World
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Canada
Three Taylor Swift concerts in Vienna cancelled after attack plot uncovered
BULGARIA
Parliament rushed through passage of a Russia-style “LGBT propaganda” law Aug. 7 in a marathon session that was marked by speeches that queer activists have denounced as bordering on hate speech, and that sparked protests around the capital.
The vaguely worded law bans “propaganda, popularization and encouragement, directly or indirectly, of ideas and views connected to nontraditional sexual orientation or to gender-identifying different from the biological,” in Bulgarian schools. The law does not prescribe any specific punishment for infractions.
The bill was introduced by the Revival Party, which maintains strong ties to Russia’s government, but passed with surprising support from the pro-European Union center-right GERB party. Altogether, 159 MPs voted for the bill, while only 57 voted against it, mostly from the reformist We Continue the Change Party.
Bulgaria is currently without an elected government, as June national elections yielded a hung parliament. Fresh elections are scheduled for Oct. 20 — Bulgaria’s fifth election in three years. Parties are likely using the threat of “LGBT propaganda” to shore up votes.
Nevertheless, the passage of the law sparked protests from queer, women, and human rights groups around the capital, Sofia, calling on President Rumen Radev to veto the law.
“This is the first step in making non-traditional sexual orientation a crime. I consider this absolutely unacceptable and out of the spirit of what we strive to be as a country and society,” Ivan Ivanov, a protestor at the Aug. 7 rally, told Euronews.
Anti-LGBTQ “propaganda” laws have been spreading since Russia passed its law in 2013. Hungary and Lithuania have laws restricting LGBTQ speech in schools or around children, but Bulgaria is the first EU country to pass such a law since the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Lithuania’s law breached the European Convention in January 2023.
Other countries considering such laws right now are Georgia and Kazakhstan. Several African states have also recently passed or are considering laws criminalizing promotion of LGBTQ rights, including Uganda, Ghana, Namibia, and Liberia. Increasingly, similar laws are also being passed in Republican-led U.S. states.
AUSTRIA
Local organizers Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour cancelled three dates in Vienna after authorities arrested two suspected extremists on charges that they planned to attack a concert.
Swift had been scheduled to play at the Ernst Happel Stadium on Aug. 9, 10, and 11.
Authorities said they had arrested a 19-year-old main suspect in Ternitz, about 50 miles south of Vienna, and a second 17-year-old suspect in the capital.
Omar Haijawi-Pirchner, head of Austria’s Directorate of State Security and Intelligence, says the 19-year-old had been radicalized in the direction of the Islamic State, and that they had found material related to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda at the home of the 17-year-old.
Haijawi-Pirchner says that the suspect was employed by a company providing services at the concerts and was planning to use knives or self-made explosives to “kill as many people as possible” at the concert.
Initially, promoters said the concerts would go ahead with extra security provided by the national police, but the dates were quickly cancelled hours later.
Promoters Barracuda Music said all tickets would be automatically refunded within 10 business days.
The concert dates had been sold out for months, with an estimated 170,000 people expected to attend.
This isn’t the first time an Islamic extremist has allegedly targeted a pop concert. In 2017, an extremist suicide-bombed an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, killing 22 people and wounding more than 100.
CANADA
The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from alt-right figure Jordan Peterson of the decision by the College of Psychologists of Ontario requiring him to undergo social media training or risk losing his license to practice.
Peterson, who rose to international prominence for his strident opposition to a transgender rights bill passed by the Canadian government in 2017, has become a darling of the alt-right movement for his writings and social media posts advancing frequently misogynistic and transphobic views on women, masculinity, and gender identity, as well as general antipathy to other left-wing issues.
In 2022, the College of Psychologists found that his posts may be “degrading” and call into question his ability as a psychologist and bring the profession disrepute. It ordered he undergo social media training.
Peterson sought judicial review, but he lost at lower courts. The Supreme Court did not give reasons why it dismissed the appeal. Peterson was ordered to pay costs.
Initially, Peterson said he would continue to fight the order, somehow, but days later his lawyer had told CBC that Peterson would attend the training.
The case has divided rights groups in Canada, with the LGBTQ advocacy group Egale intervening on behalf of the College of Psychologists of Ontario, while the Canadian Civil Liberties Union intervened on behalf of Peterson, arguing that professional associations shouldn’t regulate speech unrelated to the profession.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, who has also courted the alt-right and far right in Canada, also posted in support of Peterson.
