Turkish police detain dozens at banned Istanbul Pride march, lawmaker says
Footage obtained by Reuters showed police scuffling with a group of activists holding rainbow flags in the city center before rounding them up and loading them into police vans.
Kezban Konukcu, a lawmaker from the pro-Kurdish DEM Party who attended the march, told Reuters that at least 30 people had been taken into custody.
Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Istanbul governor's office had earlier deemed the march unlawful and said groups promoting the event were operating 'illegally.'
Authorities have banned Pride marches in Turkey's largest city since 2015, citing public safety and security concerns.
President Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist-rooted AK Party has adopted increasingly harsh rhetoric against the LGBTQ+ community over the past decade.
In January, Erdogan declared 2025 the 'Year of the Family,' describing Turkey's declining birth rate as an existential threat and accusing the LGBTQ+ movement of undermining traditional values.
'The primary goal of the gender neutralization policies, in which LGBT is used as a battering ram, is the family and the sanctity of the family institution,' Erdogan said in January.
Rights groups have condemned Turkey's stance. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have warned that government rhetoric and actions are fueling a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ people, contributing to rising discrimination and violence.
Despite the bans, small groups of activists continue to mark Pride Week each year. Organizers say the increasingly aggressive police response reflects broader crackdowns on dissent and freedom of assembly in Turkey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
The Boomers Having Their Wages Cut for Continuing to Work
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. South Korea's older workers are facing steep wage cuts and insecure work conditions simply for staying on the job past a certain age—a reality drawing criticism from rights groups. Why It Matters South Korea has one of the highest rates of elderly poverty in the developed world. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), 38 percent of people over 65 live in relative poverty. The nation's "peak wage" system and mandatory retirement policies are pushing many older workers into lower-paid, more precarious jobs, even as the country faces a shrinking workforce and a falling birthrate. Newsweek reached out to the South Korean embassy in Washington, D.C., via email with a request for comment. What To Know Critics say the mandatory retirement ages, forced wage cuts for older employees and reemployment programs that shift retirees into lower-paid, insecure roles reinforce ageist stereotypes and undermine the dignity and rights of South Korea's older population. South Korea's "peak wage" system lets employers reduce wages by as much as 50 percent in the years leading up to mandatory retirement, which is often set at 60. While the system is meant to encourage companies to hire younger workers, HRW found "no evidence that the government is achieving its aim of hiring younger workers under the peak wage system or that it is monitoring how employers use the savings to this end." An older man wearing a face mask sits on a bench in Seoul, South Korea, on March 20, 2019. An older man wearing a face mask sits on a bench in Seoul, South Korea, on March 20, 2019. Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images Instead, many retirees are moved into "non-regular" jobs with lower pay and fewer protections—often earning less than the national minimum wage. The government's own Korea Labor Force Development Institute for the Aged reported that more than 70 percent of its placements for older workers are volunteer roles. The rights group found no evidence that these measures are actually helping young job- seekers or improving productivity, and said they have, in many cases, caused financial and psychological harm. In addition, the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion specifically exempts mandatory retirement ages from being challenged as discrimination, making it nearly impossible for older workers to contest these practices. Data from the Ministry of Employment and Labor show older workers earn 29 percent less, on average, than workers 59 and younger. What People Have Said Kim Ki-duk, a labor lawyer, told The Guardian, "Simply raising the retirement age to 65 would give companies more years to apply discriminatory wage cuts under the current system." Gwon Oh-hoon, a 52-year-old attorney in Seoul, told HRW: "It's an infringement of human dignity. Just because I'm older, I can't work where I've worked my entire life." What's Next With the number of retirees rising fast—South Korea's working-age population is projected to fall by half within 50 years. The government has discussed raising the retirement age to match the state pension eligibility age—currently 63 and set to rise to 65 by 2033—but labor advocates warn that unless wage structures are also reformed, this may simply extend the period of discrimination.
