Afghan women’s rights defender Laleh Osmany said the chanting of “Woman, Life, Freedom” during the protests in Herat reflects “a deep, transnational solidarity among women rooted in a shared cultural sphere, as well as their high awareness of their fundamental rights.”
Taliban crackdown on protest in Herat on June 9th, 2026. Photo: 8am Media
In Afghanistan, some residents from the Jibrail area of Herat Province held a protest rally on June 8th. The protests have raised over the ongoing arrests and harsh treatment of women by the Taliban’s Morality Police starting on June 6th. According to local resources, Taliban began to forcefully make women to wear Chadari or burqa and warning that those who do not wear will be imprisoned.
On June 11th, in a second wave of protests, the people of Herat gathered in front of the governor’s office to protest the acts of detention and violence against women, chanting “Death to the Dictator,” “Women, Life, Freedom,” and “Education, Work, Freedom.” Since June 8th, Taliban police had been trying to disperse the crowds by opening fire on the gathered people for days.
Murtaza, a 16-year-old Afghan youth, was wounded by two bullets to his leg during the Taliban police’s crackdown on the protests in Herat and passed away on June 16th. It was reported that at least 20 people were injured as a result of the Taliban police opening fire on the protesters.
Najibullah Ali, the Taliban’s police commander for security affairs in Herat, has announced on June 18th that so far more than 19 women – this number escalated to 30 according to local sources – have been detained by the Taliban’s forces for promoting virtue and preventing vice for what this group calls “failure to observe hijab.” He adds that the detention of women by the forces for promoting virtue and preventing vice in this province will continue.
Afghan women’s rights defender Laleh Osmany spoke about the wave of women-led protests in Herat and the systematic repression women face under Taliban rule.
Laleh Osmany
“A strategy to erase women from public life”
According to Osmany, violence, terror, arbitrary detention, and public humiliation of women — carried out under the pretext of “inappropriate hijab” or leaving home without a male guardian, or mahram — have become “a structural, daily policy enforced by the Taliban’s Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice and their intelligence agencies.” She noted that Taliban vice units, known as muhtasib, have set up numerous checkpoints across cities specifically to police women’s attire.
“In many cases, young women and girls are arrested without a male guardian present, brutally beaten with cables and whips, and released only after their families are forced to pay heavy ransoms or sign coercive pledges,” Osmany said. She described these practices as part of a calculated, larger campaign:
“These actions are a deliberate part of a broader strategy aimed at the complete eradication of women from the public sphere.”
“Woman, Life, Freedom” echoes through Herat
Osmany said the chanting of “Woman, Life, Freedom” during the Herat protests reflects “a deep, transnational solidarity among women rooted in a shared cultural sphere, as well as their high awareness of their fundamental rights.” She said the city’s history as a center of progressive civil movements: “Herat has historically been a cultural hub and a breeding ground for progressive civil movements in Afghanistan.”
Despite live gunfire, violence, and the threat of imprisonment, Osmany stated the protests demonstrated that women’s will to resist remains alive:
“These protests proved that despite brutal suppression, direct live fire, violence, and imprisonment, the will of women to resist remains alive. The protests in Herat sent a clear message to the world: the roots of Afghan women’s quest for freedom cannot be dried up by decrees of gender segregation and Taliban intimidation, and they are prepared to pay the highest price for their human dignity.”
Underground networks of resistance
Asked whether organized resistance persists despite the risks, Osmany confirmed that Afghan women have built extensive underground and overt networks, structured around three main pillars.
The first, she said, is citizen documentation: “Upon their release, detained women use pseudonyms to expose their experiences of torture and the Taliban’s inhumane treatment across social media and international news outlets.”
The second involves safe houses and underground schools: “Establishing secret home-based schools for girls deprived of education, alongside creating psychological and financial support circles for women who have lost their breadwinners.”
The third pillar, she said, is sustained civil mobilization: “Grassroots groups continuously issue statements and hold protests in closed indoor locations, raising their voices to UN human rights bodies to actively prevent the Taliban from gaining international legitimacy.”
Call from women’s organizations
Numerous calls to action continue to circulate on social media, organized by citizens of Afghanistan abroad, with protests planned in Berlin and many other places.
Members of the Justice-Seeking Women’s Movement, by launching a protest campaign and using the global distress symbol, have expressed concern over the increasing restrictions on women in Herat and urged the international community not to remain silent in the face of this situation on June 18th.
Members of this movement, through a campaign with the slogan “Afghan Women Are in Danger, Join This Campaign”, by darkening the map of Afghanistan on their faces and using the global distress symbol, have called for the international community’s immediate attention to the situation of women in the country.
Independent journalist Yusuf Çelik and freelance journalist İbrahim Türk spoke about what LGBTI+ journalists experience while doing their jobs in the field and beyond: “Even if I’m subjected to phobic attacks, I won’t give up reporting.”
Fotoğraf: pexel.com
Pride Month is a time when LGBTI+ experiences of violence and discrimination tied to their identities become more visible. Among those who make visible not only Pride-related issues but social events of all kinds throughout the year are LGBTI+ journalists themselves.
While journalists in Turkey already face economic insecurity, police violence, censorship and unemployment, LGBTI+ journalists confront an additional layer of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. A concrete example of this came last February, when Yıldız Tar, editor-in-chief of Kaos GL—Turkey’s oldest and largest LGBTI+ news platform—and a prominent LGBTI+ rights advocate, was detained. In the field, LGBTI+ journalists often become targets for police while reporting, sometimes become “invisible” in job applications and are forced to conceal their identities for safety reasons.
Independent journalist Yusuf Çelik and freelance journalist İbrahim Türk spoke to Niha+ about the discrimination they face in the field and what they expect from professional organizations.
Çelik: “LGBTI+ journalists face ‘compounded discrimination’”
Journalist Yusuf Çelik said that while all journalists already face economic and professional difficulties, queer journalists experience “compounded discrimination” in the field. Çelik said they have faced discriminatory attitudes from police, older male colleagues, and news sources, describing many moments in which they felt rendered invisible.
Independent journalist Yusuf Çelik
Noting that police violence is a shared problem for all journalists, Çelik said the consequences can be more severe for LGBTI+ journalists. “If there’s going to be violence, if there’s going to be an intervention, it’s us, LGBTI+ and women journalists, who are targeted first” they said.
Recalling the “Gezi” commemoration held in Taksim on May 31, 2026, Çelik said a police officer directly singled them out. “There were many journalists there, but the police grabbed my arm and tried to remove me. My colleagues intervened, asking, ‘Why are you touching a journalist?’” they said.
Çelik also said that during their detention in Dersim on July 25, 2025, they faced pressure specifically because of their queer identity, recalling that police made remarks implying they should stop doing this kind of reporting. “There was essentially a push to recruit me as an informant—comments like, ‘Why don’t you just stay out of this? Why don’t you stop doing these kinds of stories?’” they said.
Referring to a detention they experienced on May 1, 2026, Çelik said:
“There was no real justification—the protest had already dispersed—but I was told, ‘Turn off your camera, we’re taking you in,’ and detained. I can’t explain this through journalism alone, because I face things my colleagues don’t, and I think this is deeply tied to my queer identity. On top of that, when we’re detained and can’t work in the field, we go home that day having earned nothing, which puts us under economic strain too. We face a whole series of violations and difficulties like this.”
“There are unspoken ‘buts’”
Çelik have also struggled to find work because of their identity, noting that they have been unemployed for about six to seven months:
“During my job search, even though I spoke with some institutions and journalists, the process went nowhere because of unspoken ‘buts.’ They like my journalism, they know and appreciate the work I do in the field. But I need work, and during the hiring process everyone takes a step back. There are unspoken ‘buts’ there. ‘But you’re a queer journalist,’ ‘but you’re an activist,’ ‘but you can’t separate journalism from being queer’… Even when these things aren’t said out loud, I can feel those ‘buts.’ There’s no other explanation for why someone who is normally out in the field, following the news, and voluntarily sharing their work with institutions would remain unemployed for this long.”
“Even if I face phobia, I won’t give up reporting”
Çelik said that while they haven’t faced direct censorship in covering LGBTI+ news, they have often been kept away from certain assignments. They said they haven’t been assigned to out-of-town stories or coverage of workers’ strikes, with the reasoning usually framed around concerns that “something might happen to them”:
“I’m told, ‘If you go, you’ll face phobic attacks, it’ll be hard for you.’ But the person saying that is, in that moment, actually subjecting me to phobia themselves. Even though I carry an activist identity, when I go out into the field, I go out as Yusuf the journalist. Being LGBTI+ comes after that. This isn’t the first time I’ve been out in the field, and it won’t be the last. I might face hostility from a crowd—that’s understandable, because women journalists experience this too. They don’t give up reporting. Neither will I.”
Çelik also noted that women and LGBTI+ journalists are often not assigned stories like economic news, and said they end up being treated as if they’re not capable—which is part of why they continue working as an independent journalist.
According to Çelik, the discrimination starts the moment they leave the house:
“Everything—how I dress, how I walk, how I talk—gets assigned a gender. Sometimes I’m ‘the LGBTI+ journalist,’ sometimes slurs get used. Some police officers single me out, asking things like ‘isn’t that the gay journalist?’” Çelik also said they regularly face online harassment campaigns, and that in particular, following certain stories, they have been targeted with HIV-related smears. “We have to fight this on the street, at home, and on social media, all at once.”
“We don’t have strong structures to organize through”
Çelik said there are serious gaps in solidarity networks among LGBTI+ journalists. While some of these issues have been discussed at meetings held in Ankara, they said this has not translated into lasting organization.
Assessing the work of professional associations and unions, Çelik said independent and freelance journalists in particular face serious barriers to accessing union rights:
“I’m currently unemployed, and since I don’t have social security registration, I can’t directly join a union. I can’t organize. Independent and freelance journalists can’t access union rights, and they can’t even get through the union’s door. The first thing we need to do is strengthen LGBTI+ journalists in the field. Strengthen journalists in the field.”
