By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Sep 30 2024 – Georgia’s ruling party has put LGBTQI+ people firmly in the firing line ahead of next month’s election. On 17 September, parliament gave final approval to a highly discriminatory law that empowers the authorities to censor books and films with LGBTQI+ content, stop discussion of LGBTQI+ issues in schools, ban people from flying rainbow flags and prevent Pride events. The law excludes LGBTQI+ people from adopting children, bans gender affirmation surgery and refuses to recognise same-sex marriages of Georgians conducted abroad.

Latest troubling development

Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law breaches a wide range of international human rights commitments. And it’s a repeat offence: in May, a bill became law designating civil society and media groups that receive at least 20 per cent of funding from international sources as ‘pursuing the interests of a foreign power’. The ‘foreign agents’ law will enable vilification, fuel public suspicion and tie organisations up in lengthy compliance procedures.

President Salome Zourabichvili, who is independent of the ruling Georgian Dream party, vetoed the foreign agents bill, calling it a ‘Russian law’, also the view of the mass protest movement that rose up to oppose it. But presidential powers are weak, and parliament quickly reversed the veto. Zourabichvili – Georgia’s last directly elected president, with future presidents to be picked by parliament after her term ends in October – has also pledged to veto the anti-LGBTQI+ law. But a similar parliamentary override seems certain.

Georgia Dream says its anti-LGBTQI+ law, known as the law on ‘family values and the protection of minors’, is needed to defend ‘traditional moral standards’. It also said its foreign agents law was needed to stop international funders sponsoring ‘LGBT propaganda’ and fomenting revolution.

Both laws are part of a growing climate of state hostility towards civil society, in a country that once stood out as an ex-Soviet state that broadly respected civic freedoms. Last year, the European Union (EU)-Georgia Civil Society Platform – a body established as part of negotiations towards the country potentially joining the EU – criticised a sustained government smear campaign against civil society. Freedom House pointed to growing harassment and violence against journalists.

The anti-LGBTQI+ law reflects a reassertion of influence by the Georgian Orthodox Church, the country’s dominant religion, and a closer alignment with Russia. The foreign agents law imitates one introduced in Russia in 2012, which paved the way for intense repression of civil society, while Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law is also strikingly similar to that passed in Russia in 2013, which has been extensively used to criminalise and silence LGBTQI+ people.

The two laws can only move the country further away from the stated goal of joining the EU. They place Georgia at a fork in the road: the government and the church clearly see it as a socially conservative country that legitimately belongs in Russia’s orbit. But others – the many people, overwhelmingly young, who’ve protested and faced state violence in return – represent a different Georgian identity: one that’s democratic, inclusive and European.

Vilification and violence

Hostility has made it harder for Georgia’s LGBTQI+ people to claim visibility. Last year, violent far-right attacks forced the cancellation of the Tbilisi Pride parade. The authorities have consistently failed to ensure the safety of participants. When people first marched on 17 May 2013, they were attacked by a mob that included members of the clergy. In 2021, extremist groups also attacked journalists covering the event, as the police stood by and did nothing.

In 2014, the year after Pride first mobilised, the Church declared 17 May – the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia – to be Family Purity Day, an event marked with a public holiday. This year, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze joined thousands at the Family Purity Day march in Tbilisi. In contrast, such was the level of hostility that Tbilisi Pride organisers decided to only hold virtual events. LGBTQI+ people were denied the chance to do the very thing Pride events exist for: assert visibility and normalise their public presence.

The new law reverses some recent progress civil society achieved in shifting homophobic social values, with young people particularly showing more tolerant attitudes. But now the law will have the effect similar legislation has had elsewhere: giving the green light to stigmatisation, vilification and violence. Activists have pointed to the recent murder of one of the country’s few high-profile transgender people, model Kesaria Abramidze, as a grim sign of what may come. Extremist groups can only be emboldened, confident the law is on their side when they commit acts of hatred.

The upcoming election

Georgian Dream seeks a fourth consecutive term when the country goes to the polls in October. With the opposition divided, it seems certain to come first again. But its support fell in the last election and opinion polls suggest it’s lost more votes since. Possibly worried about keeping its majority, it’s opted to vilify an already excluded group of people.

