World
Cameroon group works to protect, empower LGBTQ community
Working For Our Wellbeing operates throughout country
Nkwain Hamlet is the president and executive director of of Working For Our Wellbeing, an LGBTQ advocacy organization in Douala, Cameroon’s bustling economic capital, that works toward providing queer Cameroonians with access to safety and a chance to live confident, fully self-actualized lives in a society that is nothing but vilely queerphobic. Hamlet recently spoke with the Washington Blade about his LGBTQ advocacy and future representation in the country’s government.
“Cameroon, at all stages, is in a transition point. Whether it’s the presidency, ministerial roles, or different members of parliament, or even the Senate. We even have one of the oldest members of parliament in Africa,” he says about the possibility of an LGBTQ politician emerging in the country. “So, I think that in upcoming years, it will be a moment!”
Pushing Cameroon towards acceptance
Cameroon, like many African countries, has a culture of queerphobia that colonialism brought. Before Germany, and later France and the U.K, seized Cameroonian land and resources — wiping away any sense of freedom, agency and culture that existed in opposition to eurocentrism — queerness in what is now Cameroon was the norm.
Native Cameroonians practiced homoeroticism, with men being allowed to have consensual sex with other men. Women could also marry other women and establish same-sex households.
“Among the Pangwe people of present-day Cameroon and Gabon, homosexual intercourse was practiced between males of all ages,” reports Bernadine Evaristo for The Guardian.
Nankiti Nofuru for the Global Press Journal also reports about the Balong ethnic group.
“The Balong tradition allows women to marry to other women in cases where women are barren or have no children. Even women who want additional children but are unable to conceive them may marry other women,” reported Nofaru
So, for Hamlet, whose goal is to advocate for all queer people in Cameroon by affording them the space to confidently inhabit their queerness, one of his organization’s focal points is to participate in politics and make queerness a national conversation that will encourage the government to establish wholly-protected human rights for LGBTQ individuals.
“We currently don’t have any representation at the parliamentary level,” says Hamlet. “And because of this, we want to make sure that [LGBTQ people] are reflected and have role models in [this country’s] political positions.”
Cameroon’s future elections are on Hamlet’s mind, and he has famliarized himself with conversations surrounding the necessity to make sure that queer people are not only acknowledged in politics, but involved in decision-making processes. He emphasizes that there is a need for someone queer to step out, penetrate the politics scene and engage with the government.
Carrying this out, however, does not come without its hindrances. Hamlet recognizes one has to negotiate two realities in order to be a successful out LGBTQ politician in a predominantly queerphobic Cameroon.
“[To be a politician], you have to come out and embrace the political question of who is for you and who isn’t. And also, you have to think about who will support your candidacy and political agenda financially,” says Hamlet.
He notes that financial support can exist through entrepreneurs and other influential figures who support the LGBTQ movement. Attaining it can nevertheless be exacting as many of them fear the public backlash that ensues after standing in favor of what Cameroonian nationals consider controversial identity issues.
“[Entrepreneurs] may not want to give their position regarding identity issues, and because of the backlash, you see them deleting their messages whether on Twitter or Facebook. So, you just have to identify who these people are and know that they’re open-minded and [will work in your favor],” says Hamlet.
Making sure no one is left behind
Cameroon for years has been embroiled in the Anglophone Crisis, a civil war that stems from a conflict between Anglophone and Francophone Cameroonians, and their fight to maintain their respective colonial legacies, especially with regards to law and education.
BBC reports eight out of Cameroon’s 10 semi-autonomous administrative regions are Francophone, while the other two are Anglophone. English-speaking Cameroonians consequently face discrmination because they are excluded from lucrative employment opportunities and a chance at significant political representation as “government documents are often only published in French, even though English is also an official language.” Cameroon’s education system is also Francophone-centric, and it has created disparities because English-speaking areas are subjected to French standards, even though they inherited the British education system.
Reuters reports the Anglophone Crisis as recently as 2020 has killed approximately 3,500 people. The violence has displaced 700,000 people from their homes as English-speaking groups fight to break away from the predominantly French-speaking government.
The crisis has quickly become an LGBTQ human rights issue for Hamlet and Working For Our Wellbeing because a queer population exists in the two Anglophone regions: Northwest and Southwest. Hamlet describes the situation as “catastrophic” when speaking about how the conflict has affected his organization’s work.
“A lot of the work we do involves educating heterosexual people in the Francophone zones on tolerance and acceptance. Now that this conflict exists, our work becomes challenging because we are not able to reach the Anglophone zones as effectively as we are able to reach the Francophone zones,” says Hamlet.
He also notes LGBTQ people in the area are “in a death trap.” It therefore feels to him when he tackles national advocacy work that there is a gap because his organization is unable to reach Anglophone LGBTQ individuals without encountering diffculties.
Working For Our Wellbeing is nevertheless redefining their strategies to better equip themselves to reach out to LGBTQ Cameroonians in the country’s English-speaking areas. Part of this includes the development of a stringent security plan and analyzing the day-to-day situation to ensure that Anglophone LGBTQ individuals can be fiercely advocated for without the organization facing any repercussions. The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and Cameroon’s general political crisis have made it imperative to advocate on behalf queer Anglophones with the utmost care and sensitivity.
