Hungary’s LGBTQI Amendment an Affront to Human Rights, Say Activists

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Editors’ Choice, Europe, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Gender, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, LGBTQ, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

LGBTQ

An amendment to Hungary’s constitution includes the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers, with penalties including large fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment. Credit: Sara Rampazzo/Unsplash

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

BRATISLAVA, May 13 2025 (IPS) – A controversial amendment to Hungary’s constitution has left the country’s LGBTQI community both defiant and fearful, rights groups have said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

The Indus Water Treaty Suspension: A Wake-Up Call for Asia–Pacific Unity ?

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Migration & Refugees, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Confluence of the Indus and Zanskar Rivers Credit: martinho Smart/shutterstock.com

May 12 2025 (IPS) –  
On April 23, India suspended the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), a 65-year-old agreement that had been a rare symbol of cooperation between India and Pakistan despite decades of hostility. The suspension came a day after militants attacked civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed region, killing 26 people, most of them Indian tourists. India accused Pakistan of supporting “cross-border terrorism” and responded by halting the treaty. Pakistan denied involvement in the attack and called India’s move an “act of war.”

The IWT, signed in 1960, was a landmark agreement that allowed the two countries to share the water of the Indus River system. It gave India control over the eastern tributaries (Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas), and Pakistan control over the western tributaries (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab). Beyond water-sharing, the treaty established mechanisms for data sharing, technical cooperation and dispute resolution. For decades, the treaty was celebrated as a triumph of diplomacy and environmental cooperation. But its suspension now threatens to unravel this legacy, with devastating consequences – especially for Pakistan.

Why the IWT Matters

Pakistan’s economy depends heavily on agriculture, which employs nearly 70% of its rural workforce. The Indus River irrigates 80% of the country’s farmland, making it a lifeline for millions. If India were to divert or reduce water flows, it could cripple Pakistan’s agriculture, triggering widespread food insecurity and economic instability. The stakes are high, and the consequences of failing to manage shared water resources responsibly would ripple far beyond Pakistan’s borders.

The timing of the IWT’s suspension couldn’t be worse. Climate and environmental risks are escalating across the Asia–Pacific region, with extreme weather events becoming more frequent and severe. Between 2008-2023, floods displaced 57 million people in India alone. In Pakistan, floods have not only destroyed homes but have also degraded soil quality, leaving farmers unable to grow enough crops to survive. These pressures are driving migration to cities, where migrants face exploitative conditions and often accrue large debts.

Climate Risks and Regional Instability

The link between climate change and regional instability is becoming impossible to ignore. In Central Asia, a 2021 clash over transboundary water resources between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan left 50 dead and displaced 10,000 others. In the Pacific, rising sea levels are forcing entire communities to relocate, sparking tensions in countries like Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Meanwhile, large-scale infrastructure projects, such as hydroelectric dams in Southeast Asia, are displacing thousands and straining relations between countries like Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

The demand for critical minerals to build renewable energy sources is adding another layer of complexity. Competition between China and the U.S over these resources is heightening global tensions. Critical mineral mining is also fuelling exploitation and violence in mining regions, like the Philippines and Indonesia. These examples highlight a troubling reality: climate and environmental risks are not just environmental issues – they are also security issues.

The Case for Regional Cooperation

Responding to these challenges requires a collective approach. Climate risks don’t respect national borders, and attempting to tackle them in isolation is a losing strategy. Cooperation offers a way to pool resources, share knowledge, and build resilience. For low-income countries in particular, regional solidarity—through climate finance, data sharing and technological transfer—could mean the difference between survival or collapse.

But cooperation isn’t just about survival; it’s also about seizing opportunities. Joint climate action can strengthen regional ties, foster peace and create shared prosperity. Cross-border collaboration on climate and environmental issues can connect institutions, research communities, and civil society, laying the groundwork to tackle future challenges. By working together, the Asia–Pacific region can turn shared challenges into shared strengths.

The suspension of the IWT is a wake-up call. At a time when cooperation is more critical than ever, we cannot afford to let geopolitical tensions derail climate action. The Asia–Pacific region faces immense challenges, but it also holds immense potential. By prioritising collaboration over confrontation, the climate crisis could provide an opportunity for peace, resilience, and shared prosperity. The path forward won’t be easy, but it’s the only path worth taking.