Georgian Dream may think hostility towards LGBTQI+ people and civil society groups is safer electoral territory than a more explicitly anti-western, pro-Russian stance. But its recent decisions signal how it will rule if its electoral strategy pays off: not by upholding the rights of all Georgians but by putting the interests of its socially conservative supporters first, and by tailoring policies to please Vladimir Putin.

Georgian Dream still pays lip service to the idea of joining the EU, but the party’s billionaire financier and behind-the-scenes leader Bidzina Ivanishvili recently made his position clear, accusing western countries of being part of a global conspiracy to drag Georgia into a repeat of its ill-fated 2008 war with Russia. Georgian-Russian relations have warmed since Russia launched its all-out war on Ukraine in 2022.

The EU, for its part, reacted to the foreign agents law by suspending financial aid and Georgia’s accession negotiations. It must take a firm line and make clear Georgia won’t be allowed to join until the human rights of all its people are recognised and civil society is respected.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2024 – Today’s digital age is centered around TikTok, the short-form social media platform that hosts around 1 billion global users. Sensationalized or reductive videos often get the most engagement with young audiences, leading to the spread of misinformation on a global level.

On September 26, the World Health Programme (WHO) and TikTok announced a year-long collaboration, for which they plan to provide users with reliable and researched health information. WHO’s affiliated network, Fides, employs healthcare experts and fact-based content creators to dispel inaccuracies, promote transparency, and encourage healthier practices.

According to studies from the nonprofit health policy group KFF, TikTok users that actively search for health information are more likely to be exposed to false information around gun safety, reproductive healthcare, and COVID-19 vaccines. While approximately forty percent of TikTok users trust videos about health information, only thirteen percent of users will follow up with a medical professional.

“The algorithms work in a way that if you’re following people who put out misinformation, then you’re consistently getting bad information, and if you’re getting all your information from there then there is a big percentage of people who are not getting fact-based information”, said Katrine Wallace, PhD, epidemiologist and assistant professor at the University of Illinois Chicago.

This is of great concern to health officials around the world as younger audiences are more likely to use TikTok for advice for serious health issues that require professional medical evaluation.

A study led by Mackin Loveland, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, reported that 40 percent of TikTok videos tagged with the terms “liver disease” contained misinformation. These videos advocated for alternative practices, none of which have been verified by professionals.

“Even though inaccurate posts were less popular, they still represent a high volume of misinformation on the platform, leaving people with liver disease susceptible to false claims,” said Loveland. “Given the high mortality associated with liver disease, the impact of spreading inaccurate claims on such a popular social media platform could have serious clinical ramifications.”

Mental health topics report the highest levels of misinformation on TikTok. Due to symptoms of mental conditions being linked to emotional well being, many users feel compelled to provide advice and conduct diagnoses on themselves or others. For instance, many videos advocate for deep breathing as a cure to anxiety, and rely on pseudoscience and astrology to explain certain behaviors.

“Diagnosing a mental illness is actually pretty complicated, and there’s a lot of different factors that go into it. People — particularly young people — may be believing that they have a diagnosis that doesn’t really apply to them”, said Jackie Nesi, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University.

Nesi adds that social media has the ability to minimize the severity of certain conditions through the use of humor, leading to users not taking mental health as seriously as they should. It is important to note that TikTok can be a positive first step for those seeking advice about their health. Nesi states that the humor of the platform fosters an environment with less stigma, allowing for people facing similar conditions to find support. This is why WHO and TikTok are optimistic about their collaboration as it allows for the same levels of community building while encouraging safety and critical thinking.

“This collaboration can prove to be an inflection point in how platforms can be more socially-responsible. The intersection of health and technology presents an opportunity to reach people of all ages, where they are, when they want to access,” said Dr Jeremy Farrar, WHO Chief Scientist. “By working with TikTok and others, we are helping people access credible information and engage in scientific discourse that collectively helps shape a healthier future for all.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Hilda Flavia Nakabuye
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2024 – The world is standing at a critical juncture. Climate change is not just a future threat—it’s here, and it’s already devastating lives. From record-breaking heat waves to floods and landslides, the planet is sending us clear signals that we cannot afford to ignore.

