International Mechanisms

International human rights mechanisms (i.e, UN, EU, CoE) for LGBTI rights in Turkey

Turkish Intelligence Document: ISIS to Target Kaos GL?

It has been revealed that the Governorship of Ankara is oblivious to the intelligence document suggesting that ISIS plans to target many locations including Kaos GL. The association is awaiting a response from the General Staff of Turkish Armed Forces and the Prime Ministry.

Source: Kaos GL, “Emniyetin haberi yok, Genelkurmay da kendine ivedi!” (“The police is oblivious, the General Staff is self-prioritizing!”) 8 April 2016,, and  KaosGL, “Turkish intelligence document: ISIS targets Kaos GL,” 12 April 2016,

Kaos GL Association contacted the Gülhane Military Medical Academy (GATA) and Ankara District Police Counter-Terror Department as soon as the document was in circulation.

Upon receiving a response from the Counter-Terror Department stating that “such information has not yet reached them,” the association received a confirmation from GATA Ankara over the phone regarding the document being an “internal correspondence,” although the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces has not officially confirmed it.

Kaos GL Association has also submitted an application to the Governorship of Ankara, the Provincial Police Department, Prime Ministry and General Staff of Turkish Armed Forces after the GATA document labeled “urgent” with the subject heading “action warning” began to circulate on social media.

The lawyers of Kaos GL Association Hayriye Kara and Oya Aydın informed that they have not yet received a written response from the General Staff or the Prime Ministry to their application.

The Governorship is Oblivious, The District Police Lacks the Capacity to Provide Protection!

The internal correspondence document of the General Staff Gülhane Military Medical Academy dated 29 March 2016 and labeled as “urgent” with a subject of “action warning” began to circulate on social media on April 1.

According to the document, Kaos GL Association is among the locations of potential targets in Ankara and Istanbul for “DEAŞ [ISIS — Trans.] terrorist organisation” as referred to by GATA.

The lawyers of the association  informed that they submitted an application to the Governorship of Ankara and requested urgent protection.

From Governorship to Provincial Police, and onto District Police

The lawyers of Kaos GL Association explained their deliberation at the Governorship of Ankara as follows:

“The governorship has simply accepted the petition and told us that they will send it to the related department in the Provincial Police Department of Ankara. We requested them to pursue it themselves given the urgency of the situation. However, the governorship did not send an order for an investigation to verify the context of the document or to provide protection or to investigate the seriousness of the situation. The Governorship has only approved that they received such information, dated and stamped to notify they received it and are directing it. We understand that they laid it at Ankara Provincial Police’s door.”

The lawyers of the Association pointed out that despite their persistent request for security and protection, responsibility of decision making has been attributed to first Governorship to Provincial Police and from them to the District Police.

After the “Çankaya District Police is in charge” approach by the Provincial Police Department, the lawyers inquired “What happens if the District Police could not provide such protection?” to which Provincial Police responded as “then they will write back to the Provincial department again.”

Çankaya District Police: We Do not Have the Capacity

As Provincial Police sent the petition to the District Police of Çankaya, we also went to the District Police Department, the lawyers said.

Çankaya District Police, who appears to be oblivious to the document, told “we can increase the patrol in that area and have the officers check the location regularly but we do not have the capacity to assign a team to secure the area permanently.”

Kaos Cultural Center is Temporarily Closed

The lawyers of the association are awaiting a response to their application inquiring “Whether such document exists or not, if it exists what kind of precautions will be taken” and “If such document does not exist, whether or not the people who released it for circulation will be investigated?”

The lawyers suggested that the intelligence document stating the Association being counted among “possible target” locations “caused unease among staff, Association members, and volunteers.“

Association declared that until the necessary precautions are taken and the information is received on the outcome of the document, Kaos GL Cultural Center will remain closed, works and activities will continue.

Kaos GL, founded in 1994 is pursuing its activities since 2005 as an association registered to Governorship of Ankara Association Department. Kaos GL Association is the first registered association in Turkey that is working in the field of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights.


The European Court of Human Rights to announce verdict on Turkish gender reassignment law

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) will announce its final judgment on March 10 in the case of a trans man in Turkey who was not granted court permission needed for gender reassignment surgery.

Source: Ömer Akpınar, “AİHM trans geçiş sürecine ilişkin kararını 10 Mart’ta açıklayacak” (“ECtHR to announce verdict on Turkish gender reassignment law”),, 24 February 2015,

The ECtHR will announce its final verdict on Y.Y. v Turkey case regarding Article 40* of the Turkish Civil Code on gender reassignment.

