Insights
Reshaping Equality Through Law and Enforcement. Rights in Retrograde, vol. 8
Region(s)
Type
Commentary
Author(s)
Publish Date
March 9, 2026
Share
This edition tracks legal and policy moves that continue to restrict the human rights of LGBTIQ people and civic space across regions. Many of the developments below are framed as technical reforms—recodifications, “morality” provisions, or “public interest” measures—but their practical effect is to reshape the baseline for equality: narrowing who is treated as similarly situated, who is recognized as part of the protected public, and what forms of family, identity, and expression are deemed legitimate.
At the same time, a number of court decisions and administrative steps point in the opposite direction, offering targeted protections in areas such as privacy, property, free movement, and institutional safeguards. Taken together, these stories show how rights can be narrowed through broad legal design while, in part, being defended through incremental rulings that reaffirm dignity and equal treatment in concrete areas of daily life.
Rewriting Equality and Deferring Recognition
Across jurisdictions, the conditions for equality are being shaped by explicit backlash and institutional reluctance to advance recognition. In some cases, governments recodify rules and narrow equality language; in others, courts and lawmakers leave exclusionary frameworks in place by deferring responsibility for reform.
In Peru, Congress approved a bill on November 20 that replaces references to “gender equality” with “equal opportunities between women and men,” directing public entities to apply that framing and reinterpret existing references to “gender approach,” ”gender equality,” and “gender equity” across state laws and policies. The law also replaces “comprehensive sexuality education” with a mandate to provide “sexual education with a scientific, biological and ethical basis,” and orders the Ministry of Education to update the national curriculum.
In Japan, the Tokyo High Court issued a ruling on November 28 in one of several lawsuits challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage under Japan’s existing legal framework. It declined to find that exclusion unconstitutional, even while warning that constitutional violations may become inevitable if the status quo persists. The ruling deferred responsibility to the Diet (Japan’s national parliament). For now, the prospects for legislative reform there remain uncertain. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party continues to oppose same-sex marriage, and the issue is likely headed to the Supreme Court.
A draft Civil Code recodification in Ukraine (Bill No. 14394) triggered concern in January because it would define a “de facto family union” exclusively as cohabitation between a man and a woman. Civil society groups had spent years advocating for family recognition, highlighting poignant cases involving gay soldiers killed by Russian troops on the frontlines whose partners were unable to access spousal benefits or even receive their partners’ bodies. They warn that this would exclude same-sex couples from family recognition and create legal uncertainty for marriages involving a person who has legally changed sex. The proposal also appears difficult to reconcile with Ukraine’s obligations under European human rights law—including a 2023 European Court of Human Rights ruling requiring a legal framework for same-sex couples—and with the equality commitments tied to its European Union (EU) accession process.
Criminalizing and Policing Sex and Gender
As of March 2026, 65 UN member states criminalize consensual same-sex relations, with Niger and Burkina Faso becoming the latest countries to adopt legal instruments targeting queerness. Niger prohibited “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA+) practices or any other unnatural behavior” in a little-reported provision of the military regime’s transitional Charter of Refoundation, although no specific sentence is provided. And a confirmation by Burkina Faso’s Ministry of Justice in early 2026 points to what appears to be the first conviction under the country’s new law criminalizing same-sex acts, adopted in September 2025. An individual was convicted of “homosexuality and related practices,” sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, fined 2,000,000 CFA francs (approximately US$3,600), and ordered deported after serving the sentence—an example of how quickly new prohibitions can move from law on the books to concrete enforcement.
In Afghanistan, enforcement of criminalization against queer and trans people has intensified. In December 2025, the Taliban Supreme Court confirmed a surge in corporal punishments, with public floggings reported in provinces like Takhar and Faryab for offenses including “sodomy” and “illicit relationships.” A new Criminal Procedure Code issued in early 2026 is based on a rigid interpretation of Shariah, with penalties including execution for “habitual” same-sex conduct encoded into law.
In Senegal, the criminalization of same-sex conduct dates to French colonization, with several notable waves of arrests over the last two decades. Now, people of queer experience are increasingly under attack, with enforcement of the law, accompanied by state violence, quickly intensifying in late 2025 and early 2026. In late December, 11 men were convicted of “unnatural acts,” and another 11 were reportedly awaiting trial, in cases linked to raids, phone searches, and sensationalist media coverage that amplified public stigma. Some were subjected to forced anal examinations, a form of torture. Twelve more men were arrested on homosexuality charges in February. Also in February, the Council of Ministers approved a draft bill to further toughen the law by doubling prison terms and increasing fines for same-sex conduct and the “promotion” of homosexuality and “LGBT philosophy”—signaling an effort not only to enforce criminalization more aggressively, but to deepen it.