But for many of us in the Global South, this crisis is not new. It is a daily reality that we have been living with for years, despite contributing almost nothing to the problem.

I am from Uganda, a country that contributes less than 0.02% of global CO2 emissions and ranks as the 36th most vulnerable country to the impacts of climate change. I grew up on a farm, and I saw firsthand how changing weather patterns—flooded roads and mudslides—kept me from attending school.

What was once a reliable planting season turned into a guessing game of whether the rains would come at all or whether they’d wash away everything in their path.

Our plantation didn’t survive. Neither did many others in my region. And in the end, it wasn’t just our farm that was lost—it was our livelihood, our food security, and for me, an entire year of education.

Nakabuye marches with fellow Make Rich Polluters Pay activist Marinel Ubaldo across the Brooklyn Bridge during the Youth Climate Strike in New York City on September 20, 2024.

What frustrates me most is that Africa, a continent rich in resources and biodiversity, continues to bear the brunt of a crisis we did not create. Our people are paying with their lives and futures for the emissions and actions of the world’s wealthiest.

According to Oxfam, the richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as the poorest two-thirds of humanity and their carbon emissions are enough to cause 1.3 million excess deaths due to heat. The richest continue to be indifferent to the fact that it is the poorest and frontline communities who pay the price.

According to UNICEF, girls worldwide spend 200 million hours every single day collecting water. Think about that for a moment—200 million hours. The climate crisis is making this burden even heavier.

As water sources dry up, girls are forced to walk further and further, giving up education and opportunities to secure the most basic human need. By 2030, water insecurity is expected to displace 700 million people globally—most of them girls and women. This is not just a climate crisis; it’s a social justice crisis.

Africa, despite its negligible carbon footprint, is on the frontlines of environmental disasters, while the fossil fuel industry continues to rake in record profits. This system is built on injustice. A system where the few benefit while the rest of us suffer. It’s a system where the powerful can pollute, and the poor pay the price.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

In Uganda, we’re organizing. I founded Fridays for Future Uganda to demand climate justice and to fight for a sustainable future where communities can thrive, not just survive. And we’re not alone. Across the world, movements like Make Rich Polluters Pay are calling for those responsible for the climate crisis—the fossil fuel giants and the ultra-wealthy—to be held accountable.

The solutions are within reach, but it requires the political will to act. Right now, in New York, there’s a bill sitting on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk that could set a powerful precedent. The Climate Change Superfund Act would force major fossil fuel companies to pay their fair share for climate damages in the state.

Governor Hochul has the power to sign this into law and ensure that everyday people aren’t left footing the bill for the climate crisis. We need similar actions across the globe.

This November, at COP29 in Baku, leaders from the Global North, including the United States, must agree on a new goal for climate finance that includes taxing the ultra-wealthy and fossil fuel companies. Rich countries, whose emissions have fueled the climate crisis, must step up and take the lead. It’s time for rich polluters to pay for the destruction they’ve caused.

We cannot wait any longer. The climate crisis is here. The people who have contributed the least to this crisis are the ones suffering the most. We need to hold those responsible to account and demand that they pay for the loss and damage we are experiencing.

The future we want is equal—one where renewable energy powers our economies, where girls are in classrooms instead of walking miles for water, and where communities in Uganda, New York, and beyond can thrive.

I urge you to take action. There are many ways you can do that. One is to support the Make Rich Polluters Pay campaign by signing the petition and raising your voice. Climate justice isn’t just a demand—it’s our right. Together, we can build a better, fairer future for everyone.

Hilda Flavia Nakabuye is a Ugandan climate and environmental rights activist and founder of Fridays for Future Uganda.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Stephanie Musho
NEW YORK, Sep 30 2024 – Last week, UN member states adopted the Pact of the Future – and its two annexes: the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration for Future Generations. These action-oriented documents are envisaged to counter emerging threats to development and acceleration of progress on Agenda 2030. Nonetheless, there remains little political prioritization of reproductive justice on this agenda.