Imparting hope and joy to the LGBTQ community
As this month nears the end and many countries around the world conclude their Pride celebrations, Working For Our Wellbeing’s festivities are in full force, with preparations for a poetry competition fully underway. There will also be a round-table conversation that will welcome open-minded members of the general public interested in discussing and learning more about LGBTQ issues in Cameroon.
“We’ve been hit hard by the law, and with everything, so we want to celebrate ourselves,” says Hamlet. “We are ready.”
Working For Our Wellbeing after Pride will continue to do what it knows best: Caring for LGBTQ Cameroonians. Whether it’s providing temporary shelter for queer people who have been rejected by their families or empowering them to be financially independent, one thing that is certain is that Hamlet and his organization will put LGBTQ Cameroonians first, normalize queerness and establish a culture akin to that which existed pre-colonialism.
Asia
LGBTQ rights gains in Asia come through courts, not legislatures
Marriage equality lawsuits filed in Japan
In recent years, some of Asia’s most significant legal developments involving LGBTQ rights have unfolded not in parliamentary chambers but in courtrooms. From marriage equality lawsuits in Japan to litigation over same-sex spousal benefits in South Korea and constitutional challenges in countries including India and Nepal, courts across the region have increasingly been asked to decide questions that lawmakers have yet to resolve. The trend raises a broader question: Why has constitutional litigation become a recurring pathway for LGBTQ people seeking legal recognition in parts of Asia?
The pattern has unfolded over nearly two decades.
In 2007, Nepal’s Supreme Court issued one of Asia’s earliest landmark rulings recognizing the rights of sexual and gender minorities, directing the government to end discriminatory laws and examine legal recognition for same-sex couples. A decade later, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the constitution, paving the way for the region’s first marriage equality law. In India, the Supreme Court recognized transgender people as a third gender in 2014 before striking down a colonial-era ban on consensual same-sex relations four years later.
The pattern continued across Asia.
Japan’s courts repeatedly questioned the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The rulings intensified pressure for legal reform. Parliament, however, has yet to act.
South Korea’s judiciary expanded legal protections for same-sex couples. It recognized spousal health insurance benefits. A recent district court also awarded damages after a same-sex relationship ended. The ruling added momentum to the country’s marriage equality movement.
China’s courts took a different path.
Landmark constitutional rulings never emerged. Still, litigation prompted the Supreme People’s Court to acknowledge anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The developments reflected courts’ growing role in LGBTQ rights disputes.
The Philippines added another dimension.
Marriage equality remains unresolved, yet the Supreme Court recently recognized property rights for some same-sex couples. The ruling stopped short of recognizing marriage. Still, it acknowledged legal protections for LGBTQ relationships. The decision reflected another way courts have shaped LGBTQ rights across Asia.
Constitutional courts occupy a distinct place in democratic systems. Legislatures enact laws. They also respond to political priorities and public opinion. Constitutional courts serve a different function. They decide whether laws or government actions comply with constitutional guarantees. They resolve legal disputes brought before them. Their role is not to measure a policy’s popularity. It is to determine whether it is constitutionally valid. That distinction has placed constitutional courts at the center of many of Asia’s most consequential LGBTQ rights disputes.
Nepal offers an early example.
In 2007, LGBTQ activists turned to the Supreme Court through a public interest petition. They argued that discriminatory laws and government practices violated constitutional guarantees of equality. They also sought legal recognition for gender and sexual minorities. The government urged the court to dismiss the petition. It argued existing laws already protected all citizens. It also said the claims relied on assumptions rather than specific instances of discrimination. The court disagreed. It held that sexual orientation and gender identity are natural variations of human identity. It directed the government to eliminate discriminatory laws and policies. The ruling also ordered a study on legal recognition for same-sex couples, laying the foundation for future reforms.
“Since it is the absolute jurisdiction of the legislature to decide as to what type of law should be made and amended on a particular issue, and as this matter does not fall under the jurisdiction of this office, therefore, there does not seem any pertinent reason and valid ground to make this Office a respondent,” said Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers in its 2007 affidavit. “Let the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that the unconcerned office is being made as an opposite party in the case.”
In India, a prominent leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Subramanian Swamy, described homosexuality as a “genetic disorder” in 2015. He also wrote on social media that it was a “genetic handicap,” reflecting the political discourse surrounding LGBTQ rights before the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 2018.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling decriminalized consensual same-sex relations. The decision did not end the debate. Soon afterward, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right wing, Hindu nationalist volunteer and paramilitary organization, an ideological parent of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, said it did not consider same-sex relationships a crime. It added, however, that it did not support such relationships.
After the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling, Arun Kumar, a senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader, told the media that same-sex relationships and marriage were neither “natural” nor “desirable.”
