What happens when people cannot safely speak, participate or challenge power? For LGBTQ+ activists and civil society organisations, this is often the reality. An organisation may be legally registered and able to operate on paper, yet still be pushed out of public life if its members face criminalisation, political hostility, stigma, harassment or exclusion from decision-making. This dynamic functions as a domino effect: when some groups, especially those who have been historically marginalised, are prevented from speaking, organising or participating, the space for everyone to engage in public life becomes narrower. 

Evidence from the 86 countries monitored through EU SEE shows how these pressures increasingly overlap, and how beyond the most visible forms of restriction, lack of protection for LGBTQ+ people and the organisations representing them restricts their capacity to exist, organise, speak, participate and challenge power without fear. 

When the law closes the door: the repression against LGBTQ+ community is growing 

The most direct way governments can restrict LGBTQ+ civic space is through laws that criminalise same-sex relations or activities associated with LGBTQ+ people. Across countries monitored by EU SEE, criminalisation continues to expose people to arrest, prosecution and other forms of state and social pressure.  

35 countries monitored by EU SEE are also currently listed by Human Dignity Trust as criminalising LGBTQ+ people / same-sex relations. But recent developments also show that these laws are not simply a legacy of the past. In some countries, governments and legislatures are actively strengthening them or extending their reach. 

In Ghana, for example, parliament passed legislation strengthening criminal penalties around same-sex relationships while also targeting activities related to the promotion, advocacy, funding and support of LGBTQ+ rights.  

Senegal illustrates an even broader restriction, associations whose purpose or activities are considered contrary to criminal law are prohibited, with the country’s framework explicitly referring to the promotion of LGBTQ+ groups. A March 2026 reform of Article 319 of the Penal code further tightened restrictions on homosexuality, its advocacy and “apology”.  

In Trinidad and Tobago, consensual same-sex intimacy was criminalised again following a March 2025 Court of Appeal ruling overturning the previous decriminalisation. The EU SEE’s Country Focus Report notes that while LGBTQ+ organisations are not directly prohibited from registering, the existence of criminal offences increases the perceived risks for organisations and individuals working on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

In Niger, on 16 February 2026, the CNSP adopted a new criminal code that expressly criminalises homosexuality and LGBTQ+ identities and practices. Same-sex relationships can result in five to ten years’ imprisonment and fines of up to 100 million CFA francs (around $178,000). The law also criminalises “indecent or unnatural” acts, and gender-affirming changes to sex assigned at birth. 

It further targets LGBTQ+ organising: anyone who manages, finances, participates in or supports LGBTQ+ clubs, organisations or associations can face 10–20 years in prison and fines of between 50 and 500 million CFA francs (around $89,000–$890,000). Legal entities can also face the same financial penalties and additional sanctions. 

These cases demonstrate that criminalisation can affect an enabling environment in different ways. It can directly punish individuals, restrict organisations and their activities, or create an environment in which legitimate advocacy becomes increasingly risky. 

But the legal framework is only the starting point, criminalisation alone already comes with stigma, especially considering the terminology used in the laws criminalising same-sex relations. Restrictive laws also shape how society understands LGBTQ+ people, and whether they are seen as legitimate members of public life. 

Laws restricting same-sex relationships or gender expression are often justified in the language of protecting “family values”, children, morality or public order. These arguments can make discrimination appear legitimate and turn LGBTQ+ people into a threat to be managed rather than people whose rights should be protected. The stigma created by this political and legal language can extend far beyond the law itself, affecting whether people feel safe speaking publicly, organising, accessing services or participating in decision-making. 

The result is a cycle: restrictive laws can create stigma; stigma can discourage participation; and reduced participation makes it harder for affected communities to challenge the laws that exclude them. 

When civil society itself becomes the target  

Restrictions do not stop with the criminalisation of individuals. In some contexts, the legal and political environment directly affects whether LGBTQ+ organisations can exist and operate.  

In Liberia, consensual same-sex relations remain criminalised under the Penal Code. EU SEE’s Country Focus Report documents a wider environment of stigma, online harassment and security risks affecting LGBTQ organisations and activists. CSOs focused on this reportedly face difficulties registering their organisations officially, while activists can experience physical harassment, extortion and targeted violence. The criminalisation of same-sex relations can also deter people from reporting abuses, as victims and activists may fear being exposed or arrested themselves.  

When LGBTQ+ people face threats to their life, security, physical integrity or equality, this also affects the environment in which organisations representing them can operate. The two are closely connected: when individuals are pushed out of public life through criminalisation, violence or stigma, the organisations defending their rights can face pressure, exclusion and restrictions too.  

In turn, when organisations cannot register safely, activists cannot advocate without fear and formal rights to association and participation become increasingly hollow. This is why an enabling environment cannot be assessed only by asking whether a law formally allows civil society organisations to exist. We also need to ask whether people can actually use those rights without putting themselves at risk. 