“Another government bureaucracy threatens to ban a Canadian from practicing his profession because he expressed political opinions the state doesn’t like,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
The College of Psychologists of Ontario is not a government bureaucracy. It is a professional association.
BELGIUM
Former Belgian Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo spoke out against transphobia in an open letter after the current deputy prime minister raised alarms this week by recommending a transphobic book on his social media channels.
Deputy Prime Minister David Clarinval of the center-right Reformist Movement was accused of transphobia after he posted on X praise of the book “Transmania: Investigation into the Excesses of Transgender Ideology” by Marguerite Stern and Dora Moutot.
The book, originally published in France, is full of conjectures and conspiracy theories asserting that trans people aren’t real and that they are associated with pedophilia. It has become a symbol of the far right in France since it was published in April 2023.
Clarinval defended his post to the Brussels Times.
“This book gives a broader view of the transgender issue,” he said.
Di Rupo, who was Belgium’s first openly gay prime minister and now serves as a member of the European Parliament, wrote an open letter calling for conservatives and liberals to agree to protect all people’s rights in the wake of the controversy.
“In this reactionary climate, it is essential to emphasize that the freedoms granted to transgender people in no way diminish the freedoms of other citizens. The extension of rights and freedoms to some never diminishes those of others,” Di Rupo writes.
“Finally, it is important to remember that the freedoms we enjoy today are the fruit of fierce struggles, countless political battles and incalculable human tragedies. They are indeed heroic struggles, often marked by great suffering and sacrifice, that have shaped the free world in which we live in the West. Whether it is the fights for civil rights in the United States, for gender equality, for the rights of LGBTQIA+ people or for freedom of expression, they have all been driven by the same unwavering will: That of defending the dignity, freedom and respect of the human being in all its complexity.”
India
Amendments to India’s transgender rights law criticized
Lawmakers approved changes that narrow definition of trans person
India has enacted the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, that will reshape the country’s legal approach to gender identity.
Both houses of parliament approved the legislation last month, and it received presidential approval on March 28.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, narrows the definition of a trans person, removes the provision for self-perceived gender identity, and requires medical certification for legal recognition. These changes mark a shift from the framework established under a 2019 law.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, replaces the earlier definition of a trans person — previously framed as someone whose gender does not align with the gender assigned at birth — with a set of specified categories. It further provides that the term does not include, and is deemed never to have included, people defined solely by their sexual orientation or by self-perceived gender identity.
The bill retains certain categories within its definition, including people with socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, or jogta. It also includes people with variations in sex characteristics at birth, such as differences in primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomes or hormones from the normative standards of male or female bodies.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, removes certain categories from the definition, including a trans man or trans woman, irrespective of whether such a person has undergone sex reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, laser procedures, or other forms of medical intervention. It also excludes genderqueer people — a category that had been recognized under the earlier framework. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, however, includes eunuchs, as well as people compelled to assume a trans identity through mutilation, emasculation, castration, or other surgical, chemical or hormonal interventions.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, also revises the process for legal recognition, requiring a trans person to apply to a district magistrate for a certificate of identity, which can now be issued only after the recommendation of a designated medical board. The law specifies that the board will be headed by a senior medical officer and may include other experts. It further provides that individuals issued such a certificate will be entitled to change their first name in official documents, including birth records and other government-issued identification.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, also introduces stricter penalties for certain offences, including cases in which a person is forced to assume a trans identity through kidnapping, coercion or physical harm. Such offenses may attract imprisonment ranging from 10 years to life in prison, along with fines, depending on the severity and whether the victim is an adult or a child. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, further requires medical institutions to report gender-affirming surgeries to the district magistrate, and mandates that individuals obtain a revised certificate of identity following such procedures.
India’s 2011 Census recorded 487,803 trans persons, yet only 5.6 percent had applied for a trans identity card, according to the Washington Blade’s previous reporting. These identity cards, required to access government welfare programs, have remained difficult to obtain, with delays and administrative barriers limiting uptake.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, revised the certification process, which introduces additional requirements for legal recognition. This change is against this backdrop of uneven access to identity documentation.
India’s Election Commission in 2009 directed states to modify voter registration forms to include an “other” category, allowing individuals who did not identify as male or female to register accordingly. The Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India in 2014 recognized trans persons as a “third gender” and affirmed their right to self-identification.