Related articles:
Kashmir: Escalating to War?
Kashmir: Paradise Lost
India’s Climate Calamities
Leaky Roof: Melting Himalayas in the ‘Asian Century’

Sinéad Barry is an Analyst at adelphi’s Climate Diplomacy and Security programme.
Emma Whitaker is a Senior Advisor at adelphi’s Climate Diplomacy and Security programme.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Rights with No Age Limit: Hopes for a Convention on the Rights of Older People

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Cover photo by Defensoría del Pueblo de Bolivia

BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, May 9 2025 (IPS) – The world’s population is ageing. Global life expectancy has leapt to 73.3 years, up from under 65 in 1995. Around the world, there are now 1.1 billion people aged 60-plus, expected to rise to 1.4 billion by 2030 and 2.1 billion by 2050.

This demographic shift is a triumph, reflecting public health successes, medical advances and better nutrition. But it brings human rights challenges.

Ageism casts older people as burdens, despite the enormous social contribution many older people make through family roles, community service and volunteering. Prejudice fuels widespread human rights violations, including age discrimination, economic exclusion, denial of services, inadequate social security, neglect and violence.

The impacts are particularly brutal for those facing discrimination for other reasons. Older women, LGBTQI+ elders, disabled seniors and older people from other excluded groups suffer compounded vulnerabilities. During conflicts and climate disasters, older people face disproportionate hardships but receive disproportionately little attention or protection.

These challenges aren’t limited to wealthy countries such as Japan, where more than one in 10 people are now aged 80 and over. Global south countries are experiencing population ageing too, and often at a much faster pace than occurred historically in the global north. Many people face the daunting prospect of becoming old in societies with limited infrastructure and social protection systems to support them.

Despite these escalating challenges, no global human rights treaty specifically protects older people. The current international framework is a patchwork that looks increasingly out of step as global demographics shift.

The first significant international breakthrough came in 2015, when the Organization of American States adopted the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons. This landmark treaty explicitly recognises older people as rights-bearers and establishes protections against discrimination, neglect and exploitation. It demonstrates how legal frameworks can evolve to address challenges faced by ageing populations, although implementation remains uneven across signatory countries.

Globally, the World Health Organization’s Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021-2030) represents progress in promoting age-friendly environments and responsive healthcare systems. But it’s a voluntary framework without legally enforceable protections. Only a binding treaty can deliver human rights guarantees.

That’s why the UN Human Rights Council’s decision on 3 April to establish an intergovernmental working group to draft a convention on older persons’ rights offers real hope. In the current fractured geopolitical landscape, the resolution’s adoption by consensus is encouraging.

This positive step came as a result of over a decade of dogged advocacy through the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, established by the UN General Assembly in 2010. Through 14 sessions, states, civil society and national human rights institutions built an overwhelming case for action, culminating in an August 2024 recommendation to develop a treaty. Strategic cross-border campaigning and coalition-building by civil society organisations such as AGE Platform Europe, Amnesty International and HelpAge International were instrumental in advancing the cause.

Now the crucial phase of transforming principles into binding legal protection begins. The Human Rights Council resolution sets out the path forward. The first meeting of the drafting working group is due before the year’s end. Once drafted, the text will advance through the UN system for consideration and adoption. If adopted, this convention will follow in the footsteps of those on the rights of children in 1989 and people with disabilities in 2006, which have significantly advanced protections for their target groups.

This convention offers a rare opportunity to redefine how societies value their older members. The journey from declaration to implementation will demand persistent civil society advocacy, first to ensure the text of the convention delivers meaningful, enforceable protections rather than mere aspirational statements, and then to prevent the dilution of protections through limited implementation. But the potential reward is profound: a world where advancing age enhances rather than diminishes human dignity and rights.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, writer at CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

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

  Source

UN Needs to Protect its Vital, Yet Underfunded, Human Rights Work

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Louis Charbonneau is UN director, Human Rights Watch

Karla Quintana (centre), head of the Independent Institution on Missing Persons in Syria, visits Al Marjeh Square in Damascus, a place where families of missing persons display photos in the hope of finding their loved ones. Credit: IIMP Syria

May 8 2025 (IPS) – Major-power cutbacks and delayed payments amidst conflict and insecurity are testing the very principles and frameworks upon which the international human rights infrastructure was built nearly 80 years ago.

Human rights need defending now more than ever, which is why the United Nations leadership needs to ensure that its efforts to cut costs don’t jeopardize the UN’s critical human rights work.

The Trump administration’s review of US engagement with multilateral organizations and its refusal to pay assessed UN contributions—which account for 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget—have pushed the cash-strapped international organization into a full-blown financial crisis.