Çelik said unions could offer workshops and protective equipment support tailored to LGBTI+ journalists, adding: “LGBTI+ people are a reality now. We’re more visible than yesterday, and we’ll be even more visible tomorrow. At this point, institutions and unions need to transform themselves too.”
“We have to tell our own stories”
Addressing young LGBTI+ people entering journalism, Çelik encouraged them to stay in the field as much as possible and keep producing stories.
“If there’s an LGBTI+ story, let a queer journalist cover it first—because they understand the issue best,” Çelik said, adding that the discrimination young journalists will face shouldn’t push them away from the profession.
Çelik concluded:
“My journalism has been questioned, and it still is. You have to fight that. You do more work. The more work you do, the more those who try to erase you will be forced to back down. Just as we as LGBTI+ journalists carry our struggle into every part of life, we have to carry it into our profession too. The phobia may never end—but neither will the struggle.”
Türk: “In some stories, I have to hide my identity”
Freelance journalist İbrahim Türk, based in Ankara, said they began their journalism career in 2021 as a photojournalist and now work for various national and international media organizations.
Freelance journalist İbrahim Türk
Türk said they take a somewhat distanced view of the constant pairing of journalism with sexual identity: “I’m a journalist and I’m queer. Journalism is a job, being queer is an identity. The fact that these two are constantly mentioned together feels a bit strange to me.”
Türk said one of the biggest challenges they face in the field is having to hide their queer identity during certain assignments for their own protection. They said they feel especially uneasy at events organized by Islamist and radical right-wing groups, and that they use different methods to ensure their safety while reporting in such settings.
“When talking to people, you sometimes have to say you work for Anadolu Ajansı so you don’t get beaten up—because some of our friends have been beaten. You have to make sure you’re not wearing anything in rainbow colors. You try to approach people as neutrally as possible so you can get unbiased responses.”
Türk said this isn’t always a disadvantage, however—in left-wing and democratic circles, their queer identity can actually make communication easier. “In left-wing circles, sometimes all doors open. People communicate more freely, and trust can build faster.”
“I met every requirement, but I wasn’t hired”
While Türk said they have never directly been told “don’t cover this story” or “don’t do this job,” they believe their identity may have been a factor in some job applications and at some organizations where they’ve worked. They said they haven’t faced such problems at the organizations they currently work with.
Türk said that during a period of unemployment, they applied to several media outlets but never heard back. “I met every requirement, but I wasn’t accepted,” they said.
“I was attacked by the police”
Türk said they have also experienced physical violence in the field, recalling one incident during the protests against the 11th Judicial Package.
Describing what happened during the protests, Türk said: “I was choked by police officers. A trans woman saved me—if she hadn’t intervened, it could have ended much worse.”
Türk said the police generally recognize them, yet they were still subjected to violence: “There was no chance they didn’t know who I was. And they attacked me anyway.”
“First, we need to learn to protect each other”
Türk said they find the work professional associations and unions have done for LGBTI+ journalists insufficient. While they said they’re aware of some union-led initiatives, they argued that there still isn’t enough contact with journalists actually working in the field.
Türk said that to address the problems LGBTI+ journalists face, solidarity networks need to be strengthened—and that this starts with journalists supporting one another:
“We need to support more queer journalists, there need to be more queer journalists. We don’t support each other. What we actually need to do first is look out for ourselves. We need to learn to protect each other first. If we did that, we wouldn’t even need any organization—or we’d be in a position to tell organizations what they need to do. But right now, both the organizations and the journalists themselves are preoccupied with how to get more funding, how to grow, so nobody really cares.”
“Journalism is journalism”
Türk said they feel journalism is increasingly being defined by an excessive number of labels:
“Journalism is journalism. Labels like ‘opposition journalism’ or ‘queer journalism’ don’t really sit right with me. Of course our identities shape how we see the world. But we can’t explain everything we do solely through that lens. First and foremost, I’m a journalist. Yes, at some point my identity affects what I write or which stories I look at. But not in every story I do.”
After the AKP declared 2025 the “Year of the Family,” provisions directly targeting LGBTI+ people emerged in the draft 10th and 11th Judicial Packages expected to be submitted to Turkey’s Parliament (TBMM) in 2025. Numerous media organizations and professional associations issued a statement in 2025 regarding the 11th Judicial Package, which sought to criminalize reporting on LGBTI+ issues. The statement read as follows:
Journalists reporting LGBTQ+ issues risk criminalisation: Withdraw the proposed law!
The draft of the 11th Judicial Package was shared with the members of the press last week and is expected to be submitted to Parliament in the coming days. Under the heading “Obscene acts,” the draft introduces a so-called “Turkish-style ban on homosexual propaganda.” It stipulates prison sentences of up to three years for any behaviour or attitude that is “contrary to one’s biological sex and public morality,” as well as for praising, promoting, or encouraging such behaviour. In its current form, the proposal is even broader and more vague than Russia’s 2013 “gay propaganda ban,” posing a grave threat to freedom of expression and press freedom in Turkey.
If enacted, this regulation would restrict LGBTQ+ people of their right to access and share information central to their lives.. Journalists reporting on LGBTQ+ issues such as human rights violations, sexual health, Pride marches etc. risk criminal prosecution on the grounds of “promotion.”
Since 2025 was declared the “Year of the Family,” numerous violations have occurred targeting LGBTQ+ journalism in Turkey. In February, Yıldız Tar — Editor-in-Chief of KAOS GL, the country’s largest and oldest LGBTQ+ news platform, and a prominent LGBTQ+ rights advocate — was arrested.
In June, the KAOS GL news website and its social media accounts were blocked for allegedly “publicly inciting to commit crimes.” That same month, journalists covering the LGBTQ+ Pride March in Istanbul’s Beşiktaş district were detained and later prosecuted.
T24 correspondent Can Öztürk was questioned by prosecutors after publishing a story about sexual harassment allegations against an academic who claimed to offer “conversion therapy” to LGBTQ+ children. The Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) also fined streaming platforms such as Netflix for hosting LGBTQ+ content.
Following all these violations, the inclusion of the proposed provision in the 11th Judicial Package would escalate rights violations even further and criminalize the already difficult task of reporting on LGBTQ+ issues. Moreover, vague terms such as “contrary to one’s biological sex” or “contrary to public morality” would allow arbitrary interference with the press and civil society.
This proposal would not only target LGBTQ+ individuals but also place journalists reporting on LGBTQ+ issues and related rights violations under threat of criminal punishment.
For all these reasons, as the undersigned press and freedom of expression organizations, we urgently call for the immediate removal of this provision from the 11th Judicial Package.
Signed by:
Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)
Dicle Fırat Journalism Association
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Hacer Foggo, founder of the Deep Poverty Network (Derin Yoksulluk Ağı), who responded to the Constitutional Court’s annulment of the provision allowing a divorced spouse to claim poverty alimony “indefinitely” on grounds of unconstitutionality, reminded the public that single mothers living in deep poverty are already working in irregular and uninsured jobs.
Photo: Serra Akcan / csgorselarsiv.org
The Constitutional Court (CC) in Turkey annulled the provision in Article 175 of the Civil Code allowing a divorced spouse to claim poverty alimony “indefinitely,” ruling it unconstitutional. The CC General Assembly decided to grant the Grand National Assembly of Turkey nine months to enact the necessary legislation.
The Antalya 12th Family Court had applied to the Constitutional Court in 2025 seeking the annulment of the phrase “indefinitely” in the provision on poverty alimony under Article 175 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721. The high court issued this ruling upon the application of the local court.
Following the annulment ruling, it was reported in the press that the draft on the AKP’s table plans to take the duration of marriage as the basis. Accordingly, those married for 3 years would receive alimony for 5 years, those married for 5 years for 7 years, and those married for 10 years for 12 years.
Hacer Foggo, founder of the Deep Poverty Network (DPN), who shared her assessment with Niha+, underlined the hunger, debt, school dropout, and housing risks that emerge in households when alimony is cut or not paid.
Hacer Foggo: “Alimony is insufficient but vital support”
Photo: Hacer Foggo
Foggo emphasized how vital alimony is for women and stated that the public perception created, that “women receive alimony in high amounts” does not correspond to the reality in the field:
“A significant portion of the single mothers living in deep poverty whom we support in the field, particularly those working in daily precarious jobs, either receive very low amounts of alimony or cannot regularly collect the alimony that has been ruled. The 2024 Poverty Alimony Monitoring Report of the Women’s Solidarity Foundation also shows that, among the files examined, the average poverty alimony was 1,179.40 TL. It is impossible for this amount to suffice for a woman living alone. What we see in the field is this: alimony is not a welfare tool for women — it is a support that is most often vital yet insufficient for rent, bills, food, children’s school meals, transportation, medicine, fuel, and a safe life. Women living in deep poverty are already trying to survive through daily, irregular, and precarious work.”
The 2019 “Poverty Alimony Research” report of the Women’s Solidarity Foundation had recorded that only 20.7 percent of alimony rulings were paid by those obligated to pay, while 50.7 percent were never paid at all.
The foundation’s 2024 “Poverty Alimony Research” report stated that while the proportion of men with no income was 7 percent, the proportion of women with no income was 47 percent. Accordingly, while 80 percent of men work at or above the minimum wage, this figure stands at only 46 percent for women.
“The structural inequalities women face are being ignored”
Responding to the argument that making alimony time-limited is justified with the claim “Women should work too” which has been asserted in public debate, Foggo stated that this argument ignores the structural inequalities women face. Foggo said that single mothers living in deep poverty are already working, such as going to do daily cleaning, doing piecework, working in irregular and uninsured jobs, and underlined that these are not jobs that provide regular income, social security, or a dignified life.