Justice Kalavamkodath Sivasankara Radhakrishna Panicker said that “recognition of transgenders as a third gender is not a social or medical issue, but a human rights issue.” Parliament in 2019 approved the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019.
An advisory committee the Supreme Court created that former Delhi High Court Justice Asha Menon has urged the government to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The panel said the proposal to deny self-identification of gender is inconsistent with theNational Legal Services Authority v. Union of India ruling.
Menon on March 25 wrote to Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar conveying the panel’s resolution. According to the Hindu newspaper, the committee described the amendment as a “great shock” and a “tremendous setback” to efforts to mainstream trans communities.
The Queer Hindu Alliance, an advocacy group that seeks to uphold the dignity of LGBTQ people within India’s cultural and constitutional framework, expressed concern over the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
“We write not in the spirit of opposition, but in the spirit of samvad — dialogue — and with a sincere call for community consultation before this legislation proceeds further,” the group said in a statement. “The Supreme Court of India recognized the concerns of the transgender community in 2014. The National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India judgment affirmed that a person knows who they are. This bill seeks to reverse that. The Queer Hindu Alliance finds this troubling as a question of basic human dignity.”
The Queer Hindu Alliance added that India “is not a young civilization fumbling for answers on how to understand human identity.”
“This culture has contemplated the nature of the self more deeply, and for longer, than any legal system that has existed. This is not a foreign conversation imported from the West. It is a conversation Bharat (India) has always been capable of having, on its own terms,” the Queer Hindu Alliance said.
Harish Iyer, an LGBTQ rights activist who was among those who fought for marriage equality in the Supreme Court, told the Blade that the amendment is “not just a rollback, but a blatant, arrogant insult” to the Supreme Court.
“The NALSA judgment gave us the fundamental dignity of self-determination — the right to look in the mirror and say, ‘This is who I am.’ This amendment drags us right back into the dark ages, handing over our bodily autonomy to a bunch of sarkari babus (government officers) and medical boards,” said Iyer. “But here is the most absurd part: you simply cannot define if someone is trans through any physical test. How exactly are you going to diagnose a human mind? Are they only going to regard those who have had gender affirmation surgery as trans? Because that is fundamentally not the definition of being transgender; transition is a choice and a privilege, not a prerequisite for identity. Or are they going to look at someone born with ambiguous genitalia and label them trans? Because that is intersex, which is a completely different reality.”
“Forcing a trans person to undergo degrading physical scrutiny based on the government’s spectacular ignorance of basic gender science isn’t a legal process; it’s state-sponsored trauma,” he added. “We fought too hard for our dignity to let a bureaucratic tribunal demand that we strip down to prove our humanity.”
Iyer said the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, goes beyond protection and instead imposes control.
“You don’t ‘protect’ a community by criminalizing the chosen families and allies who offer safe haven to trans youth fleeing abusive homes,” he said, referring to provisions in the law. “This bill is about regulation, policing and control. By gatekeeping who gets to be trans and punishing those who support us, the government isn’t acting as a guardian — it’s acting as a warden. It is a calculated attack on our existence.”
Iyer said the revised definition could exclude individuals who do not fall within the listed categories.
“It effectively writes them out of existence,” he said.
Iyer added the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, could create an administrative “black hole” for gender-fluid individuals and nonbinary people who do not fit into the government’s rigid categories.
“If you are legally invisible, you don’t get access to gender-affirming healthcare, you don’t get legal protection, and you are entirely cut off from participating in society,” said Iyer. “They are trying to legislate us into non-existence because they are too lazy to understand us.”
Tensions between the U.S. and Cuba are rising again. This is not new, but the current moment feels different. Recent measures from Washington aim to further restrict the Cuban government’s financial channels, limit its sources of revenue, and apply pressure to key sectors of the economy. This is not symbolic. It is a deliberate policy.
From the U.S. perspective, the message is clear. The goal is to force change that has not happened in more than six decades. There is also a domestic political dimension, shaped by sectors of the Cuban exile community that have long demanded a tougher stance. All of this is part of the landscape.
But that is only one side.
On the Cuban side, the response follows a familiar script. The government speaks of external aggression, economic warfare, and a tightening embargo. Each new measure becomes an opportunity to reinforce that narrative and close ranks. There is no room for public self-criticism. The blame always points outward.
