Monitoring Discriminatory References and Repressive Practices Affecting LGBTQ+ People in Belarus

1. Key Trends

During the period under review, homophobic rhetoric continued to spread across pro-government Telegram channels, while legal mechanisms were also used to restrict online spaces associated with LGBTQ+ topics. At the same time, representatives of state bodies continued to frame the protection of "traditional values" as an issue of national security.

Taken together, these trends create an environment in which LGBTQ+ people and activists face both public stigmatization and real administrative and criminal risks, alongside an increasingly prominent rhetoric portraying LGBTQ+ issues as "extremism."

2. State Rhetoric and Repressive Practices

On 1 October, Belarusian Prosecutor General Dmitry Gora, speaking at a meeting of prosecutors general from Shanghai Cooperation Organisation member states in Kazan, spoke of unprecedented pressure on "traditional foundations." In a report by SB. Belarus
Today, the protection of traditional family values was presented in the context of national security.

Such rhetoric reinforces the opposition between "traditional values" and alternative forms of identity and family relationships. In Belarus, this may serve as an ideological justification for further restrictions on LGBTQ+ people and organizations. However, the statement alone does not indicate that any specific new measures were adopted during the period
under review.

The use of anti-extremism legislation also warrants attention. On 1 October, the Prosecutor General stated that, to date, eight online communities had been designated extremist for allegedly promoting the "childfree ideology and the LGBTQ+ movement." This was reported by GPress and Reform.news.However, the available reports do not make it possible to establish conclusively which eight communities were covered by the decisions
announced on 1 October or what grounds were applied to each of them.

These reports should be viewed in the context of the longer-running practice of including resources related to LGBTQ+ topics on the national list of extremist materials. Designating online resources as extremist increases the risks for people who publish or share materials about LGBTQ+ topics, participate in related communities, or use them to access information and support. It also further reduces the safe spaces available for communication and self-organization.

3. Persecution of Queer People in Belarus

In a publication dated 3 September, GPress reported on pressure against LGBTQ+ people in the workplace. According to the initiative Future, by August 2026, 16 such cases were already known, six of which, according to the organization, had led to administrative proceedings. Future suggests that these cases represent only the visible part of a broader, troubling picture and estimates that the actual number may exceed 50.

The pressure affects workers in various sectors, including government institutions, healthcare, banks, and private companies. A typical scenario involves a conversation with management, human resources, or representatives of an ideological department, after which the person is encouraged to resign voluntarily or by mutual agreement. In some cases, instead of immediate dismissal, the person is offered a lower-level position until the end of  their contract. Pressure is often applied verbally and without documentation, making it difficult to prove coercion or challenge such actions. According to the report, threats may
be accompanied by references to Article 19.16 of the Code of Administrative Offences.

The persecution of queer people also extends into the digital sphere. A TG House publication on pressure against LGBTQ+ people on social media describes checks of TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube profiles for content that could be interpreted as "LGBT propaganda," as well as threats of prosecution. According to data from the initiative cited in the publication, between 1 May and 31 August 2026, it received 24 requests for help from people who had experienced persecution, threats, or a risk of repression. Ten people were evacuated, including five transgender people. Only six of those who sought help had official documents, and three cases were documented as administrative proceedings under Article
19.16 of the Code of Administrative Offences. These figures cover the period before the start of the present monitoring period, but they illustrate the context in which the practices described here developed.

In a report presented in September 2026, Nils Muižnieks, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, addressed the situation of LGBTIQ+ people in particular. As GPress reported on 16 October, the report describes accounts of raids on private events, searches andphone checks, summonses to the KGB, pressure on relatives, and the forced disclosure of personal information. It also highlights the use of dating apps to identify gay and bisexual men. According to the data cited in the report, more than 20 cases of persecution had been recorded by mid-2026.

The report also draws attention to the lack of effective protection against hate crimes and the barriers transgender people face in obtaining legal gender recognition and medical care. Its recommendations to the authorities include reviewing Article 19.16 of the Code of Administrative Offences, repealing discriminatory amendments to the law on the rights of the child, and restoring conditions that allow independent organizations, including LGBTQ+ initiatives, to operate.

The initiative Prismatica also reported a case involving a queer minor who was allegedly targeted by security forces after their mother filed a denunciation. The minor's ability to leave the country is restricted because they need their mother's permission to travel abroad. This case illustrates the particular vulnerability of queer adolescents who cannot independently ensure their safety and face an increased risk of arbitrary treatment and pressure.

4. Homophobic Rhetoric and Public Stigmatization

During the period under review, several pro-government Telegram channels continued to use homophobic slurs and derogatory language against LGBTQ+ people, activists, and public figures. In these posts, sexual orientation and presumed gender identity were used as tools of discrediting, while discussions of social and political issues were accompanied by mockery, sexualized attacks, and humiliation.