Conditions can deteriorate also without a formal ban  

The most important warning from EU SEE’s monitoring is that rights and enabling conditions do not always disappear through an explicit prohibition. Sometimes, they shrink because people become too afraid to use them. 

In Trinidad and Tobago, EU SEE reporting found that organisations working on sensitive issues such as gender and sexuality face social pressure and exclusion from consultations, funding opportunities and cooperation with public authorities. Representatives of some organisations reported being told that they “should not exist”. These experiences can discourage participation even where the legal framework formally protects freedom of association.  

“In Trinidad and Tobago, the rollback in LGBTQ+ rights is visible not only in the courts, but also in public institutions. Same-sex intimacy is once again criminalised, while monitoring has documented homophobic political rhetoric and barriers to state engagement with LGBTQ+ civil society. The pending Privy Council appeal offers hope of restoring protections, but until then, people continue to see their identities used as political insults and their organisations excluded from government engagement. This sends the message that visibility and speaking out may come at a cost, pushing individuals and civil society back towards silence.” EU SEE member country – Trinidad and Tobago 

The report also highlights increasingly conservative political rhetoric, including criticism of “wokeness” and questioning of established human rights principles. Such rhetoric can contribute to an environment in which civil society organisations become more hesitant to address LGBTQ+ protection issues. 

In Liberia, the fear of arrest or exposure can discourage activists and victims from reporting abuses. 

This is the chilling effect: the space for civil society becomes smaller not only because governments prohibit certain activities, but because the costs and risks of participation become too high. 

The same dynamic can emerge when advocacy itself becomes legally risky. In Senegal and Niger, where restrictions extend to the promotion or advocacy of LGBTQ+ issues, organisations may avoid registering under an LGBTQ+ mandate, activists may choose not to publicly identify their work, and organisations working on broader human rights issues may hesitate to address LGBTQ+ rights at all. 

When civic space and the rights ecosystem are already under severe pressure, LGBTQ+ activists and organisations can face not only exclusion from public life, but direct threats to their safety.  In Myanmar’s Tanintharyi region, three LGBTQ youth humanitarian workers from the local civil relief team “The Ants” were reportedly abducted by junta troops on 9 July 2026 while providing emergency assistance to local communities.Their bodies, alongside that of another civilian, were later found and reportedly showed signs of execution. LGBTQ+ activists and civil society actors can face heightened risks not only because of their advocacy, but also because of their identity and humanitarian work in conflict-affected environments. 

Administrative decisions, restrictions on access to public spaces and growing institutional caution can make it increasingly difficult for communities to organise and be visible. 

In Hong Kong, organisers of Pink Dot HK announced the cancellation of the city’s largest annual LGBTQ+ carnival after the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority denied their application to rent the Art Park, without providing an explanation. The organisers had approached the authority months earlier to secure the venue for the event, which had previously hosted Pink Dot’s anniversary celebrations and attracted thousands of participants. With little time to find a suitable alternative, the organisers ultimately had to cancel the event.  

The cancellation occurs as the government attempts to pass a controversial same-sex partnership bill facing strong opposition in the Legislative Council. Additionally, it has multiple immediate impacts on Hong Kong’s enabling environment. It eliminates the most visible annual platform for LGBTQ+ advocacy and community building, reducing opportunities for public education and awareness-raising about LGBTQ+ issues. 

“Hong Kong demonstrates how stifling the broader enabling environment directly suffocates LGBTQ+ rights, even without specific anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Through arbitrary venue denials and the pervasive chill of national security, the space for LGBTQ+ advocacy is rendered highly precarious. When every public action carries the risk of sudden censorship or reprisal, future progress becomes stalled and rapid rollbacks inevitable, because the civic infrastructure to hold the line has been dismantled.” – EU SEE network member 

In January 2026, Malaysian police opened investigations into nine leaders of Jejaka, an LGBTQ+ organisation, after the group promoted a health and wellbeing retreat “Glamping with Pride” addressing HIV stigma. The event was targeted by multiple police complaints and investigated under Malaysia’s Penal Code and Communications and Multimedia Act. 

The investigation followed a broader campaign by political and religious authorities portraying the event as a threat to public morality and national security. Local officials also inspected potential venues and monitored the organisers, ultimately leading the venue owner to cancel the booking over safety concerns. Jejaka was therefore forced to cancel the retreat, while several of its leaders faced police questioning amid fears of harassment and involuntary outing. For LGBTQ+ organisations, the consequences of decisions and dimensions such as the one above can be profound: organisations may avoid registering under an LGBTQ+ mandate, activists may choose not to publicly identify their work and organisations working on broader human rights issues may hesitate to address LGBTQ+ rights altogether. 

