Although this is still just a draft law, it is hard to imagine that it won’t be approved and adopted by the parliament — the “National Assembly,” which in practice is not an independent branch of power but rather serves the executive authority headed by a single person.

What exactly does the draft law “on the propaganda of non-traditional relations” propose? Which of its formulations are particularly vague or legally dangerous?

The new draft law amends the Code of Administrative Offenses and introduces new articles, including Article 19.16 — “Propaganda of homosexual relations, sex change, childlessness, and pedophilia.”

It proposes administrative liability for:

“Dissemination in any form of information aimed at shaping citizens’ perceptions of the attractiveness of homosexual relations, sex change, childlessness, or recognizing pedophilia as acceptable.”

From a legal perspective, each part of this formulation poses serious risks:

“Dissemination”

Immediately brings to mind a key tool of politically motivated administrative persecution — Article 19.11 of the Administrative Code: “Possession and dissemination of extremist materials.”

By analogy, authorities may interpret “dissemination” extremely broadly — including liking, reposting, or forwarding in private messages anything they believe “shapes perceptions of the attractiveness” of LGBTQ+ rights.

Experience with Article 19.11 shows that people can end up in a detention facility over a single online action — for example, liking or reposting content listed as extremist. That list now spans nearly 1,800 pages in a Word document. The new article creates the same legal trap, but skips the stage of officially recognizing something as “extremist”: to punish an LGBTQ+ person, it would be enough to simply write, say, like, send, or share something.

“In any form”

This essentially covers all forms of expression protected by the right to free speech — including oral statements, social media posts, personal blogs, art, or lectures.

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

“Shaping perceptions of the attractiveness of homosexual relations, sex change, childlessness”

This is the key subjective element — impossible to verify. Any positive or even neutral information about LGBTQ+ people or child-free living can be deemed as “creating an attractive image.”

This approach is a deliberate strategy by the authorities. They continue to build a legal framework with vague wording in order to selectively persecute those they dislike and intimidate everyone else who hasn’t yet been targeted.

“…or recognizing pedophilia as acceptable”

The inclusion of pedophilia in the same list as LGBTQ+ and childlessness is a deliberate manipulation that falsely equates fundamentally different things.

This clause is explicitly aimed at stigmatization and further fuels discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.

What kinds of actions or materials could be considered “propaganda”? Would social media posts, articles, or photos with a rainbow flag be included?

Because the language is all-encompassing (“in any form”) and intentionally vague, potentially any action or material on the topic could be classified as propaganda.

This approach is a conscious strategy by the authorities — the creation of a legal framework with vague definitions to selectively prosecute disfavored individuals and intimidate the rest. The same method has long been used in anti-extremist and “anti-terrorist” legislation, particularly under the guise of protecting “national security.”

In practice, this could include, but is not limited to:

• Liking or reacting to a post about LGBTQ+ rights or a positive coming-out story;
• Using emojis like 🌈, 🏳️‍🌈, ❤️‍🔥 in comments;
• Sending memes, songs, quotes, or news (any form of queer art or culture) in private messages or chats, even closed ones;
• Wearing Pride-themed or feminist accessories — which could be interpreted as a public demonstration of LGBTQ+ “attractiveness”;
• A selfie or photo with a rainbow flag on your phone;
• Non-condemning discussions — for example, talking about a happy LGBTQ+ family, which could be seen as “creating a positive image.”

Who is at risk? Could the law affect journalists, educators, bloggers, LGBTQ+ activists — including those in exile?

The logic of this article rests on the assumption that LGBTQ+ individuals — and the very idea of freedom of choice — are a threat. The goal is clear: to silence any voices advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, child-free living, or gender transition. It aims to deprive people of the ability to speak about themselves, share their stories, reduce vulnerability, and combat stereotypes.

Social integration and reducing discrimination against LGBTQ+ people are only possible through public awareness and educational efforts — this is fundamental.

Meanwhile, statistics suggest that about 10% of the global population identifies as LGBTQ+, which means approximately 1 million people in Belarus are part of a group whose rights the law aims to restrict further.

Individuals may face fines of up to 20 base units (currently 840 BYN, approx. 260 USD), and organizations or sole proprietors up to 100 base units (4200 BYN, approx. 1300 USD). Stricter penalties apply if minors are exposed to such information — 20 to 30 base units (up to 1260 BYN, approx. 390 USD), community service, or administrative arrest for individuals, and 100–200 base units (up to 8400 BYN, approx. 2600 USD) for organizations or entrepreneurs.

Can someone living outside Belarus be prosecuted under this law? Especially if their content is accessible to Belarusian teenagers?

Yes. Administrative cases can be processed in absentia — meaning court proceedings can occur without the individual being present. If a fine is imposed and not paid, forced collection may follow, along with an additional percentage for enforcement. This is especially concerning if the person owns property in Belarus.

Should authors delete old posts or limit access to queer content? Does it reduce legal risk?

If you are concerned about persecution and want to reduce your risk, it is advisable to delete or restrict access to such content — especially after the law comes into force, which could happen as early as this autumn.

Legally, posts made before the law takes effect cannot serve as grounds for prosecution, as laws do not have retroactive effect. However, in politically motivated cases, this principle is frequently violated.

For example, Article 19.11 (“possession and dissemination of extremist materials”) is often used against people who liked or shared content before it was declared extremist. The same has been seen with donations, affiliations, and more.

Does the draft law violate Belarus’ international obligations and basic human rights? Is there a basis for appeal or legal protection?

Yes. This draft law clearly violates a number of Belarus’ obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill fundamental human rights.

Its adoption would lead to systematic violations of, at the very least:

• The right to freedom of expression,
• The right to privacy,
• Freedom from discrimination.

These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus and are binding under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Belarus has ratified.

The government is also ignoring “soft law” standards — recommended but non-binding principles — such as the Yogyakarta Principles, which apply international human rights standards to LGBTQ+ people.

Principle 19 specifically states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This includes the expression of identity through speech, behavior, dress, physical characteristics, choice of name, or any other means, as well as the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information of all kinds, including concerning human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity, through any medium and regardless of frontiers.”

Violations of these rights can and should be challenged — both within Belarus and internationally.

In Belarus: appeal court rulings. Exhausting domestic remedies (only one higher-level court is required) allows for individual complaints to be filed with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Despite the name, complaints from all people facing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity can be reviewed.

Individual cases can also be submitted to UN Special Rapporteurs — for instance, to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, on the situation of human rights in Belarus, or on sexual orientation and gender identity.

If needed, lawyers from the Human Rights Center “Viasna” can help — you can reach them via Telegram: @zvarot96

— Vika Rudenkova, lawyer at HRC “Viasna”