China, the second biggest contributor, continues to pay but has been delaying payments, exacerbating the UN’s years-long liquidity crisis. With widespread layoffs looming, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been forced to dig deep for cost-saving measures.

A six-page memo seen by Human Rights Watch—entitled “UN80 structural changes and programmatic realignment” and marked as “Strictly Confidential”—outlines proposals for eliminating redundancies and unnecessary costs across the UN.

The proposals include consolidating apparently overlapping mandates, reducing the UN’s presence in expensive locations like New York City, and cutting some senior posts.

While some UN80 proposals have merit, the section on human rights is worrying. It suggests downgrading and cutting several senior human rights posts and merging different activities. But at a time when rights crises are multiplying and populist leaders hostile to rights are proliferating, any reduction of the UN’s human rights capacities would be shortsighted.

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness are important, but the UN’s human rights work has long been grossly underfunded and understaffed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights gets just 5 percent of the UN’s regular budget.

Countless lives depend on its investigations and monitoring, which help deter abuses in often ignored or inaccessible locales. Investigations of war crimes and other atrocities in places like Sudan, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere are already struggling amidst a UN-wide hiring freeze and pre-Trump liquidity shortfall.

For years, Russia and China have lobbied to defund the UN’s human rights work. There is now a risk that the United States, which has gutted its own funding for human rights worldwide, will no longer oppose these efforts and will instead enable them.

During these trying times, the UN should be reminding the world that its decades-long commitment to human rights is unwavering.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

‘Trump Is Advancing a 21st-century US Variant of Fascism, Backed by a White Nationalist Ideology’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Featured, Gender Identity, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, North America, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

May 7 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks about democratic decline in the USA with humanitarian and civil society activist Samuel Worthington, former president of the US civil society alliance InterAction and author of a new book, Prisoners of Hope: Global Action and the Evolving Roles of US NGOs.

The USA has been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist due to rising concerns about civic freedoms under Donald Trump’s second administration. Since January 2025, executive orders have driven sweeping personnel changes across federal agencies, particularly in the Justice Department. USAID has undergone dramatic restructuring, with funding cuts severely impacting on civil society organisations (CSOs) that support excluded groups across the world. Protests – particularly those addressing immigration and Israel’s war on Gaza – face heightened scrutiny and restrictions. Against this backdrop, civil society is mobilising to preserve democratic principles and civic engagement.

Samuel Worthington

How would you characterise the current state of US democracy?

The USA is experiencing what can only be described as a technocratic coup, rooted in far-right authoritarian ideology. The Trump administration is using every tool at its disposal, even if that means ignoring and breaking laws. The goal is speed: to use technology, claims of waste and abuse, combined with actions that dismantle institutions and attack individuals and organisations.

The Trump administration has adopted a typical authoritarian playbook, similar to that used by leaders such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, but at a much greater scale and speed that has taken many by surprise. A prime example is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which uses computer systems to cripple organisations, create lists of ‘illegal’ individuals for targeting and dismantle protections for civic freedoms. Trump is attempting to centralise power in a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology and largely based on Project 2025.

Civil society and institutions were not prepared for this level of attack. Many assumed democracy was more resilient and norms would hold. Instead, we are now witnessing core democratic institutions under assault. For the first time, we are seeing explicit federal government-driven censorship, with official lists of banned words. The administration is systematically attacking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and withholding funds to punish noncompliant universities and institutions.

Trump is weaponising public money as leverage – even blackmail – to force organisations and US states to comply with his ideology. While pushback from the courts is increasing, this resistance has led to Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. The administration is also limiting media access to outlets that don’t align with its ideology.

As with all forms of fascism, there must be a scapegoat, and here, it’s migrants and transgender people. The Trump administration labels migrants as ‘illegals’ and mass deportations target anyone who doesn’t fit its narrow definition of who is an American. Changes to the constitution are being proposed to strip citizenship rights from US-born children of undocumented parents. Random arrests, disappearances and militarised threats against migrants are becoming increasingly common.

All of this has transpired in just the first hundred days. Democracy’s core institutions — civil society, media, Congress, the judiciary — and the rule of law itself are under enormous stress. The USA is in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis.

How has USAID’s restructuring impacted on civil society?

USAID served as the administration’s test case for destroying a government agency. DOGE destroyed USAID by disabling its computer systems, stopping funding and cancelling contracts. Under the constitution, only Congress has the authority to control appropriations or close government agencies. Even when courts ruled against the administration and ordered programmes to restart, the damage was irreversible: USAID’s systems had already been dismantled by DOGE and could not be easily rebuilt.