Reminding that one of the biggest obstacles to women’s participation in the workforce is the burden of care, Foggo said: “If there are no free and accessible nurseries, if a woman cannot find a safe place to leave her child, it becomes practically impossible for her to work with a fixed income. Many women shoulder child care, school follow-up, hospital processes, housework, and the responsibility of livelihood entirely on their own. Ignoring these conditions means not knowing the conditions of deep poverty.”
“It becomes harder for women to escape violence”
According to Foggo, when alimony ends, a woman who has not yet established her economic independence faces even deeper poverty. Saying “For a woman who cannot find a free nursery to leave her child and cannot access regular and secure employment, the cutting of alimony means being unable to cover basic living expenses,” Foggo explained that this would place women in a more precarious and unhealthy situation:
“This situation may force women to accept lower-waged, uninsured, long-hour and unhealthy jobs. For some women, it may also increase the pressure to return to a home where they experience violence or to endure a violent relationship. Because the decision to divorce is not only a legal one, it is also an economic one. If a woman cannot find answers to the questions ‘where will I stay with my child, how will I pay the rent, how will I feed my child,’ it also becomes harder for her to escape violence.”
“Alimony also affects the child’s life”
Foggo, who stated that alimony directly affects not only the conditions of women but also those of children, argued that a decrease in a mother’s income produces consequences in every area, from a child’s nutrition to education, from access to health to housing.
Foggo emphasized that the removal of alimony security is one of the factors that could increase child labor, school dropout, malnutrition, and the risks of child marriage, and gave the following example: “In the field, we see that children drop out of school because their bus fare cannot be covered, that school meals cannot be prepared, that children are forced to look after younger siblings at home or work to bring income to the household.”
She said that such a decision should be addressed not only under the heading of alimony but together with women’s poverty, child poverty, care labor, and the right to escape violence:
“In our view, its effects in the field must be urgently monitored. At the same time, free and accessible nurseries must be expanded, regular social support must be provided to single mothers, secure employment opportunities must be increased, and effective public mechanisms must be operated in cases where alimony cannot be collected. Limiting alimony rights with a time limit without establishing social policies that will reduce women’s poverty is unacceptable. From our perspective, touching the right to alimony means touching the right to life of women and children living in deep poverty.”
DPN: “For single mothers, alimony is vital”
The Deep Poverty Network’s statement on the annulment of indefinite alimony is as follows:
Touching the Right to Alimony Means Touching Women’s and Children’s Right to Life
The Constitutional Court’s annulment of the phrase “indefinitely” concerning poverty alimony under Article 175 of the Turkish Civil Code is not merely a technical legal debate. This ruling cannot be evaluated independently of the living conditions of women in Turkey, particularly single mothers living in deep poverty, working in daily and precarious jobs.
Poverty alimony is not an unconditional, unlimited, and automatic privilege as it is presented to the public. It is subject to conditions such as not being at serious fault, falling into poverty due to divorce, and the continuation of need. When the need disappears, alimony can already be revoked. Despite this, presenting the right to alimony as a “lifelong burden” renders invisible the unpaid care labor women undertake within marriage, the impoverishment following divorce, and the economic conditions of escaping male violence. The Women’s Solidarity Foundation’s 2024 Poverty Alimony Monitoring Report shows that alimony amounts are not as high as publicly claimed, that the average poverty alimony in the files examined was 1,179.40 TL, and that a significant portion of ruled alimony cannot be collected. What we at the Deep Poverty Network see in the field is this: for single mothers, alimony is not a welfare tool, it is most often a vital threshold for rent, bills, food, school meals, transportation, wood, coal, medicine, and a “safe” life.
Single mothers living in deep poverty are on the one hand, shouldering the care of their children entirely on their own, while on the other hand trying to provide for the household through daily, irregular, low-wage, and precarious work. Single-parent households have no secure job, no regular income, and no free childcare support to safely leave their children. For this reason, limiting alimony with a time frame will, particularly for single mothers, produce the following consequences:
It will deepen the poverty of women and children. For a mother working in daily jobs, income is something that must be found anew each day; if there is no work that day, there is hunger, if the child is sick and there is no medicine. Limiting alimony will deepen poverty. “Some days I don’t eat myself so my children can eat more. But how well can they be nourished on pasta? Some days there’s nothing at all, we all have to go hungry.”
It will make escaping violence harder. One of the biggest obstacles to women making the decision to divorce is economic insecurity. A woman who wants to leave a home where she experiences violence will be forced to think about where she will stay with her child, how she will pay the rent, how she will feed her child — and will continue to “endure” the violence. “Due to the problems with my ex-husband, my life is still in danger. I can’t leave the house out of fear that he will kill me or harm my children. My son quit school and is doing daily work.”
It will leave the burden of care entirely on women’s shoulders. Child care, school follow-up, hospitals, housework, and livelihood are left simultaneously to the single mother’s responsibility. While free and accessible nurseries are not widespread, while flexible and secure employment is not provided, limiting the right to alimony will confine women to the home. “Every day I work daily jobs too, I can’t even spend proper time with my children out of exhaustion. My eldest son left school, he’s looking after his younger siblings at home.”
It will strip children of their right to education, nutrition, and health. The alimony debate concerns not only the living conditions of women but of children too. The impoverishment of a single mother may mean a child dropping out of school, being malnourished, and being unable to access health services. “I couldn’t give my high school freshman son his bus fare, I had to pull him out of school.”
It will worsen the housing crisis. In single-parent households, rent, bills, and basic household expenses are among the most acute dimensions of poverty. Limiting the right to alimony will push women and their children into unsafe, unhealthy living conditions. “I can’t make ends meet — should I pack the child a meal every day, or pay my rent?”
It will allow economic violence to persist after divorce. Non-payment, delay of alimony, and forcing women to renounce alimony are forms of economic violence. It will make it easier for men who exercise economic violence to escape responsibility. Women will be forced to accept lower-waged, uninsured, long-hour, and unhealthy jobs. “No matter how much I work it’s not enough. The employer always delays it. I can’t raise my voice. I have to live counting every penny… Believe me, I can’t even afford pads.”
Without developing social policies to reduce women’s poverty, without expanding free nurseries, without providing secure employment, without implementing equal pay for equal work, and without bringing care labor into life, limiting the right to alimony is unacceptable. The fact that in practice it is mostly women who benefit from this right stems from gender inequality. Poverty alimony is not a privilege granted to women — it is a social protection mechanism for the party that falls into poverty after divorce, and it is insufficient.
No regulation that ignores women’s poverty is just. No policy that leaves the burden of childcare on the shoulders of single mothers is compatible with the principle of the social state. No decision that weakens the economic security of women who want to escape violence can be considered independently of the right to life.
Touching the right to alimony means touching the lives of women and children living in deep poverty. We do not accept any regulation that will condemn women to poverty, violence, confinement to the home, and relationships of dependency.
Ecmel Deniz, a member of the Hormon Hakkım Collective, states that the anti-LGBTQ+ provisions proposed in the 12th Judicial Package are not a health policy but an attempt to assert power over bodies. They note that the draft in question targets not only the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals but also “everyone’s right to health, bodily autonomy, freedom of expression, and the democratic sphere.”
Photo: Yusuf Çelik / csgorselarsiv.org
Anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is back on the agenda in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). Provisions that were withdrawn from the 10th and 11th Judicial Packages, which passed through parliament in previous year, due to public pressure have now been included in the 12th Judicial Package.
According to behind-the-scenes information obtained by KaosGL.org, a briefing note regarding the 12th Judicial Package was sent to senior Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP / Justice and Development Party) lawmakers. It has been learned that the package, expected to be submitted to the TBMM in June, contains provisions targeting the LGBTQ+ community and raising the age of access to gender-affirming surgery for trans individuals to 25.
Ecmel Deniz, a member of the Hormon Hakkım Kolektifi (Hormone Rights Collective), assessed for Niha+ these proposed regulations, expected to be included in the 12th Judicial Package.
Ecmel: “The right to health cannot be governed by the threat of punishment”
According to Ecmel, this draft law constitutes an overt policy of hatred that targets trans people’s autonomy over their bodies, the trust-based relationship they establish with healthcare providers, their access to healthcare, and their most fundamental spheres of existence.
Recalling that the government has long sought to portray LGBTQ+ individuals as a “threat to the family,” “a threat to children,” “a threat to society,” and “a threat to public morality,” Ecmel stated that this policy has transformed trans people’s access to healthcare from a matter of rights into an issue of security, morality, and punishment:
“The right to health cannot be governed by the threat of punishment. A person’s access to hormones, surgery, psychosocial support, or any other health service related to the gender affirmation process cannot be criminalized. This draft law aims to make trans people’s lives manageable, controllable, and punishable. The government is saying, ‘I decide what happens to your body, and if your doctor supports you, I’ll punish both of you.’ This is not health policy; it is an attempt to assert power over our bodies. That is why when we say ‘My Right to Hormones,’ we are not merely talking about access to a medication. We are talking about the right to make decisions about our own bodies, the right to access safe healthcare, the right to speak with a doctor without fear, and the right not to be treated as a criminal because of our identity.”
“They’re afraid of our power to organize”
Ecmel, noting that many rights would be violated if this bill passes through parliament, said that access to healthcare which is already difficult for trans people, would become even harder, and those seeking healthcare would be pushed toward more precarious and unregulated avenues:
“If the law is passed, the resulting human rights violations will be multifaceted. The right to health will be violated. Because people will not be able to safely access the services they need. The right to privacy will be violated. Because a person’s body, identity, health information, and life will be turned into objects of state surveillance. The right to equality will be violated. Because access to the same health services is surrounded by penalties and specific barriers when it comes to trans people. Freedom of expression and association will be violated. It fuels hatred in society. It sends the message to people that ‘these individuals are already guilty, already dangerous, already targets.’ This leads to more discrimination and violence on the streets, in schools, at home, in hospitals, at workplaces, and on social media.”