What does Article 40 require?

Article 40 of the Turkish Civil Code stipulates that a court permission must be obtained in order to undergo gender reassignment surgery. According to the article, the permission can only be given if the person is over 18 and unmarried and if the person has obtained official medical board reports to prove that the operation is psychologically needed and that the ability to reproduce is permanently lost.

Proof for being “unable to reproduce” brought a legal deadlock

The applicant who wants to be registered as male and to get permission for gender reassignment surgery applied to a Court of First Instance in 2005. The next year, he got two different psychiatric expert reports in February and April, stating that he must continue his life as a man. However, following a report in May stating that the person still has the ability to reproduce, the court ruled that the applicant does not fulfill the requirements of Article 40.

How can one fulfill Article 40’s requirements if the surgery for losing reproductive ability has not been permitted?

The Supreme Court of Appeals stated in a May 2007 verdict that the decision by the Court of First Instance is correct. It also rejected the applicant’s request for a correction in the ruling in October 2007.

Y.Y. v Turkey

The applicant took the case to the ECtHR in 2008, complaining about the content and the interpretation of the law. In the proceeding which started 2 years later, he underlined that the relevant requirement of the law can only be fulfilled by a surgery, leaving him in an inconclusive situation.

Although it was proven by medical reports that the applicant identifies as a man and his physiology does not fit his gender identity, it was not enough for the court. The applicant claims that his right to privacy, designated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has been violated.

“If accepted, the case might lead to an amendment in the law”

The applicant’s lawyer, Ali Nezhet Bozlu, explained the possible outcomes of the case to

The legal impact depends on whether the ECtHR will accept the case and their justifications. If it is accepted, the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe will monitor the implementation of the decision and perhaps mention the case in Turkey’s Progress Reports. This may lead to a discussion to amend the law, however, such amendments take time.

Article 40 of the Turkish Civil Code:

A person who wishes to change their gender may request permission to change their gender by applying in person to the court. However, for the permission to be granted, the applicant must be 18 years old and must be unmarried. The applicant must also be in a transsexual nature and must document the necessity to change their gender for their mental health and that they are permanently deprived of reproductive abilities through an official health committee report obtained from an education and research hospital. Depending on the permission granted, once the gender reassignment surgery fit for the aim and medical methods has been completed and verified by an official health committee report, the court decides to make the necessary changes in the population registry.

Prison time and fine for Conscientious Objector Mehmet Tarhan

The Sivas Military Court sentenced conscientious objector Mehmet Tarhan to 15 months in prison and a 9,000 Turkish Lira fine. The Military Court’s ruling ignores the European Court of Human Rights’ earlier verdict on Tarhan v. Turkey.

Source: “Vicdani retçi Mehmet Tarhan’a hapis ve para cezası!” (“Prison time and fine for conscientious objector Mehmet Tarhan”),, 10 February 2015,

Conscientious objector and LGBTI activist Mehmet Tarhan received a 15-month prison sentence and a 9,000 Turkish lira (~$3,600) fine based on disobedience charges.

The Sivas Military Court’s ruling on the case is in conflict with the earlier European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) verdict from 17 July 2012, which stated that Tarhan’s rights were violated by the Turkish state.

Tarhan spoke to about the court’s decision: “The Sivas Military Court has shown that it does not recognize either the constitution or the European Court of Human Rights. We will take the decision to the Supreme Court of Appeals.”


What happened before?

Tarhan rejected military service and announced his conscientious objection in 2001. In 2005, he was forcibly taken for military service, sued for insubordination in two separate cases, and treated poorly whilst under arrest in a military prison.

In violation of the constitution and the ECtHR, Tarhan was given a physical exam because of his homosexuality.

According to records dated 25 May 2005, Tarhan’s hair and beard were shaved against his will by seven soldiers, who pulled him down onto the ground and got on top of him. Tarhan reported having suffered several bruises and abrasions on his body. He started a 28-day hunger strike the same day.

ECtHR convicted Turkey

Tarhan then applied to the ECtHR to defend his right to conscientious objection and report his maltreatment under arrest. The ECtHR ruled that the European Human Rights Convention was violated in Tarhan’s case and sentenced Turkey to pay 10,000 Euros.