Many CSOs that relied heavily on USAID funding lost between 30 and 80 per cent of their resources, leading to mass layoffs, office closures and collapsed partnerships. Fortunately, the USA has a strong tradition of private philanthropy amounting to around US$450 billion a year, with over US$20 billion directed internationally. This private funding is helping some organisations survive. Many are now reorganising around private donors and preparing for the possibility that foundations themselves could become targets of future attacks.

Some CSOs are considering transforming into businesses to protect themselves. Others are fighting back through lawsuits. Some are trying to stay quiet in the hope of being overlooked — not a healthy strategy, but an understandable one. For most, simply trying to survive has become the primary focus.

What global implications are resulting from these domestic developments?

Global civil society has long been critical of the USA, but there was still an assumption that it remained committed to the values of democracy, freedom and global cooperation. This assumption has now been shattered.

The US government is no longer promoting democracy abroad. Instead, it is openly supporting authoritarian regimes and undermining civil society efforts worldwide. Both domestically and internationally, it is actively restricting independent civic action.

The dismantling of USAID alone will cost millions of lives. The USA once provided around half of global humanitarian resources. With this pullback, we’re already witnessing mass deaths and growing risks of famine. Essential supplies of medicines, including HIV/AIDS treatments, are being cut, putting millions more lives at risk.

As the USA disengages and retreats from its global leadership role, it leaves a vacuum, likely to be filled by authoritarian powers such as China and Russia. They will try to reshape the global system in ways that threaten human rights and democratic values.

Finally, the administration’s rhetoric about annexing Canada and seizing Greenland is eroding the post-Second World War rules-based international order, which was established specifically to prevent territorial expansion. By undermining these norms, the USA is effectively encouraging other authoritarian-leaning states to expand through force.

How are people responding to these challenges?

As Trump’s authoritarianism intensifies, people are mobilising to defend democracy and resist repression. Three major protest movements have emerged: the broad-based ‘Hands Off’ movement against fascism and in defence of democracy, student protests focused on Gaza and Palestine and the growing resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations.

Protesting against ICE or in solidarity with Gaza has become increasingly dangerous. Citizens may face serious criminal charges simply for joining protests, and non-citizens risk prison and deportation. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia illustrates this reality: after living in Maryland for 13 years and with legal protection, he was forcibly deported to El Salvador.

Despite these risks, as ICE steps up deportations, activists are taking steps to protect vulnerable people. In some cases, they form human chains to block ICE officers and help people reach their homes, where immigration agents cannot enter without legal permission.

People are fighting back both in the streets and in the courts, challenging these injustices, pushing back against escalating repression and defending fundamental rights.

Do you see any hope for US democracy?

I believe that ultimately, Trump’s attempt to break the US government and dismantle constitutional democracy will fail, for several reasons.

First, we are a country of independent states, and states like California, Illinois and Massachusetts are actively resisting, fighting in courts and passing their own laws to protect their residents. This resistance comes at a cost. The Trump administration has already threatened to cut all federal funding to Maine after its governor refused to follow the administration’s anti-diversity directives. So far, the courts have sided with Maine.

Trump has repeatedly bypassed Congress and violated the separation of powers. In response, CSOs, US states, unions, universities and citizens have already filed over 150 lawsuits against the federal government alleging breaches of the constitution. These lawsuits are steadily moving through the courts and so far, the rulings have overwhelmingly gone against the administration.

At the grassroots level, daily protests continue and constantly evolve. Instead of trying to bring millions to Washington DC, the strategy has shifted toward organising thousands of decentralised protests across the country. After national parks were shut down, for example, there were 433 protests across every single national park on the same day. Movements like ‘Hands Off’ have mobilised millions.

We are learning from struggles in Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine and elsewhere. We now know that democracy cannot be taken for granted; it must be defended every day. But we also know that our strength lies in solidarity. People are forming networks of resistance across the country. We have realised that if we stand alone, we may fail, but together, we can preserve our democracy.

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Tech leaders cosy up to Trump CIVICUS Lens 20.Feb.2025
US funding cuts: Philanthropy must step in to support locally led development CIVICUS 12.Feb.2025

  Source

Speaking Out for SRHR: Why Lived Experiences Must Shape Policy and Practice 

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Development & Aid, Gender, Headlines, Health, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Advocacy for policies that protect and expand comprehensive sexuality education, safe abortion (where permitted), and youth-friendly SRHR services must not stop at international commitments. We must hold our governments accountable and ensure those commitments translate into action

The Commission on Population and Development (2024)

NAIROBI, May 7 2025 (IPS) – Just a month ago, I found myself in a hospital, anxiously waiting for my son to be attended to. As we sat quietly in one of the waiting rooms, an emergency case was wheeled in — a young woman, barely out of her teens. Her face contorted in visible pain. Her dress was soaked with blood, which had begun to pool beneath the wheelchair and trickle onto the floor.

