universe pageant next month, and no local reporting has identified any trans contestants.
In 2021, Kataluna Enriquez became the first trans woman to compete in the Miss USA pageant after she was crowned Miss Nevada, though she did not go on to compete in that year’s Miss Universe pageant. In February, Daniela Arroyo González became the first trans woman to compete in Miss Universe Puerto Rico, where she finished within the top 10 finalists, according to her Instagram.
However, not all pageants have been open to including trans women.In July, more than 100 transgender men entered the Miss Italy pageant after the pageant’s organizer said Miss Italy wouldn’t allow trans women to compete.
Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday he did not “recognize LGBT” and vowed to combat “perverse” trends which he said aimed to destroy the institution of family in the country.
Turkey’s government, led by Erdogan and his Islamist-rooted AK Party, has toughened its stance on LGBTQ freedoms in recent months, particularly while campaigning for this year’s elections in May.
Homosexuality is not a crime in Turkey, but hostility to it is widespread, and police crackdowns on Pride parades have become tougher over the years.
Speaking at an AK Party congress in Ankara, Erdogan, who has frequently labeled members of the LGBTQ community as “deviants,” said neither his party, nor their nationalist MHP allies, recognized the LGBTQ community.
“We do not recognize LGBT. Whoever recognizes LGBT can go and march with them. We are members of a structure that holds the institution of family solid, that strongly embraces the family institution,” he said.
“We will dry the roots of sneaky acts aiming to destroy our family institution by supporting perverse political, social and individual trends,” he told tens of thousands of flag-waving and chanting supporters.
After the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month, Erdogan complained that he was uncomfortable with the use of what he described as “LGBT colors” at the U.N., which at the time was decorated with bright colors promoting the Sustainable Development Goals.
Polish opposition leader Robert Biedroń symbolically wed his partner, Krysztof Śmiszek, during a theatrical performance to protest the country’s lack of marriage equality. The two men, politicians from The Left (Lewica) party, have been together for 23 years.
Poland is considered the worst country in Europe for LGBTQ+ rights.
The video features some of Poland’s biggest and most visible LGBTQ politicians, celebrities and activists.
“I performed hundreds of weddings as mayor of Słupsk, but this is the first time I’ve stood on the other side,” Biedroń said during the ceremony. “It’s a beautiful feeling that needs to be shared. That’s why we should do everything so that two adults can experience a wedding whenever they want. Because love is love.”
The ceremony was part of a play, Spartacus: Love in the Time of Cholera, that looks at the difficult situation queer people in the country face. Each performance ends with the wedding of a non-heterosexual couple.
The actress who performs the ceremony uses all the language used in a traditional wedding, but alters the end, saying instead, “I declare that contrary to the regulations in force in the Republic of Poland, the marriage of [the couple’s names] has been concluded.”
Many couples invited to participate treat the ceremony seriously, inviting their friends to witness their union.
Biedroń’s party supports marriage equality. Queer people regularly protest the country’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws in creative and impactful ways to build support for civil rights laws.
In 2020, a Polish gay couple went to self-declared “LGBT-free zones” in their country to hand out rainbow face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, hoping to promote tolerance.
“What a wedding!” Śmieszek tweeted after the event.. “There were nerves and emotions. But there was also anger that in 2023, in the middle of Europe, two people who love each other are not recognized by their country…That instead of respect and dignity, hundreds of thousands of people in Poland receive contempt.”
“We can change this on 15 October!” he declared, referring to the upcoming parliamentary elections. “Let’s vote for respect, dignity, and equality. I won’t rest until we achieve this normality!”
Śmieszek’s party is the second-largest opposition group. The biggest, the centrist Civic Platform, supports civil unions for LGBTQ+ people.
