This is not an isolated incident but the culmination of an ongoing ideological shift. The Turkish government’s hostility toward LGBTQI+ communities has intensified significantly since the 2013 Gezi Park protests and accelerated following a 2016 failed coup attempt. As the government has consolidated authoritarian control, anti-LGBTQI+ and anti-gender rhetoric have become increasingly central to its political strategy. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other high-ranking officials regularly vilify LGBTQI+ people in public statements, with pro-government media amplifying these messages to shape public opinion.

The recent declaration of 2025 as the ‘Year of the Family’ shows how the government strategically frames LGBTQI+ existence as a threat to Turkish national identity and moral values. The same rhetoric was used to justify Turkey’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention – the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence – claiming that LGBTQI+ identities posed a threat to the Turkish family structure and national values. This approach mirrors far-right, anti-gender movements globally, which weaponise gender and sexuality issues to rally conservative support in times of economic and political instability. At its core, this represents a calculated diversion tactic, scapegoating excluded groups to deflect attention from broader governance failures.

Despite operating in an increasingly restrictive environment, LGBTQI+ and feminist movements across Turkey are mounting courageous and creative resistance. Activists are coordinating public statements, launching targeted social media campaigns and collaborating with legal and medical experts to expose the dangerous implications of the proposed law. They are simultaneously working to build strategic alliances with opposition political parties and international human rights organisations.

These resistance efforts face formidable obstacles, including the very real threat of criminalisation, police violence against peaceful protesters and pervasive censorship and stigmatisation. Many organisations already operate under significant legal pressure, and this bill threatens their existence. The resulting chilling effect cannot be overstated. Organising for rights has become not merely difficult, but potentially dangerous for those involved.

Legal challenges remain possible but difficult. If enacted, the law can be contested before the Turkish Constitutional Court, particularly if opposition parties in parliament get behind the challenge. There is some precedent for optimism: the court has previously struck down similar provisions, including an earlier requirement for forced sterilisation in gender transition procedures.

On the international front, the European Court of Human Rights, which safeguards human rights across Council of Europe member states, offers another potential avenue for redress. Numerous provisions in the draft law directly contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the convention’s articles protecting freedom of expression and privacy and prohibiting discrimination.

However, both domestic and international challenges would require sustained legal advocacy in increasingly hostile conditions. Justice through these channels, while possible, faces the significant risk of lengthy delays during which irreparable harm could occur to those affected.

This bill poses a fundamental threat to democratic principles, with implications extending far beyond LGBTQI+ people. Its provisions criminalise peaceful protest, expand powers for pretrial detention and establish broader surveillance mechanisms that target activists. It creates a hostile environment where human rights defenders, artists, academics and even healthcare providers face potential persecution. The message is unmistakable: any deviation from state-imposed moral norms will be met with punishment.

The ripple effects across civil society would be profound, likely resulting in widespread self-censorship, erosion of institutional independence and fear-driven disengagement from advocacy work. At its core, this law appears designed to suppress pluralism and democratic dialogue while reinforcing a singular, state-sanctioned way of life.

International solidarity plays a crucial role in opposing this bill and supporting Turkish civil society. Formal diplomatic pressure – including clear public condemnation from European institutions, United Nations bodies and international human rights organisations – can create meaningful leverage. Equally important is engagement by foreign parliaments, particularly from states that maintain significant diplomatic and economic relationships with Turkey.

Beyond statements, practical support is essential. This includes funding for legal defence initiatives, psychosocial support for affected communities and resources for continued advocacy work. Such assistance helps civil society remain resilient in the face of intensifying repression. International media coverage should also prioritise efforts to amplify Turkish voices rather than speak on their behalf.

The global LGBTQI+ and feminist movements can contribute through strategic knowledge-sharing, public expressions of solidarity and efforts to keep the situation in Turkey on the international agenda. Silence in response to these developments would only invite further repressive measures.