I couldn’t help but overhear the nurse asking the girl who had accompanied her, “What happened?” “She just started her periods,” the friend whispered, her voice laced with fear and confusion.

But from my own experience, I knew periods don’t arrive like this. The heavy bleeding, the extreme pain, the sheer urgency: something was terribly wrong. In a country where abortion is criminalized and conversations on reproductive health are often shrouded in silence, there are things you don’t say out loud, not even in a hospital.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?

Later, I learned the young woman had been referred to a higher-level facility because the hospital couldn’t handle her case. I left that day with a prayer on my lips, hoping she lived to tell her story.

So why am I sharing this? Because last week, I sat in another room, far away from that hospital, attending the 58th Session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD58) at the United Nations.

This was my first time attending the annual conference. The conversations were a sobering reminder of how precarious sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) remain, especially for young women like the one I saw that day.

Despite the gravity of the global challenges, CPD58 felt like a more formal than interactive space. At many of the side events I attended, audiences sat silent, rarely given the chance to ask questions.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?

Breaking the silence

One of the few spaces that broke this silence was a gathering organized by the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition (ISRRC), a coalition of organizations from all regions of the world dedicated to advancing SRHR. It offered a rare moment of authentic exchange, where the few CSO voices present could reflect on the battles we face both at home and on the global stage.

But overall, the opposition to SRHR remained stubborn and vocal. I listened as some delegations pushed back against terms that should be non-negotiable: Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), safe abortion, gender equality.

These are not just words; they are lifelines for young women, especially those navigating complex realities in countries like mine, Kenya.

Ironically, many CPD58 conversations just wanted to focus on maternal health, not on teenage pregnancies or young mothers. Basically, addressing maternal health without discussing the process that leads to pregnancy (sex and sexuality) and therefore CSE.

I couldn’t help but think: How do we talk about preventing HIV without talking about sex? How do we address teenage pregnancy without speaking openly about reproductive health? How can we ignore child marriages when they remain a heartbreaking reality across many countries? And what do we say to survivors of rape — young or old — who become pregnant? Should they be forced to carry these pregnancies, regardless of the trauma or the risks?

As an advocate and a believer in the power of quality data to inform decisions, these questions weigh heavily on me. Are the policies we design grounded in real, lived experiences? Do we collect and use data to reflect the brutal realities so many young women face daily?

Combating anti-rights narratives

One clear takeaway from CPD58 was this: facts and stories must go hand in hand. Data alone can inform, but stories can transform. Both are essential to combating anti-rights narratives and creating spaces for conversations.

Another key take away is the critical need for civil society to maintain both its presence and momentum in these spaces. The CPD remains one of the least attended UN meetings, and its negotiation process is opaque.

The anti-rights movement’s growing clout risks reversing many SRHR gains by easily passing resolutions without push back. If civil society isn’t present and organized, no one will be the wiser. It is essential to occupy and safeguard this space.

We must train youth activists to counter opposition and challenge anti-gender, anti-abortion, and anti-CSE rhetoric not just with facts, but with human stories.

Tell the stories that humanize the data; stories like the one I witnessed in that hospital room. Digital spaces hold tremendous potential to advance SRHR, especially for marginalized communities.

Yet, with opportunity comes risk. The same platforms that can empower young women are breeding grounds for misinformation. Our efforts must include both creating digital solutions and equipping young women to navigate these spaces safely and wisely.

I was encouraged to see progressive voices from the European Union, Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia stand firm in defending SRHR within the final negotiated text. But the fight doesn’t end there.

From Nigeria to Mozambique, from Jordan to Guatemala — and every corner in between — we must ensure young women in all their diversities are not left behind. Their voices, rights, and choices must be respected.

Finally, we must keep the pressure on at home. Advocacy for policies that protect and expand comprehensive sexuality education, safe abortion (where permitted), and youth-friendly SRH services must not stop at international commitments. We must hold our governments accountable and ensure those commitments translate into action.

The young woman in that hospital room deserved better. So do countless others like her.

And the only way forward is by standing up, speaking out, and refusing to let silence win.

Mary Kuira is Global DMEL Coordinator at Hivos East Africa

  Source