Meanwhile, life on the island follows a different logic.
The energy crisis Cuba is facing today did not begin with these recent measures. It has been building for years. The electrical system is deteriorated, poorly maintained, and increasingly unreliable. Blackouts are not new. What has changed is how severe and how constant they have become.
For years, oil entered Cuba, especially from Venezuela. There were supply agreements. There were resources. And yet, the daily life of ordinary Cubans did not improve. Electricity remained unstable. Fuel was rationed. Transportation was still a daily struggle.
So the question is not new.
If the oil was there, why didn’t anything change?
Where did those resources go?
Where is the money that was generated?
Today, restrictions on oil are often presented as the main cause of the current crisis. They are not. They make an already fragile situation worse, but they do not fully explain it.
There is a deeper, longer story that cannot be ignored.
The same applies to Cuba’s international medical missions.
For years, they were presented as acts of solidarity. And in many cases, they were. Cuban doctors worked in difficult conditions, saving lives and supporting health systems abroad. That is real.
But they also functioned as one of the Cuban state’s main sources of income.
Many of these professionals did not receive the full salary for their work. A significant portion was retained by the government. In some cases, they had little or no control over the money they generated.
And there is a harsher reality.
If a doctor chose not to return to Cuba, that income often did not reach their family. It was withheld.
Today, several countries are reevaluating or canceling these agreements. Once again, the official response is to point outward. But the same question remains.
Is this the loss of international cooperation, or the collapse of a system built on control over its own professionals?
Inside Cuba, the conversation sounds very different.
People are not speaking in geopolitical terms. They are talking about survival. About getting through the day. About blackouts, food shortages, transportation problems, and a life that keeps getting harder.
Some see the new U.S. measures as a form of pressure that could lead to change. Not because they want more hardship, but because they feel the system does not change on its own. There is a deep sense of stagnation.
But that sense of expectation exists alongside a harsh reality.
Sanctions do not hit decision-makers first. They hit ordinary people. The ones standing in line. The ones losing food during power outages. The ones who cannot move because there is no fuel.
That is the contradiction.
The Cuban government calls for international solidarity. And it receives it. Countries send aid. Organizations mobilize. Public voices defend the island.
But another question is also present.
Does that aid actually reach the people?
The lack of transparency in how resources are distributed is part of the problem. Because this is not only about what enters the country, but about what actually reaches those who need it.
Reducing Cuba’s reality to a dispute between two governments avoids the core issue.
There are shared responsibilities, but they are not equal.
The U.S. exerts external pressure with real economic consequences. That cannot be denied. But inside Cuba, there is a system that has had decades to reform, to respond, to open, and it has not done so.
That part cannot continue to be ignored.
I write this as a Cuban. From what I lived. From what I know. From the people who are still there trying to make it through each day.
Because at the end of the day, beyond what governments say or decide, the reality is something else.
Cuba today is under more pressure, yes. But it has also spent years carrying problems that no one has seriously confronted.
And as long as that remains the case, it does not matter what comes from outside. The problem is still inside.
Belarus
Belarusian lawmakers approve bill to crackdown on LGBTQ rights
Country’s president known as ‘Europe’s last dictator’
Lawmakers in Belarus on Thursday approved a bill that would allow the government to crack down on LGBTQ advocacy.
The Associated Press notes the bill would punish anyone found guilty of “propaganda of homosexual relations, gender change, refusal to have children, and pedophilia” with fines, community labor, and 15 days in jail.
The House of Representatives, the lower house of the Belarusian National Assembly, last month approved the bill. The Council of the Republic, which is the parliament’s upper chamber, passed it on Thursday.
President Alexander Lukashenko is expected to sign it.
Belarus borders Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Lukashenko — known as “Europe’s last dictator” is a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Kazakhstan is among the countries that have enacted Russian-style anti-LGBTQ propaganda laws in recent years.
Vika Biran, a Belarusian LGBTQ activist, is among those arrested during anti-Lukashenko protests that took place in 2020 after he declared victory in the country’s presidential election.
Amendments to India’s transgender rights law criticized
Cuba under pressure and without answers
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
Pam Bondi ousted as attorney general
JD Vance to travel to Hungary next week
Mayor Bowser signs bill requiring insurers to cover PrEP
Belarusian lawmakers approve bill to crackdown on LGBTQ rights