Amnesty International Statement from 18 October 2006- “Turkey: Conscientious objector Mehmet Tarhan sentenced

Deputy PM Bülent Arınç’s Statement on LGBT at the Universal Periodic Review

Bülent Arınç, Deputy Prime Minister responsible for Human Rights, represented Turkey at the Universal Periodic Review on 27 January 2015. The webcast archive of the session can be viewed here.


In response to questions and recommendations on LGBT rights in Turkey, Arınç said,

There is no discriminatory provision against LGBTs in our laws.

The principle that everyone is equal before the law without distinction as to language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, sect and other such grounds is organised by the Constitution’s Article 10. Due to the expression “and other such grounds” in the aforementioned article, types of discriminations are not limited but rather exemplified, and there is no question that other types of discrimination are left outside the scope. That there is no special regulation for LGBTs does not mean that this group’s rights are not legally guaranteed.

On the other hand, pursuant to our Constitution’s Article 90, the international agreements we ratify are [considered] law. The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence -Istanbul Convention-, which we ratified without reservations, includes provisions which state that there can be no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In our country, like in all democratic states of law, perpetrators who commit murder and acts of violence against individuals of LGBT and all kinds of hate crimes are identified, the necessary investigations are started in order to bring them to justice, and the process is conducted by legal authorities scrupulously. The claims that the reasoning of unjust provocation constitute a routine in the reduction of penal responsibility do not match with the real situation that is revealed by tangible court decisions.

Translated by LGBTI News Turkey.

İnsan haklarından sorumlu Başbakan Yardımcısı Bülent Arınç’ın 27 Ocak 2015 tarihli Türkiye’nin Evrensel Periyodik İncelemesi’nde LGBT ile ilgili sözleri:

Mevzuatımızda LGBT’lere yönelik ayrımcı bir hüküm bulunmamaktadır.

Dil, ırk, renk, cinsiyet, siyasi düşünce, felsefi inanç, din, mezhep ve benzeri sebeplere ayrım gözetilmeksizin herkesin kanun önünde eşitliği ilkesi anayasanın 10. maddesi ile düzenlenmiştir. Sözkonusu maddede yer alan “ve benzeri sebeplerle” ifadesi sayesinde ayrımcılık türleri sınırlayıcı değil örnekleyici olup, diğer ayrımcılık türlerinin kapsam dışı kalması söz konusu değildir. LGBT’lere yönelik özel bir düzenlemenin olmaması hukuken bu grubun haklarının garanti altına alınmadığı anlamına gelmez.

Diğer tarafta anayasamızın 90. maddesi uyarınca onayladığımız uluslararası anlaşmalar kanun hükmündedir. Çekincesiz olarak taraf olduğumuz Kadına Yönelik Şiddet ve Aile İçi Şiddetin Önlenmesi ve Bunlarla Mücadeleye İlişkin Avrupa Konseyi Sözleşmesi’nde  -İstanbul Sözleşmesi-, cinsel yönelim temelinde ayrımcılık yapılamayacağına ilişkin hükümler de yer almaktadır.

Ülkemizde tüm demokratik hukuk devletlerinde olduğu gibi, LGBT’li bireylere karşı öldürme ve şiddet eylemleri ile her türlü nefret suçlarını işleyen faillerin belirlenerek adalete teslim edilmelerini teminen gerekli tahkikat açılmakta ve süreç adli makamlarca titizlikle yürütülmektedir. Sözkonusu davalarda haksız tahrik gerekçesinin ceza sorumluluğunu azaltan bir rutin teşkil ettiği yönündeki iddialar somut mahkeme kararları ile ortaya çıkan gerçek durumla örtüşmemektedir.

Turkey’s UPR review and Deputy PM Arınç’s LGBT remarks

Source: Ömer Akpınar, “Arınç: LGBT’lerin adlarının anılmaması haklarının olmadığı anlamına gelmez”, (“Arınç: The lack of reference to LGBTs does not mean they do not have rights”),, 27 January 2015,

Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç stated that there is no discriminatory legislation against LGBTs in Turkey’s Universal Periodic Review in Geneva. Arınç stated that the fact that there is no special regulation for LGBTs does not mean that their rights are ignored.

Member states of the United Nations submitted their recommendations in Turkey’s second Universal Periodic Review on 27 January 2015 under the auspices of the Human Rights Council.

