Analytical report · Hate speech · 2022–2025
Public Discourse in Ukraine Concerning LGBTIQ+ People, 2022–2025: Hate Speech-Related Risks and Architecture of Response
This analytical report by Bureau "We Are!" examines recurring patterns of public discourse concerning LGBTIQ+ people in Ukraine, hate speech-related risks and the minimum institutional architecture required for response. It does not propose a censorship model; it sets out an evidence-based, proportionate approach compatible with Article 10 ECHR.
Key facts
With contextual calibration of the 2016–2021 institutional layer.
A coded set of open materials from one online outlet used as a reproducible thematic case study.
Decisions and appeals of local councils from 2016–2019 across 21 regions of Ukraine.
Content, harm and risk, and response process.
The report does not measure overall prevalence and does not legally qualify content.
Scope of conclusions
The report describes recurring discourse patterns and response parameters. It does not measure overall prevalence, replace the legal qualification of competent authorities or propose prior control of expression.
- Not about censorship.
- Not about automatic punishment.
- About evidence-based and proportionate response.
Why Ukraine needs an architecture for responding to hate speech-related risks
The public-policy problem arises not only when harmful discursive patterns recur, but when institutions lack a predictable procedure for responding to them. In wartime, this affects the social acceptability of discrimination, barriers to justice, community safety and trust in the state.
The report’s central conclusion is that risk assessments alone are not enough. Without aligned roles, thresholds and procedures, they do not become governable practice.
Three evidence streams
The methodology combines three linked strands that separate content description from risk assessment and the response process.
Content stream
Records documented message content and recurring interpretive patterns without attributing hidden intent.
Harm and risk stream
Assesses potential mechanisms of social exclusion or increased harm risk using an operational severity scale from 0 to 4.
Response stream
Tracks verified indicators of institutional or platform response: response_status, responder, response_action, first_response_date and lag_days.
How risk configurations changed in 2022–2025
Institutional calibration layer
Local council decisions and appeals, central-government documents and a court case are used as indicators of roles, competence boundaries and procedural thresholds, not as evidence of prevalence.
Securitisation of equality
In wartime, equality is more often interpreted through security arguments, loyalty and “social usefulness”. The key gap is fragmented response data.
Institutional articulation without aligned response
Standards of responsible public communication become more visible, but normative indicators are not backed by transparent thresholds or structured response data.
High visibility and incomplete alignment
Several institutional response indicators emerge, including in the regulatory sphere, but a reproducible cross-sector model is still missing.
A test of institutional inertia
Recurring patterns of social exclusion remain visible, while the central challenge becomes the shift from isolated instruments to an aligned operational architecture of response.
What the coded corpus shows
The charts below show distributions only within the coded media corpus. They must not be interpreted as estimates of overall prevalence in Ukrainian public discourse or as representative statistics.
Narrative codes by year
Show data as a table
| Year | N1 | N2 | N3 | N4 | N5 | N6 | N7 | N8 | N9 | N10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2025 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
HS codes by year
Show data as a table
| Year | HS1 | HS2 | HS3 | HS4 | HS7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| 2023 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 2024 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2025 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
D codes by year
Show data as a table
| Year | D2 | D3 | D4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| 2023 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| 2024 | 7 | 1 | 5 |
| 2025 | 8 | 1 | 5 |
Severity distribution
Show data as a table
| Year | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| 2023 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| 2024 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| 2025 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
Threshold matrix: relating risk to response
The report’s MVP model proposes a threshold-based approach: the higher the operational level of harm risk, the stricter the requirements for verifying grounds, procedural safeguards and responder competence. The matrix does not create automatic legal consequences and does not replace decisions by competent authorities.
| Level | Threshold | Type of response | Actors | Minimum metrics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–1 · Low risk | Isolated cases that do not approach the high threshold of incitement. | Monitoring, contextual explanation, ethical self-regulation mechanisms and counter-communication. | CSOs, media, platforms and self-regulatory mechanisms. | response_status, responder. |
| 2 · Medium risk | Systematic practices that may contribute to an exclusionary environment but do not involve a direct call to violence. | Administrative and regulatory signals, orders and media regulation based on transparent criteria. | Regulatory bodies and executive authorities. | response_status, responder, response_action. |
| 3 · Elevated risk | High likelihood of harm; requires deeper analysis of speaker status, reach, form and context. | Formalised inter-institutional threshold analysis within existing mandates. | Regulatory bodies and other competent institutions. | response_status, responder, response_action, first_response_date. |
| 4 · Highest risk | The gravest cases, which may approach public incitement to violence or discrimination with a high risk of real harm. | Intensive interventions, including criminal-law mechanisms, only as ultima ratio. | The judiciary and competent response actors. | response_status, responder, response_action, first_response_date, lag_days. |
What the report proposes
The recommendations are aimed not at mechanically expanding restrictive tools, but at improving the quality, predictability and verifiability of response.
Core system
Minimum data standard
Record response_status, responder, response_action, first_response_date and lag_days for cases that enter the response process.
Transparent thresholds
Publish guidance for matching harm-risk levels with types of response instruments.
Functional allocation of roles
Align which tasks belong to regulatory, administrative, human-rights, self-regulatory and judicial mechanisms.
Conditions for resilience
Regular analytics
Update data monthly and review thresholds, the codebook and procedures quarterly.
Media and platform self-regulation
Support non-punitive tools for responsible communication, moderation and counter-communication.
Training response actors
Integrate the harm & risk stream, threshold approach and Article 10 ECHR standards into training for institutions and partners.
Who the report is for
Public institutions
For calibrating roles, thresholds, routing and procedural response metrics.
International partners
For assessing implementation gaps, democratic resilience and support needs for a human rights-based response architecture.
Media and platforms
For understanding the boundaries of responsible public communication, self-regulation and proportionate moderation.
Human rights organisations
For documenting risks without reproducing harmful content or substituting legal qualification.
Researchers and analysts
For using a reproducible coding scheme, neutral excerpt fields and procedural indicators.
Download the report and access related tools
Presentation No. 13597
Separate presentation on draft law No. 13597 and response standards.
Open presentationQuestions and answers
Does the report measure the prevalence of hate speech in Ukraine?
No. The report analyses a reproducible corpus of open materials and procedural response indicators. It cannot be used as a statistical estimate of the overall prevalence of the phenomenon in Ukrainian society.
Does the report provide a legal qualification of specific content?
No. The operational HS, D and severity codes are used for analytical risk classification. They do not replace a decision by a court, regulator or other competent authority.
Does the report propose censorship?
No. The report is explicitly grounded in Article 10 ECHR and the principles of legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality. The most intensive forms of intervention are considered only as ultima ratio.
Why does the page not reproduce examples of hate speech?
To avoid recirculating harmful content. The report methodology uses neutral summaries without reproducing stigmatizing wording and without collecting personal data beyond what is necessary.
What is an MVP architecture of response?
It is a minimum viable model for recording, routing and analysing response processes: who responds, with which instrument, when and under what procedural logic.
How can this report be used?
It can be used for advocacy, training, policy development, donor applications, institutional dialogue, media self-regulation and the design of monitoring systems.
Build a response architecture that institutions can trust
Bureau "We Are!" is open to cooperation with institutions, donors, media and human rights organisations working with evidence-based, proportionate and human rights-based response models.