CNN
12 hours ago
- CNN
Websites serving Harvard undergrad women, minority and LGBTQ students taken down, Crimson reports
Websites for Harvard College centers serving minority and LGBTQ students and women vanished Wednesday, The Harvard Crimson reported, marking the continued unraveling of diversity initiatives at the nation's most prestigious university as it faces fresh pressure from the Trump administration. Websites for the Harvard College Women's Center, the Office for BGLTQ Student Life and the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations now redirect to a page for an Office of Culture and Community, the student newspaper reported. That office – which promotes '(e)xposure to and learning from different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences,' its site states – was announced internally just Wednesday as a replacement for the soon-to-close diversity office for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which encompasses Harvard College, the undergraduate school and university's PhD programs. The White House welcomed the development, viewing it as a goodwill gesture one official described Thursday as 'good news.' In a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber on Thursday, alumni group Crimson Courage expressed disappointment with 'the dismantling of diversity efforts at Harvard College and the FAS,' calling it a threat to academic freedom and the university's core values. The group called on Garber to reinstate diversity initiatives to 'ensure that all students are safe and welcome.' 'This is no time to step back from your refusal to allow the federal government to dictate how Harvard educates,' Crimson Courage said. 'It's time for courage not capitulation.' Also Wednesday, the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services notified the New England Commission of Higher Education that Harvard is 'in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws and therefore may fail to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission,' according to a joint statement. That statement followed a June 30 finding by the Trump administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism that Harvard was in 'violent violation' of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal funding. The new Office of Culture and Community is part of an effort to 'break down silos, ensuring all members of our community are connected, supported, and empowered,' Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi Hoekstra told colleagues Wednesday in a memo to which a university spokesperson directed CNN for information about the disappearance of the Harvard College website. As for its accreditation, Harvard 'continues to comply with the New England Commission of Higher Education's Standards for Accreditation, maintaining its accreditation uninterrupted since its initial review in 1929,' the spokesperson said Thursday in a statement. 'Antisemitism is a serious problem and no matter the context, it is unacceptable,' the statement said, adding the university 'has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias.' The moves Wednesday come amid a monthslong fight between Harvard and the Trump administration, which has sought to coerce the school to make changes that adhere to its more conservative ideology and less than a month ago suggested a deal was in sight. Other US universities have faced similar pressure from the White House and met at least some of its demands. At Harvard, the White House since April has frozen billions of federal dollars and threatened to yank more if Harvard does not comply, accusing the university in part of failing to adequately combat antisemitism and curb diversity practices – designed to advance racial, gender, class and other representation in public spaces – it decries as 'illegal and immoral discrimination.' Harvard in April announced it would rename its central diversity office from the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging to the Office of Community and Campus Life. It also has acknowledged antisemitism is an issue, and two school task forces in late April released a pair of internal reports – one on its handling of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias, and the other of anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias. Its antisemitism task force, among other proposed changes, recommended updating the admissions process to focus on the need to work alongside people of differing viewpoints and be prepared to accept disagreements. Harvard should also 'become a hub for antisemitism research' and dedicate a faculty member to its study, the task force said. 'We remain committed to ensuring members of our Jewish and Israeli community are embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard,' its spokesperson added Thursday. Meantime, Harvard continues to battle the Trump administration in federal court on two fronts: In one, it seeks to claw back the frozen federal funds, with a hearing set for July 21; in the other, a judge has indefinitely blocked the White House's effort to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll international students, who make up about a quarter of its enrollment.
Chicago Tribune
16 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Oak Park officials mull adding protections for gender affirming care
The Oak Park Village Board is poised next month to add an article to its Human Rights Ordinance that would protect gender affirming care. The proposal comes in the wake of a Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that outlaws gender affirming care for minors in that state. After reviewing a draft ordinance during its first reading at the July 1 Oak Park Village Board meeting and hearing public comment from three Oak Park residents, the board will likely vote Aug. 5 on adding protections for gender affirming care, which is care that supports gender transitions or sex changes, to the village's Human Rights Ordinance, though officials said they are gathering further input. Language in the draft ordinance indicates more than 20 states, but not Illinois, have 'banned or severely limited health care to align a young person's body with their gender identity.' No board members expressed any opposition to the draft ordinance at the July meeting. 'I think it's a good ordinance and I support it,' said board member Jim Taglia. Resident Aaron McManus, said that the ordinance was good but wanted it to go further. He asked the board for further protections, including making Oak Park a sanctuary city for trans people and adding privacy protections. 'So great start — thanks again — but you've still got some work to do,' McManus said. 'And again I'd like to advocate for a public declaration of the sanctuary status.' Board members were open to adding sanctuary status in the future. 'This is a great first step,' said board member Brian Straw. 'I do want to see us go further on the path to being a sanctuary village for trans and queer individuals.' Village Board member Cory Wesley wanted to know if there are any communities in the United States that have declared themselves to be trans sanctuaries. Village President Vicki Scaman said that she wanted to reach out to groups such as Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, or PFLAG, for input and also reach out other units of local government such as Oak Park Township and area school districts before voting on the ordinance. Village manager Kevin Jackson said he would also solicit views from the village's Community Relations Commission before bringing back the proposed ordinance for a vote. One person who made a public comment, who asked Pioneer Press not to name her because of safety concerns, said she supported the ordinance but worried that the ordinance could increase the visibility of the issue and thus put trans individuals at risk. 'I worry that we are inviting unwanted attention,' she said during her public comment. That was a concern that board members took seriously. 'The last thing we want to do in crafting protections is to put people at risk,' Wesley said. Assistant village manager Kira Tchang said the push for the ordinance came about because the LGBTQ community is under attack. The draft ordinance would prohibit any village agent or agency from providing information about or investigating or aiding in any investigation of a person or entity providing or receiving gender affirming care obtained in conformance with the laws of the state of Illinois. The immediate impact of the ordinance would be mostly symbolic because Illinois already has a law, passed in 2023, that protects medical providers who perform gender affirming care and protects access to gender affirming care. The draft ordinance also requires the village of Oak Park to object to any subpoena or request for records for information from any out of state person or entity for the purposes of investigating a law criminalizing gender affirming care or creating civil liability for gender affirming care. This also largely mirrors existing state law.