Common recommendations were on the freedom of expression and assembly, violence against women, gender equality, and independence of the judiciary. The delegations of Croatia, Germany, and Slovenia submitted recommendations on the recognition of the right to conscientious objection.

11 countries made LGBT recommendations

Recommendations on non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity were put forth by 11 states. In the first-cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, Turkey had received only 5 recommendations on this issue.

Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Norway, and Slovenia’s recommendations included the need for legislation on non-discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Belgium, the United States, Czech Republic, Spain, and Switzerland submitted advance written questions. These are non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity [Belgium, Czech Republic, Switzerland], training for government employees on equal treatment for LGBT persons [USA], and the current punitive system of the Turkish Armed Forces which considers homosexuality and transsexuality as diseases [Spain].

Deputy PM Arınç: It’s not that there are no LGBT rights

[we will share translation of the LGBT-specific parts of Bülent Arınç’s speech when the webcast archive is uploaded]

Deputy Prime Minister responsible for Human Rights Bülent Arınç stated that they try to “have democratic relations with everyone no matter their identity”. Arınç said, “There are no discriminatory legislation against LGBTs” and that the lack of a special regulation for LGBTs does not mean that their rights are ignored.

Arınç: Istanbul Convention includes sexual orientation

Arınç noted that the Constitution’s Article 90 stipulates that international agreements duly put into force bear the force of law and that the Istanbul Convention includes the term sexual orientation.

Arınç also said that effective investigations on hate crimes against LGBTs are in place and that claims of “unjust provocation” reductions are incorrect.

The UN’s translation mistake: Sexual preference instead of sexual orientation

There were mistakes in the Turkish translation at Turkey’s Universal Periodic Review. The translator used the terms “sexual preference and social identity” instead of “sexual orientation and gender identity” when simultaneously translating the recommendations.

Kaos GL Association in Geneva

Ezgi Koçak from Kaos GL Association observed the session in Geneva and spoke on behalf of LGBTI News Turkey and Kaos GL at a Law Society and Civicus side-event on the freedom of expression in Turkey. Koçak had shared the joint LGBT submission “Human Rights Violations of LGBT Individuals in Turkey” with LGBTI News Turkey’s Zeynep Bilginsoy at the UPR pre-session in December.

Turkey did not implement pledged recommendation in the first-cycle on LGBT

Turkey received recommendations on its human rights record for the second time since the first-cycle in 2010. In the first-cycle, former Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek had claimed that the prevention of discrimination against LGBTs was under the protection of the Constitution.

In 2010, Turkey had accepted recommendations from Norway, Canada, and the Netherlands to implement non-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Turkey had also noted the Czech Republic’s recommendation to provide training to public officers on human rights, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

Since its first review, Turkey failed to implement these recommendations on non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Even though the Istanbul Convention, which Turkey ratified in November 2011, include the terms sexual orientation and gender identity in its article on non-discrimination, Turkey must bring its domestic laws in line with this convention to fulfill its international obligations.

Türkiye’nin İnsan Hakları Sicili Birleşmiş Milletler İnsan Hakları Konseyi’nde İncelenecek

Ortak Basın Açıklaması
KAOS GL, LGBTI NEWS TURKEY, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ILGA-World

İstanbul: Zeynep Bilginsoy
Ankara: Ezgi Kocak
New York: Hossein Alizadeh
Cenevre: Alessia Valenza

#UPRTurkey, #UPR21, @lgbtinewsturkey, @KaosGL, @IGLHRC, @ILGAWORLD

(İstanbul, Cenevre, New York; 26 Ocak 2015)

27 Ocak 2015 tarihinde, Birleşmiş Milletler’e üye devletler Türkiye’nin 2010’dan bu yana tutulan insan hakları sicilini inceleyecek. 2010’da devlet cinsel yönelim ve cinsel kimlik temelli ayrımcılıklar üzerine sicilini iyileştireceğine dair güvence vermişti. Fakat o günden beri LGBTİ kuruluşları Türkiye’nin bu alandaki başarısızlığını belgeledi.