During the 2023 marriage equality hearings, the Indian government repeatedly argued that the issue belonged before Parliament, not the judiciary. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Constitution Bench that the case involved a “very complex subject” with “profound social impact” and that “all the questions in this case must be left to the Parliament.” He argued that recognizing same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation would require rewriting the Special Marriage Act and could have unintended consequences across multiple laws. During the hearings, Mehta also questioned how existing marriage laws would operate for same-sex couples, asking, “Who will be the wife in a lesbian relationship?”
The Washington Blade covered these arguments as the hearings unfolded.
Three years have passed since the Supreme Court declined to recognize same-sex marriage, holding that creating such a legal framework was a matter for Parliament. Marriage equality, however, remains unrecognized in India. Parliament has not enacted legislation extending civil marriage to same-sex couples. The legal position has remained unchanged since the court’s 2023 ruling.
Similar tensions have surfaced elsewhere in Asia.
In Japan, a growing number of courts have questioned the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples, even as Parliament has yet to amend the law. In South Korea, courts have steadily expanded legal protections for same-sex couples, while the government has argued that recognizing same-sex marriage is up to lawmakers. In the Philippines, marriage equality and civil partnership bills have repeatedly failed to secure congressional approval amid religious and political opposition. The legislative stalemate has prompted advocates to pursue constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court.
Indonesia presents a different picture.
Rather than debating legal recognition, much of the political discourse has focused on restricting LGBTQ rights. In a landmark 2017 case, however, rights groups successfully opposed a petition that sought to criminalize all consensual same-sex relations nationwide. The Constitutional Court rejected the petition, ruling that creating new criminal offences was a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary.
Hungary
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
New government allowed event to take place without restrictions
Tens of thousands of people on Saturday took part in the annual Budapest Pride march in the Hungarian capital.
The march took place less than two months after new Prime Minister Péter Maygar took office.
Hungarian lawmakers in 2025 passed a bill that banned Pride events and allowed authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify participants. MPs later amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
More than 100,000 people defied the ban and participated in last year’s Budapest Pride parade. The event became one of the largest protests against then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government since he took office in 2010.
Magyar’s center-right Tisza party ousted Orbán’s Fidesz-KDNP coalition in elections that took place on April 12. The European Union’s top court, the EU Court of Justice, days after Orbán’s ouster struck down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ propaganda law that MPs approved in 2021.
Hungarian police last month announced they would allow the Budapest Pride march to take place without restrictions.
Authorities subsequently dropped charges against Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony over his role in organizing the city’s 2025 Pride march. Officials in Pécs, a city near Hungary’s border with Croatia, have also dropped charges against Géza Buzás-Hábel, who organized a 2025 Pride event.
Iran and Egypt on Friday faced off during the World Cup’s “Pride Match” in Seattle.
Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death. Discrimination and persecution based on sexual orientation and gender identity is commonplace in Egypt.
Friday’s match coincided with Pride weekend in Seattle. The Egyptian Football Association and the Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran both objected to playing in the “Pride Match.”
Egypt and Iran tied 1-1.
FIFA, for its part, allowed Pride flags inside the stadium during the match.
“The FIFA World Cup 2026 is an inclusive event that welcomes people from all backgrounds,” a FIFA spokesperson told the Washington Blade in a statement. “Fans of all sexual orientations and gender identities are welcome at matches and events. General statements of human rights, including rainbow flags and other flags representing sexual orientation and gender identity, are permitted under the FIFA World Cup 2026™ Stadium Code of Conduct and may be displayed inside stadiums provided they are used in a manner consistent with the code.”
Human Rights Watch welcomed FIFA’s decision to allow Pride flags inside the stadium. Outright International, a global LGBTQ and intersex rights group, distributed Pride flags in Seattle on Friday, which was Pride Match Day.
“Visibility matters,” said Outright International Executive Director Maria Sjödin. “Pride is now being celebrated in more than 100 countries, including this weekend in Seattle. For many LGBTIQ people, seeing a Pride flag in public is a reminder that they are not alone, and that their rights and dignity are recognized.”
FIFA President Gianni Infantino earlier this year told Die Weltwoche, a Swiss magazine, that “there will be no ‘Pride Match’ at the (FIFA) World Cup.”
“There will be a FIFA World Cup match in Seattle, and on the same day, events organized by external organizations will be taking place in the city,” said Infantino. “But that has nothing to do with the match itself.”
Peter Tatchell, a long-time LGBTQ activist from the U.K. who is director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, was among those who traveled to Seattle for Friday’s match. Tatchell accused FIFA of not vetting World Cup teams — specifically Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, Senegal, Qatar, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Uzbekistan, and Algeria — over whether they would allow gay players.
“FIFA is protecting LGBT+ visibility in the stands while failing to protect LGBT+ players on the pitch,” said Tatchell.
LGBTQ rights gains in Asia come through courts, not legislatures
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
Court to weigh class action status in trans military ban challenge
PHOTOS: Fredericksburg Pride March and Festival
Washington Blade names new publisher
Administration must stop targeting LGBTQ kids
Is Pride over at the end of June?
Nearly 6,000 turn out for Pride Night Out at the Nationals