Emphasizing that the purpose of the proposed regulations is not merely to regulate a few medical procedures, but also to prevent trans people from trusting the healthcare system, doctors from acting in accordance with professional ethics, and institutions from opening their doors to trans clients, Ecmel stated that these draft laws were written based on the questions: “How can LGBTQ+ people become less visible, make fewer demands, and feel more afraid?”
Ecmel said, “Because they fear our organizational power; the LGBTQ+ movement is a movement that has managed to form a strong opposition bloc despite all this oppression”
“The government says, ‘We decide what happens to the body‘”
They stated that the government is pursuing its efforts to isolate the LGBTQ+ community, silence doctors, intimidate families, polarize society, and portray the struggle for rights as criminal in four distinct ways:
“First, it masks social crises with the rhetoric of a ‘moral crisis.’ While real issues like the economic crisis, poverty, the housing crisis, the collapse of the healthcare system, the lack of a future for young people, and the violence faced by women and children are out in the open, the LGBTQ+ community is presented as an artificial threat. In this way, the public’s anger is diverted from real problems and directed toward a vulnerable group.
Second, a uniform lifestyle is being imposed under the guise of the “family.” Strengthening the family truly means reducing poverty, preventing violence, supporting care work, ensuring children’s safety, and making it possible for everyone to live equally and with dignity. But the government uses the family not as a support mechanism, but as a tool to keep society in line. By portraying LGBTQ+ individuals as a threat to the family, the government both fuels a politics of hatred and imposes a “acceptable citizen,” “acceptable body,” “acceptable gender,” and “acceptable relationship” on society.
Third, a message is being sent to the entire society through trans bodies. It says, “We, not you, decide what happens to the body.” This message is not directed solely at trans people; it is aimed at women, young people, those living with HIV, people with disabilities, children, and everyone in need of healthcare. The government seeks to control society by controlling bodies.
Fourth, they are trying to criminalize advocacy. This draft targets not only the healthcare processes of trans people but also the visibility, organization, solidarity, and advocacy of the LGBTQ+ community. Because those in power know that people are more easily intimidated when left alone; but when there is solidarity, information, and organized resistance, these repressive policies fail.”
Ecmel, noting that the provisions in the draft legislation have concrete consequences for trans people, such as being turned away from hospitals, being unable to access hormones, struggling to find a doctor, facing humiliation, being forced to accept misinformation, becoming isolated due to family pressure, and being unable to make decisions about their own bodies, stressed the importance of making trans people’s real-life experiences visible.
“This issue cannot be left solely on the shoulders of trans people”
Stating that this law directly targets the right to one’s own body, Ecmel underscored that a person’s ability to make decisions about their own body is not a favor granted by the state. According to Ecmel, the government threatens not only trans people but everyone’s bodies by asserting, “Your body does not belong to you; it can only exist within the boundaries drawn by the state”:
“Once the government begins punishing people’s decisions regarding their bodies under vague justifications like ‘public morality,’ ‘family,’ or ‘protection of society,’ this threat does not stop at trans people. “Today, trans people’s right to hormone therapy is under attack; tomorrow, abortion, birth control, HIV treatment, young people’s access to healthcare, psychiatric support, reproductive health, or other bodily autonomy decisions could be targeted using the same logic. That is why this struggle is not just a struggle for trans people. It is, in fact, a struggle over the question, ‘Who gets to decide about my body?’”
Ecmel, who stated that it is not just the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals but everyone’s rights to health, bodily autonomy, freedom of expression, and the democratic sphere that are under attack, said, “This issue cannot be brushed aside by saying, ‘LGBT+ organizations will make a statement anyway.’” Ecmel listed what each sector must do as follows:
“Medical associations must declare: Medicine cannot be practiced under the threat of punishment. Political power and the threat of imprisonment cannot be introduced into the patient-doctor relationship.
Bar associations must state: Existence cannot be criminalized. Privacy, bodily integrity, equality, and freedom of expression cannot be eliminated through moralistic criminal provisions.
Women’s organizations, feminists, and those working in reproductive health must state: Attacks on bodily autonomy are not separate from one another. The logic targeting trans people’s right to hormones is the same as the logic regulating abortion, birth control, sexual health, and reproductive health.
Unions and professional organizations must state: This law also concerns the labor sector. Because the professional autonomy of healthcare workers, the safety of LGBTQ+ workers, the prohibition of discrimination in the workplace, and everyone’s right to a life of dignity are all part of this attack.
Human rights organizations and political parties must state the following: This draft law must not be brought before Parliament under any circumstances; if it is, it must be opposed through all democratic means. Because hate laws cannot be made “reasonable” through debate. One’s very existence is not up for negotiation.”
Stating that merely making a statement would not be enough and that support must be provided in many areas, Ecmel said: “Legal preparations must be made, informative materials in the field of health must be produced, solidarity hotlines for physicians and healthcare workers must be established, and secure channels where young trans individuals and families can access accurate information must be strengthened. Media language must be monitored, and rapid response mechanisms against hate speech must be set up. Local governments, counseling centers, non-governmental organizations, and professional chambers must work together.”
“We are not alone. Our pride cannot be packaged!”
Emphasizing that this hate law must be completely withdrawn without being added to any judicial package, Ecmel said: “We do not accept our lives being narrowed down a bit more, our bodies being monitored by the state, and our access to healthcare being criminalized with every new package.”
Concluding their words, Ecmel stated that one of the most important things in this process is to counter fear with solidarity:
“With these laws, the government is not only producing a threat of punishment, but also sending the message: ‘You are alone, no one will defend you, your doctor will be afraid, and your organization will be silenced.’ Our response to this must be collective, loud, and clear: We are not alone. We will not give up on each other. Our pride cannot be packaged. No to the hate law in the 12th Judicial Package! Our bodies belong to us. We will not give up on our right to health, our right to hormones, and our right to life.”
What had happened?
After the government declared 2025 as the “Year of the Family,” regulations directly targeting LGBTQ+ individuals in the drafts of the 10th and 11th Judicial Packages, which were expected to be submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, came to the agenda.
The 10th Judicial Package was approved by the assembly Justice Commission in June 2025. Following this, the 11th Judicial Package was submitted to the assembly on November 27, 2025, and approved on December 25, 2025.
According to the articles in these drafts submitted last year:
Under the scope of “indecent acts,” crimes of promotion or encouragement regarding LGBTQ+ individuals could be punished with imprisonment from one to three years.
Marriage and wedding ceremonies of same-sex individuals would also be punished with imprisonment.
Additionally, contents featuring LGBTQ+ individuals could be penalized or removed from broadcast by the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK).
One of the most critical regulations that stood out was raising the age for gender affirmation surgery for trans individuals from 18 to 25, and tightening the conditions for obtaining medical reports by exposing the relevant physicians to imprisonment and fines. For the gender transition process, the age limit was to be raised from 21 to 25.
However, public backlash created by LGBTQ+ organizations, feminists, and rights-oriented institutions prevented the articles in this draft from passing through parliament. This year, similar articles are back on the agenda.
The “What Happened to Arya?” Initiative, established in memory of Arya, a transgender student who took her own life at the TOBB ETÜ dormitory, states that trans suicides are a consequence of systemic issues: “We repeat that the perpetrators of transgender deaths are the state, the family system, and a society in which the state’s transphobia is dominant.“
The “What Happened to Arya?” Initiative, founded by trans and LGBTQ+ activists, provided Niha+ with a statement regarding the death of Arya, a trans student who took her own life while living in a dormitory at TOBB ETÜ University.
Arya, a student at TOBB Economics and Technology University (TOBB ETÜ), took her own life on April 13, 2026, at the student dormitory where she was staying. Her friends and LGBTQ+ organizations had demanded an investigation into the incident, stating that Arya, a trans student, had been subjected to bullying and discrimination, and had brought her death to the attention of parliament.
Seren, a member of the initiative, states that trans suicides are not individual cases but a direct result of the state’s transphobic policies. Stating that they do not want another trans person to be driven to suicide and killed, nor for the state to cover it up, Seren explained that they established the “What Happened to Arya Initiative” in Arya’s name, bringing together all trans comrades who were not among them:
“We, as queer people and women, are filled with the need and desire to organize and fight against the cover-up of every single trans suicide or murder. Arya’s murder by being driven to suicide was another breaking point for us, just as it is every time we lose a trans friend.”
“The dorm management is one of the perpetrators”
According to Seren, a member of the initiative, Arya was subjected to severe pressure and harassment during her time at the dorm. Seren said, “Immediately after Arya’s suicide, and before the prosecutor’s office took action, TOBB ETÜ rummaged through and hastily gathered the belongings in the dorm room where Arya lived and sent them to her family. Naturally, this raises many questions in our minds. The answer these questions point to is the same: TOBB ETÜ dorm management is one of the perpetrators.”
Seren, citing information from Arya’s relatives, stated that photos were taken of Arya when she dressed in a way that made her feel at home, and that pressure was exerted using these images. She said that dorm director Semiha Akın repeatedly called Arya’s family, saying, “Take her out of here, she’s acting strangely.”
Seren also noted that Arya’s suggestion to add an LGBTIQ+ slogan to a campus protest against femicide was met with backlash: “Arya was targeted; she faced threats and insults from students. Shortly thereafter, she was cornered and beaten by a group of students on campus. Of course, those responsible have faced no consequences and are still continuing their education at the school.”
“Trans suicides are the consequence”
Seren, who defines trans suicides not as individual acts but as the product of systemic violence, states, “We repeat that the perpetrators of trans deaths are the state, the family system, and a society in which the state’s transphobia reigns supreme. From the moment they are born, trans people are isolated in this country: first, they cannot find a place within their families; then, landlords refuse to house them; then, workplaces; then the streets, and we see a reality emerging before us that seeks our eradication,” she said.