In Malaysia, on February 4, the media reported that Kelantan authorities had brought what was described as the state’s first prosecution for the offense of “gender transition” under the Syariah Criminal Code (gazetted in 2020), charging a trans woman in what was framed as the first case of its kind in the country. Reports also noted that gender-affirming genital surgery is prohibited for Muslims, with an exception for intersex people—illustrating how “morality” enforcement can extend into criminalization and policing of trans people’s bodily autonomy. The case sits within a broader enforcement landscape: in a parliamentary written reply dated January 26, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Religious Affairs) stated that 135 LGBTQ-related cases had resulted in arrests nationwide over the last four years, based on statistics from state Syariah enforcement divisions, underscoring the scale and institutionalization of morality-based policing.
Indonesia’s new penal code began to be enforced on January 2. The code criminalizes sex outside marriage and cohabitation, restores criminal penalties for insulting the president and state institutions, and expands restrictive provisions on expression and ideology, including offenses for “attacking honour or dignity”—defined to include harm to reputation or self-worth through acts such as libel or defamation—and for disseminating ideologies deemed contrary to the state ideology. One activist described the law to Reuters as “a new colonial set of laws, made by our own.” Although lawmakers dropped a proposed article that would have explicitly criminalized same-sex sexual acts after civil society pressure, rights groups have warned that the broader architecture enforces discretion, risks privacy intrusions, and enables selective enforcement.
Even where same-sex sexual acts are not explicitly criminalized, people of queer experience are vulnerable to abuses of power by law enforcement agents. In Azerbaijan, police raided a queer-friendly venue in Baku in late 2025 and detained at least 106 people, confiscating phones, demanding passwords, and searching private photos and videos without warrants before taking detainees to the Nasimi District Police Department. Detainees reported being forced to stand outdoors for hours in freezing conditions, subjected to humiliating questioning about their sexual orientation and private lives, and compelled to undergo drug testing, with authorities releasing them only after collecting on-the-spot “fines” for “petty hooliganism.”
Regulating Visibility and Civic Space
Even where states do not criminalize same-sex acts or diverse gender identities directly, they often regulate visibility and civic space by restricting what can be said, shown, or taught—and by using morality narratives to justify censorship and pressure on organizations. The developments below show how broad “propaganda” measures and morality-based enforcement can suppress expression across sectors, with courts sometimes responding by narrowing enforcement powers without dismantling the underlying framework.
In Kazakhstan, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signed a package of amendments into law in December, banning the dissemination of “propaganda” of “non-traditional sexual orientation” that could form a “positive societal opinion.” The measures extend related bans into rules governing culture, education, advertising, mass media, and cinema. The scope and vagueness create a tool that can be used across sectors to suppress speech and institutionalize discrimination.
In Türkiye, Izmir’s 3rd Civil Court of First Instance ordered the dissolution of the Young LGBTI+ Association on December 11, citing five social media posts (2019–2022) that it characterized as “obscene” and contrary to moral values and constitutional protections of the family, in violation of the Law on Associations. Related criminal proceedings were filed against association members under the same law, underscoring how laws regulating civil society can be used to impose costs, chill speech, and weaken organizing capacity.
On January 21, Russia’s Ministry of Justice designated the global LGBTIQ organization ILGA World as an “undesirable organization” under Russia’s 2015 “undesirable organizations” legislation (Federal Law No. 129-FZ amending the Law on Measures against Extremist Activity), a legal status intended to ban cooperation by Russian citizens and entities and deter engagement with ILGA’s member organisations inside the country.
Prosecutors in Hungary charged Budapest mayor Gergely Karácsony with the misdemeanor of “violating the freedom of association and assembly” on January 28, after he urged people to defy a police ban on Budapest Pride by reframing it as a municipal event. Prosecutors said he had “organised and led a public gathering despite the police ban” and proposed that the court impose a fine in a summary judgment without a trial. A similar pattern is visible in Pécs, where prosecutors are charging Géza Buzás-Hábel, the organizer of the 2025 Pécs Pride, for organizing a peaceful march that went ahead despite a police ban later upheld by the Supreme Court, exposing him to up to one year in prison—underscoring how Hungary’s Pride restrictions are translating into concrete criminal enforcement against both organizers and public figures.
Bodily Autonomy: Restricting Care Versus Building Safeguards
Debates over bodily autonomy are increasingly playing out through health regulation—sometimes through restrictions framed as clinical caution, and sometimes through safeguards designed to prevent irreversible interventions without consent. The developments below show both dynamics: a “precautionary” approach used to limit access to gender-affirming care for youth, and a legislative effort to curb non-consensual, non-urgent medical interventions on intersex children.
In New Zealand, the government announced on December 19 that it will halt new prescriptions of puberty blockers for trans and gender-diverse youth, describing the policy as a “precautionary approach” and stating it would align with the United Kingdom while awaiting evidence from a major UK trial (with results not expected until 2031). The restriction does not apply to youth already receiving blockers, and the medications remain available for other indications—such as precocious puberty, endometriosis, or prostate cancer—where the government claims that there is strong clinical evidence of benefit. At Outright International, we have emphasized that broad restrictions on puberty blockers are not a neutral precaution: they are not based on the best available evidence and replace individualized, evidence-based decision-making with sweeping limits on health care for trans adolescents.