İnsan Hakları Konseyi’nin gerçekleştireceği Evrensel Periyodik İnceleme’nin (EPİ) ikinci turu Türkiye’nin 2010’daki ilk turda kabul ettiği tavsiyelerin bir takibi niteliğinde olacak. Türkiye’nin ikinci periyodik değerlendirmesi İnsan Hakları Konseyi EPİ Çalışma Grubu’nun 21. oturumunda gerçekleştirilecek. İnceleme altındaki diğer ülkeler gibi Türkiye’nin EPİ süreci farklı bölgesel gruplardan seçilmiş üç konsey üyesi ülke tarafından yürütülecek: Gabon, Küba ve Suudi Arabistan. Bu üçlü, Türkiye’nin EPİ sürecinde raportör olarak hareket edecek. Üye ülkeler, sivil toplum tarafından belirtilen görüşlerle birlikte Türkiye’nin insan hakları sicili hakkında Birleşmiş Milletler üyesi diğer ülkelerin de tavsiye ve sorularını gündeme getirecek.

Türkiye’nin ikinci EPİ turuna katkıda bulunan yerel ve uluslararası sivil toplum kuruluşlarının sayısında ümit verici bir artış görülmüştür. LGBTİ kuruluşları da bu harekete katkıda bulunarak “Türkiye’de LGBT Yurttaşlara Yönelik İnsan Hakları İhlalleri” başlıklı belgeyi İnsan Hakları Konseyi’ne sunmuştur.

Gazetecilere, gelecek EPİ incelemesi hakkında bilgi vermek amacıyla  IGLHRC, KAOS GL ve LGBTI NEWS TURKEY tarafından hazırlanan “Arka Plan: İnsan Hakları Konseyi Evrensel Periyodik İncelemesi’nin Türkiye Değerlendirmesi” kuruluşların internet sitelerinde bulunabilir. Uzmanlar süreçle ilgili medya tarafından sorulacak soruları cevaplamaya da hazırlar.

Türkiye’nin ikinci periyodik incelemesi Cenevre’de Birleşmiş Milletler İnsan Hakları Konseyi’nde (Palais des Nations, Oda 20, 09.00) 27 Ocak’ta gerçekleştirilecek ve oturum adresinde canlı olarak yayınlanacak. Oturumun video arşivi, ilk oturumun arşiviyle beraber adresinde bulunabilir.

Arka Plan: İnsan Hakları Konseyi Evrensel Periyodik İncelemesi’nin Türkiye Değerlendirmesi

Ortak Basın Açıklaması
KAOS GL, LGBTI NEWS TURKEY, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ILGA-World

Birleşmiş Milletler İnsan Hakları Konseyi’nin 27 Ocak 2015 tarihinde yapacağı değerlendirme Türkiye’nin insan hakları sicilinin uluslarlarası boyutta incelenmesi için ikinci defa gönüllü olmasıyla gerçekleşiyor. Türkiye’nin ilk EPİ değerlendirmesi, İnsan Hakları Konseyi’nde Mayıs 2010’da gerçekleşmişti. Evrensel Periyodik İnceleme, devletlere insan hakları performanslarını tartışma ve kendilerini nasıl geliştirebilecekleri üzerine geri bildirim alma imkanı veren devletler tarafından yürütülen bir süreçtir.

Birinci Tur

2010’da devletler Türkiye’nin sicilindeki cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliği temelli ayrımcılıklar konusundaki endişeleri dile getirmişti. Türkiye bu oturumda Norveç, Kanada ve Hollanda’nın tavsiyelerini kabul etti ve bu tür ayrımcılıkları azaltmak için girişimlerde bulunacağına dair söz verdi. Çelişkili bir biçimde, Çek Cumhuriyeti ve İrlanda tarafından verilen benzer tavsiyeler hükümet tarafından reddedildi fakat Çek Cumhuriyeti’nin kadına karşı ayrımcılıkla mücadele etmek için verdiği tavsiyede cinsel yönelim teriminin ve İrlanda’nın tavsiyesinde cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliği terimlerinin kaldırılması ile önerileri kabul edilmişti. Hükümet ayrıca Çek Cumhuriyeti’nin devlet personeline verilecek cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliği odaklı bir insan hakları eğitimi üzerine tavsiyesini de not aldı.

Birinci Turun ve Yeni Gelişmelerin Takibi

Türkiye ilk değerlendirmesinden bu yana, cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliği temelli ayrımcılıklar konusunda kabul etmiş olduğu tavsiyeleri uygulamaya koymada başarısız oldu. “Cinsel yönelim” ve “cinsiyet kimliği” terimleri, içinde ayrımcılık ve nefret suçları üzerine düzenlemeleri de bulunduran Mart 2014 tarihli Yeni Demokrasi Paketi’nde yer almadı. Buna ek olarak, cinsel yönelim ve cinsel kimlik terimlerine dair herhangi bir referansa yeni anayasa taslağının eşitlik üzerine olan maddesinde de yer verilmedi.

Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası’nın 90. maddesi, usulüne göre yürürlüğe konulmuş temel hak ve özgürlüklere ilişkin milletlerarası antlaşmaların kanun hükmünde olduğunu ve üstünlüğünü belirtir. Türkiye’nin Kasım 2011’de onayladığı Kadınlara Yönelik Şiddet ve Aile İçi Şiddetin Önlenmesi ve Bunlarla Mücadeleye İlişjkin Avrupa Konseyi Sözleşmesi’nin ayrımcılık karşıtı hükmü, “cinsel yönelim” ve “cinsiyet kimliği” terimlerini içeriyor. Bu hükümetin bu zamana kadar sorumluluğunu üzerine almayı reddettiği LGBTİ bireylerin güvenliğinin sağlama alınması için iç hukukunu bu anlaşmanın eksenine getirerek uluslararası yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmesi gerektiği anlamına geliyor.

İkinci Tur: LGBTİ Grubu Gönderisi

2014 yazında, yerel ve uluslararası LGBTİ kuruluşları koalisyonu BM İnsan Hakları Konseyi’ne 2010-2014 yılları arasında LGBTİ bireylerin yaşadığı insan hakları ihlallerini belgeledikleri ortak bir EPİ raporu sundu. Rapor, gerçek veya varsayılan cinsel yönelim veya cinsiyet kimliği sebebiyle gerçekleşen en az 41 ölümün altını çizdi. Bu sayı LGBTİ dernekleri ve basına yansıyan vakalarla sınırlıdır.

Türkiye’nin EPİ’nin ilk turunda cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliği terimlerinin de bulunacağı kapsayıcı bir ayrımcılıkla mücadele yasasını yürürlüğe koyma sözüne karşın hükümet bu kesimi tanımak ve korumak adına hiçbir girişimde bulunmadı. Devlet tanıması ve korumasının yokluğu sebebiyle Türkiye’de cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliği temelli suçların verileri toplanmıyor, hatta bazı hakimler LGBTİ bireylere karşı işlenen nefret suçlarının faillerinin hapis cezalarına indirim uyguluyor. Eşcinsellik bir suç olarak görülmese bile çoğunlukla “müstehcen” veya “hukuka ve ahlaka aykırı” olarak adlandırılıyor. Cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliğinin bu şekilde yorumlanması LGBTİ topluluğunun ifade ve dernek kurma özgürlüğünü kısıtlıyor. Buna ek olarak, LGBTİ bireylerin yasal korumasının olmaması, bireylere yönelik cinsel yönelim ve cinsiyet kimliği temelli sistematik bir ayrımcılıkla sonuçlanıyor. Cinsel yönelimleri utanç verici ve “memurluk sıfatı ile bağdaşmayacak nitelik ve derece yüz kızartıcı” bulunduğu için kamu personelleri işlerinden çıkarıldı. Trans bireylerin ayrımcılık sebebiyle çalışma hayatına erişimleri yok ve seks işçiliğine başvurduklarındaysa polis tarafından keyfi olarak cezalandırılıyorlar.

AKP hükümetinin temsilcilerinin LGBTİ bireyler hakkında yaptıkları aşağılayıcı açıklamalar, homofobik ve transfobik bir ortama katkıda bulunuyorlar. 2010’da Kadın ve Aileden Sorumlu Devlet Bakanı Aliye Kavaf, “Ben eşcinselliğin biyolojik bir bozukluk, bir hastalık olduğuna inanıyorum. Tedavi edilmesi gereken bir şey bence” açıklamasında bulundu. 2013’te, İstanbul Milletvekili ve Sağlık, Aile, Çalışma ve Sosyal İşler Komisyonu Başkanı Türkan Dağoğlu “LGBT dediğimiz durum normal dışı bir davranıştır” açıklamasını yaptı. Hükümet yanlısı gazetelerin yinelemesiyle, bu söylemler ayrımcılık ve nefret suçlarının devam edebilmesini sağlıyor.

Son olarak, Türkiye’nin EPİ’nin ikinci turu için sunduğu Ulusal Rapor da cinsel yönelim, cinsiyet kimliği veya LGBTİ sorunlarıyla ilgili herhangi bir referans içermiyor.