According to Seren, the inadequacy of the 4,000 TL KYK scholarship and loan amount, the increasingly difficult access to hormones, and dormitory administrations that enforce the binary gender system—and threaten and harass trans people when they step outside of it—are among the primary conditions driving trans people to death. For this reason, noting that there are many causes of trans suicides, Seren said the following:
“Trans people’s right to access hormones is becoming increasingly inaccessible every day due to the state’s transphobic and hateful policies. Consequently, when investigating the causes of trans suicides, we encounter dozens of reasons, and we are being made to believe that our lives are not considered lives, and that our suicides are isolated incidents.”
“Our struggle must become a matter of public”
Seren noted that they have not yet initiated any legal action, stating that their priority is to share Arya’s experiences and the suicide process she was driven into with the public:
“Our priority is to share Arya’s story, her life, her identity, her experiences, and the path that led her to suicide, with the public. By weaving this narrative step by step, we aim to have all democratic sectors take ownership of this struggle and walk this path with us. Without being confined by the limits of the prevailing legal system—though we will certainly utilize it—we want to hold those responsible for Arya’s death accountable and ensure true justice is served.”
Seren concluded her remarks by stating that they can only achieve their demands regarding trans suicides through struggle:
“We must emphasize that there is no other way but to fight together by sharing our experiences—in short, our struggles—with society, and that what trans and queer people experience is the concern of every segment of society. Our struggle must become a societal one; our struggles must be shared.”
Trans suicides are four times higher than cis suicides
According to an interview given by mental health expert Prof. Dr. Şahika Yüksel to Tuğçe Yılmaz of bianet, among 141 adult transgender individuals who had never sought help from a healthcare institution or had sought help but received no support, the rate of those who had attempted suicide before the age of 21 was recorded at 76%.
Additionally, according to the ILGA-Europe 2026 Rainbow Map, Turkey ranks 47th out of 49 countries in terms of LGBTQ+ rights.
The statement published by the “What Happened to Arya?” Initiative on its social media accounts under the headline “Who Is Semiha Akın, Manager of TOBB ETÜ Dormitories?” reads as follows:
“Semiha Akın, who has served as the General Director of TOBB ETÜ Dormitories since at least 2013, has been the subject of continuous complaints and exposés shared by students residing in the dormitory since the year she assumed her position; however, none of these complaints or exposures have been taken into consideration.
As the ‘What Happened to Arya’ Initiative, we have previously stated that Arya’s murder, in which she was driven to suicide, is not an isolated incident, and there is not a single perpetrator behind the incident. However, we assert that dormitory director Semiha Akın bears responsibility for Arya’s murder by driving her to suicide, and we demand that an effective investigation be conducted to immediately remove Semiha Akın from her position and bring her to trial for the numerous crimes she has committed.
Semiha Akın has used the state’s gender-biased and LGBTIQ+ phobic policies as a shield to exert control over female and queer students, subjecting them to violence and harassment, she has repeatedly stated that she does not address students who file complaints regarding dormitory conditions, and by acting in violation of dormitory regulations, such as searching students’ rooms in their absence, she has presumed the right to violate their privacy.
So, how was Semiha Akın able to do all of this? How is it possible that she could say about a female student, “I even know the color of her thong,” demanded that a student fold her clothes after throwing them on the floor; entered a student’s room while they were naked and harassed them; made remarks targeting a female student’s sexuality after finding birth control pills in her room; and shared the situation with the student’s family?
Dorm director Semiha Akın was able to do all of this because she is aware that nothing will happen to her, and that the state’s “Year of the Family” policies already support the practices she is implementing. She has the state itself backing her.
In Arya’s specific case, Semiha Akın’s actions have taken on a much more severe dimension due to Arya’s trans identity.
When Arya did not dress according to “social norms,” Semiha Akın secretly took photos of her and shared them with her family, who were forcing Arya into “conversion therapy”—a crime against humanity. By telling the family, “Take this from here,” regarding Arya’s identity and body, she clearly committed a hate crime.
So, what has come of all this? The complaints and public exposures by the female and queer students were ignored and forcibly deleted; our classmate Arya was driven to suicide and murdered, while nothing happened to Semiha Akın.
Even after Arya was driven to suicide and murdered, the dormitory administration entered Arya’s room without the prosecutor’s permission and rummaged through her belongings.
This situation raises several questions at once:
1-How is Semiha Akın able to continue serving as dormitory director when she has harassed and threatened so many students to date?
2-Why has no legal investigation been conducted to date regarding Semiha Akın, who bears concrete responsibility for Arya’s suicide?
3-What else has Semiha Akın done to students residing in the dormitory—things even we are unaware of—that has led to the removal of numerous reports about her?
Until an effective investigation into Arya’s death is conducted, until Semiha Akın and all those responsible for Arya’s death are held accountable, and until they are tried by true justice, we will continue to escalate our struggle and keep asking, “What Happened to Arya?”
*The views of the TOBB ETÜ administration and the dorm director in question could not be obtained.
Evaluating the relationship between suspicious female deaths, impunity, and security policies, Eralp stated, “When a death remains suspicious, the issue should not only be finding the perpetrator, but also exposing the networks that make it possible to cover it up.”
Photo: Ekmek ve Gül, placard saying “How many more femicides are you going to disguise as (!) suicides?”
According to data shared by the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, while 294 women were killed by male violence in 2025, 297 women were found dead under suspicious circumstances. Today, many cases of violence defined as “suspicious deaths,” such as those of Rojin Kabaiş, Gülistan Doku, and Nadira Kadirova, are criticized by feminist and women’s movements for the lack of fair trials.
Eralp: Crimes left unpunished are consigned to uncertainty under the guise of ‘suspicious death’
Making an evaluation regarding suspicious female deaths and the judiciary’s policies of impunity, Feride Eralp, a member of Women Are Strong Together, stated that the announced data only covers cases reflected in the press. “These mean at least this many women were killed. When we also take into account the femicides and suspicious female deaths that are not reflected in the press, we can actually talk about much higher numbers,” she said.
Referring to the period when femicide statistics were announced more realistically, Eralp argued that the data disclosed in the past made the prevalence of male violence visible, which is why it is not shared today, saying, “A reality about how widespread violence against women is had been exposed.”
Stating that suspicious female deaths are not a new phenomenon, Eralp recalled the female suicides reported in Batman and Diyarbakır, especially in the 1990s and 2000s. Expressing that female deaths resulting from systematic male violence were brought to the agenda as suicides, she said, “Today, something similar is operating under the concept of ‘suspicious death’.”
“The crimes of those who feel the freedom to commit crimes by leaning their backs on powerful people—crimes involving various power relations within the state and gang formation—which remain unpunished and whose perpetrators are often not revealed, are consigned to uncertainty under the guise of ‘suspicious death’.”
Stating that the women’s movement has frequently brought this issue to the agenda in recent years by linking it with war policies, Eralp said that this situation is also a practice of making women disappear:
“This geography is accustomed to the result of disappearances in custody and the failure to prosecute perpetrators despite them being known by everyone, a state violence that intensified especially in the 90s but existed after the 80 coup. This has a previously experienced practice and form. Therefore, I can say that the women’s movement has significantly brought to the agenda how this has merged with systematic male violence and transformed into a practice of disappearance against women, especially after the end of the peace process in 2015 and the restart of the conflict process.”
“In theory, sentence increases; in practice, impunity”
Establishing a direct link between suspicious female deaths and policies of impunity, Eralp emphasized that the women’s movement has not followed a line of only demanding heavy sentences for years. Stating that sentence increases often create more impunity, she said the following:
“The last increase in sentences for sexual crimes was in 2015. At that time, as the Istanbul Feminist Collective, we said: ‘In theory, sentence increases; in practice, impunity.’ As sentences become heavier, the likelihood of judges giving those sentences gradually decreases. Especially in areas where evidence is difficult to obtain, such as sexual crimes, and in areas where the woman’s statement is essential, when you increase the sentence, they generally give up on sentencing altogether.”
Stating that changes in the execution system also create a perception in society that ‘they’ll get out anyway,’ Eralp noted that this makes it harder to prevent male violence:
“It constantly brings some aggravations for these types of crimes against women. But what happens in practice? In practice, the execution system is organized in such a way that none of these heavy sentences are executed in that manner. Either a pandemic amnesty comes or another reduction in execution follows. A perception has formed in everyone’s mind that someone who enters prison stays for a year or two, gets out, and moves to an open prison anyway. When this perception is formed, it becomes much harder to prevent male violence.”
“It is not the woman who says ‘the state protects me’ but the male perpetrator”
Emphasizing that women often make repeated requests for help before the murder, Eralp said that the failure to effectively implement restraining orders and complaints paves the way for murders:
“Women go to the state repeatedly, but crimes such as threats, insults, detention, and simple injury are almost never punished. From there, the path leading to murder is opened. While women and children should think ‘the state protects me from violence,’ on the contrary, male perpetrators think ‘no matter what I do to a woman, the state will protect me’.”
Stating that the sexist approach continues in judicial processes, Eralp expressed that even men who have no ties to anyone within the state can receive unjust provocation reductions and good conduct reductions simply due to selective judicial policies.
In the context of this approach in the judiciary, Eralp said that women’s lifestyles, sexual orientations, or clothing can still be made a subject of judgment in courtrooms. “We saw this practice in the Ayşe Tokyaz case. The killer Cemil Koç was trying to defend himself by trying to put the life of the woman he murdered on trial. This is just one example,” said Eralp, noting that women are exposed to this perspective by all men, from the rich to the poor. She added that these practices of impunity normalize violence against women, children, and LGBTI+ individuals.
“Women have now realized that violence is not normal”
According to Eralp, one of the most important gains of the feminist movement has been the social acceptance of male violence as a political issue. “In a country where at the end of the 1980s a judge could easily say, ‘you should never leave a woman’s belly without a foal or her back without a stick,’ it is much more difficult to utter this sentence today. Today, the perception among women that such a sentence cannot be uttered has become very strong,” she said.