A different regulatory direction emerged in Victoria (Australia), where the Health Safeguards for People Born with Variations in Sex Characteristics Act 2026 became law in February. The new framework is designed to prevent non-urgent, irreversible medical interventions on intersex infants and children who cannot consent, while strengthening informed-consent safeguards, clinical oversight, and family support. The reform marks a significant step toward embedding bodily autonomy in health regulation.
Courts Are Still a Driver of Rights
In parallel to restrictive legislative and policy trends, courts continue to deliver targeted protections that affect daily life—privacy, family life across borders, property security, and institutional safeguards. The decisions below illustrate legal pathways that can mitigate harm even where broader recognition frameworks remain contested.
In the Dominican Republic, the Constitutional Court, in decision TC/1225/25 publicly released on November 18, struck down “sodomy” provisions used to punish consensual same-sex conduct within the National Police and Armed Forces, removing explicit criminal provisions in institutional discipline codes that can function as shadow criminal law. The Court found that these provisions, contained in the Police Justice Code and the Military Justice Code, violated constitutional guarantees on nondiscrimination, privacy, and free personal development.
At the European Union (EU) level, the Court of Justice issued a ruling on November 25 requiring member states to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully concluded in another EU country for the purposes of EU free-movement rights, even if domestic law does not recognize same-sex marriage. In a case involving a Polish couple married in Berlin, the Court held that treating them as unmarried upon return would breach EU law and interfere with family life, while emphasizing that the decision does not require changes to domestic marriage law.
Kenya’s Court of Appeal delivered a significant win for artistic freedom in January in a case challenging the ban of the lesbian-themed film Rafiki (2018). The Court struck down several provisions of the Film and Stage Plays Act that had been used as justification for banning the film, commenting that “outrightly banning a film that only depicts homosexual lifestyle without promoting or glamorizing it is a disproportionate limitation to the right of freedom of expression.” The ruling placed constitutional limits on some of the most coercive tools of censorship, allowing the film’s director to reapply for a license to screen the film in Kenya.
On February 4, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled that paid leave following miscarriage or abortion must be available to all pregnant people, finding that limiting the benefit to cisgender women was discriminatory. The Court emphasized that labor rights linked to pregnancy must attach to the capacity to gestate, not sex or gender identity, and the decision explicitly broadened coverage to include, among others, trans men. The ruling also offers a clear counterpoint to the exclusionary approach advanced by UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem, whose recent framing of “motherhood” as tied to cisgender women and biological sex erases trans and gender-diverse people who can become pregnant. By contrast, the Court grounded protection in the capacity to gestate rather than in sex or gender identity.
In the Philippines, a Supreme Court decision promulgated on February 5 held that same-sex couples who cohabit can be treated as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the Family Code, despite the absence of legal marriage recognition. The Court recognized 50–50 co-ownership of a house and lot based on documentary evidence, offering a pathway for financial protection through property law.
In India, two developments reported in late 2025 and early 2026 focused on implementation and institutional compliance. Andhra Pradesh’s High Court directed the state to provide reservation for transgender persons in public employment within six months, framing affirmative action as a response to structural exclusion. Separately, on January 6, India’s Supreme Court directed Registrar Generals of all High Courts to file status reports on whether Gender Sensitisation Committees and Internal Complaints Committees—covering sexual harassment redress mechanisms for women and transgender persons—have been constituted across the judicial system and Bar Associations. Together, these rulings point toward enforceable administrative measures rather than purely declaratory recognition.
Nonbinary Recognition: Incremental Steps and Emerging Openings
Developments in Switzerland and Austria pointed to growing, though uneven, recognition that binary female/male gender markers do not capture the scope of human diversity. In Switzerland, the Federal Council took a constructive step in late November by recognizing the discrimination and exclusion faced by nonbinary people and identifying possible measures to reduce those harms within the existing binary legal framework. Austria went further in December, when its Constitutional Court ruled in favor of a person who requested the removal of their gender marker from the civil registry, who argued that neither category reflected their gender identity. The Court held that civil registry law must allow authorities to remove a gender entry where forcing a binary marker would conflict with the person’s identity.
Conclusion
Across jurisdictions, a range of legal tools—recodification, criminalization, policing of body autonomy, “anti-propaganda” measures, and administrative restrictions framed as precaution—continue to narrow rights and civic space. Often presented as neutral governance, these tools are designed to scale: they can be applied across institutions and sectors, and they can effectively reset the conditions for equality by defining who is treated as part of the protected public and what forms of identity, family, and expression are deemed legitimate.
At the same time, courts continue to provide targeted protections in areas such as privacy, free movement, property, and institutional safeguards. These outcomes are often incremental, but they matter: they preserve concrete avenues for safety and dignity, and they can push back against efforts to treat LGBTIQ people as inherently “different” for legal purposes—even where comprehensive legal recognition remains disputed.
Take Action
When you support our research, you support a growing global movement and celebrate LGBTIQ lives everywhere.
Donate Now