For example, a post dated 16 August used homophobic slurs against political activist Anton Motolko.In two posts dated 19 August, direct insults were aimed at LGBTQ+ activist Pasha Dzhedzhora and openly gay Vadim Ermashuk. In a 28 August post by ZHS Premium, homophobic language as used as an "argument" to demean opponents in a political dispute.

Another set of posts linked LGBTQ+ topics with foreign funding and activists' work. On 26 August, ZHS Prmium discussed grants and called for a collective complaint to donors, while insulting activists. On 9 September, reports that the United States was withdrawing funding for gender-related programs were used as a pretext for further discrediting.

This framing reduces human rights and community work to presumed foreign interests while presenting LGBTQ+ people as targets of ridicule or public condemnation. Combined with state rhetoric about protecting traditional values, it sustains a stigmatizing environment in which LGBTQ+ identity is used to undermine a person's reputation regardless of the substance of the issue being discussed.

Other posts mocked presumed relationships and cultural preferences. On 24 September, a queer interpretation of Chopin's identity was ridiculed, with claims that such interpretations were driven by a queer lobby and gender-related grants, and by attributing a queer identity to historical figures. In a 21 August post, sex coaching was portrayed as "unnatural" and artificially linked to LGBTQ+ topics through rhetoric about "perversions." The post also contained cruel mockery and personal attacks against the trainer. Thus, the discrediting
of a specific individual was combined with the devaluation of sex coaching and the stigmatizing association of the subject with LGBTQ+ topics.

Particularly troubling are posts in which a person's presumed mental health is used to humiliate them. On 25 September and 27 September, KrysolOFF circulated claims about
Pasha Dzhedzhora's psychiatric hospitalization and diagnoses. This stigmatized both the person's mental health and their LGBTQ+ identity, creating a misleading association between identity and mental health.

On 9 October, GUBAZA published a story about a male emigrant whose wife had allegedly left him for a woman, according to the post. The story was presented in a derogatory manner. Such coverage of personal relationships reinforces the idea that homosexuality is grounds for humiliation and public condemnation.

Overall, the posts examined demonstrate several recurring tactics: using homophobic slurs in place of argument, sexualizing and mocking people's appearance, attributing psychiatric diagnoses to individuals, and associating LGBTQ+ activism with foreign influence. What matters is not only the nature of individual statements, but also their recurrence across different posts throughout the monitoring period.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The main trend during the reporting period was the expansion of the space in which sexual orientation and gender identity can become grounds for repression. Risks are present simultaneously in public life, at work, online, and in private life. This creates a situation in which any LGBTQ+ person may be exposed to pressure, threats, or the application of repressive laws.

The combination of administrative mechanisms and practices involving security agencies is particularly concerning. Threats of prosecution under Article 19.16 of the Code of Administrative Offences, checks of digital profiles, reports of summonses to the KGB, and the use of dating apps to identify people point to a range of instruments of pressure. Their combined effect is to intensify fear of being outed, intimidate people, discourage them from speaking openly about their identity, and reduce their willingness to seek help. The Prosecutor General's statement further confirms that the "protection of traditional values"
is a state priority; this suggests that pressure on the LGBTQ+ community is systemic and may escalate further.

Statistics from human rights initiatives reveal only part of the scale of the problem. More than 20 known cases of workplace pressure and the 24 requests received by TG House over four months in connection with persecution or threats represent only the visible part of the unfolding pattern of queerphobic repression. These figures show how much support is needed and how limited the documentation of what is happening remains. The lack of official documentation, the deliberately "invisible" nature of some forms of pressure, and fear of further consequences may conceal the true scale of persecution.

At the same time, pro-government Telegram channels sustain a social environment in which discrimination is presented as acceptable and LGBTQ+ people become targets of public humiliation and discrediting. Associating LGBTQ+ topics with "perversions," foreign influence, and a threat to traditional values reframes human rights as a threat to the state and society. The available sources do not establish direct coordination between this rhetoric and the actions of security agencies, but the rhetoric contributes to stigmatization and makes it easier to justify restrictive measures.

In these circumstances, the consequences of pressure go beyond individual cases of dismissal, threats, or detention. Efforts by queer people to protect themselves often lead to pervasive self-censorship, withdrawal from public life, the loss of social connections, and forced or emergency departure from the country. Minors and people without safe ways to access help are particularly vulnerable. The repressive environment therefore affects not only people's ability to express their identity, but also everyday decisions about work,  communication, seeking protection, and whether to remain in the country.

Against this backdrop, independent documentation of violations, safe channels for seeking help, legal and psychological support, and opportunities for emergency evacuation are crucial. Responsibility for protecting LGBTQ+ people's rights must not be placed solely on those affected and civil society initiatives. What is needed is an end to discriminatory practices, effective protection from persecution, and conditions in which people can live safely in the country regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.