Eralp explained that a transformation has taken place regarding the awareness of violence against women:
“Male violence against women is very common in Turkey. But we do not deserve this. In other words, him inflicting violence on me is not because something is wrong, lacking, or bad about me. That is the man’s problem. It stems from that man seeing himself as having the right to establish power over women and thinking he has the right to fortify this through violence the moment it is shaken. In fact, there is a change with the fact that gender inequality is now more widely known as a phenomenon. This change does not mean we face less violence, are killed less, or encounter less sexism. But we are not staying silent about them.”
Stating that women’s organizations have been fighting for years to prevent suspicious female deaths from being forgotten, Eralp said that the names of murdered women are specifically commemorated in protests. “Saying ‘suspicious death’ and closing the file is also an attempt at erasure. If we forget those names, they will have succeeded,” she stated.
“Musa Orhan received a sentence but did not go to prison. We continued to pursue this as well. We continued to keep it on the agenda constantly. For Gülistan Doku and Rojin Kabaiş, friends from the ÖGK (Student Youth Organizations) established justice commissions and brought this issue to the agenda in different cities. Different women’s organizations have been continuing to follow and pursue such cases in different cities for years and years. They continue to hold protests on this subject in the streets.”
“Not only the perpetrators, but also the crime networks must be exposed”
Stating that to prevent suspicious female deaths, not only the perpetrators but also the mechanisms that cover up the crimes must be exposed, Eralp drew attention to the networks of relations especially within the security bureaucracy and the judiciary:
“When a death remains suspicious, the issue should not only be finding the perpetrator, but also exposing the networks that make it possible to cover it up.”
Eralp said, “Today, there is talk of establishing a department for unsolved crimes and research. But we see that this is being established once again as a tool for a kind of political reckoning.” She emphasized that bringing some files back to the agenda is not enough on its own:
“The issue here is not just exposing the first stage. In the case of Gülistan Doku, as long as all the mechanisms that have allowed this to be covered up for 6 years are not touched, this system reproduces itself.”
“Security policies do not protect women”
Eralp said that the securitist policies defended on the grounds of women’s safety do not protect women in practice. Recalling the 700 hours of camera footage that went unexamined for years in the Gülistan Doku file, Eralp argued that the state’s security mechanisms are not for women’s safety, but to protect the interests of the state’s power centers.
Stating that the security system is often used for the purpose of suppressing protests and monitoring society, Eralp expressed that the sacralization of the security bureaucracy makes invisible the mechanisms that facilitate the covering up of femicides:
“This security network does not protect the interests of women and girls. When a woman went missing, it served no purpose for 6 years. In fact, on the contrary, it deleted the record. It saw the murdered woman. It ends up using its power directly to commit a crime.”
“The state must do its duty”
Eralp said, “If we pay taxes to this state, if we are citizens of this state, we must not give up demanding that the state do its duty.” Stating that women’s organizations continue to monitor cases for this reason, Eralp said that being present in courts means forcing state institutions to take responsibility:
“By being present in the courtrooms, we are saying this: You are obliged to conduct a trial that will ensure real justice, not one based on male-dominated prejudices.”
Expressing that the women’s movement makes it visible when police officers do not fulfill their duties, Eralp said that the slogan “Where was the police while women were dying?” came to the fore for this reason.
“Trustees in Kurdish provinces blocked the path of social transformation”
Recalling that local governments and women’s organizations developed important experiences in the past, especially in Kurdish provinces, Eralp said that trustee policies served a function that blocked this social transformation. Stating that women’s centers, shelters, and local solidarity networks played an important role in reducing female suicides and murders in Batman and Diyarbakır, Eralp noted that municipalism in Kurdish provinces radically transformed this situation; and that they did this not through a security mechanism, but through policies that erode gender inequality and by increasing the options for women to move away from violence.
Emphasizing that this is lived as social memory and experience, Eralp concluded her words by saying, “The ability of municipalities to produce policies for male violence in their own localities more autonomously without the fear of trustees, and therefore to take steps that strengthen gender equality, will certainly be able to reduce such deaths again, as it has reduced them before.”
26 femicides, 23 suspicious deaths in April 2026
According to data from the We Will Stop Femicide Platform, in just the first four months of 2026, at least 102 women were murdered, and the deaths of 99 women were recorded as “suspicious.”
According to data for April alone, 26 women were murdered, and 23 women were found dead under suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, 38% of the women were killed by the men they were married to. 69% of the women were killed in their homes.
Prominent events in the last 1 month
It was determined that Mustafa Türkay Sonel, the son of the governor of the period Tuncay Sonel, killed Gülistan Doku, who disappeared in Dersim on January 5, 2020, with a pistol. Sonel was arrested for the crime of “intentional killing” after being taken into custody. A total of 12 people were arrested as part of the investigation.
Within the scope of the investigation, 700 hours of camera footage were taken under examination 6 years later.
Photo: “Where is Gulistan Doku?”
It was announced that İlayda Zorlu was found dead on April 17 as a result of a shot from her father’s service pistol. Student and youth organizations organized protests in many cities to shed light on İlayda’s death.
Photo of İlayda Zorlu, placard saying “Not the lady of the house, but the rebel of the campus”
On May 7, the decision “not to grant permission for investigation” regarding the management of the KYK dormitory concerning the death of Rojin Kabaiş was overturned by the Erzurum Regional Administrative Court upon the appeal made by the Van Bar Association.
On April 8, it was reflected in the press that a man who entered the Ali İhsan Aldoğan Girls’ Dormitory inside the ITU Ayazağa Campus was caught topless in the laundry room by female students.
Arin, an Istanbul University student and trans activist facing a disciplinary inquiry, stated, “They cannot usurp the right of LGBTI+ individuals to education.” Lawyers commenting on the matter drew attention to the irregularities and the structural dimensions of these investigations.
Since February 2026, disciplinary investigations have been launched against 13 students at Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa. Within just two months, a trans activist student was targeted with an investigation based on allegations of “spreading propaganda for a terrorist organization.” Notably, the justification for this allegation was cited under a regulatory article pertaining to “attempting to cheat in exams.”
Arin, a trans activist and student at Istanbul University, described the process of facing a disciplinary inquiry based on “terror propaganda” allegations. Highlighting legal irregularities and contradictions in the proceedings, Arin characterized the experience as an attempt to distance LGBTI+ individuals from universities.
Pointing out that there are two separate disciplinary investigations against them, Arin stated that no specific reasons were provided in the notices:
“The first was initiated based on correspondence from the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Istanbul Police Department. No reason was stated. It did not specify on what grounds they were conducting a disciplinary investigation. Since no specific act was alleged, this directly impacted the right to a defense. In total, 13 people faced investigations; two of those 13 were trans women.”
“Cheating” regulation used as basis for “terror propaganda” allegation
Arin highlighted a striking contradiction in the second investigation file served to them. Despite facing accusations of “spreading propaganda for a terrorist organization” following reports from the Prosecutor’s Office and the Police Department, Arin noted:
“The investigation paper cited ‘terrorist organization propaganda,’ yet the disciplinary article cited as the legal basis was ‘attempting to cheat in exams.’ Neither I nor my lawyers could understand the connection between terror propaganda and cheating. There is no court verdict and no concrete evidence.”
Reporting that police intervened during a planned press statement in front of the campus on the day of the hearing, Arin pointed out the discrepancy between school management and law enforcement:
“While the school administration claims to have opened the investigation based on police reports, the Counter-Terrorism units at the gate claimed they never sent any documents to the school. They are experiencing a major internal contradiction.”
“The LGBTI+ flag is not a crime”
Stating that the allegations are being linked to past participation in Pride Marches and Gezi Park commemorations, Arin argued that the questions asked during the interrogation were ideological rather than legal:
“The reason I was detained during the Gezi commemoration was for carrying an LGBTI+ flag. Now they are trying to associate this flag with terrorism. The rainbow flag is a globally recognized symbol; it is not a crime.”
“They cannot usurp our right to education”
Arin stated that a policy of “domination” is being established against LGBTI+ students as part of “Year of the Family” policies. She noted that being singled out among hundreds of organized youth is related to their gender identity:
“My friends and I were asked questions like ‘Are you LGBT?’, ‘Do you have regrets?’, or ‘Did you attend the March 8th events?'” Arin stated that this is a result of trustees attempting to remove LGBTI+ people from public spaces and campuses. “LGBTI+ people will remain in the squares and on campuses. They cannot usurp our right to education” Arin added.
Warning of the risk of suspension due to “hate policies,” Arin emphasized their commitment to a legal battle: “I believe that since there is no concrete evidence, no penalty should be given. If a penalty is issued, we will take the matter to the Administrative Court and higher courts.”
Lawyer Furkan Yurt: “Vague authorities granted to administration”
Furkan Yurt, legal coordinator for SPOD, emphasized that the administration is abusing its disciplinary authority. Yurt stated that Article 54 of the Higher Education Law (No. 2547) allows for vague interpretations:
“Vague phrases such as ‘attitudes not befitting the dignity of the institution’ grant administrators unlimited room for arbitrariness. Conducting an investigation for ‘terror propaganda’ through an article regulating exam cheating is the clearest example of how the administration can adopt a wholesale and discriminatory approach, disregarding even basic legal grounds.”
According to Yurt, while sexual orientation and gender identity are not crimes, they are being criminalized indirectly:
“A rainbow flag, a rights-based expression, or a peaceful protest can be thrown into this ‘catch-all crime’ category without any concrete link. Additionally, ‘obscenity’ and ‘terrorist propaganda’ are the most frequently used tools. Social media posts and participation in peaceful protests are presented as criminal elements through these articles.”
“Nonconcrete accusationsis a violation of rights“
Yurt noted that the most fundamental violation is forcing an individual to defend themselves without knowing exactly what they are accused of. He argued that the university administration’s insistence on treating acts, which judicial authorities have found not to constitute crimes, as disciplinary offenses is a “usurpation of function and an abuse of authority.”