From laws to political narratives 

The broader legal framework matters too. In Kazakhstan, concerns over a draft new constitution have raised questions about the future of the enabling environment for civil society. Perhaps the most significant aspect is its definition of marriage as exclusively a union between a man and a woman, which entrenches existing discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in Kazakhstan, who already face stigma and harassment. This follows a law adopted in December 2025 banning so-called “propaganda” of non-traditional sexual relations, a measure rights groups say violates freedom of expression and association guarantees under international conventions Kazakhstan has signed. The new constitution has since taken effect, according to reporting from The Astana Times. 

Legal frameworks do not operate in isolation. The attitudes and narratives surrounding LGBTQ+ communities also shape whether civil society can participate meaningfully in public life, and these can deteriorate even when same sex relations are decriminalised. 

Political rhetoric that portrays LGBTQ+ rights as foreign, immoral, threatening or incompatible with national values can delegitimatise civil society organisations working on these issues. It can also encourage harassment and make it harder for organisations to engage with institutions, media and the wider public.  

In Trinidad and Tobago, for example, EU SEE identified increasingly conservative political rhetoric as a factor that could narrow the space for rights-based advocacy.  

Similarly, the Government of Costa Rica announced its withdrawal from the LGBTQ+ Core Group of the Organization of American States (OAS), a regional body dedicated to promoting and defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people. The decision was publicly announced as part of a redefinition of the country’s foreign policy, with the government stating that such forums do not align with its current priorities or adequately represent the national position on human rights. Following the announcement, various civil society organisations, particularly those focused on human rights and sexual diversity, expressed their opposition questioning the government’s justification, noting that the withdrawal could weaken Costa Rica’s international commitment to equality, non-discrimination, and Inter-American human rights standards. 

In Eswatini, EU SEE also finds that sexual and gender minorities remain particularly vulnerable, with same-sex relations criminalised and no legal protections for LGBTQ+ people. Legal exclusion is compounded by social intolerance, isolating LGBTQ+ communities from civic processes and public discourse.  

This demonstrates why protecting the enabling environment for civil society requires more than changing laws. It also requires challenging narratives that portray particular groups (and the organisations that represent them) as illegitimate participants in public life. 

And the pressure follows people and organisations online  

The same dynamics increasingly extend into digital spaces. For LGBTQ+ activists, digital platforms can provide essential spaces for organising, community-building, advocacy and access to information. But they can also expose activists to harassment, threats, surveillance, misinformation and image-based abuse.  

EU SEE identifies a secure digital environment as an important component of an enabling environment. This is particularly significant for activists who may already face risks in physical spaces.  

In Liberia, for example, LGBTQ+ activists face online harassment, misinformation and cybersecurity threats, with image-based violence also affecting women activists. Digital insecurity therefore compounds existing restrictions. An activist who is already reluctant to speak publicly because of legal or social risks may face another layer of intimidation online. The result is another form of self-censorship: people withdraw from public conversations not because they have lost the right to speak, but because exercising that right has become too risky. 

In Indonesia, while many civil society organisations are promoting inclusivity, human rights, and gender equality, a massive movement called “Anti Boti” has emerged. Initiated by the influencer @advokatmohammad in April 2026, the movement continues to generate a large following and targets individuals of diverse gender identities (LGBTQ+). Comments made by followed include incitements to violence, such as “if you see a boti [derogatory term for gay person], beat them up on the spot”. The rise of this movement coincides with a proposal by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) to criminalize same-sex relations and those “promoting” LGBTQ+. Prior to this, in October 2025, President Prabowo Subianto ratified Presidential Regulation (Perpres) Number 111 of 2025 concerning the General Policy on National Defense 2025–2029. Within the regulation, LGBTQ+ is classified as a non-military threat to the state. 

What does an enabling environment look like for LGBTQ+ civil society?  

The experiences documented across the EU SEE point towards a simple but important principle: LGBTQ civil society needs the same enabling conditions as any other part of civil society but those conditions must also respond to specific risks faced by LGBTQ organisations and activists.  

This means:  

• Legal and regulatory protection: Decriminalising same-sex relations must be the bare minimum. States should urgently repeal laws that criminalise consensual same-sex relations and other laws used to target LGBTQ+ people. From this starting point, governments must also protect freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly, and ensure that LGBTQ+ people and organisations can participate fully and safely in public life. 

• Protection of fundamental freedoms: LGBTQ+ organisations and activists must be able to organise, protest, advocate and participate in public life without intimidation, violence or arbitrary restrictions. 

• Access to resources: Organisations working with marginalised communities need access to sustainable and non-discriminatory funding, including funding that allows them to respond to emerging threats. 

• Meaningful participation: Governments and public institutions should include LGBTQ+ civil society in consultations and decision-making processes, rather than excluding organisations because of the constituencies they represent. 

• A supportive public culture: Political leaders, institutions and media have a responsibility to avoid narratives that stigmatise LGBTQ+ communities or portray rights-based civil society as illegitimate.  

• A secure digital environment: Activists and organisations need protection from online harassment, surveillance, threats and digital attacks, alongside access to effective digital security tools and support.  

Disclaimer: This article was first published on the EU SEE website here