On the night of 12 September, Turkish authorities blocked access to the websites and social media accounts of LGBTI+ organisations and rights defenders. Police then raided homes, association offices and businesses across several cities, detaining dozens of people. Conducted under the name “My Family Is Safe”, the raids have raised urgent questions about how appeals to family and public safety are being used to restrict LGBTI+ rights and civil society.
Turkey has been shaken by the recent wave of repression againtst its LGBTI+ community. The “My Family Is Safe” raids that took place last week formed part of investigations coordinated by public prosecutors’ offices in Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir, Aydın and Mersin in Turkey. Extending across 15 provinces, the investigations targeted 162 people, nine LGBTI+ associations and 13 businesses.
According to Kaos GL’s initial field-based information, nearly 50 LGBTI+ rights defenders, association executives and members, former association officials, and independent activists had either been detained or subjected to statement-taking or detention procedures.
The homes of members of Kaos GL’s executive and supervisory boards were also raided, and its Ankara office was searched. Police confiscated phones, computers and other digital materials. Raids and detentions also targeted other LGBTI+ organisations in several cities.
Before the raids began, access was blocked to the websites of Kaos GL, the 17 May Association, ÜniKuir, Pembe Hayat, SPoD, the Young LGBTI+ Association, Lambdaistanbul, Muamma LGBTI+ and Velvele. The personal accounts of numerous activists were also blocked. The social media accounts of Kaos GL, Trans Pride, Ankara Pride, Istanbul Pride and İzmir Pride were similarly affected.
The investigations were launched on allegations including establishing a criminal organisation, prostitution, obscenity and possession of illegal drugs. The Ministry of Justice stated that the operations were conducted in accordance with the government’s ten-year “Decade of the Family and Population” policy.
Different Allegations Brought Together Under a Single Operation
The raids brought LGBTI+ associations, entertainment venues, activists and several different criminal allegations together under a single heading. Materials reportedly discovered during the searches were also presented to the public as one collective list.
However, official statements did not clearly distinguish which materials were found at which addresses or to whom they were connected. This risks creating the impression that different individuals and organisations are all part of the same criminal activity.
LGBTI+ organisations drew attention to this issue in a joint statement. They stressed that investigations involving entertainment venues should not be conflated with the activities of associations engaged in human rights advocacy. They also called for the distinction between being investigated and being proven guilty of a crime to be respected.
The raids therefore cannot be assessed solely in terms of the number of people detained. It is also necessary to consider the effects of the language used publicly on LGBTI+ organisations and the people who turn to them for support.
The Boundary Between Human Rights Advocacy and Obscenity
In the investigation into Kaos GL, material published on its website and social media accounts was cited as the basis for allegations of obscenity. However, the specific content on which these allegations were based was not disclosed to the public.
The prosecutor’s statement alleged that children were being influenced in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Preventing LGBTI+ identities from becoming accepted as an ordinary part of society was also presented as one of the objectives of the operation.
These statements raise an important question. How is the boundary drawn between sharing information about sexual orientation and gender identity and publishing obscene content?
For many years, LGBTI+ organisations have documented discrimination, supported people whose rights have been violated and helped individuals learn about their rights. Placing these activities within the same framework as criminal allegations may discourage people who need support from approaching such organisations.
When the leaders of an association are detained, they are not the only people affected. Those who might have considered contacting the same association after experiencing violence or discrimination may also withdraw. The effects of an investigation can therefore extend far beyond the people directly subjected to legal proceedings.
What Do the Access Restrictions Mean?
The blocking of websites and social media accounts constitutes an important dimension of the raids.
LGBTI+ organisations do not conduct their work solely from their offices. Announcements about legal assistance, reports on discrimination, events and calls for solidarity are largely shared through digital platforms.
Closing these accounts does not simply make certain content invisible. It also makes it more difficult for people in need of support to access reliable information and assistance.
When restrictions imposed in physical and digital spaces are considered together, it becomes clear that the space available for LGBTI+ organisations to operate is steadily narrowing. This raises new questions concerning freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Solidarity from Women’s and LGBTI+ Organisations
Following the raids, reactions came not only from LGBTI+ organisations but also from women’s organisations, feminists, trade unions and labour organisations. Their statements called for the release of those detained and stressed that the raids targeted not only particular associations but also the shared spaces in which women and LGBTI+ people organise.
Over 120 women’s organisations issued a joint statement. The signatories included the Purple Roof Women’s Shelter Foundation, the Women’s Solidarity Foundation, Women for Women’s Human Rights, the We Will Stop Femicide Platform and the Federation of Turkish Women’s Associations. The statement declared: “Developing policies and organising around gender identity and sexual orientation are not crimes.” The organisations called for the immediate release of those detained. Their statement concluded: “Neither the family nor any of us is safe.”
The Women’s Platform for Equality, known as EŞİK, also announced that some of its volunteers were among those detained. Its statement said: “Being LGBTI+, establishing an association and defending fundamental human rights are not crimes.” EŞİK pointed out that access was first blocked to the accounts of organisations defending LGBTI+ human rights and supporting LGBTI+ people subjected to violence. These restrictions were then followed by overnight raids on associations, homes and workplaces.
The response was not limited to statements on social media. The Women’s Defence Network called on feminists, women from trade unions and socialist organisations, and LGBTI+ people to gather outside Çağlayan Courthouse on 15 September. The call stated: “None of us is safe.” It demanded the release of those detained and remanded in custody.
Several organisations also called for public demonstrations in İzmir. The İzmir Labour and Democracy Forces announced that they would hold a press statement on 14 September under the slogan: “LGBTI+ existence and human rights advocacy are not crimes.” The İzmir Feminist Night March also called for a gathering in Alsancak on the same day. Once again, the shared message was: “None of us is safe.”
These statements and gatherings demonstrated that the LGBTI+ organisations directly targeted by the raids were not standing alone. Women’s organisations and feminists also emphasised that repression directed at bodies, identities and the right to organise cannot be treated as separate issues. While associations and accounts were being shut down, new spaces of solidarity were also being created.
Following the raids conducted under the name “My Family Is Safe”, women’s and LGBTI+ organisations came together around the same questions.
Whose family is safe? Who is excluded from that safety?
Who Is Excluded from the Definition of Family?
The decision to call the operation “My Family Is Safe” is another issue that demands attention. The protection of families and children has long been placed at the centre of political debates about LGBTI+ people. LGBTI+ identities are frequently presented as a threat to the institution of the family.
Yet LGBTI+ people also live within families. They are someone’s children, siblings, parents and relatives. Some receive support from their families. Others are forced to conceal their identities in their own homes or are subjected to violence. It is therefore necessary to ask not only whom the claim to protect the family includes, but also whom it excludes.
Where can someone turn after experiencing violence if they cannot access an LGBTI+ organisation’s website? How can a young person who conceals their identity from their family obtain reliable information? Will people who see associations and activists being targeted decide not to ask for help?
Safety cannot be limited to protecting one particular understanding of the family. It must also mean that people can live without fear in their homes, on the streets, at school and in the workplace.
This is the question that must be answered following the “My Family Is Safe” raids.
How safe do these measures, carried out in the name of protecting families, make the LGBTI+ people living within those families feel?