“A systematic attack on the democratic identity of universities”
Yurt evaluated the increase in investigations against LGBTI+ individuals as a systematic attack:
“This process is a result of the political administration’s vision of a homogenous society and the narrowing of academic freedom. These investigations often aim to intimidate students and target their right to education rather than staying within legal bounds.”
Lawyer Serhat Alan: “Freedom of expression treated as a disciplinary offense”
Lawyer Serhat Alan from the Istanbul Bar Association categorizes student investigations into two types: administrative disciplinary inquiries conducted by universities and criminal investigations handled by the police and prosecutors.
According to Alan, activities falling under freedom of expression; such as hanging posters, distributing leaflets, or joining protests, are entering disciplinary files alongside police charges like “Opposition to Law No. 2911” or “Inciting the public to hatred and hostility.”
“Institutionalized anti-LGBTI+ hate politics”
Linking the increase in investigations to a “regime of attacks” against LGBTI+ individuals, Alan stated:
“The aim of this increase is clear. The state is acting within a regime of attacks against LGBTI+ people. Following the ban on Pride events since 2015 and the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention, we are seeing an institutionalized anti-LGBTI+ hate policy, further highlighted by the declaration of the ‘Year of the Family.’ The state uses investigations to prevent solidarity, make LGBTI+ visibility disappear, and block their organizations.”
Alan also pointed out that these pressures aim to isolate young LGBTI+ individuals and break the momentum of youth movements that have grown since March 19, 2025.
“Legislation lacks a gender lens”
Alan argued that the discrimination faced by LGBTI+ students is tied to legislation that ignores gender perspectives:
“YÖK (Council of Higher Education) legislation and internal school regulations tend to subject LGBTI+ individuals to discrimination because all regulations are drafted without a gender lens. This manifests in the refusal to recognize gender identity, the binary arrangement of facilities like toilets and dorms, the absence of effective sexual harassment prevention units, and issues with changing names on diplomas.”
Press statement was done against inquiries on April 27
A press statement was held on April 27 at Istanbul University for the students facing investigations. The statement, organized by the Istanbul University Student Assembly, is as follows:
TO THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC
The Rectorate of Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa (IÜC) is intensifying its policies of pressure against students every passing day.
In February 2026, disciplinary investigations were launched against 13 students, citing their participation in peaceful protests and subsequent detentions. The basis for these investigations was a police report whose content was withheld from the students. This situation clearly violates the “right to know the charges,” which is the most fundamental element of the right to a defense.
Investigations, arrests, and pressure cannot intimidate us.
The question “Are you full of regret?” directed at some students during this process demonstrates that disciplinary mechanisms have been transformed into tools for coercion and forced confession.
We will not remain silent, we are not afraid, we will not obey.
Less than two months after these processes, the appointed IÜC rectorate has now launched a disciplinary investigation against an LGBTI+ activist on allegations of “spreading terrorist organization propaganda.” Furthermore, there is neither an indictment nor an active court case regarding these claims.
Additionally, this investigation is based on Article 54/5 of the YÖK Disiplin Regulation (a provision regarding the act of attempting to cheat). The blatant contradiction between the alleged act and the legal basis proves that this process is being conducted arbitrarily and lacks any legal foundation.
Despite requests for additional time to prepare a defense, these requests were rejected on the grounds of a police notification stating that “proceedings must be completed within 30 days,” effectively eliminating the right to a defense.
We state clearly: Following students at campus exits, profiling them, and threatening them is a clear method of harassment and intimidation. These practices target the safety of students and place campus life under duress.
The consequences of this climate of pressure are fresh in our memories. İlayda Zorlu was taken from life following a process of pressure and manipulation conducted through the cooperation of the family, state, and police. This loss demonstrates once again the severe consequences of the policies of pressure carried out both on and off campus.
YÖK, police, media—this blockade will be broken!
Therefore, we state clearly: Let those who follow and threaten students on campuses know that this is harassment. We do not accept it.
Long live our organized struggle.
The right to assembly, demonstration, and making press statements, guaranteed under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, cannot be made subject to permission. The precedents of the ECHR and the Council of State clearly reveal that disproportionate interventions against peaceful actions are unlawful.
These processes are not merely individual; they represent a systematic crackdown on freedom of expression, the right to organize, and LGBTI+ existence on campuses.
Let the appointees who attempt to drive LGBTI+ individuals out of campuses under the guise of the “Family Year” know that LGBTI+ people have not given up on the streets or the campuses for years, and they never will.
As students of Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, we believe that universities must be independent, democratic areas for scientific production; we believe this, and we will continue to do our part to ensure it.
We address those who try to pressure us with unlawful investigations and policies of intimidation from here:
YÖK, trustees, media—this blockade will be broken! Universities will be liberated with us!
We stand by all our friends facing investigations and we will not take a step back from our struggle.
With the end of Viktor Orbán’s conservative rule, a new era began in Hungary, but the silence of Péter Magyar and the Tisza Party, who won a majority in the elections, on LGBTQ+ rights raised questions. Johanna Majercsik, spokesperson for Budapest Pride, stated: “The most urgent issue is the restoration of the right to assembly.”
Source: Budapest Pride
In the Hungarian general elections on April 12, Victor Orbán’s far-right Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Alliance) party, which had been in power for 16 years, lost its grip on power. Péter Magyar and his Tisza (Respect and Freedom Party) party, which was initially close to Orbán but later split from Fidesz and adopted a center-right stance, achieved a victory.
According to the results from the election, with almost all the ballots counted, Tisza won 138 seats in the 199-member parliament. Having surpassed 133 seats indicates that Tisza has achieved a majority sufficient to amend the constitution.
Viktor Orbán, who served as Prime Minister of Hungary for 16 years until his electoral defeat in April 2026, became widely recognized for implementing a series of laws and policies targeting the LGBTQ+ community.
Orbán made an amendment on 2012 saying constitution recognizes only two sexes. In 2020, this was tightened to effectively ban adoption by same-sex couples. The Child Protection Act (Act LXXIX), which passed on June 2021 under the guise of protecting children, implicitly conflates LGBTQ+ individuals with child abusers. This legislation prohibits the “depiction or promotion” of homosexuality or gender reassignment to minors under 18 in education, media, and advertising. The law restricts TV programs showing LGBTQ+ content and books containing LGBTQ+ themes. Furthermore, in March 2025, Orbán government passed legislation that effectively banned LGBTQ+ Pride marches, allowing for the use of facial recognition technology to identify attendees
Budapest Pride: “The most urgent issue is the restoration of the right to assembly”
Spokesperson of Budapeşt Pride, Johanna Majercsik, evaluated the demands of Budapest Pride after the Hungary elections. Majercsik describe the collapse of Viktor Orbán’s 16-year rule as a path opened for Hungary to return to the rule of law. “A fair and just democracy cannot exist without human rights, including LGBTQ rights,” she said.
Majercsik mentioned that with a two-thirds majority, all anti-LGBTQ laws passed by the Orbán government can be repealed.
“The most urgent issue” said Majercsik, “is the restoration of the right of assembly. This is particularly urgent because we are holding the Budapest Pride March on June 27. But beyond that, the previous government passed numerous anti-queer laws that were enshrined in the Fundamental Law. With a two-third majority, however, these can also be repealed.”
“We know nothing about Magyar’s stance on legal gender and name changes”
Majercsik stated that the program of the TISZA Party that Péter Magyar was elected from makes no mention of the LGBTQ community:
“In his public speeches, he is rather vague when he says that everyone is free to love whomever they want, as long as they don’t break the law (as he stated at the international press conference on April 13). Alas, it is rather impossible to conclude from this whether he intends to use legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt, and we know nothing about his stance on legal gender and name changes.”
She stated that the LGBTQ+ community in Hungary feels fear, relief, distrust, hope at once at the moment. She lists the reasons why the community experience all these feelings at once as follows:
“The TISZA Party’s program makes no mention of the LGBTQ community, Péter Magyar is vague on this issue, and when Viktor Orbán intended to ban Pride marches last year, Magyar, our future prime minister, remained silent, he didn’t speak up for the LGBTQ people.”
People have zero toleration
Majercsik explaining more than 300,000 people took part in last year’s Pride march in Budapest, further said this can be considered an all-time record since they had estimated 35,000 participants in previous marches.She emphasized that this amount of people showed that people have no toleration to any disregard for fundamental rights.
“In 2025, the people sent a clear message to those in power that they would not tolerate the erosion of their fundamental rights, and they declared that the right to assembly belongs to everyone. Last year’s Pride march played a crucial role in the ousting of the Orbán regime: it was one of the key events where people gathered in huge numbers to express that they had had enough and wanted change.”
We have translated a report by AWNA (Afghanistan Women’s News Agency) featuring five Afghan female rappers who are raising their voices against misogynistic policies in Afghanistan.
Five female rappers in Afghanistan. Respectively: Sonita Alizadeh, Paradise Sorouri, Ziba Hamidi, Sosan Firoz, and Elina Afghan. Photo: AWNA
The policies of the Taliban administration in Afghanistan restrict women’s right to education, legitimize violence against women, and directly impact their lives through mandatory dress codes and limitations on freedom of movement. Women’s voices are being suppressed not only in physical spaces but also in cultural and artistic production.
Amid this climate of repression, in an Afghan society where male dominance prevails and women are subjected to various forms of violence and pressure, these young women are breaking the silence by raising their voices and expressing their protests through rap music. Most of the people believes that rap music is exclusively for men due to its harsh tone and the movements involved, and they do not consider this style appropriate for young women.
Nevertheless, young women like Sonita Alizadeh, Ziba Hamidi, Elina Afghan, Sosan Firoz, and Paradise Sorouri are successfully using this musical style to voice the unspoken words in defense of women’s rights.