This is despite sustained and growing threats on sexual and reproductive health and rights that exposes about 43% of women globally, who lack autonomy to make choices on their sexual and reproductive health, putting their lives at risk and jeopardizing their chances of living to their full potential.

Consider that the Pact, with over 56 action points, only has one provision on sexual and reproductive health. The two annexes are silent on this thematic area. Although the three texts are to be considered jointly, and therefore all encompassing, thematic areas such as climate and conflict are widely provided for across the three texts – and in some cases, repeated.

This is despite sustained and growing threats on sexual and reproductive health and rights that exposes about 43% of women globally, who lack autonomy to make choices on their sexual and reproductive health, putting their lives at risk and jeopardizing their chances of living to their full potential

While the sustained threats of climate and conflict are indeed crucial, the lopsided advancement of some goals and the relegation of others will ultimately result in the non-realization of our collective goals for people and planet.

Alarmingly, over 30 countries, all who adopted the Pact – and therefore committed to securing reproductive health, are signatories to the Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD). This is a regressive anti-abortion declaration that was initiated by anti-gender activist Valerie Huber, former advisor to ex-US President Donald Trump in the US Department of Health and Human Services, who erroneously claimed that there is no international right to abortion.

Even though, this right is explicitly provided for in international legal frameworks including the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa – commonly referred to as the Maputo Protocol.

Additionally, the right to abortion has been determined by international human rights mechanisms including the UN Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Further, the Geneva Consensus Declaration, encourages countries to hide under the principle of sovereignty to ‘release’ countries from their obligations under international law.

This ideological position goes against the thrust of the Pact of the Future that seeks to renew trust in multilateralism and promote international cooperation. We already know that subscription to the realist school of thought has led to some of the world’s worst crises including the historical great wars and the raging wars across Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and beyond.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration in advancing this position is therefore an affront to the progress made under international relations towards peace and development.

Even so, a country like Kenya maintains its signature on the Declaration – that contravenes its own national laws. The Constitution provides for the right to the highest attainable standard of reproductive health. Further, there are provisions therein that guarantee access to safe abortion in certain instances.

This has been buttressed by case law, notably in the decision in Constitutional Petition E009 of 2020, which strongly affirmed that abortion care is a fundamental right under the Constitution of Kenya and outlawed arbitrary arrests and prosecution of patients and healthcare providers for seeking or offering such services.

Kenya must therefore rescind its signature on this document that contravenes national and international laws and which conflicts with its foreign policy positions.

While the GCD is not legally binding, it could form the basis of how future norms begin. In fact, Valerie Huber through the Institute for Women’s Health has launched a mechanism called Protego to operationalize the Declaration. Additionally, has been engaged in campaigns targeted at the First Ladies of African countries in a bid to secure their countries’ political commitments on the Declaration.

Consequently, Chad and Burundi recently signed onto it; expanding its reach. It must therefore be challenged to stop it from becoming the primary basis for encoding anti-abortion ideology into international law.

Following the Summit of the Future and on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, governments and philanthropies committed US$350 million in new investments for sexual and reproductive health services. While this is welcome in securing these rights, it does not cover the financing gap on SRHR.

This vacuum includes crucial funding needs to mitigate the threats of the well-resourced and coordinated anti-gender/ anti-rights movement that misleadingly weaponize family values towards negating human rights. Moreover, it is crucial that the commitments convert to actual disbursements that benefit the intended recipients.

As gears switch from negotiations and adoption of the Pact of the Future, countries must withdraw their signatures on this Declaration and align their foreign policy positions with their domestic and international legal obligations.

More so, together with philanthropies, civil society and private sector through the imPACT coalitions – designed to drive reforms and proposals toward the Summit of the Future and thereafter the implementation process of the Pact, must consider the deleterious impact of the anti-gender / anti-rights movement on advancing the development agenda; and formulate strategies to mitigate their footprint.  These must include the universal withdrawal from the GCD.  Until then, women and girls – more so in low- and middle-income countries, will continue to die preventable deaths annually, from complications arising from unsafe abortions.

Stephanie Musho is a human rights lawyer and a Senior New Voices Fellow at the Aspen Institute