Sonita Alizadeh
Sonita Alizadeh was born in 1996 in the city of Herat, Afghanistan. She spent several years as a refugee in Iran’s Alborz Province. She began composing music, playing the guitar, and singing in 2011 (1391 in the Islamic calendar). In 2014, she stood out among 166 rap artists to win a $1,000 prize. After winning this award, with the support of a charity and a scholarship she received, she was able to continue her education in the Utah, USA.
The themes of the rap songs she performs include Afghanistan, politics, discrimination against Afghan refugees in Iran, and the challenges faced by Afghan women, young girls, and children within Afghanistan’s traditional societal structure.
Ziba Hamidi
Ziba Hamidi was born in 1997 in Karachi, Pakistan. She spent over a decade as a refugee in Iran, where she completed her education. During her time in Iran, she took nearly six months of music training.
Ziba uses rap music to express the pain and sorrow experienced by her people.
Elina Afghan
Elina, who goes by the surname “Afghan,” was born in Mazar-i-Sharif. The 21-year-old artist is a graduate of the Faculty of Law and Political Science at Kabul University. Elina, who has been making rap music for over four years, views the genre as a tool for protest. The artist, who has a total of 15 songs, has performed numerous street shows to voice her concerns and became the first Afghan girl to participate in an art festival held in India in 2016.
The main themes she addresses in her rap songs include: violence against women, orphaned children, street children, street vendors, women’s rights, advocacy, and women’s quest for justice.
Violence against women, orphaned children, street children, and street vendors, as well as women’s rights, advocacy, and human rights activism, are among the topics she addresses in her rap songs. Elina has gained fame for her songs “Woman,” “I’m Not a Prostitute,” “Love,” and “Afghan Girl.”
Soosan Firooz
Soosan Firooz is known as Afghanistan’s first female rap artist. She is a controversial and influential figure who challenges social norms and the traditional roles of Afghan women.
Firooz was born in Afghanistan. Her family fled the country in 1990 and lived in a refugee camp in Iran for seven years during the Afghan Civil War. She then spent three years as a refugee in Pakistan with her family. After the collapse of the Taliban regime, her family returned to Afghanistan and settled in Kandahar in 2003, where her father found work. Soosan initially worked as a carpet weaver alongside her siblings. In 2011, she began her acting career with small local roles, then moved to Kabul and, with her father Abdülgaffar Firooz’s permission, started pursuing rap music.
Firooz, who caught the attention of Afghan musician Farid Rastagar, performs rap songs in the Dari language. Her first single, “Our Neighbors” (Hemsayegan-e Ma), released in 2012, addresses the harsh conditions faced by Afghan refugees; the song was composed by Rastagar based on verses by the poet Sohrab Sirat. Another of her songs, “Nakıs-ül Akl” (The Foolish One), refers to a phrase used in Afghanistan to belittle women.
Firooz lives with her family north of Kabul. She has repeatedly faced acid attacks, kidnappings, and even death threats. Her mother, who works on humanitarian aid projects in southern Afghanistan, has also been threatened with death. Her father, who works for the electricity department, accompanies her to studios and on TV shows, serving as both her manager and her bodyguard.
Paradise Sorouri
Paradise Sorouri is a 24-year-old Afghan singer born in Isfahan, Iran. At the age of 17, she moved to Herat, her father’s hometown, and later relocated to Tajikistan with her husband, Diverse. As the first female Afghan rapper, she released a rap song titled “Feryad-e Zen” (The Woman’s Cry). Through this song she voices the suffering, oppression, and struggles of Afghan women; her work has generated significant buzz on social media, particularly on YouTube and Facebook.
Another of her artistic works is “Nalestan” (Land of Lament), which addresses violence against women in Afghanistan.
The lines in the intro of Paradise’s song, which have drawn the attention of many people, especially women’s rights organizations and activists, are as follows:
“My voice is always filled with pain; it’s not the Arctic, but the air is so cold. I wanted to run, but they shot my waist; I wanted to think, but they shot my head. In the name of Islam, they burned my face; for revenge, they cut off my nose. They poured acid on my hands and body; they sold me, because I am just a woman…”
These striking words serve as a summary of Paradise’s struggle and the severe human rights violations faced by women in Afghanistan.
K. A. Ö., a student at Kocaeli University, said that they were threatened with eviction from their dormitory by the administration because of their trans identity. Lawyer Akpınar emphasized that these actions clearly are a human rights violation.Yılmaz from LGBTQ+ Comission ofHuman Rights Association said no one can be expelled from a dorm for who they are.
A student at Kocaeli University, identified as K. A. Ö., stated that they were targeted by the administration of the Gazi Süleyman Paşa KYK Male Student Dormitory where they reside, due to their transgender identity.
K. A. Ö. said that the dormitory administration had repeatedly called them in for meetings over this issue and threatened them with expulsion if they did not comply with the warnings. They also explained that their family had been contacted and warned by the administration, which increased the pressure on them:
“I have been staying at the Gazi Süleyman Paşa Male Student Dormitory since September 14, 2025. The way I express my gender identity has, for some time, become an excuse used by the administration to avoid dealing with real issues. I was first warned about this on January 29, 2026. The director personally told me that ‘dressing like a woman’ was against the dormitory rules. I was told that if I wanted to behave this way, I would not be able to stay in the dormitory and would need to rent a separate house. I told the administration that I am in a gender transition process at the hospital and that if they had objections, they should discuss the matter with my psychiatrists.”
“I was not told which rule I violated”
Speaking about their meetings with the dormitory administration, K. A. Ö. said that they examined the KYK regulations and presented them to the officials. They emphasized that they read the disciplinary provisions one by one to the deputy directors, yet were never informed which rule they had violated:
“I presented the regulation to them and asked which rules I had violated. I read aloud the articles that define acts requiring disciplinary action under Article 22 (Warning), Article 23 (Reprimand), and Article 24 (Expulsion from the dormitory). They tried to explain gender norms to me and how a man should apply ‘acceptable’ makeup. I was not given any written notification.”
“My family was informed without my consent”
K. A. Ö. stated that after a health issue resulting from an accident, the dormitory administration contacted their family. Saying they do not know exactly what was told to their family, but emphasized that information about their private life was shared without their consent:
“Although I am an adult, the administration of the Gazi Süleyman Paşa Male Student Dormitory disclosed my private life and medical process to my father without my consent. At a time when the government places such strong emphasis on ‘protecting the family structure,’ this unlawful action by the administration suddenly destroyed my good relationship with my father and put me in conflict with my family. This situation is the clearest evidence that the so-called ‘family’ discourse is not about real protection, but merely an ideological propaganda tool designed to discipline individuals deemed deviant through family pressure.”
K. A. Ö. stressed that the sharing of their medical interventions and private life violates both the undertaking they signed and laws on the protection of personal data.
Lawyer Akpınar: “These actions constitute rights violations”
Ekin Su Akpınar, the lawyer of K. A. Ö., stated that the incidents involve multiple rights violations and are unlawful.
Reminding that Article 10 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law regardless of language, race, gender, or similar reasons, Akpınar also noted that under Article 17, any pressure, threat, or coercive practices targeting an individual’s personal integrity are unlawful:
“Intervening in a student’s clothing and threatening their right to housing on this basis creates serious legal issues and rights violations in terms of proportionality and legality.”
Akpınar further stated that contacting the student’s family and sharing personal information without consent constitutes a violation of the right to privacy under Article 20 of the Constitution:
“According to the regulations on disciplinary penalties and procedures, for a disciplinary action to be taken against a student, the alleged act must first be clearly defined, and the student must be granted the right to defense. This process is conducted directly with the student, and the administration’s counterpart is the student. Even if there is a claim that parents were contacted because the individual is a student, it must not be forgotten that these students are legally adults.”
“This is arbitrary interference”
Akpınar emphasized that imposing sanctions based on clothing style or gender identity is not provided for in the relevant disciplinary regulations and is incompatible with the Constitution and international conventions, describing such interventions as arbitrary.
She also stated according to the section on notification of decisions, disciplinary board decisions must be communicated to the student in writing, and that the regulation should fundamentally aim to protect the student’s right to housing:
“Issues such as students’ lifestyles, identities, and clothing are not matters the dormitory administration can intervene in. Contacting the family and exceeding the limits of authority constitutes entirely arbitrary actions and involves rights violations.”
“Trans students are the first to be excluded.”
Cüneyt Yılmaz, a member of the Human Rights Association (İHD) LGBTQ+ Commission, stated that the threat to expel the trans student from the dormitory is not merely an individual incident, it is the result of a structural problem. Highlighting that everyone has the right to housing and education, Yılmaz said that trans students are often the first to be excluded and deemed undesirable.
“Trans students face problems everywhere, whether they are in a process of transition or not, and are subjected to similar discriminatory attitudes in all areas they are present. This is absolutely a violation of rights. It is clear where dormitory administrations derive this boldness from. Even during parliamentary sessions, ruling party parliamentarian have used discriminatory and hateful rhetoric against LGBTQ+ people,” he said. Yılmaz underlined that dormitories, like all public services, must operate without discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.
Discrimination is a crime
“Just as you cannot exclude a student for being Kurdish or expel them for being Alevi, you cannot do so because they are trans. This is a clear violation of rights and constitutes a crime. Being subjected to discrimination due to an inherent aspect of your existence is inhumane treatment. Discrimination is a crime. Just as institutions are obligated to meet the needs of students with disabilities, they are also required not to create obstacles for trans individuals in transition and to ensure they can stay in the environment of their choice.”
Yılmaz also noted that this atmosphere is not limited to individual institutions, adding: “The rhetoric of institutions such as the government, the Directorate of Religious Affairs, and RTÜK fuels this discrimination. However, responsibility does not lie solely with the government; opposition parties, especially the The Republican People’s Party (CHP), also fail to take an adequate stance on this issue.”